• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama Administration sides with would-be Honduran dictator

BeAChooser

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department says it has revoked the diplomatic visas for four Honduran officials working in its interim government.

The announcement comes as the United States has been pressing for Honduras to allow the return of exiled President Manuel Zelaya.


Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:


http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...n_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_action_is

Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Cuba’s Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras.

And what troubles these good people? They claim that there was a military coup in Honduras that renders the present government illegal.

Here, in brief, are the facts. You decide.
The president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya, a protege of Hugo Chavez, decided that he wanted to be able to be president for more than his one term that ends this coming January — perhaps for life. However, because the histories of Honduras and Latin America are replete with authoritarians and dictators, Honduras’s constitution absolutely forbids anyone from governing that country for more than one term.

So, Zelaya decided to follow Chavez’s example and find a way to change his country’s constitution. He decided to do this on his own through a referendum, without the congressional authorization demanded by Honduras’s constitution. He even had the ballots printed in Venezuela.

As Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who writes The Americas column in the Wall Street Journal, explains: “A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chavez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela.”

The Honduras Supreme Court ruled Zelaya’s nonbinding referendum unconstitutional, and then instructed the military not to implement the vote as it normally does. When the head of the armed forces obeyed the legal authority, the Honduran Supreme Court, rather than President Zelaya, the president fired him and personally led a mob to storm the military base where the Venezuela-made ballots were being safeguarded.*


... snip ...

In order to stop this attempt to subvert the Honduran constitution, while keeping Honduras under the rule of law and preventing a Chavez-like dictatorship from developing in its country, the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya. They did so and expelled him to neighboring Costa Rica to prevent certain violence.

Was this a "military coup" as we understand the term? Columnist Mona Charen answered this best: "There was an attempted coup in Honduras, but it was Zelaya who initiated it, not his opponents."

Or, to put in another way: When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?
 
And Bush held hands with the Saudi King. I didn't see you making a fuss about that.
 
Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Cuba’s Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras.
Um, if everyone, even people who usually always disagreed, agreed that Honduras is in the wrong... That would make me more likely to think that that is correct.

I guess I don't have the anti-internationalism tin-foil hat on :rolleyes: . Clearly, it is just a sign of... the Illuminati?

But none of this matters to the United Nations, which never met a left-wing tyrant it didn't find appealing. That is why the president of the U.N. General Assembly, a former Sandinista foreign minister, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, accompanied Zelaya in the airplane on Zelaya's first attempt to return to Honduras on July 5. (Brockmann, among his other radical moral positions, is so virulently anti-Israel that the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations threatened not to attend the U.N. Holocaust Memorial Day event if Brockmann showed up.)
And none of this matters to the OAS, which just lifted its ban on Cuba's membership and which says nothing about Chavez's shutting down of Venezuela's opposition radio and television stations.
And none of this matters to the world's left-wing media. Thus, on July 1, a writer for the United Kingdom newspaper The Guardian penned this insight: "There is no excuse for this coup. … The battle between Zelaya and his opponents pits a reform president who is supported by labor unions and social organizations against a Mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite." To the Guardian writer, Zelaya was a "reform president." Lenin's useful idiots never die out.
And the Los Angeles Times editorial page wrote: "Even though the Honduran Congress and military may believe they are defending the country against a would-be dictator, the ends don't justify the means."
Quite a great deal of foolishness in one sentence. That the Los Angeles Times does not believe that Zelaya is a would-be dictator is mind-numbing. As for the cliche that "the ends don't justify the means," in fact they quite often do.
Oh, that's right, evil leftists.
 
To Summarize.
Obama X something, BAC think it's proof that Obama is Y based upon weblink Z

Where
X = verb
Y = a liar, a cheat, evil, baby eater, commie leftist, anti-american tyrrany bringer, scum of the earth,
Z = random ultra-conservative blogging website.
 
So TK ... do you or joobz want to take a stab at the question Prager asked?

When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted the president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?
 
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1




Obama and democrats should be utterly ashamed of themselves for supporting Manuel Zelaya. To see what I mean, read the following by Dennis Prager:


http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn...n_russia,_but_honduras_is_where_the_action_is

hey BAC. Have you any idea what was to be asked in this referendum?
amd why exile someone when he did illegal things? why not arrest him and bring him to justice by a court?
It was a Coup.
 
Have you any idea what was to be asked in this referendum?

Do you?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/27/Zelaya-Disputed-Honduran-poll-to-go-on/UPI-34961246102432/

June 27, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, June 27 (UPI) -- Honduran leader Jose Manuel Zelaya says a controversial referendum on extending the term of his presidency will proceed as planned.

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/1123861.html

07.02.09

... snip ...

President Zelaya explained to the world this week that he was overthrown by a military coup for simply attempting to conduct a public opinion poll. (:rolleyes:) He added that he was about to perform nothing more than what a regular polling firm such as Gallup does on a regular basis (:rolleyes:) when he was violently escorted out of the country by machine-gun-wielding soldiers.

Zelaya also explained that 37 countries and the Organization of American States had sent observers to see how he conducted the poll. Finally, he said that the poll was nonbinding and that it was simply intended to ask Hondurans a couple of questions, including whether he should be allowed to stand for reelection in November and whether a Constituent Assembly ought to be called to modify the constitution.

Apparently, Hondurans aren't as stupid do you think they are. :D

And by the way ...

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/ne...as_heads_toward_crisis_over_referendum?page=2

The constitution, approved in 1982 as Honduras was throwing off two decades of nearly uninterrupted military rule, states that any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

And get this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/smoking_gun_zelaya_computers_h.html

July 19, 2009

Smoking Gun: Zelaya Computers had 'certified' results for referendum that was never held

This has been all over the Honduran and Central American press for more than 24 hours but, as Alberto de la Cruz of Babalu Blog points out, no English speaking wire service or media has picked up on it yet.

Authorities seized several computers used by former president Zelaya that contained "official" results of the constitutional referendum that was never held showing his bid to change the law so that he could run for office again winning easily.

De la Cruz translates the story from a Catalan Newspaper (Europa Press):

Several computers containing the results of the referendum Zelaya wanted to conduct are seized at the Presidential Palace

The National Directors of Criminal Investigation seized various computers from the Presidential Palace that had recorded the supposed results of the referendum to reform the constitution that the deposed leader, Manuel Zelaya, was planning to conduct on July 28, the day he was removed from office.

The official investigation now deals with the possible crime of fraud and falsification of documents due to the fact that some of the certified voting results had been filled with the personal information of individuals that supposedly participated in the failed referendum that did not take place because of the coup.

One of the district attorneys that participated in the operation that took place this Friday showed reporters an official voting result from the Technical Institute Luis Bogran, of Tegucigalpa, in which the specific number of people that participated in table 345, where there were 550 ballots, 450 of which were votes in favor of Zelaya's proposal and 30 were against, in addition to 20 blank ballots and 30 ballots, which were nullified.

The seizure took place on the third floor of the building attached to the Ministry of the Presidency that had been rented to the ex-minister of the Interior, Enrique Flores Lanza. The deputy district attorney, Roberto Ramirez, declared this area as a "crime scene" and, although he did not want to provide further details, said that further evidence had been found that could be categorized as crimes of fraud, embezzlement of funds, falsification of documents, and abuse of authority.

http://www.hacer.org/report/2009/07/honduras-ousting-chavez-wannabe-by-john.html

What happened in Honduras was not a standard coup. The Supreme Court ordered the army to remove Zelaya from office. The Congress, albeit after his detention and exile, voted unanimously for his removal and confirmed his constitutionally mandated successor to fill the remainder of his term in office.

Prior to his exile, Zelaya had insisted on a referendum to allow for his reelection in direct violation of the Honduran constitution. In other words, he set out to perpetuate himself in office. ... snip ...

... snip ...

Shredding constitutional prohibitions to presidential reelection has become a popular political ploy in several Latin American countries in recent years.

And speak of the devil ...

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1721803

July 20, 2009

MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) - Nicaraguan opposition lawmakers on Monday condemned a public appeal for constitutional changes by President Daniel Ortega as an attempt to extend term limits and eventually allow the leftist leader's re-election.

I wonder. Are you and Obama in favor of that, too?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/CastroChavezOrtegaObama-big.jpg

:D
 
any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.

so they have no freedom of expression, and you proudly support that. gratulations.

The referendum merely asked the people of Honduras, if they want to change the constitution. allowing re elections was just one part of the changes Zelaya wanted.

i think he should be impeached and trialed for ignoring the SC decision. and i am in favor of allowing re elections. the people must decide who they want as their president, and if that is the same guy they had before, thats fine for me. The way Zelaya choosed was and is wrong, no question.
but the way the coup leaders took was just as wrong.

But you dont mind democracy and the will of the people when it is against the lesftists eh?

But i guess you would also like to have that Kenyan guy exiled from the US, isnt it?

btw, BAC, you as a supporter of Dictator Micheletti, what do you think about his repressive actions and violation of basic human rights in Honduras at this very moment?
maybe Obama is lining up with a wanna be Dictator, you on the other hand are siding with a full blown Dictator.
 
Last edited:
To Summarize.
Obama X something, BAC think it's proof that Obama is Y based upon weblink Z

Where
X = verb
Y = a liar, a cheat, evil, baby eater, commie leftist, anti-american tyrrany bringer, scum of the earth,
Z = random ultra-conservative blogging website.
Yay! BAC Mad Libs!!
 
so they have no freedom of expression, and you proudly support that.

As compared to say ... Cuba? Venezuela? :D

The referendum merely asked the people of Honduras, if they want to change the constitution. allowing re elections was just one part of the changes Zelaya wanted.

But it was one of the changes Zelaya wanted.

But i guess you would also like to have that Kenyan guy exiled from the US, isnt it?

Nice red herring. Or is that a strawman? :D

you as a supporter of Dictator Micheletti

Odd sort of dictator.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/1432

Micheletti announced from the beginning that he would only serve until the end of Zelaya's term in January. Presidential elections are scheduled for November.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters...ECTIONS-ON-NOV-29-AS-SCHEDULED-OR-EARLIE.html

MICHELETTI PROMISES ELECTIONS ON NOV. 29 AS SCHEDULED, OR EARLIER

:D

what do you think about his repressive actions and violation of basic human rights in Honduras at this very moment?

As compared to those in Cuba and Venezuela? ;)


maybe Obama is lining up with a wanna be Dictator, you on the other hand are siding with a full blown Dictator.

Really? Then why's he holding elections as scheduled and said he's willing to step down as long as the "wanna be" doesn't return? :D
 
As compared to say ... Cuba? Venezuela? :D



But it was one of the changes Zelaya wanted.



Nice red herring. Or is that a strawman? :D



Odd sort of dictator.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/1432



http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters...ECTIONS-ON-NOV-29-AS-SCHEDULED-OR-EARLIE.html



:D



As compared to those in Cuba and Venezuela? ;)




Really? Then why's he holding elections as scheduled and said he's willing to step down as long as the "wanna be" doesn't return? :D

LOL you seem to be clueless about venezuela too.
Dont gonna argue about Cuba, but Venezuela? LOL go read a bit balanced stuff instead of your rightwing stuff (No FDF, not venezuelaanalysis :D )
we will see if elections will be hold and if they are fair.
 
Like most things in Central America this is not as black-and-white as most people would like it to be seen.

Honduras' constitution is pretty onerous. However, it too was put into power by popular vote. It does, in fact, prevent people from urging that the Constitution be changed to allow Presidential Re-Election. Why? Because presidential Re-Election was the mechanism by which Honduran presidents have been able to remain Presidents-for-Life (or at least Presidents-until-coup). Banning reelection (and promotion of reelection) was an attempt to prevent demagoguery, in that at the point where someone promotes reelection, they probably aren't powerful enough to repel attempts to remove them from office.

Is it harsh? Yes. Is it an infringement on traditional notions of free speech. Yes.
Is it a valid law in Honduras? Yes.

The President of Honduras openly advocated amending the Constitution to allow for his re-election. He knew it was unconstitutional when he advocated it. He knew the penalty for such advocacy was being barred from holding public office for 10 years. He just thought he had the clout to pull it off without repercussion. He was wrong.

The Supreme Court upheld the law. They removed him from office, as the law required.

I think the ousted President was doing the right thing (fighting for free speech) using the right means (advocating the peaceful amendment of the Constitution) for the wrong reason (he does want to be a demogogue). I think the Honduran Supreme Court did the right thing (uphold the rule of law) using the wrong means (military coup) for the right reason (prevent demogoguery and possibly another dictatorship).

Ironies abound here. A provision intended to prevent military coups has now been used by the military to effect the ouster of a president. A provision intended to prevent the rise of demagogues has now been used by a potential demagogue to increase his revolutionary cache. Upholding the rule of law is seen as tyranny because 20 years ago a people terrified of tyranny passed a law that restricts free speech.

Moreover, I don't think this is a case of there being no good guys. I think this is a case of a lot of people who want to do the right thing being trapped in a system where there is no right thing to do. On the one hand, the Constitution is onerous and infringes on free speech. On the other hand, Honduras has legitimate fears of Presidents abusing their power if they stay too long in the Presidency.

I don't have a good solution here. The choice is to ignore an onerous law, thus leaving a precedent that allows a future President to ignore other laws that people may consider not-so-onerous, or to oust a duly elected President from duly elected office because of a truly heinous law.

I would have preferred the US take no sides in this fight. The US is trying to negotiate a compromise, but history shows that when the US gets its fingers into Latin American politics like this, it is never a clean outcome.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom