"karlof1 June 30th, 2009 1:25 am

I agree that Al has problems with objectivity when it comes to Obama that were apparent a year before the election, something he's been called to task for by readers at his site.

As for my question, you hit on the obvious; but I think the reason is even more fundamental--Oligarchies greatest enemies are vibrant democracies with energized citizenries,"

THAT'S been true for many centuries, throughout much of European history. Oligarchies probably wouldn't be known of, if it hadn't been for strong movements of general populations.

And that is true of either or else all monarchies.

karlof1:

"Overall, the old Imperial methods of control no longer work on non-English speakers, who are very motivated and seem to be about to win the greatest civil rights victory of all times by throwing off their rascist oligarchies and instituting popular democratic institutions of a type far more progressive than those in the USA."

MORE progressive than in the USA? That should be [easy], very.

As for empire being in retreat, most people I've read said that the U.S. empire is on the path of downfall, and I think that this presently is what appears to be happening.

If you meant it's on the retreat because of Obama's and Hillary Clinton's words condemning the military coup in Honduras, then I'd say that you're being premature in judging their words this way, because these people regularly lie, aim to deceive, ....

For their words to have any real value of honourable kind, they will need to be backed up with curbing Big Business USA, as well as Canada, in Honduras, to return the country to the Honduran people, and I doubt that the Obama administration will be doing anything remotely like this. He doesn't care about the extremely poisonous pollution caused by the gold mining conducted by the U.S. and Canadian Goldcorp, Inc., in the Siria Valley of Honduras, not caring more about this than his administration has been demonstrating about having no intention of stopping mountaintop removal in the U.S., etcetera.

The empire doesn't seem to be retreating from any criminal, ... enterprises, except a little in some cases, and this little rather only is for the sake of apparences; such as the so-called troop withdrawal from Iraqi cities supposedly being part of an actual plan to withdraw from Iraq within at most a couple of years. There is no such actual plan. We have [no] reason to believe that there is such a plan. We have every reason in the world to believe that words to the contrary from the Obama administration are mere words, empty, yet full of deceit, ....

It's the only way they can trick the public, by staging apparences that cause some gullible members of the public to believe that they're being spoken to by an honest leadership.

The empire hasn't finished, but the populations in Latin America are making a very serious difference, and there's strong movement in Pakistan according to an article at CD June 29th and also at uruknet.info.

Unfortunately, there are no such strongly spirited masses in the USA and Canada. Here, it's the centuries of imperialism and the comfort, material comfort, provided for whites by the white "elites" that keeps a lot of people damn complacent, albeit not totally. It's just that we're not getting strong and mass movements in the streets, full of real and hearted spirit.

If we got that happening in the USA and Canada, then we might find the empire monger retreat alright and they might be knocking into each other and walls, as we watched them try to retreat; afraid as they'd be.

"karlof1 June 29th, 2009 4:56 pm

Actually, the verbiage Reuters [I'm certainly not one of its fans] uses, " ... public vote to gauge support for changing the constitution to let presidents seek re-election beyond a single four-year term," describes what a non-binding election is--a "guage," or poll, of public opinion that legally changes nothing. The salient question is, Why was the oilgarchy so afraid of such a "guage" that it had to illegally overthrow the president?"

THERE IS NO cause to be fan of news agencies like Reuters, so I agree with this judgement you have of the agency. It doesn't always, but nevertheless does too often produce or re-produce propaganda of lies, distortions, ...

As for the question, however, the answer should be rather obvious. The "conservative business" people of Honduras and foreign with interests in business in this country, like for its natural resources, f.e., apparently would not want to at all risk that the present legitimate President be re-elected. They don't want to risk their reign being threatened by people with minds for [justice], etcetera.

karlof1:

"Narconews has lots of good coverage"

I HAVE recommended reading at narconews.com before, but like said in one of my earlier posts in this page, Al Giordano is firmly defending the purported truthfulness, honesty in the condemnations of Obama and Hillary Clinton against this coup d'etat in Honduras and anyone who thinks that the mere [words] of Obama and H. Clinton are trustworthy is blinded by something, or else the person is wittingly, but deceptively, pretending that words from people who can't be trusted are honest, this time around; suddenly, as if these two people have gone through some major conversion from their normally lying, deceitful, ... ways.

But I'd still think and hope that narconews.com should be a good resource for articles on what's happening in Honduras, while only alerting people to read with critical objectivity and not be gullible when Al Giordano or others at that website pretend that the Obama administration can [suddenly] be trusted with their [mere] words. After all, the Administration hasn't given us cause to do other than to [not] trust their words, sanity, etcetera. I'd recommend taking such claims at narconews.com and anywhere else, from anyone else, with, say, "a grain of salt"; don't blindly believe that these people aren't human, or that they so perfect that they can't err or be biased and wittingly, or not, influenced by their biases in their writings. Sometimes we can want to believe words that are good so badly or much that we neglect to remember that the words are stated by people who regularly lie, etcetera.

Obama was not trustworthy as a senator and hasn't improved since being inaug'd President.

"ultimategoodluck June 29th, 2009 5:55 pm

I think this coup in Honduras has much wider implications than appear at first glance.

The coincidence in time of:

1. the new head of the US Southern Command flatly contradicting Obama's stated Latin American policies,"

I AGREE with what you think, but while I have read a little about "the new head of" SOUTHCOM having contradicted Obama on the USA foreign policies in Latin America, you should provide a link. Oh, it would not be difficult to do a Web search to find articles for this, but it's nevertheless good to provide links to supporting articles.

Similarly for your second and third points.

Quote:

2. the flurry of activity in Central America of old Iran Contra conspirator and Venezuelan coup operator Otto Reich and

3. the free-as-a-bird terrorist Posada (implicated in the latest assassination plot against Chavez in El Salvador)

end quote

Quoting more from ultimategoodluck's post:

"are pretty clear signals that:

1. Obama is either not in control at all of his minions, or

2. Obama is a plastic smile with a big stick between his teeth spreading a halitosis blast of lies."

Referring to the mathematical meanings, the above 'or', between 1 and 2, does not have to be an xor, that is, an exclusive 'or', ya know! Using 'or', then both conditions, say, 1 and 2 could be true, or both could be false, albeit the latter is ... awfully unlikely. It's surely 1 or 2, or both; not xor. And there's no reason to believe that 1 and 2, above, are not both true. They likely are true, both.

After all, Obama's surely not in control, as in not being [top boss], and if this is true, which we have cause to believe it is, then he's very much puppet and the puppeteers like his "stage acting", putting on "plastic smiles" and so on. After all, and this is rather quite evident, they still want to try to fool the public as much as possible, as many as will be gullible enough to be fooled by rather too obvious fiend-ery.

And since when has the U.S. had a President who's been in full control, other than possibly GHW Bush; although, even he had to work with "pals" of the top ruling "elites" class. So, since when (?). That question mark deserves to be only in parentheses.

The article says, "Honduras was a U.S. ally in the 1980s when Washington helped Central American governments fight Marxist rebels and the United States still keeps some 600 troops at a Honduran base used for humanitarian and disaster relief operations".

BS! The U.S. doesn't keep military troops in any other country for any reasons relating to protecting, defending human rights and disaster relief. We have to be [morons] to believe such bs.

The U.S., however, does have military troops there and much of this is for training Honduran military; SoA kind of training, as the following article says and which we should all expect by now. We should know enuogh about SoA, renamed WHINSEC because of the notorious history and nature of SoA attracking plenty of protesters in increasing numbers every year; we should know enough about this and its history to know what its role has been in Central and Latin American countries, Central anyway, and possibly further south.

"Obama's First Coup d'Etat: Honduran President has been Kidnapped: Updates 1-17",

by Eva Golinger, June 28, 2009,

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4554

QUOTE:

BTW, The US Military Group in Honduras trains around 300 Honduran soldiers every year, provides more than $500,000 annually to the Honduran Armed Forces and additionally provides $1.4 million for a military education and exchange program for around 300 more Honduran soldiers every year.

END QUOTE

Eva Golinger is slightly outdated in the above piece wherein she says Obama hasn't stated a firm stand against the coup and its leaders, given he apparently has done so since the article was written. Otoh, I don't believe his words are honourable, instead believing it's just more bs, lying, ... on his part. He's provided [no] sufficient reasons to believe the opposite, that is, to believe that his words, mere [words], against the coup consist of any substantial honesty.

And there is absolutely [no] need for U.S. troops to be there for "humanitarian and disaster relief operations". Honduras is certainly capable of taking care of itself, so there's absolutely no involvement of the U.S. there for any honourable reasons or purposes! NONE! Only more imperialist, ... evil! As usual, or rather [always]! But Obama surely won't be pulling out these U.S. military goons, either! As usual; he's a fraud(ster), liar, "stage actor", his politics are all "stage acting", albeit true they are with regards to maintaining the wars (of aggression) on Afghanistan and now Pakistan, and the hunt for the ghost of deceased Usama Bin Ladin. Well, not quite, for Obama's not truthful about the latter, for he certainly doesn't state that Bin Ladin is nowhere to be found ... alive. But he's truthful enough about continuing these wars. He's truthful about them supposedly being justified, when they're totally criminal. He truly maintains this whole series of clownery, deceit, ... He truly maintains the the war is supposedly justified. He truly does continue to lead evil on earth, in the footsteps of GW Bush.

When he speaks in what only appear to be honourable, noble terms, he can't be trusted even as far as you can pick up and throw a 5-ton boulder. You'd have better luck trying to accomplish the latter, than you would in achieving a truly honourable presidency of the USA with this yet other clown for president. He's another fiend president and just happens to act the role well, by saying things people like to hear and/or read, but saying them in [empty] terms, without any true substance or honesty behind the words.

He's not pulling out this quasi-SoA operation from Honduras. Neither he nor the rest of his administration has any intention of governing the USA in [Constitutional] manners. This has been rendered too obvious to be credibly denied; deny as you wish to try, but it can't be done or said in credibly competent terms.

Now, if Al Giordano of narconews.com could only understand this about Obama's [words] and that words and actions often don't reflect each other. I just started reading an article by him earlier today at narconews.com and he therein takes firm defence of the words of Obama and Hillary Clinton condemning this coup d'etat in Honduras, lambasting people who have been saying that the U.S. is probably involved behind or in this coup. Maybe Al Giordano's right, maybe the U.S. isn't really involved in the coup, but it's not the words of Obama and Hillary Clinton, or any other members of the Obama administration that suffice for proof. Their words regularly are lies, deceit, etcetera.

There are several articles at narconews.com, including by Bill Conroy, and at venezuelanalysis.com about what's happening in Honduras, and I haven't read enough of these articles yet to be able to say which I agree or disagree with, in part or whole. However, I think they should be producing some good articles about the situation in Honduras.

Maybe AlJazeera.net has some reporter(s) on the ground there too. If it does, then perhaps it'll have some videos for some of this reporting.

I think this coup in Honduras has much wider implications than appear at first glance.

The coincidence in time of:

1. the new head of the US Southern Command flatly contradicting Obama's stated Latin American policies,

2. the flurry of activity in Central America of old Iran Contra conspirator and Venezuelan coup operator Otto Reich and

3. the free-as-a-bird terrorist Posada (implicated in the latest assassination plot against Chavez in El Salvador)

are pretty clear signals that:

1. Obama is either not in control at all of his minions, or

2. Obama is a plastic smile with a big stick between his teeth spreading a halitosis blast of lies.

The increasing militarization of Mexico on the part of US-installed Calderon, plus the rumblings of the Pentagon about invading Mexico again are part of this dark scenario.

If Obama scenario number 1 is the case, the next military coup may well occur in Washington, with the result that Dick Cheney will be back in power.

Obama scenario number 2 doesn't exactly look upbeat, either.

Another crummy msm article on Latin America--complete with the usual cliches (Chavez the firebrand) and partiality to the rancid oligarchy and the troglodite gorillas.

Shame, shame, CD.

You are further right than Uribe.

"The Obama administration called for Zelaya's return to office as legitimate president of Honduras, placing itself in the same camp as a group of leftist governments that are at ideological loggerheads with the United States."

Thank you President Obama for showing the political courage to do the right thing.

What, didn't the CIA have enough to keep them busy in Iran? Oh wait...that coup isn't working either.

"Funny," I "didn't know" that the European Union, the UN Secretary General, and myself were "left wing" Latin American leaders. That "must be" the reason we're rallying behind the legitimate and democratic president of Honduras.

AD

And while we're at it, let's return Aristide to Haiti.

Obysmal just loves democracy. This proves it.

"Tension mounted this week when Zelaya, a Chavez ally, angered the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and army by pushing for a public vote to gauge support for changing the constitution to let presidents seek re-election beyond a single four-year term."

The above quote is a misframing of the issue and a talking point of the coup. Zelaya's opinion poll was to let the Honduran people say if they wanted a new constitution, so the corrupt courts, congress, and military elite made their move before the people had a chance to express themselves on the issue. Stand up for the Honduran people and don't be fooled by misleading press releases. Let the Honduran people continue their democratic revolution against the landowners, bankers, and murderers who have dominated their sad country for decades.

And while we're at it, let's return Aristide to Haiti.

Obysmal just loves democracy. This proves it.

Obama did a good thing in condemning the coup.

We'll see how he follows up now.

Where is the outrage from McCain, O'Reily, Limbaugh and the rest? They certainly were not silent about the "green revolution" in Iran. Oh - I guess the SOA is just "bringing democracy" via a military coup.

And where is the media frenzy? Maybe they are all worn out from the Iranian elections. Anyway, they need to spend all of their efforts for the more important story: the life of Michael Jackson.