Error Theory

After denying for 4 years that the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 will contain 44 inscribed memorial panels (equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists) the Memorial Project has announced a new design that appears to collapse three of the panels into one:


Artist's depiction of the slightly altered design for the Sacred Ground Plaza.

[If you are a newcomer, the Plaza sits in the position of the star on architect Paul Murdoch's giant Islamic crescent and star flag. They call the giant crescent a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle--what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11--is completely unchanged. It is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.]

The focus of the Plaza is the two part Memorial Wall that follows the path of Flight 93 down to the crash site. As before, the lower section of wall contains 40 memorial panels, inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes. Instead of being small translucent panels set into the wall, they will now be 8 foot tall slabs. Nice.

The symbolically significant change is in the separate upper section of Memorial Wall that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. In the original design, this separate upper section of wall contained three additional inscribed memorial panels:


Elevation view from original Sacred Ground Plaza design PDF.

The wall on the left is designated: “WALL WITH INSCRIBED NAMES ON FOLDED BAND OF TRANSLUCENT MARBLE.” The opening between the two sections of wall is marked “TRAIL,” and the wall on the right is designated: “WALL WITH INSCRIBED DATE.”

The three translucent panels inscribed with the 9/11 date were a problem because further up the flight path, at the upper crescent tip (where Flight 93 symbolically breaks the circle, turning it into the giant Islamic shaped crescent), sits one more inscribed translucent memorial panel:


At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway sits a huge glass panel that dedicates the entire site. In the original design, this brought the total number of inscribed translucent memorial panels on the flight path to 44, with the number of "extra" blocks matching the number of Islamic hijackers on Flight 93.

The enabling legislation for the Flight 93 Memorial specifically bars the Park Service from memorializing the enemy, but architect Paul Murdoch has other ideas. He doesn't just include them in some kind of can't-we-all-just-get-along multiculturalist fantasy. He depicts them as triumphant warriors, placing the capstone of his terrorist memorializing block count at the exact point where, in Murdoch's description, the terrorists' circle-breaking, crescent-creating feat is achieved. They explode through our peaceful circle, then die along with their victims. The capstone block commemorating this glorious martyrdom will be inscribed: “A field of honor forever.”

The Memorial Project is okay with all of this, but thanks to our blogbursts, too many people OUTSIDE of the Project also know about the terrorist memorializing block count, so they decided to fix up architect Paul Murdoch’s disguise, telling a caller two years ago that they were going to turn the three panels with the 9/11 date into one large panel. That would change the memorial block count from 44 to 42. Here is Mountain Goat's report on that 2007 phone call:

The gentleman did add, that the translucent blocks are actually white marble, and that the one with Sept. 11 inscribed on it will be one block, although it will be roughly the length three of the other blocks would have been.

This seems to be the change that is depicted in the new design image, though we will have to see the construction drawings to be sure. (An FOIA request for the recently completed construction drawings was submitted to the Park Service earlier this month.)


Primping Murdoch’s disguise does not stop his terrorist-memorializing plot, but only helps him to get away with it

The Park Service assumes that the 44 blocks were a coincidence and that by eliminating the coincidence it has eliminated the problem, but the 44 blocks were not a coincidence and changing the number of blocks to 42 does nothing alter the terrorist memorializing intent. Also, because the Park Service has been trying NOT to see Murdoch is up to, they left other terrorist memorializing features of the inscribed panels completely intact.

Notice, for instance, that the separate upper section of memorial wall, inscribed with the 9/11 date, is centered on the centerline of the giant crescent:


The trail that divides the Memorial Wall into two parts is marked in purple. The section of wall with the 9/11 date is marked in aqua.

You can see just by looking that the upper section of wall is centered on the center line of the crescent. That is the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the 9/11 date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists.

Changing the number of panels used to inscribe the 9/11 date does nothing to alter this terrorist memorializing feature. Not that Murdoch really cares whether the Park Service executes his design with proper Islamic precision.


To Murdoch, it is the plan that matters

Murdoch made clear from the beginning that it is the plan that matters, not whether the memorial is actually built exactly to his specifications. We can tell that he fully expected at least one of his terrorist memorializing features to be caught and stopped because he left provision for his “mistake” to be easily corrected. This was the so called “40 Memorial Groves." There were supposed to be one for each of the 40 infidel heroes, but Murdoch's site-plan only shows 38 groves:



Why 38? Try to figure it out for yourself, then look here. As usual, Murdoch provides multiply redundant proof of intent, once you figure out what he is up to.

Notice that Murdoch left room for two more Memorial Groves, one at each end. But just as the 38 Groves “mistake” is easy to fix, it will also be easy to un-fix it later. Indeed, failure to follow Murdoch's exact design is not a bug. It is a feature.

Islamic fundamentalists have been citing control of the al-Aqsa mosque as a grounds for waging war against Israel since the founding of the modern Jewish state. If we fail to be true to the glorious design of Murdoch's terrorist memorial mosque, that will just be one more reason for Murdoch's co-religionists to conquer The Great Satan, so that this death-penalty insult can first be avenged ("It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land" 8.67), then corrected.

Murdoch has not admitted to being Muslim (never mind a fundamentalist Muslim), but he HAS demonstrably designed an al Qaeda sympathizing memorial to Flight 93, all according to the established principles of proper mosque design (chapter 5), so there is no doubt of his ambition. Anyone who tries to sneak an al Qaeda memorial onto the Flight 93 crash site IS al Qaeda.

In 2005, the Park Service helped Murdoch hide his giant crescent by calling it a broken circle instead (as Murdoch had described it all along). Now the Park Service is helping to disguise yet another of Murdoch's terrorist memorializing design features, but without even acknowledging this time that the changes are in response to anything troublesome about the original design.

So tell us Park Service: if there never were 44 memorial panels on the flight path, as you have been telling the press for almost four years, why did you change the number of panels? And do you really think it is wise to help a hijacker improve his disguise?

A left wing version of Protest Warrior:



I suggest the term “dirt-baggers,” but I am altering this post to stamp the "dirt-bagger" label with the face that really deserves this coinage: Anderson Cooper.

The minor dirt-baggers at the San Jose Tea Party thought they were being funny. They should have realized how serious it is that the mainstream media made a concerted effort to tar our pro-liberty movement with their homosexual epithet. There is nothing funny about our no-longer independent media, eagerly employing the lowest techniques to smear the critics of their Obamassiah.

So vitriol where vitriol is due. It is Anderson Cooper who can't hear the term “tea party” without tittering like Beavis and Butthead over his inside knowledge of gay sexual practices that can be found on the very same page of his urban dictionary. Cooper is the original, the ultimate, DIRT-BAG:


Am working on Photoshop of Anderson on a "one dirt-bagger" coin, "shilling for Obama," "in homosexual epithets we trust," with Khalim's "tea-bagger emblem" placed as Anderson's chin. Will add here when done.


I also want to clarify my remarks about Iran. I had noted how the Iranian fellow holding the dirt-bag sign didn't care that every one of the thousand plus Tea Partiers in attendance was on the side of the democracy protestors in Iran while his hero Obama just wants Ahmadinijad and Khamenei to lock down their gulag state as quietly as possible.

Turns out these guys all have family and friends in Iran who they are very worried about. They feel that I depicted them as on the side of Ahmadinijad, which would indeed be very unfair. My meaning was very different. I was just pointing out how obtuse they were being, directing their nasty insult at all these people who they were presumably in agreement with. Best wishes for these guys' families, and for everyone in Iran who is trying to free their country from the murder cultists who have enslaved them all.

My rip on their not-so-clever Jesus sign stands:


Conservatives say they dig this Jesus guy see, but since conservatives are anti-communist, they are actually anti-poor, because communism is pro-poor.

Yes, communism is so pro-poor it makes everyone poor. We are getting to learn that one for ourselves.


REAL Protest Warriors are not just genuinely clever, they are right

Here is how it is supposed to be done:


The first Protest Warrior sign: not foul minded, no meretricious cant, just some obvious truth-telling that unmasks the pious frauds of the left.

The only redeeming quality of the San Jose dirt-baggers was the pretend false flag. Other dirt-baggers had called for genuine false-flag operations, so some of us knew to be on watch for leftists spouting genuinely hateful messages that the press could use to tar the real Tea Partiers.

Our dirtbaggers were not of this slanderous ilk. Their trick was just to put stinkbombs up the noses of unsuspecting readers. Any passerby expecting to read one of the usual insightful Tea Party signs was treated instead to a revolting whiff of dirt and dishonesty, apprising them immediately that these were Obamatons.

The closest I heard them come to actual false-flag activity was shouting: “Commit genocide! Kill all the Palestinians!” It would take a Jennifer Loven paraphrase to tar the Tea Partiers with that one. I can see it now: “Some demonstrators called for the extermination of Arabs and Muslims.”


What's your sign?

The left-right difference in counter-protest signs follows the left-right difference in protest signs. The liberty-loving wit of the Tea Party signs is a revealing contrast to the foul minded garbage one sees at left-wing protests.

Choose your side. This freedom loving family:



Vs. these world-class dirtbags (from the San Francisco Global Day of Action protest, March 2004, via Zombie):




A couple of my Tea Party signs:



And:


Modeled on Patriot Depot’s “Wrong Way” bumper stickers, but using the actual template for a wrong way sign.


Rolling your own

Click here for a PDF version of my Wrong Way sign that you can print out any size. If you set “page scaling” in the print window to “tile all pages” and “tile scale” to 200%, you should get a print-out on six letter-size sheets that fits a standard 22”x28” poster-board. Just trim the overlaps and apply glue-stick.

For added rigidity, make two and staple one poster to each side of a stick, then staple the edges of the two sides together, working your way in towards the stick. This will tension the sign so that it can stand up to a mild wind without bending.

Bill gates just filed a patent on a scheme to unplug hurricanes by surrounding them with fleets of pump-boats bringing cold water to the surface:



Having posted this idea four years ago myself, I have to admit it's a bit wacky. On the other hand, Hurricane Katrina devastated a substantial chunk of my country, so anything that MIGHT be able to slow these monsters down ought to at least be talked about.

The Gates scheme is lumbering and passive. My Hurricane Stopper is agile and active, giving it a better chance of being practical. My idea was to have wind-turbine powered jet-boats suck their propellant water from the cold depths and spread it around in the hurricane's path. Think of barge-like wind-farms, big enough to ride out hurricane seas.

Downsides: Might not be possible to build a wind-farm barge capable of riding out hurricane winds and seas; would kill a lot of birds and fish; possible ill effects from changing the temperature gradient in the Gulf, if used on massive scale.

Gate's scheme is similar to mine in that it also uses the hurricane's own energy, but it does so passively. He would dot the Gulf with giant tubs, ballast-regulated to ride so that hurricane seas would lap over the edges of the tubs, raising the water level in the tub above the surrounding sea level. Gravity would then drive the water in the tub down through a drain in the bottom that extends down to the cold depths:


At whatever rate the waves lap over the top, the same amount of water should flow out the bottom. But is it really possible to in this way get the warm top-water off of the cold water below?

The patent claim is that when the top-water gets pushed down to the cold depths, it pushes the cold water up, but will it? How can cold rise through warm? It seems more likely that the warm water exiting the drain will float back up, but not all the way because it has been cooled by its exposure to deep water, with the warm top-water continuing to sit as a lid on the cold water below.

The only way any cold water would make it to the surface is by roiling of the waters from below, but this roiling would be originating 155 feet down, and only by passive means. If it brings any cold water to the surface, it won't be much.

Neither will these giant tubs be very mobile, meaning the Gulf would have to be pre-saturated with these lap-tubs. FAIL.

In sum, Gates claim to the general idea of stopping hurricanes by bringing cold water to the surface is pre-empted by my four year old scheme, and his "best embodiment" of this general idea is far inferior to my embodiment, leaving him with nothing. Sorry Bill. You should have been reading my blog. I'd have been glad to work with you on a patent claim before the one year post-publication deadline for filing.

Let that be a lesson to everyone. Read my blog!


Note to Bill Gates, Nathan Myhrvold, Searete LLC and Intellectual Ventures

If you all want to make a giant pile of cash (not as big as the computer operating system pile, but maybe only one order of magnitude below), I've got an invention I'd be glad to let you patent, for an appropriate share. It is a fundamentally improved version of a standard household appliance. Whole new functionality, with no loss of existing functionality. Not a household necessity like the basic functionality is, but something that a lot of people would want to have, at little additional cost. Ultimate market penetration could easily go over 50%. All patentable and not pre-empted. I've done the patent searches.

We just need to sign a disclosure agreement and a standard deal for inventor's share if we go forward. I've been sitting on this for over ten years because I don't want to start the clock on the patent expiration until I am teamed up with someone who has the bucks to actually put the invention into production. Forget potential profits. I want a share of the real thing. Gates has the resources to develop and produce the product, so it is a good match. Any other appliance companies, R and D companies, or investors who want to contact me, feel free (serious only please).


Another freebie for the public: mitigate global cooling with sooty coal

With the earth cooling rapidly (by historical standards) for 10 years now, and with our quiescent sun guaranteeing a significantly extended cooling phase going forward, we need to start figuring out how to mitigate the growing cold, because unlike global warming, global cooling is actually dangerous. Cold really does feed on itself in a way that can get away from us, and it directly constricts the space available for living things, both seasonally and absolutely. Nothing gobbles up the biosphere like glaciation.

It is the feedback mechanism that creates the danger. Spreading snow and ice increase the earth's "albedo," or reflectivity, bouncing sunlight away and cooling the earth, creating yet more snow and ice. Of course this feedback cycle also works in the warming direction, but with a big difference. In the warming direction, the albedo feedback effect gets smaller and smaller as warming progresses. Once snow and ice have shrunk back to arctic regions, they are that point only reflecting away a small amount of sunlight, so further melting cannot shrink the albedo much further.

In the cooling direction, the albedo feedback effect gets larger and larger as cooling progresses. When snow and ice come down to lower latitudes, they cover progressively larger swaths of land and they reflect away sunlight that is progressively more direct. This is why the earth regularly experiences runaway cooling, and spends most of its time in 100,000 year long glacial periods, but has never experienced run-away warming. Warming feedbacks diminish as they progress. Cooling feedbacks build.

The last two years are illustrative, as near record snow- cover in Asia and North America have spawned our present cool summer. We are seeing right now just how fast cooling feedbacks can ramp up, but there may be something we can do about it.

We just need to darken the snow. Where oh where can we get our hands on a massive steady supply of black sooty stuff that we can pump out onto the snow all winter long across the great white north?

Just build, build, build coal burning electric plants across North America, Scandinavia and Asia, and leave the scrubbers off the smokestacks. As a handy by-product, the resulting cheap energy will bring our "green"-around-the-gills economy rocketing back from its current death spiral.

If we would de-regulate energy development (real energy development, not the phony "green" garbage), our economy would start booming tomorrow, and there is absolutely no reason to regulate CO2.


The facts are in: the CO2 theory of late 20th century warming has been debunked

There are two competing theories of 20th century warming. One, backed by the known history of correlation between solar activity and global temperature, says it was caused by the extraordinarily high levels of solar activity between 1930 to 2000. The other, formulated by anti-capitalist ideologues who claimed in the 1970's that fossil fuels were causing global cooling, says that fossil fuels caused the warming from 1980-1998.

With both candidate causes galloping along at high levels until 2003, both theories claimed validation. Then the sun went quiet, as atmospheric CO2 continued to grow apace--the perfect experiment for finding which theory is correct--and the results are in. The planet is cooling, supporting the solar warming theory and debunking the CO2 warming theory.

The alarmist theory is not just wrong, but is actually an obvious case of omitted variable fraud. The only way the CO2 alarmists could pretend that the tiny CO2 greenhouse effect could cause runaway global warming was by completely omitting the known solar-magnetic warming influence from their models and misattributing this warming effect to CO2. As NASA climate-modeler Gavin Schmidt puts it:

[T]here is no obvious need for ‘new’ or unknown physics to explain what [is] going on.

Schmidt feels no "need" to account a known warming effect when he can make his model work just as well (even better, for his purposes) by misattributing this warming effect to CO2. Dirtbag.

Solar warmists never behave in this anti-scientific way. They never omit CO2 greenhouse effects from their calculations, but only do what scientists are supposed to do: use reason and evidence to gauge the magnitude of the different warming effects as best as they can. Their calculation that the dominant climate driver is solar activity has now been confirmed. That means CO2 cannot cause run-away warming, which means that whatever warming effect it has is all to the good. In general, warming is good for people and other living things, while cooling is bad. Mankind and the biosphere both thrived when Greenland was green.

Now that we are entering a cooling phase, people may start wishing that CO2 had a significant warming effect, but it doesn't. The one place where CO2 can be of significant help is as a fertilizer for plant growth. With the shorter growing seasons that go with global cooling, we need as much of that effect as we can get. Thus there is a non-negligible grounds for subsidizing CO2, and no reason to suppress it, as our demented Democrats are doing.


Dirty coal might actually require subsidization

When the eco-religionists talk about "clean coal," they are not talking about soot at all, but are talking about sequestering the colorless, odorless, harmless plant-food called CO2. What we need is not just "dirty coal" in the CO2 emitting sense, but real dirty coal, chock full of good old fashioned snow-darkening soot.

Getting genuinely dirty coal power probably will require subsidization, because old-time soot is the byproduct of an inefficient burning process. It will take some R & D to develop plants that can be switched back and forth between fully efficient summer-mode burning, sans soot and sulpher, and "inefficient" winter burning, with black soot intact (efficient once the external value of soot is counted as an output).

Massive expansion of dirty northern coal-fired electrical generation will kill several birds with one stone: it will rejuvenate the world economy; it will decrease wintertime albedo cooling feedbacks, significantly mitigating global cooling; the release of CO2 from coal-burning will give some relief from cold-driven crop shrinkage; and it will contribute very slightly to the earth's blanket of greenhouse gases, mitigating global cooling itself by a very slight amount.

So that's my freebie. Dig here. Back to the future. Return to dirty coal. Hard to patent the past, but I predict that at least a few hefty diamonds will be pulled from this ash heap.

In 2007, Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird told me that everyone at the meetings he attended is fully aware that the giant crescent, originally named the Crescent of Embrace, really does point almost exactly at Mecca. Professor Baird says they all just assume (himself included) that the Mecca orientation must be an innocent coincidence.

Pretty crazy, when they have also been told the meaning of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca. Every mosque is built around a Mecca-direction indicator called a mihrab, and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Geometrically, the Crescent of Embrace is the world’s largest mihrab.

However honestly Project Partners believe that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence, this is not what they tell the public. When reporters asked Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley about the Mecca orientation, she denied it:

"The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site," she said.

Thinking that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence in no way justifies lying to the public about this explosive information. If Baird’s account is accurate—that the dozens of Memorial Project Partners all know that the giant crescent actually does point to Mecca—then the Memorial Project has a lot of explaining to do. Now an overlooked article from 2007 corroborates Professor Baird’s information.


Dr. Glenn Kashurba

It turns out that a Pennsylvania psychiatrist who has been intimately involved with the memorialization of Flight 93 (writing two books on the subject) argued to a reporter before the July 2007 Memorial Project meeting that the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent (which he took as a given) should be seen as coincidental:

“When you calculate angles to Mecca - I'm going to be in Washington, D.C., this week, and I'm sure if I calculate angles of the monuments, at least one points to Mecca,” Kashurba said. “I don't know if it will be the White House or the Lincoln Memorial, but at least one will. People looking for a way to support their way of looking at things will look at this in this way for ever and ever.”

If Dr. Kashurba was getting his information from the Memorial Project’s public statements, he would have denied that the crescent points to Mecca. Here is what Memorial Project Partner Patrick White told the press 9 days before the Kashurba story:

Rawls, of Palo Alto, Calif., contends that the centerpiece of the design points toward Mecca.

Rawls’ claims are untrue and “preposterous,” according to Patrick White, Families of Flight 93 vice president. “We went through in detail all his original claims and came away with nothing.”

Kashurba knew better, as did Patrick White himself. The week after his public denial, a local woman asked White how he could be okay with the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This time White did not deny the Mecca orientation, but argued that it cannot be seen as honoring Islam because the inexactness of the Mecca orientation would be "disrespectful" to Islam.


Mecca orientation takes literally 2 minutes to verify, starting from source documents

It is not surprising that these Memorial Project insiders would know that the giant crescent does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (1.8° north of Mecca to be precise, ± 0.1°). After all, they had by the summer of 2007 been examining my report, and answering questions from the press about it, for over a year, and the near Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is trivially easy to verify.

Just use any of the online Islamic prayer-direction calculators to print out the direction to Mecca from Somerset PA. Place this graphic over the Crescent site-plan on your computer screen, and you will see that the Mecca-direction line (which Muslims call “qibla”) almost exactly bisects the crescent:


The green circle in this image is from the qibla calculator at Islam.com (down at the moment, but you can use the one at Qibla.com, or QiblaLocator.com). A person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca.

Patrick White knows this and deceives the press and the public about it. Dr. Kashurba knows it and stands by as White and others deceive the press and the public about it. These deceptions have been blatant.


Everything points to Mecca?

The Project even went to far as to dig up an academic fraud from Texas, willing to deny that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca:

Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round.

Was the reporter embarrassed to ask Muslims if they can really face any direction to face Mecca? Hard to blame her. Just to ask such a stupid question is to answer it, but the obviousness of the fraud is no excuse for letting it stand.

According to Professor Baird, every Memorial Project member who saw these denials knew that they were fraudulent, yet not one of them has tried to tell the public about the Project’s dishonest cover-up. When the truth does get out to the broader public, Project members are going to have a lot to answer for, which is presumably why they are keeping their mouths shut now. They have done a very bad thing and they don’t want it exposed.


What proves Islamic intent is the architect’s elaborate repetition of the Mecca orientation

No one ever claimed that the almost exact Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace proves Islamic intent. Architect Paul Murdoch proves intent in a different way: by elaborate repetition of his Mecca orientations. His first confirmation of intent is to include an exact Mecca orientation.

In Murdoch’s explanation, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into the giant crescent. To find this thematically defined crescent, remove those parts of the full Crescent of Embrace that extend out past the point where the flight path breaks the circle. The resulting true or thematic crescent points EXACTLY at Mecca:


At the upper tip of the crescent, the flight path comes down from the NNE and symbolically breaks the circle. What symbolically remains standing is the true or thematic Crescent of Embrace, pointing exactly at Mecca.

Murdoch’s next confirmation of intent is to exactly repeat this entire multi-Mecca oriented geometry in the vast array of crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial. Setting aside the chance that an architect could in the first place design a memorial to Flight 93 out of nothing but crescents just by innocent coincidence (which must be close to zero), the odds that these crescents would by random chance manifest Murdoch’s repeated Mecca orientations are 1 in 131 billion:




The only change was to include an explicitly broken off part of the circle

The original Crescent of Embrace design included the symbolically broken off parts at the upper crescent tip. When the bare naked Islamic-crescent shape caused a public uproar, the Memorial Project added another broken off part of the circle, floating out in front of the mouth of the original crescent.

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, the symbolic result of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent, still pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. That makes it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque.

Never a word from the Obama regime about Venezuela's threat to invade Honduras and restore Chavez crony and fellow usurper Zelaya to power, but there is no lack of volume in Obama’s actions. Instead of facing Venezuela with a palm turned “stop,” Obama is pointedly walking away. AP headline: “U.S. halts military operations with Honduras to protest coup.”

This is not just some planned military exercise that has been cancelled. Honduras is a close military ally and a base of operations for the United States in Central America. We will continue to use our bases, but as of now, the Hondurans are on their own.


Obama knows better than anyone that the arrest of Zelaya was completely legal and was not a coup

When AP calls the military arrest of Zelaya a “coup,” they are just following Obama, but the Obama regime was fully informed all along of the details of Zelaya's attempted usurpation and fought vigorously to forstall his arrest:

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said the U.S. Embassy in Honduras was “consistently and almost constantly engaged in the last several weeks working with partners” and that U.S. officials were “in contact with all Honduran institutions, including the military.”

What were the Hondurans telling Obama? That the Honduran constitution REQUIRED the arrest of a president who tries to engineer a second term, and that it specifically empowers the Honduran Supreme Court to issue to the Honduran military an arrest warrant in such a case. Honduran Supreme Court justice Rosalinda Cruz describes how Zelaya had already started illegally shutting down checks and balances and how his arrest was immediately necessary to stop him from usurping the Honduran democracy:

“The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order,” said [Honduran Supreme Court Justice Rosalinda Cruz] in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. “There’s no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.”

Cruz said the court issued a sealed arrest order for Zelaya on June 26, charging him with treason and abuse of power, among other offenses. Zelaya had repeatedly breached the constitution by pushing ahead with a vote about rewriting the nation’s charter that the court ruled illegal, and which opponents contend would have paved the way for a prohibited second term.

She compared Zelaya’s tactics, including his dismissal of the armed forces chief for obeying a court order to impound ballots to be used in the vote, with those of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

“Some say it was not Zelaya but Chavez governing,” she said.

Having been “consistently and almost constantly engaged" for weeks "with all Honduran institutions," the Obamaistas knew that Zelaya was trying to end the rule of law, yet they fought furiously against his removal, and when he was removed, dishonestly called Zelaya's arrest "not legal"; declared Zelaya to still be the legal president of Honduras; and insisted on his immediate return to power.


OAS extended membership to communist Cuba last month

To ratchet up the pressure on Honduras, Obama is joining the call for Honduras to be ousted from the Organization of American States if it does not knuckle under to Zelaya. Exactly one month ago, the OAS voted to grant membership to the communist dictatorship in Cuba. Usurpers in. Rule of law out.

Check out AP’s picture of Hillary and Zeyala laughing over Cuba’s rehabilitation:



Here is Zelaya's actual commentary:

"The Cold War has ended this day in San Pedro Sula," said Honduran President Manuel Zelaya immediately following the announcement.

Yes, we are all communists now.


UPDATE: Chavez broadcasts his efforts to arrange a real coup in Honduras, Obama still silent

Hugo Chávez said that he supports the return of deposed President Zelaya to Honduras by means of "a set of actions," including contacts with military officers. Zelaya could return home "by land, air or water," said Chávez in an address on Thursday in a state-run TV station, AFP reported. ...

"We are supporting his return to Honduras and we are planning several actions. (We are) contacting social leaders that are heading the resistance movements. We have contacted military leaders who disagree with what is happening in their country," Chávez said.

If chavez succeeds in creating violent chaos and undermining the Honduran congress and supreme court, expect Obama to continue to support Zelaya's return to the presidency, regardless of popular opposition. Restoration of Zelaya is already Obama's declared objective, and as with Chavez’ initial threat of to invade, Obama is saying nothing to counter this latest Chavez threat.

That’s the amazing thing. Longshot as it would be for Chavez to pull off a coup in another country, he is openly talking about it, and Obama is saying nothing in response. He has already terminated cooperation with the Honduran military, clearing the way for Chavez to create a violent path to power for Zelaya.