Patterico's Pontifications

7/1/2009

Honduras Update

Filed under: International,Obama — DRJ @ 11:14 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration is continuing to push for Honduras to return former President Manuel Zelaya to office. Toward that end, the U.S. has met with Zelaya, expressed support for his return, suspended military relations with Honduras, and is considering limits on any financial assistance:

“[State Department, spokesman Ian C.] Kelly said the administration was still studying whether the forced removal of Zelaya was a military coup in a legal sense that would trigger a cutoff or suspension of American financial assistance.

“Our legal advisers are actively assessing the facts and the law in question, which we take very seriously,” Kelly said.”

The Obama Administration should have considered whether this was a coup before taking a position on Zelaya’s return, but I hope Obama’s posturing doesn’t end up jeopardizing Honduran lives and the country’s democracy.

— DRJ

162 Responses to “Honduras Update”

  1. That’s the Obama Administration for you: Fire, Ready, Aim.

    JVW (a8c610)

  2. Wow… doesn’t that say it all. They are still trying to figure out whether this was a coup?

    It took only a few minutes to ascertain who the bad guy was, and yeah, they have a different system than we do, but this man clearly is barred from public service for ten years for attempting to increase his term. It’s really simple what their laws are.

    And we know what their lawyers are doing… trying to come up with some theory that explains a way to help a chaviste steal power. that’s why it’s taking them soooooo long to come up with anything.

    too late, Obama! Even Zelaya is promising not to do what he promised he was going to do. He’s admitting he went beyond the law, so arresting him was illegal. That soldiers arrested him is contrary to US law, but that’s a silly point.

    Juan (cab674)

  3. Scott, that’s post poses a question I really am having a hard time with. Why in the hell would Obama support this Zelaya creep?

    If it’s really just to support a third term, then he’s really quite pathetic. I guess that’s still as good an answer as any, and Obama does have the FDR fetish.

    But Chavistes are outspoken enemies of this country. There’s no way around it. They are leftists in a crude sense. I guess the horror is that, while I assumed Obama was just a careless jackass to befriend Rev. Wright and Ayers, perhaps he’s really one of those people. Can that really be?

    Juan (cab674)

  4. Can that really be?

    Have you not seen the pic of Obama grinning as he shook Hugo’s hand? Have you forgotten the absolute fetish-like love that Hollywood/the High Left have for Chavez?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  5. If it’s really just to support a third term, then he’s really quite pathetic.

    warm…

    But Chavistes are outspoken enemies of this country.

    warmer…

    But Chavistes are outspoken enemies of this country.

    warmer…

    I guess the horror is that, while I assumed Obama was just a careless jackass to befriend Rev. Wright and Ayers, perhaps he’s really one of those people.

    Hot!!!

    Can that really be?

    Uh…yeah.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  6. Yeah, that’s disturbing as hell too. Chavez promises to overthrow freely elected governments, and Obama is willing to give him legitimacy… and appears to actually be sincerely friendly with him.

    Again, it’s just hard for me to wrap my mind around it. Perhaps it’s just fear, because really, we all know that if our president is like that, that we probably can’t have a peaceful resolution to the problem.

    Juan (cab674)

  7. Yeah, that’s disturbing as hell too. Chavez promises to overthrow freely elected governments, and Obama is willing to give him legitimacy… and appears to actually be sincerely friendly with him.

    OK, trying to find a way to give Dear Leader the benefit of the doubt: Maybe it’s just that since he has backtracked so thoroughly on overturning Bush’s War on Terror Policies (indefinite detentions, wiretapping, staying with Bush’s Iraq withdrawl plan, etc.), he figured he needed to make some overture to the far left (beyond the spending orgy) and buttering up to Chavez was the best he can think of. I guess that I am saying that the best case scenario is that Obama is deeply insincere, and he’ll ditch Chavez when he becomes problematic the same way he ditched Rev. Wright.

    JVW (a8c610)

  8. I guess that I am saying that the best case scenario is that Obama is deeply insincere, and he’ll ditch Chavez when he becomes problematic the same way he ditched Rev. Wright.

    Is there really room under the bus for more people?

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (1641e7)

  9. it’s crowd surfing

    Juan (cab674)

  10. #7 — Comment by Juan — 7/1/2009 @ 11:44 pm

    I agree with you Juan. I am bit worried myself.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  11. It’s obviously a payoff to Chavez, for his campaign help and past favors for, wait for it, Ayers, Dohrn, the Code Pinko’s and Sean Penn…

    Obama’s down wif Chavez, it’s revolutionary chic!

    And Blackie O!, his wife, says that revolutionary chic is in this year…

    Bob (49e0c2)

  12. For nearly 30 years US policy has been to strengthen institutions in Latin America, and lessen the importance of El Presidente. Congresses, independent judiciaries, term limited executives and professional militaries rather than strongman Presidents-For-Life.

    And then, in Honduras, the institutions stood up to a would-be dictator and sent him packing.

    And Obama undermines the lot of it with one thoughtless act.

    Not unrelated, I expect, is Hilary’s absence for the Moscow trip. I suspect she’s already resigned, with the timing to be worked out. She’s too smart to be associated with this crap for much longer. After all, someone has to pick up the pieces for the Democrats.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  13. If Hillary resigns over this, I will send her roses and my respect. And I am so far from a democrat I might as well be a martian.

    Kevin, it is awesome that Hondurans had the strength to do what they did. That’s the result of a lot of hard work and a lot of smart diplomacy by Reagan and Bush. And you’re right, Obama undid it for either horrible reasons or some idiotic political calculation that is short termed and costly.

    Juan (cab674)

  14. Isn’t it a simple enough explanation for Obama’s actions that he’s deeply sympathetic to the goals of Hugo Chavez?

    He’s always on the same side as Hugo and we’re supposed to believe it’s one big accident? A cosmic coincidence?

    Daryl Herbert (a32d30)

  15. The Honduran Constitution is not that long. It isn’t 11,584 pages of indigenous Ch’olan script that needs a Phd to interpret.

    If the United States Government can’t come up with a legal reason by now, even after admitting that they declared it ‘illegal’ without reference to legal statute, then it’s not only safe to say that Obama is in league with Chavez, it is imbecilic to think otherwise.

    As for dear Hillary, she is right in line with Obama.

    From her quote:
    The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all.

    Not much in there about the Honduran constitution, nor anything about Zelaya’s illegal actions.

    As I said before, things changed with this unmasking of our monstrous leadership. It is no longer possible to continue whistling, because there’s a fresh hole dug for all of us.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  16. Maybe we should sit this one out like the people down there want us to. We’ve meddled so much in C & S America over the past decades that doing anything won’t be popular. You can’t enforce democratic principles on people – they have to grow into them (note numerous thrid world examples). So what if Honduras goes socialist? Does that mean they can’t be on friendly terms with the US? Who made that rule?

    Conservatives, I think, are still caught in the 60s cold war mentality. Interfering in the political process in those countries has never given us good results. Let them sort it out. There hasn’t been violence so far. We need to encourage the process even if it gives results we don’t like. If we don’t, we only give further ammunition to Chavez to scream about US ‘imperialism’. And I don’t think the Honduran people want to be under his thumb, either.

    JEA (9f9fc9)

  17. JEA Did you get sugar with your cool aid? For Idiot Obuma to ignore Iran and then side with Chavez is just the ass opposite of what the President of the United States should be doing.

    krusher (63b455)

  18. JEA, sitting this out does not mean Honduras goes socialist… it means they stay free. We already have led the world in condemning their actions… which is beyond a positive explanation.

    I sure as hell wish Obama had sat this out. But unlike all the real atrocities he is sitting out on, he spoke up against the good guys.

    Conservatives are not trying to interfere in their government… I cannot understand where you got that impression. At most, we don’t want Venezuela, our overtly spoken enemy, to invade anybody. Seriously… you are deeply mistaken about this and I don’t think that’s OK. Please try to put yourself in the shoes of the brave Hondurans whose lives are jeopardized by Obama’s meddling.

    Further, Cold War mentality isn’t a foolish mentality. These labels the left give things often are meant to confuse. The cold war is the absence of a hot war, thanks to fear of massive destruction. It’s the pursuit of keeping as many allies stable as possible, and preventing an evil empire (and there is no controversy among good people that Russia has been quite evil in a way the west hasn’t been) from destroying more of the world.

    The Soviet Union is gone now, but the idea that we do not need to concern ourselves with other nations, with socialism, with freedom, is patently wrong.

    Juan (cab674)

  19. This from Carlos Alberto Montaner, should put things in perspective, relating to the Honduran
    situation, from yesterday’s Firmas column published in El Nuevo Herald,: he’s speaking of the Congress and the Supreme Court, backed up by the Army in respective countries:

    la institución que sustituyó al boliviano Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada (2003), a los ecuatorianos Abdalá Bucaram (1997), Jamil Mahuad (2000) y Lucio Gutiérrez (2005), y al guatemalteco Jorge Serrano (1993).

    “The same institutions that substituted the
    Bolivians Gonzalo Sanchez de Losada in 2003, the Ecuadorians Abdala Bucaram in 1997, Jamil Mahuad in 2000, Lucio Gutierrez in 2005 (who came to power in part as a result of a coup, and the Guatemalan Jorge Serrano in 1993”

    So, no great transgression in the last two administrations, nothing to get the OAS so concerned, except in so far that it illustrates
    the Chavez corollary to the Brezhnev doctrine:
    a country that goes socialist must remain socialist. Then again an administration that gave
    the ‘reset’ button to Russia, and didn’t know the
    meaning of the Shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe might miss a detail like that.

    narciso (996c34)

  20. and this OAS and Obama on Chavez’s extreme destruction of free speech and election fairness? Nothing. On Castro’s many crimes? Nothing.

