Standing Athwart Freedom in Honduras

via: cfif

The Obama administration is a fitful regime. When Iranian protesters took to the streets of Tehran in June to decry a rigged election, the President justified his inaction masquerading as Zen by saying “it’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.” Indeed, Obama has made much about the United States’ refusal to “impose” its beliefs on other nations, though he usually does so in speeches where he also cites Western values as “universal principles,” apparently unaware that completing the syllogism exposes the moral cowardice at work.

What’s curious about the kid gloves standard is that – while it applies to an Islamist regime that denies the Holocaust, develops nuclear weapons and openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States– it is apparently too genteel for America’s friends. In Israel, Obama has installed himself as the zoning director-in-chief in an attempt to halt Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meanwhile, in India, he attempts to block a mass exodus from poverty by getting New Delhi to sign on to the economic suicide pact of cap and trade. Sorting through the wreckage, the principle that seems to be at work here is that the Obama Administration is only in favor of neglect when it is malignant.

Nowhere is that standard more apparent than in Honduras, the small Central American nation that even now remains regretfully exiled from the court of American interest. If sporadic network news coverage in 45-second increments hasn’t kept you adequately apprised of the travails of this fragile republic, here are the basics:

Beginning last November, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya advocated for a popular referendum that would call together a convention to rewrite the nation’s constitution. Zelaya’s campaign invited skepticism for three reasons.

First, the referendum was slated to coincide with the end of Zelaya’s term, when, under the conditions of the Honduran constitution, he would be ineligible for reelection (abolishing the term limits was widely understood to be one of the primary goals of the referendum). Second, many believed the proposed vote to be a Trojan horse for the kind of populist socialism that Zelaya’s allies Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have brought to Venezuela and Bolivia. Third, the vote was in flagrant violation of the Honduran constitution, which says that only a two-thirds majority of the Honduran Congress can call a referendum. When faced with Zelaya’s proposal, the legislators not only rejected it, but deemed it illegal, because the Honduran Constitution expressly prohibits amending the sections on presidential term limits and successions.

Zelaya, with the cheek characteristic of despots, was unmoved by the rule of law. When Honduras’s Attorney General secured a court ruling that found the referendum illegal, Zelaya proceeded undeterred, even firing the head of the country’s armed forces for having the gall to refuse to carry out the vote (a sacking the country’s supreme court found unconstitutional). After Honduran authorities impounded the ballots that Zelaya had shipped in from (surprise) Venezuela, the president then rallied a band of his supporters to break into a government facility and steal them. This was the breaking point.

The Attorney General sought a warrant for Zelaya’s arrest. Honduras’s Supreme Court, finding such authority explicitly rendered in the Honduran constitution, granted the request and the military executed the seizure. Zelaya then reportedly requested free passage out of the country in order to avoid standing trial in Honduras (a request he has subsequently denied). He was sent to Costa Rica and, for a time, the crisis seemed to have passed.

Until, that is, the “international community” spoke out. The United Nations hosted an address by Zelaya and followed it by unanimously passing a resolution calling for his return. The Organization of American States, fresh from bending over backwards to entice the enlightened humanists of Cuba to rejoin their august confederation, called Zelaya’s ouster “a military coup” and suspended Honduras’s membership. The Obama Administration, never having met an injustice they couldn’t compound, piled on.

Secretary of State Clinton took a face-to-face meeting with Zelaya and endorsed mediation of the crisis by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. Meanwhile, President Obama said “America supports now [sic] the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras.”

Obama and his international fellow travelers are either inattentive, intellectually shallow or disingenuous. The Honduran government’s actions are not about democracy; they are about liberty and the rule of law. Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution in a manner that legally necessitated every step taken against him save for expulsion from the country. And when it comes to the president being forced abroad, a move that even some conservatives have criticized, the government was ultimately in the right.

In the weeks since his ouster, Zelaya has repeatedly attempted to reenter the country and destabilize the regime, warning of the violence that will follow if he is not restored. While Honduran law may not specifically have called for his deportation, one is reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s defense of his suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?”

Honduras’s behavior has been exemplary throughout the crisis. After Zelaya’s removal, Roberto Micheletti, president of the country’s National Congress, assumed the presidency on an interim basis, consistent with the tenants of the Honduran constitution. This fall’s presidential election is scheduled to proceed as previously scheduled. Honduras is (now, not always) a model of preserving democratic liberty in the face of dictatorial threats. If ever there was an instance where the Obama Administration needed to shut up and sit still, this is it. Honduras doesn’t need our meddling. They can save a democracy on their own.

What To Do About “Health Care Reform”

via: cfif

Oppose it. Oppose it out of self-interest or simply because the country is being jobbed yet again by a President and Congress that seem incapable of telling the truth on any legislation before or after the fact.

Do not be sidetracked by the propaganda crap storm in favor of “reform.” Do not be flimflammed by the talk of compromise or bipartisanship. Do not become mollified because of one provision or another, or one version or another. The details, still in flux, are far from clear. The intent, however, has the clarity of finest crystal: government control of the health care decisions and outcomes for every man, woman and child in the country. Government control of your health care and your family’s health care.

This “health care reform,” as has been amply observed by others, is incremental legislation, camel-under-the-tent legislation, the beginning of a very bad end, to be fixed and fixed and fixed as it moves down the road, turning disaster into catastrophe.

Do you believe that a government which cannot effectively run Medicare or Medicaid or the Veteran’s Administration has anywhere near the capacity, the compassion or the concern to run health care for the entire population? For you? If you do, then you have sacrificed reality for the ever-shifting mirage of hope and change. In this case, that could be deadly. Literally.

If you cannot understand legislation, it is not in your or your family’s interest. You will not understand this legislation without the help of experts, and by then it will be too late. Most of those who must vote to pass it do not and will not understand it. Representative John Conyers says it would take a Congressman two days and two lawyers to understand it, so there’s not much sense in reading it. Senator Olympia Snowe says a simple explanation is impossible.

Those who seek to pass it are counting on your not understanding it until it is too late. Heed this one sentence from politico.com: “…as the health care battle enters a critical phase – with lawmakers about to greet constituents during summer recess – the reality is that the outcome will probably be shaped less by the intelligence of advocates on any side than by the ignorance of most Americans.”

You think the President and Congress are not going to lie their way through this? Read just one sentence from an AP story: “While Baucus reported the Senate Finance measure carried a price tag of under $1 trillion, congressional officials said it included only the cost of the first year of a 10-year, $245 billion program to increase doctor fees under Medicare. House Democrats used a similar sleight of hand, excluding the entire $245 billion when claiming their measure wouldn’t add to the deficit.”

If the Congress that seeks to enact “health care reform” and the President who is its principal cheerleader will not subject themselves to every term and provision of it – and they will not – then you should not condone it, unless, of course, you perversely enjoy being a serf to our government royalty.

It is painfully amusing to watch proponents and opponents debate such in-the-weeds arguments as whether the so-called “end-of-life counseling” provision is a step toward government-guided euthanasia or just ever-so-helpful advice on preplanning your demise as you reach the end of your usefulness to the state. Either way, some prior government advice from an equally misplaced perspective might now, a half century later, be pertinent: Duck and cover.

Our view of this attempt at health care reform – which is needed as a careful, deliberative process, understandable to all – would be different if it evidenced any sign of a direct, honest dialog with the American people who are the consumers of health care. Its proponents, however, chose a path of stealth, speed and deception. They have sought to silence opposition and demonize critics.

That must be stopped. What to do about “health care reform?” Oppose it now, oppose it tomorrow, oppose it until it’s dead, because that’s the only kind of “end of life counseling” it deserves.

Close Dems May Sneak ObamaCare Through Congress This Week

Nancy Pelosi’s House Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans-in-Name-Only, are holding secret closed-door meetings in a last ditch effort to ram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people before they leave town.

You read that right… before they leave town for their summer vacation.

And what about the news reports that say ObamaCare is stalled… that there will be no legislation coming out of Congress in the foreseeable future? You really didn’t believe that the politicians in Washington had given up… did you?

According to a late-breaking news report released by the Associated Press on Tuesday:

“A bipartisan group of senators is closing in on a health care compromise… as lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol labor to deliver sweeping health legislation to President Barack Obama.”

And, according to an article published on The Washington Examiner’s website on Tuesday:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still claims that she has the votes to approve the new legislation and that a floor vote could come by Friday….”

In addition, The New York Times claims House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is looking at keeping the House in session to pass whatever health care bill comes down the pike:

“The House Democratic leader… said it was conceivable the House might stay in session a few days longer and vote on Aug. 3 or 4.”

