Evidence item #2 for the doctine of the Fall: In a related piece, Derrick Jackson writes about the collateral damage of these affairs; for all the prurient public interest in them, real lives, the lives of children, are utterly shattered by their dads\u2019 dalliances.\u00a0 As Jackson writes, \u201cit never ceases to boggle the mind how men, particularly those who stake out high moral ground in politics or build a pristine image in the community as athletes, lay waste to it all in an act of passion.\u00a0 Here we are, a human race that can peer billions of light years into space, communicate in a click with someone 12,000 miles away, and cure all kinds of diseases, yet cannot find the carnal off-switch.\u201d<\/p>\n
An interesting reflection<\/a> on the removal of Zelaya in Honduras and the question of its Constitutionality\u2013but ultimately an unconvincing one. The Honduran Constitution is clear that no President can serve more than one term, and any President<\/strong> (not the specificity here) who seeks to amend the term limits should be removed from office immediately.\u00a0 The intent is clearly to avoid dictators like Castro or Chavez, who establish themselves as rulers in perpetuity; even if the ruler seeks to amend the Constitution through an ostensibly democratic means, he can start throwing money at the electorate (as Chavez did) in order to get a majority vote\u2013or simply rig the election, as Chavez may also have done.\u00a0 Michelle Cottle argues, in effect, that if the Honduran Constitution were the American Constitution, which permits amendments of nearly everything, then what Zelaya had sought to do was legal.\u00a0 This is like one team scoring a touchdown, and the other team saying, \u201cWell, if this were soccer, that would only count for one point.\u201d\u00a0 Zelaya was accountable to his own Constitution; when he did what was clearly against his own Constitution, the Supreme Court removed him from office, at the request of the Attorney General.\u00a0 Immediately after he was removed, the Congress convened (a Congress led by his own Liberal party) and voted overwhelmingly in favor of his removal, and instated Micheletti, who was formerly Zelaya\u2019s Vice President.<\/p>\n If the Hondurans wanted to change the Constitution, they could have done so through their Congress<\/strong>; the Constitution called for the removal of any President who sought to end term limits, not any legislator. \u00a0 Zelaya was bringing in ballots printed by his friend Chavez in Venezuela, and even led a violent mob down to a military base to get the ballots that were being stored there.\u00a0 Miguel Estrada (yes, that <\/em>Miguel Estrada) tells the story<\/a>, and the list of Zelaya\u2019s illegalities is a long one. \u00a0 The Honduran Constitution, as well as its Attorney General and Congress, operated precisely as they were supposed to.\u00a0 It was likely illegal to ship Zelaya out to Costa Rica, but it was most certainly legal to remove him from office; this was no \u201cmilitary coup.\u201d\u00a0 He should be returned to Honduras and put on trial for treason, which is how the Constitution defines his activities.<\/p>\n Unfortunately it looks as though the Obama administration lurched instinctively to the side of Zelaya, and now its apologists are bending themselves in pretzels to justify it.\u00a0 And you can be sure that the Obama administration does not favor Zelaya for any abstract reason of Constitutional law; it\u2019s a calculation of power and stability, and the U.S. is being swayed by the U.N., which in turn is being swayed by the Latin American dictators, also known as the Castro-Chavez Jessica Alba Fan Club<\/a>.<\/p>\n James Schlesinger, who served in the cabinets of Democratic and Republican Presidents, and who stands as the \u201cYoda\u201d of nuclear issues in the United States, explains<\/a> why we\u2019d better hope that the American nuclear arsenal is never destroyed in some sort of nuclear arms treaty.\u00a0 When one thinks about it, it is remarkable how much nuclear weapons\u2013and especially the American \u201cnuclear umbrella\u201d over its allies\u2013have served in the past six decades to deter military conflicts between major powers.\u00a0 In the meantime, Iran may have the capacity to develop its first nuclear bomb within a year<\/a>, and we (due to budget cuts and Obama\u2019s deal with Russia) are cutting back on our ability to defend against a nuclear missile.<\/p>\n Eleanor Clift calls Obama\u2019s avoidance of confrontation \u201cZen-like<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 So what would we call his predilection (if it is such; the video is inconclusive) for looking at the derrieres of beautiful sixteen-year-olds?\u00a0 \u201cReassuringly manly\u201d?\u00a0 I\u2019m trying to be fair here, but sometimes it seems as though liberal commentators want to see Obama as a perfect person in an imperfect world, so that even his failings (from Clift\u2019s standpoint, his reticence so far to use his personal capital to push through health-care and environment legislation) are due to his wonderful qualities.\u00a0 It\u2019s not that he\u2019s imperfect; it\u2019s that his virtues are not always ideally suited for Washington.<\/p>\n Finally, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend advances<\/a> the improbable argument that Obama is a better representative for American Catholics than the Pope is.\u00a0 Apparently<\/a> the Pope presented Obama with a written explanation of why the RCC opposes abortion and testing on embryos.\u00a0 Obama assured the Pope that he would do everything he could to reduce the number of abortions (althuogh the official policy<\/a> is not to reduce the \u201cnumber\u201d but to reduce the \u201cneed\u201d for abortions).\u00a0 Does that mean that Obama will take a strong stand against all the cultural factors propelling young people toward sexual promiscuity?\u00a0 Does it mean he will start (in addition to safe sex training) a powerful public push for abstinence until marriage?\u00a0 Does it mean that he will support Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which help pregnant women in crisis find alternatives to abortion, such as adoption?\u00a0 Or does it mean that he will try to convince women of what he purports is his personal belief, that abortion is wrong?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 It means that he will support the same kind of social service initiatives he would have supported anyway, on the theory that most women have abortions because of poverty.<\/p>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com\/2009\/01\/obama-pope1.jpg?w=430&h=629\")