Jeff Faux: 95% of immigrant children who cross the US-Mexico border are from countries that the US has dominated or controlled during the past century.
For a different perspective on the recent influx of illegal immigration.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12010
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Jeff Faux: 95% of immigrant children who cross the US-Mexico border are from countries that the US has dominated or controlled during the past century.
For a different perspective on the recent influx of illegal immigration.
From the article:
“Now, 2009, the Obama administration publicly said, oh, that’s terrible and, you know, they denounced it, but privately, they paved the way for the military-run government[in Honduras] to stay, and the oligarchs once again triumphed.”
Can you please provide a single shed of evidence to support this claim?
Here’s a leaked cable from wikileaks from the US ambassador in Honduras:
http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
"Forced removal by military was clearly illegal.
Regardless of the merits of Zelaya’s alleged constitutional violations, it is clear from even a cursory reading that his removal by military means was illegal, and even the most zealous of coup defenders have been unable to make convincing arguments to bridge the intellectual gulf between “Zelaya broke the law” to “therefore he was packed off to Costa Rica without trial.”
That the Attorney General’s Office and the Supreme Court now question the legality [of the coup] is encouraging…
Michelleti’s ascension as “interim President” was totally illegitimate.
Please provide a single shed of evidence that the Obama administration was involved in any way whatsoever in the coup.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Jeff Faux: 95% of immigrant children who cross the US-Mexico border are from countries that the US has dominated or controlled during the past century.
For a different perspective on the recent influx of illegal immigration.
From the article:
“Now, 2009, the Obama administration publicly said, oh, that’s terrible and, you know, they denounced it, but privately, they paved the way for the military-run government[in Honduras] to stay, and the oligarchs once again triumphed.”
Can you please provide a single shed of evidence to support this claim?
Here’s a leaked cable from wikileaks from the US ambassador in Honduras:
http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09TEGUCIGALPA645_a.html
"Forced removal by military was clearly illegal.
Regardless of the merits of Zelaya’s alleged constitutional violations, it is clear from even a cursory reading that his removal by military means was illegal, and even the most zealous of coup defenders have been unable to make convincing arguments to bridge the intellectual gulf between “Zelaya broke the law” to “therefore he was packed off to Costa Rica without trial.”
That the Attorney General’s Office and the Supreme Court now question the legality [of the coup] is encouraging…
Michelleti’s ascension as “interim President” was totally illegitimate.
Please provide a single shed of evidence that the Obama administration was involved in any way whatsoever in the coup.[/quote]
http://nebraskansforpeace.org/wikileaks-obama-admin-honduras
Here are some articles on the U.S. silence and it’s effects on the coup.
But it really doesn’t matter to you. If Fox and Limbaugh or any of the other mass media are not reporting it, it can’t be true. You could see it with your own two eyes but would convince yourself it never happened because it doesn’t fit your belief in the American myth of benevolence.
US “silence” after the fact does not equal involvement in the coup. It constitutes accepting the coup as a fait accompli. The classified embassy communique I quoted reveals the administration’s position at the time. They considered it “clearly illegal.” What you are arguing in essence is that the US should have orchestrated another coup and reinstalled Zelaya.