Anthony G. Martin, in an article published by The Washington Examiner, gives perhaps the best description on what is going on right now:

“It doesn’t take an enormous amount of digging to see what’s going on here. The self-styled ‘rulers’ who now run Washington seem intent on ramming through legislation that no one has read and that even Barack Obama had great difficulty explaining… The ultra-liberal Democratic leadership, along with the ‘blue dog Dems’ and the RINOS (Republicans in Name Only’) would like nothing better than to foist upon an unsuspecting public a multi-trillion-dollar healthcare fiasco, complete with rationing, just so they can fulfill some sort of ideological obligation in their demented, brainwashed minds that ‘government must take care of ALL of the needs of the people.”

It’s as if we’re fighting the Amnesty battle all over again. The American people, in resounding numbers, are saying “no” to ObamaCare and politicians in Washington are, for some inane reason, trying to sneak it past us anyway.

And that’s not acceptable.

Let’s tell these politicians in Washington that when it comes to ObamaCare, the American people don’t want any so-called “compromises” made behind closed doors in the dark of night.

Let’s make sure they get the message this time around… “no” means “no.”

Frivolous Lawsuit Costs the Government

It’s tough for an employer to win an employee discrimination claim once the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) gets involved. It’s even more difficult to win and get paid attorneys’ fees.

Score one for employer Agro Distribution when a court recently ordered the EEOC to pay the company’s legal fees after it concluded that the agency grossly mishandled an employee’s frivolous lawsuit.

According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the EEOC must pay nearly $225,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to defendant Agro after affirming a lower court’s decision that the employee is not disabled under the definition in the Americans with Disabilities Act and that “the suit lacked foundation.”

Employee Henry Velez allegedly suffered from a medical condition that included the absence of sweat glands. Accordingly, his employer made special accommodation by allowing him to take regular breaks in order to cool down. After the employer assigned a new duty to all employees in his position, Velez complained that his condition prevented him from helping. The manager countered that the new duty – the unpleasant task of unloading dirty feed buckets, was similar work to the original position.

Velez filed a complaint with the EEOC. Following an on-site investigation, Agro’s attorney wrote a letter to the EEOC, reporting that the investigator “made insulting remarks during interviews; indicated disgust for the statements of management witnesses; raised her voice; rephrased witnesses’ statements to favor the charge; and selectively recorded portions of the statements.” Attempts at settlement broke down, the EEOC refused to return calls, and then sued Agro.

Nearly nine years since the alleged violation, the appeals court concluded that “The EEOC must vigorously enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act and ensure its protections to affected workers, but in doing so, the EEOC owes duties to employers as well: a duty reasonably to investigate charges, a duty to conciliate in good faith, and a duty to cease enforcement attempts after learning that an action lacks merit. In this case, the EEOC abandoned its duties and pursued a groundless action with exorbitant demands. Then every employee in Velez’s position was assigned a new duty — the unpleasant task of unloading dirty, empty barrels that had been used to feed cattle. Velez told his boss his condition prevented him from helping.”

—Source: www.hrblunders.com and EEOC v. Agro Distribution LLC.

To Mother with Love: A Lawsuit

A civil jury in New Jersey awarded a man nearly $100,000 in a lawsuit he filed against his mother.

John Garrity was installing hardwood floors in his mother’s home when she tapped him on the shoulder to tell him that lunch was ready. Garrity, who was using a miter saw at the time, quickly turned around, causing his hand to slip into the saw’s path and severing his pinky finger.

Garrity filed the lawsuit against his mother, Nancy Garrity, seeking nearly $200,000 in damages in addition to nearly $40,000 in medical bills. Court records show that the mother admitted she was at fault. “It was very noisy from the machine which he was operating, so I tapped him on the shoulder,” read one court document. “He appeared to be startled and then held up his hand, which had blood on it.”

The jury in the State Superior Court found each party to be 50 percent at fault for the accident and thus awarded Garrity 50 percent of his claim.

—Source: NorthJersey.com, (CFIF thanks Liberty Update subscriber Jack G. for alerting us to this week’s “Jester’s Courtroom” lawsuit.)

Cap’n Crunch Sails Through Lawsuit

A California judge recently dismissed a lawsuit against the makers of Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries cereal after finding that the product box clearly depicts the round, crunchy berries as cereal balls and not real fruit as the plaintiff assumed.

