« Obama's Health Care Show in Five and a Half Minutes | Main | The Newest Duke Rape Case »

More Belligerence On Obama's Watch

(Kim wrote a great piece on the Honduran political conflict, saying many of the same things I've written here. Though hers is a bit more eloquent, I figured, with her approval, I'd throw my own thoughts up here since I had already written this article before seeing hers. So, for what it's worth, here it is.)

With the hyperventilating coverage of Michael Jackson's death dominating the news, a development of serious implications has gone underreported.

The Honduran political apparatus has undergone a major upheaval in recent days.

The democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted by an apparent military coup in the early morning hours of Sunday.

On the surface, this sounds ominously illegal: The military of a battered, poor country kicks out a legally elected president, to administer control via its own version of justice.

There is a bit more to it than that.

It is true that Zelaya was elected in a fair, democratic election. He has, however, been accused by many of using heavy-handed tactics during his tenure.

His approval rating, which now hovers around 30%, is evidence of his decreasing popularity. This has prompted him to take some very illegal actions concerning his current and future rule.

Specifically, Zelaya has called for a referendum to bypass his single, four year term limit, allowing him to serve indefinitely.

Under the Honduran constitution, the term limit law happens to be one of only eight which specifically can not be amended.

In addition, only the Honduran congress can call for a referendum. This is also in accordance with the constitution, and has been verified by the Honduran supreme court.

The military, acting on specific legal authority from the supreme court, took Zelaya into custody for violating the Honduran constitution. He has been replaced by Roberto Micheletti, president of the Honduran congress.

This "coup" has, for the most part, been universally condemned by the international community, including President Obama.

The most vocal condemnations have come from some of the worst violators of human rights in the region.

Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa have all vociferously condemned this action, feeling a sense of brutish brotherhood, and possibly fearing similar outcomes in the future.

President Obama's response included the standard "deeply concerned" sound bite. Calling it an "illegal coup" (is there such a thing as a legal coup?), he has called for the prompt reinstatement of Zelaya, saying he is still the recognized democratically elected leader of Honduras.

Something is wrong when you are allied with scum like Hugo Chavez.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, Hitler was democratically elected, as well.

Zelaya's ultimate ambition is to construct an iron-fisted, leftest administration, modeled after the likes of Chavez and Castro.

It is ironic how Obama refused to comment on the Iranian situation for fear of appearing to "meddle" in their internal affairs. Yet, he has no reservations of declaring foul in the tribulations of Honduras.

He seems to have a desire to cozy up with undesirable regimes so as not to exacerbate problems regarding future diplomatic relationships.

His unwillingness to speak out against corrupt ideologues and repressive governments shows either a frightened approach to engage these types of people, or it shows he has a deep affinity for them.

Either way, it bodes ill for the Honduran people.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36147.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Belligerence On Obama's Watch:

» walls of the city linked with chicken come home to roost

Comments (33)

Obama and his pals Chavez a... (Below threshold)

Obama and his pals Chavez and the Castro Brothers, want Zelaya reinstated as President for Life. Just like the Castros are, Chavez is...and Obama WANTS to be!

His "reluctance to meddle" lasted only until a Left-wing Chavez wannabe got in trouble...now it's full speed ahead on the meddling!

way past PATHETIC!

Nice rhetoric. Care to expl... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Nice rhetoric. Care to explain what makes the situations "different?" Or will you just close your eyes and serve Obama at his will? Nah why bother. All you could muster was 3 words. Dont want to burn out that big brain of yours big guy!

The fact Castro and Chavez ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

The fact Castro and Chavez condemn this makes me think it was very much the right thing to do.

Looks like Zelaya started to think he was irreplaceable - and the legal system in Honduras disabused him of that notion BY FOLLOWING THE LAW. Don't you just HATE it when that happens, if you're a dictator or dictator wannabe?

If you find yourself on the... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

If you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa, you need to evaluate your thinking. Your 'thinking' that is socialist merging to communist and dictorial. But that is what The Won wants.

Obama can only relate to a ... (Below threshold)
JB:

Obama can only relate to a Chicago mob-style geopolitical order. See, I'm da boss of USA, you're da boss of Honduras, it's much easier to do bizniz wizout all that democracy and freedom crap.

run Obama out of office in ... (Below threshold)
naio:

run Obama out of office in four years on a rail like that loser Jimmy Carter!

Would that our own Constitu... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

Would that our own Constitution were so vigorously defended.

How can a democratic refere... (Below threshold)
Hilary Smith:

How can a democratic referendum be "illegal" in a democracy? If the president wants to extend term limits and the People vote to approve it, that's democracy. How can that be illegal? What Honduras has now is minority rule. Is that so preferable? I guess it is when the People don't want capitalism rammed down their throats.

"Zelaya's ultimate ambition... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

"Zelaya's ultimate ambition is to construct an iron-fisted, leftest administration, modeled after the likes of Chavez and Castro."

I really don't understand why you broke away from your post and blurted out that strange, unsubstantiated in any way statement.

God, you people don't know whether you're coming or going anymore, whether you're standing up for democracy or you're against it. Whether you're for decency and values, or for soliciting gay sex in a bathroom and cheating on your wife with whores.

It would be sad if I didn't know your kind is the scum of America, that you have HAD your grim reign, America has moved on, and none of you matter anymore.
depp=true
notiz=Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

"I really don't understa... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"I really don't understand why you broke away from your post and blurted out that strange, unsubstantiated in any way statement."

Do a little reading, Ryan. Chavez and the Castros view Zelaya as an ally. He was headed toward doing the very same thing Chavez did; change the constitution to make himself Presidente Permanente.

Ryan, have you EVER spoken to anyone without belittling, generalizing, name calling and broad brushing?

If "we" don't matter, why do you get yourself so worked up in a lather?

Ryan,I've noticed ... (Below threshold)
Shawn:

Ryan,

I've noticed lately you've become a whiney, name-calling annnoyance. One who never has anything of substance to add to the running commentary here.

"you people"

Nice generalization.

If you actually read the piece, you'd understand that, according to the Honduran democratic constitution, what Zelaya was doing was illegal, and un-democratic.

Know what? Never mind.

You don't care anyway.

America has moved ... (Below threshold)
Eric:
America has moved on, and none of you matter anymore.

Keep telling yourself that. The Democrats won two elections. That's all. That's not the same thing as a permanent majority.

The winds of change blow in more than one direction. One of the great things about this country is that while it tacks back and forth politically it keeps moving forward.

Ryan is just showing the tr... (Below threshold)
engineer:

Ryan is just showing the true colors of a liberal. Laws are not important and need not be followed if they interfere with your agenda.

Agenda uber alles, e... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Agenda uber alles, engineer?

I won't disagree with you at all on that premise - that for the left the agenda has priority over silly things like established laws and precedents. But when the laws DO run somewhat in their direction, you'll find instead of them being inconvenient roadblocks to be bypassed and discarded at will they're impermeable, permanent, and to be followed completely with no interpretation or wiggle room allowed.

(Case in point - two very prominent sexual harrasment cases. Clarence Thomas was forced into endless hearings, vilified and smeared through unsubstantiated accusations by Anita Hill. The sexual harrasment charge was used, abused, and stretched to the breaking point, but in the end he was cleared. Bill Clinton was accused of rape - a more serious charge than Clarence Thomas's - yet the same scrutiny wasn't put on those charges, and the VICTIM was blamed by the women's organizations that were ready to completely destroy Clarence Thomas on much thinner grounds.)

When the law changes based on who you are or what political ideology you adhere to, then there's something fundamentally flawed about the belief system that allows that.

re: 14While this i... (Below threshold)
epador:

re: 14

While this isn't the first recent use of the phrase, I like the context. Lets plaster it everywhere.

"His unwillingness to sp... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"His unwillingness to speak out against corrupt ideologues and repressive governments shows either a frightened approach to engage these types of people, or it shows he has a deep affinity for them."

It's clealy the later.

And to Ryan, the communist supporter, who made this strange, unsubstanciated statement: "I really don't understand why you broke away from your post and blurted out that strange, unsubstantiated in any way statement"

Please enlighten us to the real reason Zelaya was trying to illegally subvert their constitution and give himeself unlimited rule


If the president wants t... (Below threshold)
Clay:

If the president wants to extend term limits and the People vote to approve it, that's democracy.

You would do well to learn what Karl Marx meant when he said, "Democracy is the road to socialism." In contrast, consider Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on democracy: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." James Madison, who is rightly known as the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in 1787, in The Federalist, No. 10: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, 
in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Benjamin Franklin, who responded to a woman outside Constitution Hall after completion of the new constitution, said that the Founders had created "a Republic madam, if you can keep it."

