Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Illinois Congresswoman In Honduran Wonderland

The smiling face you see in the photo is the first Democrat Congress Critter to visit Honduras since the U. S. president declared the Honduran constitution void. Numerous Republicans have made the trip on fact-finding tours, but it took a Democrat finally to go down there on a fact-fabricating tour.

It should come as no surprise to any thinking person that the Democrats would show up late for the party, and then get everything wrong--purposely. After all, the Democrats have consistently supported left-wing takeovers in Central and South America for the past fifty years. And since the action on the part of the Honduran government was a valid legal and constitutional move to prevent such a takeover, the Democrats must oppose it.

Ms. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois (where else?) spent three days wandering around in a daze in Honduras, meeting up with the obviously crazed Manuel Zelaya, ousted power-grabber. She waved at the Honduran Supreme Court building and took a quick look at the houses of the Honduran Cortes ("Congress"), but didn't spend a lot of time speaking with the judges or the legislators. Had she done so, she might actually have learned that the removal of Zelaya from office was done by the book, with a due respect for law and the national constitution. But as I've said on numerous occasions before, the Democrats don't follow our own Constitution, so why would they care about somebody else's?

Upon arriving back in the United States, Schakowsky hastily called a press conference to announce "the coup against President Zelaya is illegal and along with every other nation in the region and the world, we don't recognize the coup regime as the legitimate government of Honduras." Ms. Schakowsky's legal credentials which allow her to make such pronouncements are that she received a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois, and as an Illinois legislator got a law passed requiring that groceries be labeled with expiration dates.

But she does have more than a nodding acquaintance with illegality. Her husband, Robert Creamer (different last name, of course) was indicted on multiple counts of bank fraud and check-kiting, but being a privileged Chicago pol was allowed to plead guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of failure to collect withholding taxes. He and Schakowsky were both officers of the Illinois Public Action Fund (think North Side version of South Side ACORN). As is almost always the case with Democrat politicians from Chicago, "public" means "private method of raking off public funds." Schakowsky signed the joint tax returns with her husband, but amazingly escaped the prison sentence hubby got. He served five months in prison and then an additional eleven months on "house arrest." While in prison, he wrote a guidebook for leftists entitled: Listen To Your Mother: STAND UP STRAIGHT. How Progressives Can Win." In press reports, he is referred to as "an Evanston politician," but rarely as the husband of Schakowsky, and never as "convicted felon."

No doubt Schakowsky has developed secret legal skills which allow her to refute the opinion of the Law Library of Congress which stated: "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system." They must be wrong, since Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and now legal scholar Schakowsky have said so.

Schakowsky is also unable to explain what kind of coup follows the law, promotes the lawful successor of the ousted power-grabber, allows regular elections to go forward, and has no military or civil authority which is attempting to perpetuate itself in power. Some coup. When forced into a corner by a reporter to explain how it was a coup if Zelaya's successor will surrender power in due course following the elections, Schakowsky went into a liberal song and dance: "I think there were a number of things, including raising the minimum wage. A number of things that the Zelaya administration had done that were offensive to the business class, the elites in Honduras, and so , I know, I think they wanted him out." Well, that explains it.

So where is the business community's hand-picked successor? Well, there isn't one. Zelaya's current successor is no more of a business puppet than was Zelaya, and in the free elections coming up this week, there is no clear business candidate. These business elites must be real amateurs. And of course Schakowsky makes no mention of Zelaya's attempt to amend the Honduran constitution to perpetuate himself in office in direct violation of Honduran law regarding a sitting president.

Schakowsky made a good Obama-type speech in which truth was turned on its head. She said "democratic order needs to be restored in Honduras." As opposed to what, pray tell? What she obviously means is "our favorite leftist Hugo Chavez buddy must be returned to power." This must have been a painful experience for Schakowsky. They miss the good old days where they got to go to banana republic leftist nations which governed extra-constitutionally, but loved money-bringing Democratic political hacks.

24 comments:

StanH said...

Schakowsky sounds like the typical witless leftist. Power to the people as long as it cost them nothing. Having representatives like this leaves me wondering how our Republic has lasted as long as it has…sheesh!

AndrewPrice said...

Interesting. I wonder if she realizes that Obama has all but recognized the government (something he will do after the election). Thus, she's accusing Obama of supporting a coup. Tisk tisk.

Writer X said...

Sometimes I'm embarassed to be from Illinois. This is defintely one of those times.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: At first I wondered why she was chosen to be the stalking horse for the Democrats. But the more I looked into her background, the more sense it made. It's the Chicago North Side/South Side payoff. If you're going to be represented by a moron, it might as well be one from home.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: I think they sent her down there with the previous week's instructions. If it looks like it will end up an embarrassment, he'll just disavow her and leave her to her own sputtering devices.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: We have nothing to be ashamed of as former Illini. After all, we're from Illinois, which means we had the good sense to get out. At least you landed in a better place.

Joel Farnham said...

If we had a Republican administration and it made the same mistake about Honduras, I wonder what the MSM would say about it. At any rate, it will soon be over.

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: You are so right. The headlines would use words like "unconscionable" and "administration supports another coup." The articles would have contained quotes from "experts" using words like "fascist" and "totalitarian." But as Obama's mistake becomes ever more obvious, the story just seems to go away. Amazing, no?

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Since Zelaya tried to take over the country like Chavez did, add to that a hypothetical Republican backing, wouldn't MSM say that Finally! This "Republican" administration gets it!! Or would they actually be on the side of freedom?

LawHawkSF said...

TO OUR READERS: I didn't feel this was worth a separate article, so I'm just going to slip it in here and see if anyone else wants to run with it. In the past week, the radical race-baiting crypto-communist Marc Lamont Hill has again shown up, twice, as a guest panelist on the O'Reilly Factor.

I wrote the following e-mail to the show and its producers. If anyone else wishes to follow suit, I commend you:

"Dear Mr. O’Reilly:

I am a fan of diverse opinions and healthy debate. I dislike some of your guests, love others, and enjoy the arguments. But my tolerance has its limits. Marc Lamont Hill does not belong on any decent TV discussion panel. You have used him as an “expert” on issues that my cat knows more about. He is a hip-hop PhD, with no worthwhile credentials for discussing anything more serious than Tupac Shakur’s world-view or whether it’s time for MC Hammer to make his big comeback.

Hill is a radical, racist, Marxist America-hater and has no place among reasonable human beings. Your network had the good sense to break its relationship with him. I am extremely disappointed that you seem to refuse to do so. There are plenty of liberals with legitimate, if wrong, points-of-view out there. Why do you continue to include this loathsome radical in a Brooks Brothers suit in your presentations?

Regards,"


Hill was fired from his regular position by Fox News Channel, but O'Reilly just can't seem to get enough of the man. If you missed our previous articles on Hill, here are the links:
Occasionally, We Get A Victory, and Fox News And Professor Hill--Enough!.

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: It was a hypothetical position that the Republicans had taken the same stand that Obama took. That would have produced the "coup" comments from the press.

Since they actually supported the Cortes and the Honduran Supreme Court in ousting the potential president-for-life Zelaya, the press would have had to take an entirely different tack. They would have excoriated the Republicans for refusing to support the freedom-fighting leader who was attempting to bring true democracy to Honduras.

With the mainstream press, the issue is not just "good guy versus bad guy," but includes the theme that whatever the Republicans do, it's the wrong thing. So even if the Republicans had supported the leftist Zelaya, the MSM still would have called it a coup that only fascist Republicans would support.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I stopped watching O'Reilly when I found out he said Global Warming was real. Since O'Reilly can't diddle with GW, I guess he went with his favorite liberal nutcase.

I believe the shows with Major Personalities like O'Reilly and Beck, are actually seperate businesses. If this is the case, Fox can fire Hill, but each seperate business can hire him.

(I base this on something Beck said about hiring his own people and giving them healthcare.)

LawHawkSF said...

Joel: That is exactly correct, as I pointed out in the article. Fox allows considerable independence for its featured people, which I consider a good thing that the MSM would never allow if it deviated from the corporate agenda. Our original complaint was with Fox itself paying Hill a salary. That was remedied. O'Reilly can have anyone he wants on, and my letter was designed solely for the purpose of emphasizing that no matter who you're going to have on, identify the person by his or her real expertise, not some nebulous "university professor." O'Reilly continues to treat Hill as an affable liberal, ignoring his true credentials. That's his right and his money, and I exercised my right to express my disgust.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--Chicago may have slipped to number three in population, and is working on dropping to fourth or fifth in the near future. But in one thing, it's number one--producing crooked, corrupt, ignorant,arrogant and occasionally just plain crazy politicians. I don't see any challenger for the title on the horizon.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: That pretty much sums it up. Schakowsky is just another Chicago political hack with a specialty in diverting public funds into private coffers. Typical Chicago. Her credentials and experience for condemning the constitutional acts of a foreign nation are about as good as mine for laying out the proper science for the space program while criticizing NASA for doing it all wrong.

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Figures. This is the same hack who is on record saying that a public option will lead to single payer healthcare. I used her words as an example when I wrote to my own hack congressman to protest healthcare. Here's what she said: ...and next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete--that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer. And he was right! (followed by much enthusiastic applause)

This speech is on YouTube for all to see. This woman is one of the most dangerous people in Congress.

Tennessee Jed said...

Hawk - on Thanksgiving eve, this is not very charitable or Christian of me, but I wish she had been kicked in the teeth by a jackass while she was down there. I apologize for the thought, it is terrible, I know, but she represents just about everything I dislike about politicians. The crappiness of what she did and represents rubs me so far the wrong way . . .well, what more can I say.

Tennessee Jed said...

Lawhawk - great sentiments on Marc Lamont Hill, but you will be docked for not being pithy enough. I have virtually stopped watching O'Reilly. While I still give him credit for his willingness to go after most liberals, he seems to like to lick Obama's toe jam. Not only that, he is so in love with his own voice, he regularly cuts off other, better Fox analysts when they are on his show.

LawHawkSF said...

PittsburghEnigma: Thanks for the additional info. None of it surprises me. Democrats can't understand why the public option would destroy competition because they don't understand basic economics and don't have a clue what the word competition actually means.

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: I'm finding my Christian charity being strained beyond its limits. A kick in the teeth from a jackass would be divine punishment.

As for O'Reilly, pith on him. Pardon my lithp.

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Lawhawk: That's why Schakowsky is so dangerous--she knows exactly what the public option will do, whereas other Democrats just cluelessly want to help the uninsured, not really knowing the damage they will do. Barney Frank also knows. He's also on record saying that a good public option will lead to single payer.

I hate to make such accusations (that a politician would intentionally want to cause damage to the economy), but when those people are captured on tape literally calling for the destruction of free market institutions, one can't come to any other logical conclusion.

Jed: I can't stand O'Reilly either, but when I was on vacation recently, I had no Internet, no newspapers, and only Fox News on TV, so he was a desperate last resort for news. I get the feeling that Glenn Beck loathes him. I think he just grudgingly appears on O'Reilly's show to get some additional exposure in O'Reilly's highly rated time slot. I'm frankly surprised that O'Reilly continues to be the highest rated news program on Fox. He's my absolute least favorite personality on Fox (well, besides Geraldo "you're all racists unless you agree with me" Rivera.)

LawHawkSF said...

PittsburghEnigma: You're right about Schakowsky knowing the public option will kill the private sector. My point is that she knows it, but she can't possibly understand why. She actually believes that if the insurance companies were any good, they would be able to compete with the public dole. That means she doesn't truly understand monopolies (which is what the public option would quickly become), let alone why we're fighting to get rid of the anti-trust laws which prevent insurance across state lines.

And of course, she doesn't understand that all government programs are money-eaters, not money-producers, and can therefore simply undercut private insurance rates by any amount they want, wait for the inability to make the profit that would keep insurance companies going, then raise the public premiums while lowering the coverage because there's no private sector left to compete. Oh, and tax the public (those who still have enough money to pay taxes) for the shortfall that occurred in the budget because of the unfair "competition" of the public option.

In her simpleton mind, "public" good, "private" bad, and profit is a dirty word. She's another Democrat who thinks money and wealth simply drop like manna from heaven.

98ZJUSMC said...

I have nothing intellectual to add to this discussion except to second what WriterX said. Illinois Democrats are the pits. Why didn't I leave this state years ago? *sound of head repeatedly thuming wall*

LawHawkSF said...

98ZJUSMC: Happy Thanksgiving to you. I've missed your comments. WriterX and I chickened out and headed west. We knew we had left you behind to clean up the mess. Watch out, Illinois, 98ZJUSMC is still at his post! LOL

Post a Comment