Have you gotten the real scoop on this Honduran "coup?" This one is really unbelievable to me. The way other governments are treating this is either complete ignorance or a real conspiracy against democracy and constitutions. The story is that this arrogant leftist buddy of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, Mr. Zelaya, decided he did not want to leave when his term of office (limited to 4 yrs by the Honduran constitution) was up. So he planned to hold a referendum vote to see if the people would vote him a new term. Problem is that the congress and supreme court said "no way," since they know he has designs to be like Chavez. Zelaya would not take no for an answer so, in keeping with their constitution and laws and to protect democracy, they ousted him. But they didn't wait till he could consolidate power like so many other Latin American Caudillos, and they did not wait until his term of office was up. No, they grabbed him in the middle of the night and put him on a plane in his jammies.
So then every newspaper in the free world called it a military coup and every western nation recalled their ambassadors and every free nation shouted support for the would-be dictator. In the light of day we learn that this is in fact a free people sticking up for freedom and all of their "friends" around the world are crying out in support of dictatorship!
And then the fuzzy logic crowd gets in the act. The WSJ reported:
"Latin American Analysts said the Honduran coup will complicate Obama's efforts to re-engage a region where anti-Americanism has flourished in recent years. They said Mr. Chavez is likely to seize on the crisis to depict Central America as under attack by capitalist and western forces.
"As a result, analysts said Mr. Obama will need to aggressively call for the reinstatement of President Zelaya, despite US concerns that he is seeking to mirror Mr. Chavez's campaign to secure limitless rule. "It's very important for the US to come out against the coup and make the point that the US supports democracy unequivocally," said Kevin Casas-Zamora, Costa Rica's former VP and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "This would prevent Chavez from stealing the show.""
The concept that the US government is making policy based on what Chavez might think, instead of what is right, is repugnant.
If the "coup," was really the people (represented by the congress and supreme court) standing up for their democratic constitution and making sure a man who wants to be just like Hugo Chavez does not stay in power when his term is up, how can you call it a coup? And how can you say that the action taken by the military, under orders from the Congress and Supreme Court, is not supporting democracy? Worse, how can you say that coming out against this action is "supporting democracy?"
Check out this article about the efforts of the Organization of American States (OAS) to get the would-be dictator reinstated. What, do you imagine, is their agenda?
The only report I have been able to find that admits that the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras were taking this action in support of the constitution was in the WSJ article from 6-29.
Listen to Obama calling the "coup" illegal. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24368.html
He seems to get hung up on a technicality that his term was not completed yet (it would have been in a few more months). But Zelaya had made clear his intention to stay in office no matter what - an inconvenient little detail Obama and Hillary have left out...
So here is the prickly little problem with all of this:
No one is about to say that they stand up for military coups. And from the outside, with no facts being reported, this would seem to be exactly that.
And it indeed would have been proper for the Honduran congress to allow Zelaya to finish his term out and then make sure he left the building...then no one could have said it was "illegal."
And it is unfortunately technically true that the current president of Honduras was not elected to that office by the people in an election.
But it is also true that the Congress and Supreme Court were well within their rights to take the action they did to remove a would-be leftist dictator who was trying to subvert their constitution. They would appear to be the ones who really stood up for democracy because they understand that once you get a dictator and his cronies in place who view the constitution as an inconvenient speed bump, it is indeed a very slippery slope to Venezuela-style socialist dictatorship.
I think the part that bothers me most is that this line of thinking just seems to fit too easily into Obama's own view that the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment and other limiting articles, is a rather inconvenient obstacle to be worked around. At various times this former "constitutional scholar" has employed the liberal code-language that the constitution is a "living document" that is "fundamentally flawed."
If you want to a good example of this mind set in action - just think about the vitriol coming out of the White House against states like South Carolina and Texas who refused TARP money. States who have been under such pressure to take the money that they recently felt it necessary to restate their 10th Amendment sovereignty. Read the text of Texas HRC50 - it is the best example of the battle to keep the Federal Government from exercising control of every aspect of American life and to keep the Federal Government within the proper constitutional bounds. Bounds it has already grossly exceeded. Here is the text of TX HRC50:
That we have gotten to this point is a wake-up call for us all. That our leaders find it difficult to support a country who is actually defending its constitution and democratic way of life is terrifying. May God bless America.
PS: If you want a good picture of what is really going on, a window to the truth, check out the WSJ blog on the subject - many Hondurans are blogging about this and most seem to agree that the congress and supreme court were standing up for their constitution and throwing out a corrupt would-be dictator.