Indeed, nowadays an overwhelming majority of Americans think that democracies are a morally superior form of government. Few challenged former president George Bush's notion that it is good that "[it] is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Is democracy morally superior and have Ameicans always thought so? Our Founders obviously didn't think so.

Interestingly, the official 1928 United States Army Manual, under citizenship training, stated the following in the "definitions" section:

Democracy: "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression.Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic -- negating property rights. Attitude of the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

This manual also accurately stated that the framers of the Constitution "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy...and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had formed a republic." (emphasis mine)

But by 1936, democrat President Franklin Roosevelt had ordered it gathered and destroyed, and even exhaustive searches for a copy of the manual came up void.

Unfortunately, in America and throughout the world, there was a change in the direction of the political winds which blew in the expansion of socialism during the next thirty years. After World War II, this same organization, the U.S. Army, after our a long allianc ewith Stalin's Russia, changed their opinion and their manual. By 1952 the U.S. Army was extolling the virtues of democracy, instead of warning of its dangers in Field Manual 21-13, entitled The Soldier's Guide. This new manual inaccurately asserted that "[because] the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run...." (Emphasis in original)

The founders of the united States of America wrote our Constitution to protect us from tyranny -- from within and without -- both from despots and majorities. It must be assumed that the framers of the Honduran constitution had similar thoughts in mind. Obama is wrong to keep with the company of Castro and Chavez on this issue.

soon, very soon, I expect O... (Below threshold)

soon, very soon, I expect Obama to aid Chavez in invading Honduras in order to "restore democracy".

Zelaya will then immediately suspend elections and in a series of staged events declare himself President for life!

I think this particular prediction is, sadly, all too safe.

Well Joe Bidden, blathering... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well Joe Bidden, blathering idiot though he may be, was right when he warned everyone that the Obama administration would not do the right thing with regard to foreign policy. We'll he actually said that it would "appear" that they weren't doing the right thing, but so far in pretty much every case of foreign policy they have not only appeared to be doing the wrong thing--- they are doing the wrong thing.

Still Obama siding with Islamofascist and Commuist dictators should surprise no one who was paying even the slightest bit of attention these past couple years.

It is change and I do believe it, but Obama is changing the world into a far worse place. I just hope the human race can recover from the damage that will be done between last January and January of 2012.

(Unless Obama somehow does the same thing Zelaya tried and actually gets away with it. And if you're thinking that there's no way Americans are that stupid, just click here for proof that the ignorance of some Americans knows no bounds.)

"As Charles Krauthammer poi... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, Hitler was democratically elected, as well."--shawn mallow

Hitler was APPOINTED Chancellor of the German Reich by President Paul von Hindenberg. It took the collusion of Fritz von Papen and bribes to the Junkers via Oskar von Hindenberg plus references from Schleicher and the General Staff to get it accomplished. In fact the Nazi party was split between left and right factions (necessitating a purge of the left-wing Nazis in 1934 (Rohm, Strausser brothers, etc) under aegis of "national security"). Reichstag President Hermann Goering took pains to eliminate any democratic parliamentary backdrops within the Reichstag prior to 1933, just to pre-empt any "taint" of democracy from the "destiny" of Adolf Hitler.

Long-short, Hitler was not on any ballot. And in the parliament of Reichstag, Goring had already crushed representative system (only tolerating Nationalist party temporarily as "soldiers'" party). Then it was outlawed.

Beware of neocons attempts to hammer reality to fit inside their underwear!

Beware of morons who use th... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Beware of morons who use the term "neocons". Most of them are Communists or supporters of Communism and few if any really even understand what that term means.

John Fund gives us the trut... (Below threshold)
Michael:

John Fund gives us the truth...not that it makes a difference to leftist dolts likr Ryan and R(could this be Ryan too?):

"Many foreign observers are condemning the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya, a supporter of Hugo Chavez, as a "military coup." But can it be a coup when the Honduran military acted on the orders of the nation's Supreme Court, the step was backed by the nation's attorney general, and the man replacing Mr. Zelaya and elected in emergency session by that nation's Congress is a member of the former president's own political party?

Mr. Zelaya had sacked General Romeo Vasquez, head of the country's armed forces, after he refused to use his troops to provide logistical support for a referendum designed to let Mr. Zelaya escape the country's one-term limit on presidents. Both the referendum and the firing of the military chief have been declared illegal by the Honduran Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Mr. Zelaya intended yesterday to use ballots printed in Venezuela to conduct the vote anyway.

All this will be familiar to members of Honduras' legislature, who vividly recall how Mr. Chavez in Venezuela adopted similar means to hijack his country's democracy and economy. Elected a decade ago, Mr. Chavez held a Constituent Assembly and changed the constitution to enhance his power and subvert the country's governing institutions. Mr. Zelaya made it clear that he wished to do the same in Honduras and that the referendum was the first step in installing a new constitution that would enhance his powers and allow him to run for re-election.

No one likes to see a nation's military in the streets, especially in a continent with such painful memories of military rule. But Honduras is clearly a different situation. Members of Mr. Zelaya's own party in Congress voted last week to declare him unfit for his office. Given his refusal to leave, who else was going to enforce the orders of the nation's other branches of government?"

--John Fund

Beware of morons who use... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Beware of morons who use the term "neocons"...few if any really even understand what that term means.

Do you?

I wouldn't have said that i... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I wouldn't have said that if I didn't, Clay, I'm not a leftist.

A neocon, is an intelligent, usually educated, thoughtful, compasionate, liberal person. Someone who would be a Democrat if the Democrats were anything close to what they were a century (or more) ago and what they pretend to be today. Sadly the modern American Democrats are nothing more than soft core communists so we neocons are forced to support the Republicans out of nothing more than pragmatism.

Why? What the hell did you think they were and why did you think you needed to ask me that?

Why? What the hell did y... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Why? What the hell did you think they were and why did you think you needed to ask me that?

No reason, other than curiosity. I've found that when liberals use the term neoconservative, it is used interchangeably with conservative, which is inaccurate and unfortunate. Conversely, I've experienced that when many conservatives use the term, it is because they don't understand that neoconservatism finds its roots in non-classical liberalism.

I didn't intend to get your dander up. I'm sure I could have done a better job of asking the question. I'm an old-right conservative (or classical liberal, if you prefer) and my ears prick up when someone uses the neocon term. I'm not picking a fight.

I do, however, disagree with your assertion that it's typically communists who invoke the neocon moniker. I assure you that I'm not a communist, but I regularly use the term to make a distinction regarding traditional conservatism, which is decidedly not the neocon variety.

I don't disagree with you t... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I don't disagree with you there Clay. What I should have said is that left wing nut jobs like BryanD, use the term as an insult which it clearly is not.

I always thought it meant c... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I always thought it meant conservative Jew personally. All the people who I see called "NeoCons" by the MSM are usally conservative Jews. But I dont watch MSM all day so it cold just be coincidence.

The "godfather" of neoconse... (Below threshold)
Clay:

The "godfather" of neoconservatism is Irving Kristol, who defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality."

You can find a very good treatment regarding neo-conservatism by Gary North at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

"Beware of morons who use t... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Beware of morons who use the term "neocons". Most of them are Communists or supporters of Communism and few if any really even understand what that term means.
21. Posted by P. Bunyan"

Google Video: "The Power of Nightmares".

A superb 3-part documentary.

Yeah, I'll get right on tha... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Yeah, I'll get right on that Bryan. Say, does that come with cool-ade?

BTW Clay, I said "morons... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

BTW Clay, I said "morons who use the term neocon". I didn't say everyone who uses the term, just morons.

There have been reports tha... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

There have been reports that Zelaya is planning to return to Honduras accompany with foreign leaders. Are they planning to do this by force? Doesn't Honduras have a right to say who is allowed into their country? Even if those Foreign leaders think Zelaya is still president, are the willing to use force to enter a country? Does Honduras have a right to enforce their laws?

Will the Press ask these questions of the Obama administration or are they too tough of questions to ask only softballs like it has been?

See to the progressives, wi... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

See to the progressives, with their love of identity politics, all "good Jews" are liberal/progressive. So any Jew that isn't, must be a "bad Jew".
Neo-conservatives, largely made up of former liberals, are also bad, because they are traitors to the "one true ideology". Remember the fate of Trotsky...
So, to someone like BryanD, a neo-con Jew is evil squared: a traitor to ideology and to the proper group identity. But to a Jack Chick addled mind like his, Jooos are suspect in the first place... so maybe they are evil cubed.
According to the documentary he wants us all to watch, neo-cons created Al Qaida in order to spread democracy to the world... nucking futs.
I guess he couldn't find an anime version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy