Show us your feathers Barry!

Let's see, late and weak response to Iranian problem....

quick and immediate response to Honduran.

cartoon, Mike Ramirez written letter, Mike Walker All, Looking casually at the military coup in Honduras begs the question: Is it business as usual once again in Latin America? The one unpleasant recurring thread in too many of those former Spanish colonies seems to be dictatorial rule by the elite, whether on the right or the left but always at the expense of the democratic rights of the people. Latin America also seems to be another world center for the "A free and honest election - but only once!" malady. That is where the "out of power" rightist/leftist party pushes for a democratic election until it wins and takes the reins of power. After that it is back to elite dictatorial rule for life secured by whatever means required. So where are we in Honduras? This is an interesting case that may be unique. We had a leftist President who was destroying the constitutional government of Honduras via the "only one free election" principle described above and a rightist military that has also badly violated the same constitution in its coup yesterday. So what do two wrongs make? That is hard to answer but a "right" is not it. What happens over the next days and weeks will be critical. The options run from the institution of a right-wing military dictatorship to the successful return of an upcoming left-wing dictatorship, or perhaps something in between that may actually strengthen Honduran democracy. The glimmer of hope is that civil authorities in Honduras have a chance to restore the rule of law and send both the leftist and rightist "wanna be" diktat factions packing, perhaps even to jail. On the left, President Zeleya broke the law when he violated the process on constitutional referendums. On the right, the military had no legal authority to exile President Zeleya.

Zeleya's referendum was to change the constitution to allow him to be elected de facto "President for Life" by abolishing the one-term limit in the constitution (which was purposely put there to end this type of dictatorial power grab).

As in the United States, Honduras requires any constitutional change to garner a passing vote in upper and lower houses of congress plus nation-wide passage. The main difference is that in the US, following passage in congress, the constitutional change takes effect after 2/3 of the states ratify it. In Honduras, after the congress passes it, there is a national vote for approval.

Zeleya could not get his referendum through the congress. So he declared the constitution null and void on this issue and declared a national vote without congressional approval.

The issue went to the Supreme Court which ruled the president's act unconstitutionally illegal. The Attorney General vowed to uphold the court ruling with the support of the congress.

Ignoring the legal will of both the legislative and judicial branches of government, Zeleya ordered the military to carry out the referendum.

The Honduran equivalent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff refused citing the Supreme Court ruling. Zeleya sacked him and demanded the military comply. They would not.

Zeley'a supporters then stormed the building holding the ballots and began to distribute them to their political strongholds making the potential election both illegal and a fraud.

Then the military broke the law. It had a constitutional duty to refuse to obey Zeleya's unlawful orders. It may also had been required to assist in the detention/arrest of Zeleya BUT only within the legal framework of Honduran law as outlined in the constitution. It appears this did not happen. Further, the military had no authority to remove Zeleya from power.

The best of all possible worlds is for the proper civilian authorities in Tegucigalpa to legally and peacefully wrest power from the military.

Both Zeleya on the left and responsible generals on the right need to stand trial. A vigorous and unstinting defense of the constitution and the rule of law is the only road to a better future.

It is time to close the door, once and for all, on dictatorial rule by the rightist and leftist elites.

Semper Fi,

Mike

California Activists Fight over Census of Illegal Immigrants

(Contributed by Col. Mike Walker, USMC, retired )

All,

I have long been an ardent supporter of undocumented immigrant rights to the chagrin of many of my friends.

My "problem" is that they all are people to me therefore deserving of the full measure of human consideration and respect. Bashing these people is deeply troubling.

It is simply a matter of right and wrong.

However, the schism amongst the undocumented immigrant activists here in California is equally troubling.

The issue is about counting undocumented immigrants in California during the upcoming 2010 census, primarily in order to get more seats in the United States House of Representatives.

One side is arguing to make every effort to count undocumented immigrants in the 2010 census of U.S. citizens. This is destructive to our democratic republic.

It is simply a matter of right or wrong.

Politically, it is insidiously neutral. It favors all California political parties equally, only non-California U.S. citizens are hurt.

Undocumented immigrants do not get to vote but counting them inflates the numbers making the rest of us Californians sort of "super voters" i.e we get more congressional representation than the actual number of citizens.

Is is tragically like the slavery days when white southern males were able to count slaves to get an unfair and divisively larger number of seats in the House.

As the LA Times reporter Teresa Watanabe pointed out in the recent Sunday edition, as a result of the 2000 census, the undocumented immigrant count garnered California three House seats that also caused the loss of one seat each in Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi.

The added undocumented immigrant count also ensured that all three went to California, narrowly beating out the citizens of Montana. Nice try and better luck next time Big Sky.

Or maybe not if some California undocumented immigrant activists have their way.

And there is a price to be paid by the citizens in the other 49 states. It comes in the form of federal aid that is calculated by a population statistic. More in any category means more federal dollars flowing into California. Neat, if you are a Californian, documented AND not.

This is not my first dilemma with undocumented immigrants. I have long found it unconscionable to charge an Afro-American citizen from Ohio a higher "out-of-state" tuition rate at, say, UC Berkeley while giving an undocumented immigrant from Michoacan Mexico a very reduced "in-state" tuition rate. Michoacan = California. I think not.

It is simply a matter of right and wrong.

But hey, when push comes to shove, what do you care? Really?

Surfs up, dude!

Mike