According to a class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California, plaintiff Janine Sugawara sued Pepsico, Inc, the maker of the cereal, alleging that the marketing and advertising for the cereal was misleading and deceptive as the product contains no actual berries.  In addition to seeking restitution for out-of-pocket expenses and economic harm, actual and punitive damages and attorney’s fees, plaintiff contended that the phrase “Strawberry artificially flavored cereal” should be added to the label.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. dismissed the case, finding that a reasonable consumer would not have been decieved by the packaging.

News reports indicate that plaintiff’s attorneys, the Hewell Law Firm in San Diego, lost a similar case against the maker of Froot Loops cereal.

—Source:  Nevadacounty.com and Complaint, Sugawara v. PepsiCo., Inc

Who’s the Boss?

A Quebec dad, unhappy with the amount of time his daughter was spending surfing the Internet, chatting on Web sites and posting “inappropriate pictures” of herself online, grounded his daughter from attending a school trip that his ex-wife had already approved. 

Not taking “no” for an answer, the daughter sued – and won.  The father, who had custody of the child, appealed the lower court’s decision, and lost again.

His lawyer, Kim Beaudoin, told news reporters that the father is “flabbergasted” by the appellate court’s ruling to uphold the lower court’s decision on grounds that the punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed. 

“Either way, he doesn’t have authority over this child anymore. She sued him because she doesn’t respect his rules,” Beaudoin said. “It’s very hard to raise a child who is the boss.”  The daughter has moved in with her mother.

In its recent ruling, the appeals court warned the case should not be seen as an open invitation for children to take legal action every time they’re grounded.

—Source:  cbcnews.ca

Take Me Out to the Courtroom

Recently, a baseball fan sued the New York Yankees after alleging that he was ejected from the stadium by police after he left his seat during the seventh-inning-stretch.

Bradford Campeau-Laurion says his rights were violated when he tried to pass a police officer to use the restroom during the singing of “God Bless America,” a seventh-inning-stretch tradition at Yankee Stadium since September 11, 2001. Campeau-Laurion said he is proud to be an American but objects to being required to participate in displays of patriotism.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against the Yankees and the city, whose police officers were paid by the Yankees to work the game. Police spokesman Paul J. Browne said the officers ejected Campeau-Laurion after they “observed a male cursing, using inappropriate language and acting in a disorderly manner while reeking of alcohol.”

The Yankees had no comment.

—Source: USA Today

OMG: We R Suing

Walking and texting may be hazardous to your health. So hazardous that you may just have to sue. And that’s exactly what the parents of 15-year-old Alexa Longueira have done.

According to news reports, Alexa was so busy tapping out a text message on her cell phone while walking along Victory Boulevard in Staten Island that she didn’t see the open manhole ahead of her.

You guessed it. She fell in.

The Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) said its workers had turned away briefly to grab some warning cones. “We regret that this happened and wish the young woman a speedy recovery,” DEP spokeswoman Mercedes Padilla said in a statement.

Alexa suffered some scrapes on her arms and back. “It was four or five feet, it was very painful. I kind of crawled out and the DEP guys came running and helped me,” Alexa said. “They were just like, ‘I’m sorry! I’m sorry!’”

Now Alexa’s parents are suing. “Oh my God, it was putrid. One of her sneakers is still down there,” her mother, Kim Longueira, said.

—Source: nbcnewyork.com

Lawsuit Claims Strange Bedfellows

A Missouri man is suing Apple, the St. Louis Police Department, unknown agents of the FBI, a private investigator and an auto mechanic, accusing the defendants of conspiring with the Mafia to stalk, extort and torture the plaintiff.

Gregory McKenna claimed in his lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court in Missouri that after purchasing an iPod shuffle on eBay he discovered that the device was manufactured “with an illegal receiver as the Mafia proceeded to transmit extortion threats and audible harassment to it.” The alleged motive for the threats was that the Mafia wanted McKenna to work as a fashion model for them in New York. McKenna further claims that after purchasing a new iPod mini he realized it was bugged as well and would state “I’m about to kill him” in sync with a song.

McKenna said his calls to local police and the FBI field office were disregarded and that the private investigator he hired to search his home and car first claimed he found listening devices, but when later questioned by police about his findings, said he found nothing.

“Well if you have bugs you should call an exterminator, not the Police,” an officer reportedly told him before recommending examination by a doctor.

The lawsuit seeks $14.2 million in damages and trial by jury.

—Sources: news.cnet.com and macnn.com