President Manuel Zelaya intended to hold a "nonbinding" public referendum on June 28, on whether to call a National Assembly to rewrite the constitution, to take place concurrently with this year's elections. Zelaya's opponents claimed that his intention was to allow his own re-election. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which forbids any former chief executive from being re-elected President, states that any citizen who proposes reforming said article, and any others who support such a person directly or indirectly, are to immediately "cease carrying out" any public office.[12] The Constitution, however, establishes no process for impeaching or removing a president.[citation needed] Furthermore Article 42, Section 5 of the Constitution states that citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic." According to the same article, revoking citizenship for this reason requires a court sentence and then a government order ("acuerdo gubernativo").[12]

Limited Features

To push customers to pricier versions of Windows 7, Microsoft is limiting the features of the cheaper edition. The most basic, called Starter Edition, can only run three programs at a time. -bloomberg 3/5/09

"The United Arab Emirates has shown the world a model Muslim state that is tolerant toward its people and other faiths, said US President George W. Bush in his speech at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi yesterday." -Bush

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields,'" Bush said

After years of willfully neglecting this comparison, Bush finally offers it to the American people unsolicited. But how can he talk of the possible cost of American withdrawal without also mentioning the sunk cost of American intervention?

The consensus seems to be that only a politician stupid enough to start an unnecessary war could ever be resolute enough to finish it, so Bush has a reluctant backing even among democrats, who don't seem willing to put up much resistence to the surge.

Only democrat candidate Mike Gravel (not to mention Kucinich) has taken a stand on this issue, stating unequivocally since '71 that American troops in Vietnam 'died in vain'. In the youtube debates, he was confronted on this issue by a vietnam vet, and held his ground, while virtually every other candidates danced around the question. Many were willing to state that US soldiers were dying unnecessarily, but were unwilling to make the equivalent statement that they were 'dying in vain'. That's pathetic. Gravel was powerful in his respond that the only thing more tragic than American soldiers dying in vain, was the idea of more American soldiers dying in vain. Hence a pullout, and a return to the politics of reality.

Mike Gravel is the only one with the guts to stand up to the national consensus, which is so hopelessly skewed by blind patriotism that it refuses to see reason.

We need a new leader with the freshness to reverse current policies without looking like a hypocrit, but also with enough street cred in the deep south, where politics and other critical mental functions are distort by the heat.