    Juan (cab674)

  21. “That’s the Obama Administration for you: Fire, Ready, Aim.”

    Maybe they’ve, you know, read the text of the question:

    http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=3138

    OH NOES! DOWN WITH DEMOCRACY!

    imdw (c5d9b9)

  22. It is clear now. Obama sees our world through the eyes of Chavez, Castro, Iran. We have elected an enemy of liberty to rule us. He is now in the process of putting into place the same people/processes/machines that these thugs used to dominate their people. It will be interesting to see if the experiment of our wonderful country will survive this man that we elected.

    J (c2fd28)

  23. JEA appears to have been arguing with some bizarre caricature in its head.

    JD (e59ffa)

  24. I think that Obama should send that noted constitutional and freedom – loving expert Jimmah Carter down there ASAP. He’ll know what to do -just let him examine all of those fraudulent ballots from Chavez that the deposed President was planning to use.

    Dmac (f7884d)

  25. I have a funny feeling if Obama is trying to set himelf up for a third term, he will probably need to win a second election. I doubt those who voted for him because he is half black will be so inclined any further. While he is half black, he is all red. He is revealing it slowly, but it shows. His afinity for socialist governments and tyrany world wide is eye opening. It cannot be hidden. If I were to campaign angainst this person, I would feature pictures of him bowing to the Saudi King and shaking hands with Chavez.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (57cae1)

  26. It’s a shocker, Obama sides with leftist dictators over democracy and the rule of law.

    Also, there is gambling at Rick’s.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  27. Again, I really want to respect my president but I am simply unable to.

    He has indeed revealed himself to be precisely what a lot of us suspected he was underneath all that cool.

    Dana (8d88ef)

  28. You must remember that Honduras was the primary staging area for the fight against the Sandinista’s in Nicaragua.
    I would think that the Leftists have never forgiven the Honduran people for their cooperation with President Reagan and the United States.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b9e569)

  29. oddly enough Obama does criticise some would be dictators who try and cling on to power see http://www.di2.nu/200907/02.htm

    FrancisT (7cb192)

  30. but I hope Obama’s posturing doesn’t end up jeopardizing Honduran lives and the country’s democracy.

    I’d say it already has. I’d say his hasty, knee jerk reaction to the unfolding events in Honduras has damaged the country’s democracy.

    I’m sure more will be lost. After all, he did cost lives in Iran by sending a green light to the mullahs before the election that he didn’t much care what they had done to the US previously. And then refusing to even negatively comment on their brutal repression of their own people. Until it was too late, of course, for the failed uprising to upset his plans to talk with the regime.

    There’s a pattern here that’s become obvious even during the campaign. When the heat starts to rise, Obama doubles down on his original position. Obama only changes a position he’s taken once it becomes blatantly obvious to everyone else how morally bankrupt that position is. Then, at that point, he’ll reverse position while absolving himself of all blame for taking it in the first place, because he really didn’t know.

    If things just simmer at a low heat, and the anti-constitutional forces in Honduras don’t do an unacceptable level of damage while violating the rule of law, Obama will stick to his original position. But if things get bad enough, he’ll switch positions.

    Not because he has a moral or ethical compass. But only after it becomes so bad it’s obvious to the most ideological A.C.O.R.N. worker that he’s damaging his domestic political ability to transform America into something that more closely resembles their shared vision.

    I know he appears to be a “good man,” Pat. And I’m sure he really does love his children.

    I’d say that’s why he wants them to get the best medical care possible, while telling you you’re better off getting the painkiller than the lifesaving surgery.

    You see certain people mean something to Barack. Others don’t. The people of Iran and their election didn’t. The people of Honduras or their precious rule-of-law don’t. You don’t. That is, once you’re too old to fulfill your assigned economic role of sacrificing for the greater good, which apparently means funding extravegant date nights for the first couple. Then you’re just excess baggage.

    Nothing says love like not just telling your kids their lives are worth more than other people’s, but taking action to prove it, eh?

    Steve (7d8b00)

  31. imdw (5:29 am): it doesn’t matter what the referendum said, what matters is that Zelaya had no authority — zero, none, nil — to place it on the ballot. That can only happen after an act of the Honduran congress.

    This is akin to Governor Schwarzenegger arbitrarily deciding to place an initiative on the ballot. It would clearly be a violation of California law which says that only the California legislature or a petition campaign which collects a certain number of signatures from registered California voters can create a ballot initiative.

    But thanks for reminding us that you leftists don’t give a damn about proper procedures, just as long as they get the result they desire.

    JVW (a8c610)

  32. Maybe they’ve, you know, read the text of the question:

    http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=3138

    OH NOES! DOWN WITH DEMOCRACY!

    Comment by imdw

    Yes, I get all my political intelligence from the organic gardener. If the plebiscite wasn’t part of his strategy to hang on to power, why go to this extreme to have ballots printed in Venezuela ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  33. Micheletti could make Obeyme shut up just by asking one thing through the media:

    “Who do you think has the ultimate authority to judge what is constitutionally legal and illegal in Honduras?”

    How would Obama answer that if the press asked him the question? Maybe he could throw that question to SCOTUS and let them answer. That would be fun.

    jcurtis (14bf32)

  34. Mike, you think that source is inane, check out the Troll’s other source for a big smack – down, village idiot – style:

    The latest salvo really has no retort. It is the end.

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907010015

    Dmac (f7884d)

  35. If they go socialist then we should nuke ’em, along with Chavez

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  36. FYI, translation mine, FWIW:

    source:
    http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html

    ARTICULO 3.- Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador ni a quienes asuman funciones o empleos públicos por la fuerza de las armas o usando medios o procedimientos que quebranten o desconozcan lo que esta Constitución y las leyes establecen. Los actos verificados por tales autoridades son nulos. el pueblo tiene derecho a recurrir a la insurrección en defensa del orden constitucional.
    Article 3 – No one owes obedience to a government that usurps nor to those who assume functions or public offices through force of arms or using methods that break or do not recognize the laws established under this constitution or this constitution itself. The acts authorized by such officials are null and void. The people have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order.

    ARTICULO 5.-
    (paragraph 6) El ejercicio del sufragio en las consultas ciudadanas es obligatoria. No será objeto de referendum o plebiscito los proyectos orientados a reformar el Artículo 374 de esta Constitución.
    Article 5 – (from paragraph 6) Projects aimed at amending Article 374 of this constitution shall not be the object of a referendum or plebescite.
    * Modificado por Decreto 242/2003 y Ratificado por Decreto 177/2004

    CAPITULO VI
    DEL PODER EJECUTIVO
    Chapter VI
    On Executive Power

    ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.
    El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
    * Modificado por Decreto 299/1998.
    * Modificado por Decreto 374/2002 y ratificado por Decreto 153/2003.
    Article 239 – The citizen that has performed the exercise of Executive Power may not be President or Vice President of the Republic.

    Whoever violates this provision or proposes its amendment, along with those who support such directly or indirectly, immediately relinquish the exercise of their offices and become ineligible for the exercise of any public office for ten years.

    CAPITULO X
    DE LA DEFENSA NACIONAL
    Y DE LA SEGURIDAD PUBLICA

    Chapter X
    On the National Defense and
    Public Security

    ARTICULO 272.- Las Fuerzas Armadas de Honduras, son una Institución Nacional de carácter permanente, esencialmente profesional, apolítica, obediente y no deliberante.
    Se constituyen para defender la integridad territorial y la soberanía de la República, mantener la paz, el orden público y el imperio de la Constitución, los principios de libre sufragio y la alternabilidad en el ejercicio de la Presidencia de la República.
    Cooperarán con la Policía Nacional en la Conservación del orden público.
    A efecto de garantizar el libre ejercicio del sufragio, la custodia, transporte y vigilancia de los materiales electorales y demás aspectos de la seguridad del proceso, el Presidente de la República, pondrá a las Fuerzas Armadas a disposición del Tribunal Nacional de Elecciones, desde un mes antes de las elecciones, hasta la declaratoria de las mismas.
    * Modificado por Decreto 136/1995 y ratificado por Decreto 229/1996.
    * Modificado por Decreto 245/1998 y ratificado por Decreto 2/1999.

    Article 272 – The armed forces of Honduras are a permanent national institution, in essence professional, apolitical, obedient and not deliberative.

    They are constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the republic, maintain the peace, public order and rule of the constitution, the principles of freedom to vote and the alternation? transfer? (alternabilidad?) of the exercise of the office of President of the Republic.

    They shall cooperate with the national police in the preservation of public order.

    To guarantee the free exercise of the vote, the custody, transportation and oversight of the electoral materials, and all aspects of the security of the process, the president of the Republic shall place the under the responsibility of the armed forces the disposition of the National Tribunal of Elections, from a month before the day of voting until the results are officially declared.

    TITULO VII: DE LA REFORMA Y LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN
    CAPITULO I
    DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN

    Title VII: Of the Amendment and the Inviolability of the Constitution
    Chapter I
    Of the Amendment of the Constitution

    ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.
    * Artículo interpretado por Decreto 169/1986
    Article 373 – The amendment of this constitution may be decreed by the National Congress, in regular session, with two thirds of the votes of the full membership. The decree shall indicate the article(s) that are amended, to be ratified by the next regular legislature, by the same number of votes, to become valid.

    ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
    * Artículo interpretado por Decreto 169/1986

    Article 374 –In no case may the following be amended: the prior article, this present article, the articles that refer to the form of government, the national territory, the period of the presidency, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic anyone who has performed its office under any title and that in reference to those who cannot serve as President of the Republic in the next term.

    Dan S (c77713)

  37. The Economist describes the events in Honduras so:

    There was a military coup in Honduras after Manuel Zelaya, the leftist president, tried to organise an unconstitutional referendum to allow him to stand for a second term. He was arrested and deported by the army, which acted with the support of Congress and the Supreme Court. The head of Congress was sworn in as president, pending an election in November.

    That sounds pretty clear to me and the Economist is no neocon right wing source. Obama hasn’t a leg to stand on.

    There is a reason why these Latin countries have one term rules for presidents.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  38. Let us suppose that in June of 2008 with the November election upcoming and George W. Bush due to be term limited out of the White House he decides to stage a special election to decide if he should be allowed to be a candidate in the November election. Houston, we have a problem. There’s a little matter of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution which clearly states that “chimpy bushitler mc halliburton” cannot be a candidate in said election. Not to worry. Since various administrations routinly ignore the Constitution, Bush proceeds to stage the special election (which he probably intends to rig anyway) but the supreme court declares the special election to be illegal and orders the military to prevent it by any means; which it proceeds to do.

    Some blog, not mine (I don’t blog), but really a great read that I’d love to see more people look at

    Juan (5fa9e0)

  39. “Yes, I get all my political intelligence from the organic gardener”

    You are welcome to find another source for the content of the referendum.

    “tried to organise an unconstitutional referendum to allow him to stand for a second term. ”

    The problem is, that’s not what the referendum would do.

    “If the plebiscite wasn’t part of his strategy to hang on to power, why go to this extreme to have ballots printed in Venezuela ?”

    He wouldn’t even be running in the next election. Why have a coup when you can just wait out the end of his term?

    imdw (bf3e0c)

  40. “You are welcome to find another source for the content of the referendum.”

    Here, I found this one:

    http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=16138

    No gardens.

    imdw (1d54b7)

  41. Zelaya is a Chavez-wannabe, but don’t kid yourselves. This was a coup. The “referendum” was non-binding and asked for votes on whether the country should hold a constitutional convention. Of course, the main point of the convention was to extend the presidential term. But it’s non-binding. And why can’t the citizens decide – if they misguidedly want to – amend the constitution? What’s so undemocratic about that? In any event, the parliament initiates impeachment proceedings. But before they could proceed, the army moves in and arrests the president. Why? Because they knew that the vote would show overwhelming support for the non-binding referendum. And after they ship the president off to another country in his pajamas, they suspend civil rights in the country. But, of course, it’s not a coup. How do we know that? Because Obama says it’s a coup and we know that Obama always sides with dictators.

    Something tells me that you would be all over Obama no matter what he does on this.

    mvatty (99d646)

  42. “But, of course, it’s not a coup. How do we know that? Because Obama says it’s a coup and we know that Obama always sides with dictators.”

    When chavez and uribe agree on something, you should have a bit more than wingnut knee jerk reaction.

    imdw (7b3cb3)

  43. mvatty, would you think it’s OK to let the citizens decide to have segregation?

    No?

    Latin American nations must have these term limits. This constitution is the core of their freedom.

    this was not a coup by any stretch. The courts and the legislature used their power over the military, which is not the way the USA does it, but that’s irrelevant, to stop a criminal from committing a further crime. It’s really that simple.

    Juan (f4577e)

  44. Save your breath, Juan. It took them a few days, but they now appear to have their marching orders, Teh Narrative.

    JD (64340a)

  45. The referendum called for the scrapping and rewriting of the Honduran Constitution. And there’s little doubt Zelaya wanted to accrue more power to himself in the process.

    It’s clear Zelaya was attempting to circumvent his own country’s laws and Constitution, and was defying its legislative body and its courts. It would be as if George Bush called for a Constitutional Convention, and when the states’ legislatures didn’t comply, tried to distribute ballots for a national initiative to scrap the Constitution.

    Why are you defending this, imdw?

    Steverino (69d941)

  46. Because types like indw are jealous, that’s all I can figure.

    Techie (482700)

  47. I want to ask the USa people, what would you would’ve done if George Bush 5 months prior to finish his last term tried to change the constitution and ruled for a third term, would he deserve to be kicked oout? would it be ok for the world to comdemn the USA sumpreme court, general attorney, congress, and most important the real people

    petojones (ace12e)

  48. And why can’t the citizens decide – if they misguidedly want to – amend the constitution? What’s so undemocratic about that? In any event, the parliament initiates impeachment proceedings. But before they could proceed, the army moves in and arrests the president. Why? Because they knew that the vote would show overwhelming support for the non-binding referendum

    Are you aware that ballots and all paper work were made in Venezuela? Dont we have priting companies in Honduras? Of course ballots came full, this referendum might work in USA but in Latin America its a whole different story

    petojones (ace12e)

  49. Goes without saying that the people would probably not have actually had a fair vote in the matter. Pro Z rallies are getting a few dozen people. No, the fix was in until the AG arrested the criminal president.

    Anyone saying this was a coup is an idiot. Anyone thinking that such flouting of the law could possibly have led to a true and fair vote is crazy.

    Many had already promised to sit out this sham referendum, since it was like voting away civil rights and clearly illegal. There’s a real chance Zelaya was going to be able to be president for life.

    Juan (67a879)

  50. petojones, for the same reason that you can’t amend the US Constitution by just having a big vote. Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to provide the stability of the structure.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. We can debate endlessly the legality of the removal of Zelaya but we’re missing the most important issue here, how to fix things in Honduras as they are right now.

    There is no doubt that Zelaya’s removal is favored by a large majority of Hondurans, who have demonstrated peacefully, calling on the support of the world to help keep that peace and continue living democratically.

    The new Government has stated that no negotiation can include a return of Zelaya to power, and the overwhelming majority supports them, therefore his restoration will only come either by external force or after a long period under economic sanctions that cause an internal violent removal of the transitional government. In either case there will be bloodshed and suffering.

    I find it unfathomable that the UN and OAS are declaring that they’re prepared to imposed such actions unto a population claiming for democracy and peace. Aren’t they supposed to help people around the world get exactly that, freedom, peace and security?

    Even more troubling is the US position, unwilling to push for sanctions agaionst Iran and North Korea, but stopping aid and humanitarian programs because Hondurans want democracy. Honduras has for long been a friend of the US, but I guess the words of JFK of “support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” are not part of Mr. Obama’s doctrine. Sad. We Hondurans expected more.

    Fernando Soler (7d4adb)

  52. “The courts and the legislature used their power over the military, which is not the way the USA does it, but that’s irrelevant, to stop a criminal from committing a further crime. It’s really that simple.”

    So simple that the crime is asking people for their opinion on something. Something which is NOT asking for another term, or even asking for an election on another term. There are other things going on too, like a curfew, that look more like a coup and less like some legal manouvering. Do you guys even know when the president’s current term is set to end?

    “The referendum called for the scrapping and rewriting of the Honduran Constitution. ”

    Not quite. It was once removed from that. It asked if there should be yet another vote on calling a constitutional convention. A process even our founders considered.

    imdw (de7003)

  53. “There is no doubt that Zelaya’s removal is favored by a large majority of Hondurans, who have demonstrated peacefully, calling on the support of the world to help keep that peace and continue living democratically.”

    Then why is the referendum such a problem ?

    imdw (de7003)

  54. I simple dont understand why the usual suspects keep bringing up the wording of the plebiscite. The only important fact is that only the legislature is allowed to initiate changes to the Constitution. Would the wording matter if the POTUS attempted to place on the ballot a plebiscite asking Yea or Nay on a new Constitutional Convention? Wording doesn’t matter, he simply isn’t allowed to do it. And unlike our system of impeachment, the Honduran Courts – through the military – are allowed to kick whoever tries it, to the curb. It doesn’t matter what Obama or anyone else thinks of it. That’s the HONDURAN system for the country of HONDURAS.

    Why do I keep getting this cold feeling that Obama is trying to set up an outside intervention precedent?

    Mike Giles (3b474f)

  55. BTW. I think the Hondurans should let Zeyala come back. Immediately impeach him. Arrest him, try him and then execute him for high treason. but then that’s just my view.

    Mike Giles (3b474f)

  56. “I simple dont understand why the usual suspects keep bringing up the wording of the plebiscite.”

    Because it actually matters that this wouldn’t extend his term — it lessens the urgency and makes the coup less necessary.

    imdw (74da96)

  57. imdw, what part of these two articles do you not understand?

    Article 373 – The amendment of this constitution may be decreed by the National Congress, in regular session, with two thirds of the votes of the full membership. The decree shall indicate the article(s) that are amended, to be ratified by the next regular legislature, by the same number of votes, to become valid.

    Article 374 –In no case may the following be amended: the prior article, this present article, the articles that refer to the form of government, the national territory, the period of the presidency, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic anyone who has performed its office under any title and that in reference to those who cannot serve as President of the Republic in the next term.

    There is a specific method to amend the constitution. Referenda are specifically ruled out in an earlier article. Violating article 374, especially if you even mention wanting to change the period of office for the presidency, or then sengle-term limit, means you automatically resigned as of that instant. It’s all there in their constitution.

    We’re talking law here. It’s black and white on paper.

    Dan S (2772f4)

  58. “We’re talking law here. It’s black and white on paper.”

    But this referendum doesn’t violate those provisions: it doesn’t amend the constitution. That’s why it’s important that the description be correct.

    imdw (c5488f)

  59. Oh, for the sake of fuck. Imdw does not care. It loves Teh One and is a reflexive contrarian here. Let him defend standing up with a wannabe dictator. That is what imdw is doing.

    JD (d71a7a)

  60. The problem is, that’s not what the referendum would do.

    I think you should apply for a job at the Economist. They could use your help. I’m sure they don’t have your sources, the seminar, you know.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  61. But this referendum doesn’t violate those provisions: it doesn’t amend the constitution. That’s why it’s important that the description be correct.

    What Zelaya attempted to do was lay the ground-work to violate the Honduran Constitution – specifically the part about only serving one term.

    The Supreme Court of that country found that attempt to be illegal, and pursuant to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution.

    Article 239 – The citizen that has performed the exercise of Executive Power may not be President or Vice President of the Republic.

    Whoever violates this provision or proposes its amendment, along with those who support such directly or indirectly, immediately relinquish the exercise of their offices and become ineligible for the exercise of any public office for ten years.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  62. Scott has the operative law. I’m afraid there’s just no margin for disagreement here. According to the law, Zelaya cannot be the president.

    Juan (67a879)

  63. But this referendum doesn’t violate those provisions: it doesn’t amend the constitution. That’s why it’s important that the description be correct.

    Comment by imdw — 7/2/2009 @ 7:15 pm

    Their constitution says you can’t even propose a change of Executive terms. Holding a referendum and firing the military commander when he refuses to carry it out, and then firing him again after he is reinstated by the Honduran Supreme Court, would bring the matter way past the propose stage in the eyes of most rational people. More relevant, it brought it past the proposed stage in the eyes of their supreme court.

    jcurtis (14bf32)

  64. When they ask ‘what’s the big deal… let the people vote on this!’ they are pretending that the vote would have been fair. This president was a criminal… openly and flagrantly violating the law and using preprinted ballots from Hugo Chavez. It is obvious the vote would have been rigged, and the major opposition had called for a boycott of this vote for that reason. There was no effort to let the people vote. That is not why the president was removed.

    The president was removed because he broke a law that specifically says he cannot serve if he breaks it. It’s very simple.

    Why does this law exist? Why not let it be thrown away? One man, one vote, once. Every effort must be made to prevent that from occuring in latin american countries, and term limits is one of those ‘no negotiation’ civil liberty safeguards. It’s like women’s suffrage or the right to speak freely. The people should not be allowed to vote away free speech for the same reason they should not be allowed to vote in a permanent president.

    Honduras is a country of good people who are bravely facing true evil. I worked hard to prevent Obama from being president and I’ll try harder to get him out in 2012. that’s really all I can do, but Honduras deserved more from Obama.

    Juan (67a879)

  65. And sycophants like imdw are more concerned with obfuscation, and defending a wannabe socialist dictator. Disgusting.

    JD (1b63a2)

  66. “I’m sure they don’t have your sources, the seminar, you know.”

    My sources? Just look at the ballot!

    “What Zelaya attempted to do was lay the ground-work to violate the Honduran Constitution – specifically the part about only serving one term.”

    It’s not that this referendum was completely innocuous. It’s that it didn’t have the urgency to require a coup and repression.

    imdw (c5488f)

  67. Who’s being repressed?

    carlitos (9cbdd4)

  68. Why did the heroically and unfairly – deposed Supremo El Presidente have the ballots immediately printed up by Chavez, pray tell? What, he couldn’t find one printer in his own country to do the job? Funny, that.

    You are welcome to find another source for the content of the referendum

    You’re referring to your previously – cited bastions of journalistic excellence like Media Nutters and The Organic Idiot, yes? Brilliant, no question. Hey, do you have anything from the deranged homeless guy who lives under the viaduct where you live? I think his blog is called Musings From The Troll Under the Bridge. Judging by your other sources, it sounds like something right up your backside. Go forth in all possible haste, I beg you, and please come back with his wisdoms for all of humanity.

    Dmac (f7884d)

  69. It’s that it didn’t have the urgency to require a coup and repression

    I see – so we have the leader of a free nation attempting to subvert it’s constitution in order to consolidate his power and prevent democratically – elected successsors to take his place, and in like manner is using hostile dictators from neighboring countries to further his own illegal and mendacious actions. However, that doesn’t require any actions on the part of those who have been elected and entrusted by the citizenry to enforce the laws of their country – they really all just need to chill out and let the man do his thang.

    Tell us, how many pretzels do you twist yourself into in order to come up with these kinds of asspulls?

    Dmac (f7884d)

  70. imdw – Goes the Constitution of Honduras say that decisions of its Supreme Court can be reversed by nonbinding popular referendums which have already been prohibited?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  71. imdw – You are missing the basic link here. Who decides to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court and proceed with the referendum? Your guy, because it might be fun and it’s nonbinding anyway so it’s really just for shits and giggles seems to be your argument?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  72. The depressing thing about these trolls is that there is no microscopic action of Obama, down to wiping his bottom, that they will not defend to the death. They pretend that Republicans never criticized Bush but any review of the newspapers and blogs from his terms shows that to be pure projection. The problem with this mindless support, no matter what the topic, is that the leader of such robots is never warned that he is straying from the path of success until he is stood before the firing squad, or impeached, as the case may be. Politics is not romance, no matter what the Washington Post may say.

    It begins to remind me of the communists in Hollywood in the 40s.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  73. Courts, I don’t need no steenkin’ courts.

    Obama an’ de OAS bin berry berry good to me.

    Pres. In Exile Zelaya

    daleyrocks (718861)

  74. Why is it that Obama will meddle in Hondurian affair’s with such speed but can’t annoy the mullahs in Tehran?

    Why is it he can’t condemn the illegal activities of the mullahs but can condemn the constitutional removal of a rogue official in Hondurus?

    Obama, friend of despots everywhere.

    As are his lemings.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  75. And again the sycophant cultists ignore every bit of information that shows their beliefs and that of Obama’s to be monstrous.

    They should be scared.

    Anyone attempting to parse this info to protect their messiah is scum

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  76. It’s simple – Honduran check and balances finally took hold. They exercised their constitutional right to remove a president that violated at least 18 laws. Does anyone remember Nixon? Rather than face impeachment, he quit and named a successor with a built in pardon. Honduras says they did the same thing but he wldn’t leave until they invited him too. North Korea is lobbing boms, Iran is killing it’s own and yet nothing from the white house for days – Honduras executes their own rights and the administration is condemning them almost instantly.
    Sec Clinton went down for a Sec’s meetings 2 months ago to Hondo. It was to be sec’s from all over the region and only sec’s. This Pres and Chavez show up and take all the allotted time so Hillary never addressed the forum. Pres Zelaya invited her to the pres palace at about 10p. Her plane and schedule are waiting for her. But obliges and its said they argued heavily for 15 mins. AS she’s leaving she summons, the Congress Head, the opposition party head, the head of the President’s own political party and she speaks with each for five minutes and leaves. For the next 2 weeks all these guys are called to Washington and when they return they start fighting back against the president. The ex-president has every department audited, companies audited,individuals audited, he’s going after everyone using the government against itself. Well I guess after they returned from Washington they got the ideas of how to oust him. Now everyone is dumping on the new govt but they say they hv his resignation since last week. So when he wldnt leave, congress and the supreme court ordered the military to take him out.

    His body guards are all Cubans and Vernezuelans but when they saw 200 soldiers, it was over. The military then hands power back to Congress and the next in line is sworn in. What Hondo shld hv done already was go on the offensive and explain to all – but even though Internationally it was known he was going socialist and with Chavez running him like a puppet, the US hasn’t stepped up, guess the Middle East was their focus until Hillary went down and was locked inside a building listening to Chavez. Any other US administration would cease this opp to get rid of Chavez while Iran is busy with their own issues. Honduras pulling this stunt derailed Chavez’s dream for a bit – he has 8 countries as members of a socialist block and he was hoping for Hondo but where is the US? If Hillary does resign, I wl really hv to wonder.

    RAML (c007b9)

  77. If the “vast majority” of Hondurans favor Zelaya’s ouster, what did they have to fear from a non binding referendum? Why didn’t the Honduran Congress bring charges against him, if warranted and then have those charges tried in the Honduran Supreme Court? If the charges warranted his removal under the Honduran Constitution, why bring the Honduran Army, supposedly apolitical, into the affair? What provision of Honduran law, if any, required or permitted Zelaya’s forcible exile?

    Gerald F. Ryan (91b420)

  78. “Who decides to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court and proceed with the referendum? Your guy, because it might be fun and it’s nonbinding anyway so it’s really just for shits and giggles seems to be your argument?”

    That’s basically it. It’s non-binding and a populist exercise. One that won’t get him reelection and won’t (even if it was binding) get him a vote on reelection. Congress was in the process of impeaching him (but didn’t). We hear he’s not popular so he won’t even win this, he’s out of power and won’t be able to run in the next election. All that adds up to you not needing to depose him to defeat whatever he’s trying to do.

    imdw (f2ab91)

  79. It asked if there should be yet another vote on calling a constitutional convention. A process even our founders considered.

    Our founders created a process for Constitutional convention. And if ANY president tries to circumvent it, I’d be first in line taking up arms against him.

    The question remains: why are you defending a would-be dictator? Why aren’t you applauding Honduras for not letting a bully push them around?

    If the “vast majority” of Hondurans favor Zelaya’s ouster, what did they have to fear from a non binding referendum?

    That’s akin to saying: “Why are you so afraid of this guy that wants to break into your house? He’s not going to steal anything.”

    The point is Zelaya was operating outside the law of his country, in direct defiance of its supreme court and legislature. He got what was comin’ to him.

    If the charges warranted his removal under the Honduran Constitution, why bring the Honduran Army, supposedly apolitical, into the affair?

    The Honduran Army is not like our Army, and operates under a different set of rules.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  80. By the way, imdw: you keep calling it a coup. It wasn’t a coup. Please stop calling it such.

    It was the lawful removal of an executive officer, ordered by the Attorney General, Supreme Court and Legislative body. None of those bodies took power after Zelaya was removed; rather, the lawful second-in-command was elevated to the top office.

    That’s not a coup by any stretch of the imagination, so stop calling it a coup.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  81. Finally, imdw, we have this article by Octavio Sanchez, a former presidential advisor and former Minister of Culture in the Republic of Honduras. He destroys all of your arguments.

    Some money quotes:

    Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

    And

    These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

    Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

    And

    Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”

    So, under Honduran law, Zelaya had stripped himself of his actions and was to be removed from office immediately.

    NOW do you agree that the Honduras government took appropriate action? Or will you continue to defend Zelaya? And will you continue to defend Obama’s claim that the action was illegal?

    Steverino (1b3695)

  82. Steverino, logic does not move these trolls. If Obama changed his mind, sort of a Soviet-Nazi nonaggression pact, then you would see them turn on a dime and applaud the wise Honduran army.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  83. imdw, do you have a point here?

    carlitos (a20170)

  84. Mike K, we’ve already seen that with DCSCA: whatever Obama does, even if he contradicts himself, is exactly the right thing to do.

    Sorta reminds me of this:

    The Company Way

    Steverino (1b3695)

  85. IMDW, you do realize that if this president had managed to change their consittuion to permit presidents for life, that even if Zelaya wasn’t that president (because he decided not to steal the vote after making obvious efforts to steal it), that any president for life in a latin american country is still unacceptable to Hondurans?

    You can’t force the military to have phoney votes to remove vital constitutional matters. If Obama had the ATF force a poll on ending freedom of religion, it honestly wouldn’t even matter what the laws were about impeachment… it would be time for him to go. Unfortunately, the USA doesn’t have a law saying that people who do that are automatically out of power. honduras does have a law sayingg Zelaya’s effort mean he is out of power instantly. Why do you think they have that law?

    The only coup is the one Obama is participating in to get Zelaya installed as president, against the laws of honduras.

    Juan (ba249c)

  86. It’s not that this referendum was completely innocuous.

    Not according to all 15 members of the Honduran Supreme Court, nor to 123 of 128 members of the Honduran Congress, nor the Electoral Tribunal, which ordered the ballots (which were flown in on a Venezuelan plane) confiscated…

    Why didn’t the Honduran Congress bring charges against him, if warranted and then have those charges tried in the Honduran Supreme Court? If the charges warranted his removal under the Honduran Constitution, why bring the Honduran Army, supposedly apolitical, into the affair? What provision of Honduran law, if any, required or permitted Zelaya’s forcible exile?

    First, there was no trial because, upon deciding that he was violating Article 239 (quoted in my prior comment), they word used to describe the removal from power is “immediately”, as in “Right effing now” and “No trial required”. And Zelaya’s attempt to hold the vote is suspicious at best. He first tried to call it one thing, and then when told he couldn’t, tried to call it a mere “poll”. When no government agency was willing to conduct it, he had the materials brought in by a Venezuelan plane. This was not some simple ballot measure. It was a wholly separate act done outside the normal, legal channels.

    As for why he was sent out of the country:

    The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  87. imdw, do you have a point here?

    Yes it does – you’re all wrong, Obambi the Harvard constitutional lawyer is right and your so -called “facts” don’t count and btw why don’t you look at the Organic Douchebag link I gave you earlier? He knows what’s really going down.

    Dmac (f7884d)

  88. Exactly. Zelaya already had this trial. The Supreme Court made the determination and the appropriate response was to kick his sorry ass out.

    How amazing that liberals want to insert themselves into another nation’s processes. They have their laws for their own reasons. These laws have been followed fairly, and just because you don’t like the way they do business doesn’t chance the fact that Zelaya is not above the law. Chavez, Obama, and Zelaya think that if you are attempting to dramatically increase the size and scope of government you are above the law. That is why they want to install Zelaya, illegally, as president. That is the coup being attempted.

    Juan (ba249c)

  89. Who President Obama stands against:

    (from Yahoo AP, 07/06/09): Micheletti led a raucous chant of “Democracy!” before a giant crowd waving blue-and-white Honduran flags in front of the palace that Micheletti has occupied since Zelaya was seized by soldiers and flown into exile. He pledged to stand firm in the face of the international pressure.

    (from Bloomberg, 07/06/09):Honduras’s deposed President Manuel Zelaya is touring Central America to secure international support for his return to power, even as his country’s courts, military and Congress said they’ll arrest him if he returns.

    Honduras’s institutions remain united in support of Zelaya’s overthrow. The Supreme Court ruled that Zelaya violated the constitution by trying to hold an illegal poll on whether people support his proposal to change the constitution. The court issued an arrest order for the president on June 26.

    Zelaya also ignored a court order that said he couldn’t fire the head of the military for refusing to oversee the survey, and stormed a military base with a mob of civilians to “liberate” the ballots.

    Those damn Supreme Courts…and Congress…and Constitution…and People. How dare them.

    BTW:

    While Zelaya shuttles across the region, his wife and son are staying at the residence of U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens in Tegucigalpa, the State Department said.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  90. * July 3 not 6*

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  91. “imdw, do you have a point here?”

    They didn’t need the coup and we should join with folks like Uribe in decrying it.

    “IMDW, you do realize that if this president had managed to change their consittuion to permit presidents for life, that even if Zelaya wasn’t that president (because he decided not to steal the vote after making obvious efforts to steal it), that any president for life in a latin american country is still unacceptable to Hondurans?”

    Well I’m sure the military would just deport that guy too. But you’re not getting that this referendum wouldn’t allow a president for life.

    “Why aren’t you applauding Honduras for not letting a bully push them around?”

    Because they avoid being pushed around without a coup.

    imdw (bb2587)

  92. “Because they avoid being pushed around without a coup.”

    I mean, because they can avoid being pushed around without a coup.

    imdw (bb2587)

  93. #92– Comment by imdw — 7/3/2009 @ 4:45 pm

    There was no coup in the military sense.

    The military acted on court orders, which found that Zelaya had violated the Constitution of Honduras. Subsequently the congress appointed the number two person to the presidency, as prescribed by Honduras Law.

    The fact that President Obama refuses to recognize this is, or worse, understand this but is deliberately supporting Zelaya, is disgraceful.

    He stands against Honduran democracy and its institutions: court, congress, constitution, people, military, laws.

    As do you.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  94. “They didn’t need the coup and we should join with folks like Uribe in decrying it.”

    Uribe has publicly spoken out against reinstating Zelaya as well as outside interference in the affairs of Honduras. Guatemala and Costa Rica are also against the return of Zelaya.

    Your coulda, shoulda, scenarios are really meaningless in the face of orders from the Supreme Court of Honduras for Zelaya not to proceed with what he was attempting to do. It’s too bad you fail to see that.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  95. They didn’t need the coup and we should join with folks like Uribe in decrying it.

    There wasn’t a coup, he was legally and propperly removed from office at the behest of pretty much everyone how has a say in the matter.

    But you’re not getting that this referendum wouldn’t allow a president for life.

    Again, I will correct you, you simp. The country’s Supreme Court found otherwise. And so he’s out. He most certainly did more that float the idea, he tried several ways to get a vote on the matter. The attempt alone violated the constitution, which mandated his IMMEDIATE removal.

    The only person who did anything wrong was Zelaya (he has in fact admitted to that). That Zelaya was a buddy with a couple of violent dictators apparently escapes your notice.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  96. “Your coulda, shoulda, scenarios are really meaningless in the face of orders from the Supreme Court of Honduras for Zelaya not to proceed with what he was attempting to do. It’s too bad you fail to see that.”

    Yeah I really don’t see orders from the supreme court deposing a president as okaying this. Not one that was going to lose and on the way out. And no matter what their law says, there’s still the old school classical liberal in me that finds it repugnant than someone can be deposed merely for roundabout advocating something. I’m sure the Iranian protesters are violating lots of laws too. But I don’t really care for what state power gets deployed against them either.

    “Again, I will correct you, you simp. The country’s Supreme Court found otherwise. ”

    Once I read the ballot question it really sealed the deal for me that this was more of a way of resolving a political battle, rather than an actual battle for some principle of law. Its a poor resolution for the battle over that principle, and its an even poorer one for the political battle.

    imdw (450d6c)

  97. So you think. Apparently an entire judiciary, the vast majority of the legislature, the people in charge of all things “election”, and the people themselves disagree.

    And no matter what their law says, there’s still the old school classical liberal in me that finds it repugnant than someone can be deposed merely for roundabout advocating something.

    “Classical”? Son, you have no idea what a “Classical” liberal is.

    The reason Article 239 exists is because many countries in Latin America (Venezuela, for example) have ended up with leaders who decide they REALLY like being in power, and thus through various means manage to hold onto office much longer than they should.

    The system in Honduras is designed to make sure that NEVER happens. You can’t even float the idea, because floating that idea is nothing more than an attempt to claim some sort of mandate (especially easy to do when you cheat at the counting as Zelaya was going to do) to hold onto power.

    But I’m sure you’d have had no problem if, say, Bush had decided he wanted to hang around for a 3rd term…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  98. “And no matter what their law says”

    imdw – That’s your argument right there. You want to ignore what their law says because what you believe is right. Why not just say so up front and drop all your pretenses.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  99. Its one thing to forget the past from long ago, but the recent past – Chavez and his cronies have used the same referendums in other nations, ones that were also non-binding and through additional changes, hv stayed in power. These ballots were printed in Venezuela, were to be distributed by the Ex-president’s people and counted by them as well. Wldn’t be surprised if they were pre-filled too. These guys hv learned to manipulate the system that they once had to overthrow – now they get in and make changes and go on and on, and this US president is pushing the wrong cart. Honduras is starting to defend itself internationally, pointing out to the OAS that within its own charter, it can not force Honduras to re-instate this pres nor can it punish it for not doing so. Honduras didn’t overstep its boundaries, everyone else is.

    RAML (c007b9)

  100. Yes, the USA is really disgusting in its claim that, even though Zelaya thinks he can break the laws and those laws explicitly say he is not president for doing so, that because Obama and Chavez don’t like this result, those laws don’t matter.

    How stupid do they think we are? And more importantly: how stupid is the world at large?

    Zelaya thinks he is above the law. He knew that this law barred him from service, and breaking it by firing the military leadership and demanding the military carry out illegal orders says EVERYTHING.

    Juan (ab12c8)

  101. All imdw needs is for Obama to change his position, which is about a 50% , based on recent history.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  102. I mean, because they can avoid being pushed around without a coup.

    You keep calling it a coup. For the last time: IT WASN’T A COUP. It was the lawful removal of a rogue executive in full compliance with the laws of the country. That’s not a coup.

    Stop playing games, and answer my question: why do you keep defending Zelaya?

    Steverino (1b3695)

  103. imdw is just trying to prove it is impossible to have a rational discussion with her. Moving goalposts, ignoring laws, etc., etc.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  104. But steverino has a good point. It’s really awful to call this a coup. That’s a dangerous characterization. It’s drawing a conclusion that what Honduras did was beyond the pale and deserves a violent response.

    It’s deliberate and it’s disgusting. It was no coup. What Obama and Chavez and Zelaya are united in trying… now that’s an attempted coup.

    Juan (ab12c8)

  105. Looks like Honduras just declared its independence and quit the OAS commie bloc.

    Happy 4th of July!

    jcurtis (14bf32)

  106. #97 — Comment by imdw — 7/3/2009 @ 5:57 pm

    And no matter what their law says, there’s still the old school classical liberal in me that finds it repugnant than someone can be deposed merely for roundabout advocating something.

    This reasoning is flawed because it misconstrues what has occurred. A 15 member Supreme Court unanimously issued an arrest warrant when Zelaya:

    (a) attempted to force the army to implement the referendum after the court ruled that it was expressly illegal under the Honduras Constitution.

    (b) and then used force in an attempt to circumvent the law, when the Army and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal refused to implement Zelaya’s illegal referendum.

    The reason the Honduras Constitution expressly forbids the tampering of the Presidential term limit is because that is how other dictatorships in Latin America sometimes occur (most recently in Venezuela).

    (from Council on Hemispheric Affairs, linked above): As a result of this vote [the referendum], the president hoped to eliminate, as has been recently done in a number of other Latin American countries, and as is about to take place in Colombia, the existing one-term limit placed on Honduran presidents to qualify for office.

    Yeah I really don’t see orders from the supreme court deposing a president as okaying this.

    Interesting, a referendum enabling a dictatorial tradition in Latin America to occur is preferable to a legal process that was designed to prevent such a happening.

    Not one that was going to lose and on the way out.

    Such predictions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. A violation of the Constitution occurred and is being examined. Furthermore, predicting the future does not make it a fact.

    I’m sure the Iranian protesters are violating lots of laws too. But I don’t really care for what state power gets deployed against them either.

    From an ethical perspective, such a position is ugly and repugnant.

    The dictatorial tradition in Latin America just came to a halt in Honduras – their Finest hour and among President Obama’s most Disgraceful.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  107. Well, imdw, you seem to have found a formula that works for you with respect to a concept you don’t have an argument against … ignore it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  108. “That’s your argument right there. You want to ignore what their law says because what you believe is right.”

    It’s part of it. I ignore iranian laws and courts that say the protesters are wrong, and I ignore honduran laws and courts that punish asking questions about a constitutional convention. It’s part of my belief of why this is a rather small battle on principle for them.

    “Interesting, a referendum enabling a dictatorial tradition in Latin America to occur is preferable to a legal process that was designed to prevent such a happening.”

    You’re still on this kick that the referendum would enable this. It wouldn’t. He’d be out of office at the end of his term.

    “Such predictions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. ”

    No they’re very relevant. I’d take it as very important and significant that the guy lost an election versus him losing in court.

    imdw (08528c)

  109. You’re still on this kick that the referendum would enable this.

    It was a similar referendum that paved the way for Chavez…

    But you probably think Hugo’s a great guy, don’t you?

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  110. I’d take it as very important and significant that the guy lost an election versus him losing in court.

    You continue to not get it. In Honduras, you aren’t even allowed to float the idea for a second term. Period. End. Of. Story.

    It doesn’t matter that it “wasn’t binding”, or even that it wasn’t going to be done in a way that wasn’t corrupt. What matters is that the Constitution of Honduras flat out forbids what he did. Period.

    As a result, he was removed, and is going to end up in prison for it.

    Why do you hate the effort of Honduras to make sure they don’t end up with their own Chavez?

    No, wait. Don’t answer that. I fear I already know the answer.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  111. But, he’s just an agrarian reformer.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ad12dc)

  112. #109 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 8:09 am

    I ignore iranian laws and courts that say the protesters are wrong…

    You have contradicted yourself with your previous statement: “I’m sure the Iranian protesters are violating lots of laws too. But I don’t really care for what state power gets deployed against them either.”

    …and I ignore honduran laws and courts that punish asking questions about a constitutional convention.

    The legal process of Honduras was triggered not because of “questions” about a constitutional convention, but because of a referendum with designs against a specific clause — presidential term limits. Any other pretense is a (rather simple) rationalization.

    Such actions have led to dictatorial governments in Latin America as a matter of course.

    This is why fifteen (15) people in the Supreme Court unanimously concluded, for the sake of their country and people and in accordance with their constitution, that the law was broken.

    This judgment was supported en mass by the congress including most members of Zelaya’s own party. Indeed, the new president is a member of the same political party as Zelaya.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  113. #109 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 8:09 am

    It’s part of my belief of why this is a rather small battle on principle for them.

    Your belief is outweighed by: fifteen (all) members of their Supreme Court, their Joint Chief of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, their Sec Of Def, their Attorney General, their plus 200 members of the congress, their Supreme Electoral Tribunal, all of the printing-presses of Honduras, and millions of Honduran citizens who live and work and remember the violent past of their country.

    They all disagree with your belief that this is a “small” Principle.

    You’re still on this kick that the referendum would enable this. It wouldn’t. He’d be out of office at the end of his term.

    The referendum is a path toward dictatorship, which may or may not have failed. The most recent example is Venezuela. Your opinion that it would fail is meaningless for three reasons (there are more).

    First, the people of Honduras are constitutionally protected from taking that risk. That is precisely why such a provision is so explicitly embedded in the constitution.

    Second, if the referendum passed, then Zelaya could run at anytime, including next term, thereby gaining a garnering power from that point-on, in the fashion of current dictators in Latin America.

    Third, such a referendum could provide justification for the next would-be dictator, other than Zelaya.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  114. #109 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 8:09 am

    No they’re very relevant. I’d take it as very important and significant that the guy lost an election versus him losing in court.

    As the pattern in Latin America illustrates (ad nausea) when a dictator builds his power, the ability to vote freely and fairly becomes extinct. Rather than allow such a horror to manifest itself upon the citizens, the constitution was designed to prevent such an occurrence.

    The People of Honduras have learned from history and installed this wisdom in their constitution. They are not obligated to repeat their own violent history or that of their neighbors.

    Not everybody, in any nation (including ours), has a right to run for elected office. To insist that the Honduran People do not know what they are doing, and that their laws are stupid, and an obvious play toward dictatorship be allowed because of their incompetence– has a racist overtone.

    Your prediction is not superior to the People of Honduras, their Courts, Congress, Constitution, or Laws — nor does it obligate them to risk all of that and more. Indeed, your prediction is irrelevant.

    BTW: the Constitution of Honduras is not a “small” Principle. Odd though, that you state that there is a Principle, but now it is just a matter of magnitude. That the balance of Honduras disagrees with you is of no matter, your supremacist viewpoint outweighs those few million people.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  115. “You continue to not get it. In Honduras, you aren’t even allowed to float the idea for a second term. Period. End. Of. Story.”

    I know that. My reaction against this coup is in part a reaction to how ridiculous this toughtcrime is.

    “You have contradicted yourself with your previous statement: “I’m sure the Iranian protesters are violating lots of laws too. But I don’t really care for what state power gets deployed against them either.””

    Oh, sorry, when I say “i don’t care for what state power gets deployed against them,” that means I don’t like it and I don’t find it legitimate. As in “I don’t care for that.”

    “Your belief is outweighed by: fifteen (all) members of their Supreme Court, their Joint Chief of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, their Sec Of Def, their Attorney General, their plus 200 members of the congress, their Supreme Electoral Tribunal, all of the printing-presses of Honduras, and millions of Honduran citizens who live and work and remember the violent past of their country.”

    Seems like they ought to have no problem defeating this guy without a coup.

    imdw (a8de15)

  116. “Second, if the referendum passed, then Zelaya could run at anytime, including next term, thereby gaining a garnering power from that point-on, in the fashion of current dictators in Latin America.”

    If this referendum passes, zelaya still can’t run. Do you know what the referendum is?

    imdw (a8de15)

  117. imdw,

    Would it have made a difference to you if Honduras had used the police to escort Zelaya out of his official residence (pursuant to court order, as I understand they had) instead of the military? If so, then it seems to me your real problem is the use of the military in a domestic matter. We object to that in the U.S. but not every country follows our rules.

    DRJ (cdbef5)

  118. My reaction against this coup is in part a reaction to how ridiculous this toughtcrime is.

    IT WASN’T A COUP YOU NINCOMPOOP!!!

    Seems like they ought to have no problem defeating this guy without a coup.

    I really can’t tell if you are being this dim on purpose, of if you are actually this stupid.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  119. And, the Court Order was directed to the Military for enforcement.
    If imdw has heartburn over this, he should direct his anger towards the Honduran Supreme Court,
    and not the Military, which was just following a lawful order.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ad12dc)

  120. which was just following a lawful order.

    As in most things, the fact that it was lawful (which dim-bulb admits) doesn’t matter. The fact that it simply doesn’t make him feel right is what is important.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  121. Seems like they ought to have no problem defeating this guy without a coup.

    It wasn’t a coup, idiot. Zelaya had by his own actions forfeited his office. Regardless of whether you personally agree with the law, that was the law when Zelaya took office, and he swore to uphold it. When he failed to, he forfeited any right to his office. When he continued to ignore the laws of his country, the legislature, and the supreme court, he was arrested and removed from the country. All in accordance with the law of that country. That’s as far from the definition of a coup as it gets.

    Let’s draw an analogy. Suppose Obama issued an Executive Order stating that all Texans had to forfeit all their belongings to the federal government and then they would be sold into slavery, all to pay down the federal debt. The Supreme Court rules 9-0 that his EO was unconstitutional, but Obama calls in a bunch of soldiers from France to start seizing property and people in Texas. The House of Representatives votes to impeach Obama, and the Senate votes 95-5 to remove him from office. But Obama refuses to leave the White House. Would you support the military bursting into the White House and seizing Obama to force him to comply with the courts and the congress?

    Steverino (1b3695)

  122. “Would you support the military bursting into the White House and seizing Obama to force him to comply with the courts and the congress?”

    What a cute hypo. He’s the commander in chief. If he’s impeached, he’s not. That’s the end. The military then does what Joe Biden tells them to.

    imdw (41b4a1)

  123. What a cute hypo. He’s the commander in chief. If he’s impeached, he’s not. That’s the end.

    That’s my point: Zelaya was no longer the President of Honduras. By his own actions, he forfeited his office, in accordance with Honduran law.

    Therefore, you must agree with me that there hasn’t been a coup in Honduras.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  124. “That’s my point: Zelaya was no longer the President of Honduras. By his own actions, he forfeited his office, in accordance with Honduran law.”

    Their congress was working on, but didn’t pass, an impeachment. But they did pass a law repressing demonstrations. Good for them huh?

    imdw (f28194)

  125. I told you folks a long long time ago that this clown just wants to obfuscate for and apologize for wannabe socialist dictators. Oh, and give Teh One a tongue-bath. It has no intention of honest discussion, and nothing but nothing will steer it towards an honest debate.

    JD (c8f5e6)

  126. Their congress was working on, but didn’t pass, an impeachment.

    Did you read the article I linked to? Under Honduran law, Zelaya’s forfeiture was automatic, with no need for impeachment.

    Either you haven’t read the link, or you are being intellectually dishonest. Which do you care to admit to?

    Steverino (1b3695)

  127. How about Door #3…..STUPID!

    AD - RtR/OS! (ad12dc)

  128. “Under Honduran law, Zelaya’s forfeiture was automatic, with no need for impeachment.”

    Its automatic — if you argue for reelection. Like I said, his referendum didn’t.

    imdw (de7003)

  129. It’s automatic if you call to end the 1 term limit.

    This is getting Clintonian.

    It DOESN’T MATTER who argues for an end to term limits. It’s the law that such a person is barred from service. It DOESN’T MATTER if the president for life was to be Zelaya or a different dictator. Zelaya and every other person supporting this referendum are barred by law from power in Honduras… they are not above the law.

    IMDW is wrong… and the arbiter of law in Honduras is not IMDW or Obama or Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. It is Honduras’s supreme court and the citizens and legislators who are horrified at the prospect of this fundamental provision being under consideration for change. Particularly when Chavez is supplying the election apparatus.

    This is obvious to all freedom loving peoples. There was no attempt for a free vote, imdw… there was an attempt for a sham vote and this president should be in prison NOW.

    Juan (86e69a)

  130. Its automatic — if you argue for reelection. Like I said, his referendum didn’t.

    Well, pretty much everyone in the Honduras government disagrees with you. They know their law better than you do.

    You have gone beyond mere ignorance into full-blown, willful denial of fact. I’ve seen some dishonest lefties here, but you take the cake.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  131. Door #3!

    AD - RtR/OS! (ad12dc)

  132. This is very bad for Obama, who is on the side of Central American dictators.

    No wonder the cultists are upset.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  133. I don’t think they are “upset”… More like “Worried people will pick up on the truth of the matter”…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  134. “It’s automatic if you call to end the 1 term limit.”

    The referendum didn’t do that even. Haven’t you read it?

    “Well, pretty much everyone in the Honduras government disagrees with you. They know their law better than you do.”

    Like I said, this is a political fight, not just one about the law. The referendum is clear. There’s no denying it.

    But what there is is a political fight. I have no reason to say they can’t have their political fights and call one another dictator and try to impeach each other. Hell we do that here. We just don’t overthrow presidents on their way out.

    imdw (ad653a)

  135. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  136. Shorter imdw: I don’t care what Honduras law says. I don’t care that their military was acting with full authority of their courts and constitution. I just don’t like this because if I did approve of it, I’d have to say Obama is wrong, and I can never do that.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  137. We just don’t overthrow presidents on their way out.

    Did you read the article by Octavio Sanchez? Nobody overthrew Zelaya, Zelaya stripped himself of his office by his own actions.

    Please stop misrepresenting what happened.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  138. He is incapable of doing anything else…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  139. imdw, since you seem unwilling to read articles by Hondurans who actually understand their country’s laws:

    These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

    Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  140. #116 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 1:51 pm

    Oh, sorry, when I say “i don’t care for what state power gets deployed against them,” that means I don’t like it and I don’t find it legitimate. As in “I don’t care for that.”

    Got it, and I must admit a certain relief – a cold heart indeed that supports murder and oppression.

    For me, it is somewhat easier to articulate ideas across different countries such as Iran and Honduras using a compass of moral input as opposed to the compass of political ideology (ie I could care a less who is President of the US, I would still support the Iranian protesters and the Honduras people. Nor would it matter the beliefs of the respective political parties).

    I imagine you, on the other hand, must be cautious, less you risk crossing viewpoints with President Obama and leftist ideology in general (curious; did you support the Iranian protesters AND President Obama’s position of not supporting them in any substantial way?).

    Seems like they ought to have no problem defeating this guy without a coup.

    There was no coup. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The laws of Honduras were obeyed and for the proper reason.

    Zelaya will not be allowed to attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Nor was he able to set precedent for other would be dictators in Honduras.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  141. #117 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 1:52 pm

    If this referendum passes, zelaya still can’t run. Do you know what the referendum is?

    Yes, but respectfully, you have no idea of the situation. Perhaps that’s why we so strongly disagree.

    You see this referendum in the context of a poll question, in isolation and without context to the history of Latin America, the recent experience of Honduras, and the wisdom behind outlawing such referendums.

    This referendum was the first step on the path of an attempted coup. It was recognized as such, is wisely outlawed, and the laws were enforced.

    Honduras as a whole (all if it’s democratic institutions and most of its people) disagrees with your mentality.

    Interesting; you ignored points 1 and 3 (not that I blame you) 🙂

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  142. #135 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 10:13 pm

    But what there is is a political fight.

    That is illogical because both Zelaya and Micheletti are from the same political party, which was — and is — in control of the Congress and the Presidency (before and after the ouster).

    (excerpt from US & World AP News, W. Weisssert, 05/30/09): Both Micheletti and Zelaya are members of the Liberal Party, which controls Congress.

    Factually, this was an attack by one man (Zelaya) on the Honduras Constitution.

    I have no reason to say they can’t have their political fights and call one another dictator and try to impeach each other.

    However, it is precisely this right (of self-government as well as checks and balances as defined by Honduras Law) that you are saying they do not have.

    BTW: Not sure who “they” are; presumably one is Zelaya and the others are the Supreme Court (unanimous) and the Congress (vast majority) and the citizens (overwhelmingly).

    If so, then the argument that this is a political fight fails, because the democratic institutions themselves are under attack, as opposed to resolving or debating a political dispute (like legislation or legal action). In this case, legal action has already been taken and now the democratic institutions are under attack by Zelaya and his allies.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  143. #135 — Comment by imdw — 7/4/2009 @ 10:13 pm

    Hell we do that here. We just don’t overthrow presidents on their way out.

    The US is not Honduras. Honduras has a right to enforce THEIR Constitution and THEIR laws. This idea of supremacy over Honduras law and viewpoints by virtue of not doing it “the Correct Way” is absurd and derogatory.

    These are democratic institutions run by people just as intelligent and capable as anyone. They acted in accordance to their constitution and protected their citizenry from a path that historically leads to dictatorships.

    They should be lauded instead of threatened and abandoned by our President — to his shame.

    As for the US, we have not had need to do so for a very long time.

    I’m hoping it stays that way.

    Quick Story: There is Always a “First Time”.

    It’s kinda like the farmer and his mule. The mule is plowing the field with the farmer, when suddenly the mule dies.

    The farmer says, “Geez, that’s funny, he ain’t ever done that before.”

    Just because it has not happened before, does not mean it will never happen — even in our Country, there is no guarantee for success. The American Experiment is a bit more fragile than perhaps you think.

    Pons Asinorum (5919fb)

  144. “You continue to not get it. In Honduras, you aren’t even allowed to float the idea for a second term. Period. End. Of. Story.”

    I know that. My reaction against this coup is in part a reaction to how ridiculous this toughtcrime is.

    “You have contradicted yourself with your previous statement: “I’m sure the Iranian protesters are violating lots of laws too. But I don’t really care for what state power gets deployed against them either.””

    Oh, sorry, when I say “i don’t care for what state power gets deployed against them,” that means I don’t like it and I don’t find it legitimate. As in “I don’t care for that.”

    “Your belief is outweighed by: fifteen (all) members of their Supreme Court, their Joint Chief of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, their Sec Of Def, their Attorney General, their plus 200 members of the congress, their Supreme Electoral Tribunal, all of the printing-presses of Honduras, and millions of Honduran citizens who live and work and remember the violent past of their country.”

    Seems like they ought to have no problem defeating this guy without a coup.

    First, in response to your last thoughtless comment, they did beat him without a coup. They defeated him in court, and then the military acted within the law.

    Second, imdw, it’s a thing of beauty that you fail to see just how obtuse you are being.

    First, you and your ilk declare the actions of the Honduran government in support of its own constitution “illegal.”

    Then, when you get hammered with the fact that it is entirely legal, your fall back postition is that you don’t much care about the law anyway.

    What’s beautiful is that it confirms we who didn’t vote for the Obemessiah are entirely right to be suspicious of The One and his supporters. For exactly the reasons you are laying bare.

    If you’re wondering why you’re not making any headway, let me explain. Your weak attempts to “persuade” simply demonstrate we were right all along.

    You and your Dear Leader don’t much care for constitutional republics or the rule of law, do you? That is, if these “historical documents” and other institutions get in the way of whatever shortcuts you want to take, to do whatever your sense of esthetics and demands for immediate gratification drive you to believe is necessary at the moment.

    But you go right ahead and argue for Zelaya’s end-run around the law in his attempt to build some basis of legitimacy for his rebellion against the laws of his country.

    It’s axiomatic that you and your candidate from A.C.O.R.N. wouldn’t have a problem with the predictable results of that. As you, despite your protests, and your candidate are demonstrating on Iran.

    Steve (7d8b00)

  145. How many Steves we gots round here?

    nk (e98769)

  146. The bottom line remains that Obama is making it unpleasant to be the United States’ friend and more pleasant to be our enemy.

    This is a ridiculous basis for a foriegn policy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  147. How many Steves we gots round here?

    Obviously not enough.

    Steve (7d8b00)

  148. Heh.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  149. #

    How many Steves we gots round here?

    Obviously not enough.

    Comment by Steve — 7/6/2009 @ 3:47 pm

    I’m inclined to agree. It’s true that IMDW is really unpersuasive.

    It’s beyond question that Zelaya was attempting to eliminate the court and legislative systems alongside the free election processes under the sham of Chavez’s ballots. That the courts and legislature had to act, at the last minute, simply to remainin existence, is reason enough for Zelaya to be in prison as soon as possible.

    Juan (189aa5)

  150. Juan – It’s beyond question at this point that Obama has sided with socialist dictators.

    Pons delivered quite an ass kicking, and his question – “You and your Dear Leader don’t much care for constitutional republics or the rule of law, do you?” should have been phrased as a statement, because after what we’ve seen from Obama, it is also beyond question.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  151. Capital Steve is the conservative and lower case steve is the dirty socialist is the way to tell them apart.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  152. I know I’m not the only one to say this, but the constrast between Obama’s treatment of Iran and Honduras is the scariest thing I’ve seen from the White House since 1979.

    Yeah, Mccain wasn’t perfect, but this is exactly what we were talking about when we begged conservatives to help him. Ultimately, it was up to mccain to make his own argument, and he didn’t. But he was still right. Obama as an avenue to ‘true conservative’ was not in the USA’s best interest and probably won’t even result in a true conservative.

    At this point, die hards would probably vote for Dukakis over Obama.

    The better than everyone else Juan (189aa5)

  153. daleyrocks – is the way to tell them apart.

    Another way is to read their comments. Capital Steve is obviously intelligent and makes sense, while steve…

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  154. Thanks Apogee, I think every contributor on this thread that spoke on the behalf of the Honduras People nailed it dead-on. Any fair-minded person can see the logical and ethical compulsion to support the Honduras People on this issue (it’s really not even a close call from a moral perspective).

    Glad to contribute, as for the question:

    “You and your Dear Leader don’t much care for constitutional republics or the rule of law, do you?”

    As much as I wish I could take credit (I think it is exactly accurate), the writer is Steve (note the capital “s”).

    Pons Asinorum (a7fa22)

  155. Good news, our Sec of State has a plan; it’s called “no-plan-and-hope-for-the-best”.

    (from Yahoo AP, Patrick Markey and Dan Trotta, 07/08/09): Throwing Washington’s weight behind [Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner] Arias’ role, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Zelaya in a meeting on Tuesday to “try the dialogue process and see where it leads”.

    Oh and meet our new U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, Arturo Valenzuela (in the same article).

    Valenzuela acknowledged “probably … significant influence” from Chavez on Zelaya, but said the Honduran military should not have deposed and exiled Zelaya without judicial process. Supporters of the coup in Honduras say it was a lawful removal.

    I guess the unanimous Honduras Supreme Court ruling does not count and the subsequent vote of the Honduran Congress is meaningless (who told the Honduran People they could govern their country anyway?). After all it is just Honduras; they don’t know what they’re doing. Good thing this Valezuela is so much smarter than Honduras, he’ll straighten them out.

    Too bad this guy retired from the Obama Administration. He seemed to have a clue; probably why he retired.

    (from Washington Post, M.B. Sheridan, 07/06/09): “The threats against democracy in Latin America, and I don’t in any way minimize what’s happened in Honduras . . . are not those coming from military coups, but rather from governments which are ignoring checks and balances, overriding other elements of government,” said Jeffrey Davidow, a retired U.S. ambassador who served as President Obama’s special adviser for the recent Summit of the Americas.

    Pons Asinorum (a7fa22)

  156. Chavez was also knocked out of power for a couple of days. He didn’t waste any time destroying freedoms when he was let back in.

    Zelaya in power = a dictator who owes Obama favors. Chicago style.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  157. For anyone who is not blind, deaf, and dumb, it is quite clear that Michelleti led a military coup that is completely undemocratic and tramples on the fundamental rights of citizens to vote for a referendum that would allow a president to be democratically elected by the people. This is, clear and simple, what Honduran citizens were going to vote on. In case any body has forgotten, the U.S. allows people to elect their president (at least on paper): the opposite of this is a freakin military dictatorship as has taken place in Honduras. Also, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to smell CIA involvement in a Central American country where the U.S. still has a military base. Wouldn´t it be convenient for the U.S. to have a country whose oppresive politics they could control so as to have cheaper bananas. This would not be setting a precedent, as the U.S. has a long history of supporting dictators in small central american countries when it serves their greedy purposes!

    David (2e6d5f)

  158. David,

    Did you even read the thread or the post itself? Never mind, the rest of your screed shows how deranged you are. Those black helicopters are outside your house right now. Seriously. If you don’t see them, it’s because of the alien stealth technology used by the CIA. If you just upload a computer virus into their operating system, the ship will explode and you’ll be safe. I recommend PowerPoint. They’ll never see it coming.

    Good luck.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  159. David – Thank you for the laugh. Could I subscribe to your newsletter?

    JD (0fd3fc)

  160. In contrast to David, here is someone who knows the story. This part was interesting:

    The Honduran Minority leader: Antonio Rivera, explained to me that the political
    landscape began to change when Castro and Ortega sent in 900 teachers to help the
    poor in the country. They began organizing and indoctrinating almost immediately.

    Doesn’t this sound a bit like our teachers’ unions and what has happened in California ? Anybody wonder why Civics is no linger taught in US schools ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  161. the U.S. has a long history of supporting dictators in small central american countries when it serves their greedy purposes!

    Continued by the dictator loving socialist scumbag Obama, who still hasn’t backed away from his alliance with Chavez and Castro against the Honduran people.

    Yes, dumb Obamabot, please keep this story alive. The world needs to know the actions of the asshole you support.

    Shove your bullshit socialist propaganda up your ass.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1766 secs.