the tindog coffeehouse

In 1823 President James Monroe established a policy which came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine stated that efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in North, Central, or South America would be viewed by the U.S. as an act of aggression. The policy effectively marked the entire western hemisphere as being under the protection and influence of the United States, and revolutions like the one in Cuba in the 1950s were seen as a direct threat to the U.S.

The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.

Continue reading…

On June 28, the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was seized by that country’s military on the orders of the Honduran Congress. Upon being escorted out of the country, he was replaced by the head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president until the scheduled election in November.

Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.

Who’s right?

Continue reading…

Today is the National Day of Prayer, an annual event dating back to 1952, and this year’s observance will be much different than those of the past 8 years. That’s because Barack Obama is now in the White House.

Prior to George W. Bush, most presidents honored the day with proclamations or other low-key events. But President Bush went further during his administration, inviting Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House for a more formal observance. President Obama, however, is not continuing his predecessor’s tradition, instead opting for a proclamation and nothing more.

Does that matter?

Continue reading…

Longtime Obama supporter Patricia Jones Blessman donated $10,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee to ensure she would be able to attend the historic ceremony in January, but unfortunately she missed the swearing-in due to “security mayhem”.

And now she wants her money back.

Blessman says she felt treated “like nothing more than an ATM” by the inaugural committee. …

“Bereft, bittersweet disappointment does not even begin to describe the emotions we are left with on what should have been a joyous mountaintop experience. The irony is that we paid for this madness,” Blessman wrote in an email dated Jan. 22 to Julianna Smoot, a co-chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the national finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

That’s OK, Ms. Blessman. You’re not the only one to feel disappointed and ripped off by President Obama. You’re just the only one to get a refund as a result of it.

Unlike the rest of us taxpayers.

Messiah, Superman, Neo.

Source.

Oh, snap!

Not only did South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford point out the glaringly obvious about the massive “stimulus” bill being hurried through Congress right now, he took a swipe at the Cult of Obama just for good measure (emphasis mine):

“A problem that was created by building up of too much debt will not be solved with yet more debt,” Gov. Mark Sanford said Sunday, making a reference to the federal deficit spending that will likely finance the federal stimulus package.

“We’re moving precipitously close to what I would call a savior-based economy,” Sanford also said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

The South Carolina Republican said such an economy is “what you see in Russia or Venezuela or Zimbabwe or places like that where it matters not how good your product is to the consumer but what your political connection is to those in power.”

“That is quite different than a market-based economy where some rise and some fall but there’s a consequence to making a stupid decision,” Sanford said after pointing to the powers granted to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to help deal with the current economic crisis.

“A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by the population at large,” he added.

I probably would’ve rephrased that as, “A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by a lot of stupid voters.” But then, that’s why I would never win any elections.