The Honduran Coup: Putting the Lie to the Right’s “Support” of Democracy

Over the weekend the democratically-elected President of Honduras was ousted by a coup. The ousted President was a leftist friendly with the likes of Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba.

So what’s a righty to do when they claim to support democracy but love the result of the Honduran coup? Well, many of these righties – see here and here – support a coup over a democratically-elected leftist.

Unprincipled as ever.

30 Responses to “The Honduran Coup: Putting the Lie to the Right’s “Support” of Democracy”

  1. JohnHolmes says:

    Firstly I don’t assume to know all the details of Honduran Politics … who this President is, or what the opposition represents. But if he is a friend of Chavez … well then it’s no Democracy and we should not lend it any support. Chavez gives out free cell phones, free food, and money to gain “supporters”. Bribery is no way to run a “Democracy”. What poor Venezuelan would vote against their subsistence living? Of course we all know how Chavez has shut down or jailed opposition, in addition to closing opposition Media Outlets. Chavez changed the Laws to remove Term Limits.

    Ask yourself Macswain if Honduras or Venezuela really represents a “Democracy” … since it doesn’t we also have to ask what kind of neighbors or regimes can we support in our Hemisphere? It took a long time to rid this hemisphere of the anti-Liberty, anti-freedom Communist threat, but it seems this has reshaped itself and is back for more.

    So who’s “Unprincipled” here?? Seems you are supporting a new wave of Dictatorship and Tyranny in South America. Progressives have this love affair with Castro and Chavez that is despicable and difficult to comprehend. You yourself would never want to live as a plebe under either of these 2 despots.

  2. Macswain says:

    Your definition of democracy, unsurprisingly, does not include allowing the person elected by the people to actually lead. I don’t know of another single individual who believes the definition of a democracy is whether or not that country’s leader is a friend of Chavez.

    The guy Zevala he has been replaced with, Michelleti, was not voted into the Presidency by the people. In my book, he hasn’t been democratically elected. In yours, we have to wait to find out whether or not he likes Chavez.

    As to living under guys like Chavez or Castro (neither of whom I’m a fan of), there is something worse … living under the corrupt, human-rights abusing militarists and dictators that the American right has so often supported in Latin America.

  3. gcotharn says:

    This is an instance in which we would very likely all agree with each other, if only we all agreed on the facts of the circumstance. We do not agree b/c the facts, to this point, have been erratically reported, and are at odds with each other. Rather than holler at each other, if we could patiently search out the facts of the case, I strongly suspect we would agree on what ought or ought not be done in Honduras.

    Mac, you link to Sadly No. Sadly No links to this WSJ article, then misrepresents the article. The article explains that, according to WSJ’s understanding of the situation, Zelaya attempted to subvert the Honduran Constitution’s provision for term limit for the President, and stole some ballots which were locked away(with intention of using them in an illegal election). The Honduran Attorney General had announced that anyone aiding a potential illegal Presidential Election would be arrested. Therefore, Zelaya was arrested.

    Mac, you also link to Patterico. Patterico’s take on the issue is close to WSJ’s take. Patterico does not support Zelaya’s goal of being allowed to run in another Presidential Election.

    Now, I consider it seriously possible that Patterico and WSJ have the wrong take on the issue. This is seriously possible b/c Pres. Obama and Sec of State Clinton are serious people, with access to intelligence, who seem to be on Zelaya’s side in this dispute. So, I’m waiting to see if better information becomes available. B/c the information, as I currently understand it, does not support Zelaya, Obama, or Clinton.

    But, this seems a silly thing to fight about. If the facts are known, if we all have access to accurate information, there’s an excellent chance we would all agree. I don’t see why we would disagree. And I don’t think we ought shout at each other over initial and contradictory information we have seen.

  4. JohnHolmes says:

    Seems you are purposefully misreading my words, so let me make it more clear. Democracy of course allows the people elected to lead. But its not a real Democracy if people are being bribed or threatened to “vote” for guys like Chavez. Liberty and Freedom are tenets of Democracy, Socialism inherently takes away one’s Liberty and Freedom. Even here in the USA the Government is so entrenched that our Liberty and Freedom has been grossly imposed upon at all (Local, State, Federal) levels of Government.

    Not claiming to know much about Honduras, but if Chavez supports Zevala I’m guessing its not good for the US nor the people of Honduras. I’d like to know what this Michelleti guy represents, he may be a Despot as well.

    I’m glad to hear you’re not a big fan of oppressive regimes like Castro/Chavez. The USA spent the better part of the last 50 years trying to remove Communists and dictators from South America … admittedly we had to support a few dictators along the way in the process. That’s like saying Obama supports the Iranian Mullah’s Regime in power now, because he offered to talk to them, and because the protesters have not removed them from power yet… . I don’t know how you can view the USA’s influence as negative overall, the USA has been the ONLY force for freedom in the World, the only nation which has fought for other people’s freedom and shed the blood of its brave young men. We should be applauded and thanked.

  5. gcotharn says:

    And, I have to say, on re-reading my comment: John Holmes was not shouting. John Holmes comment was calm and reasonable.

    I don’t plan to comment here very much. And I do plan to quietly allow you guys to make most or all of your accusations in peace and in joyful leftist brotherhood and sisterhood. But, in this instance, I think we ought try to agree on the accurate facts, and ought moderate accusations in the meantime.

  6. JohnHolmes says:

    Why is it that Progressives, claiming to be so much for Human Rights, shower such love for guys like Chavez and Castro?? Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan, the Democrat Black Caucus, and many Democrats have visited Cuba/Venezuela and come back showering these regimes with the highest of praise. Why is this?

    Macswain do you feel the same way? If not why do so many other Progressives speak so glowingly of Castro/Chavez while at the same time are able to overlook the horrific acts of these regimes?

  7. gcotharn says:

    John,

    I’ll answer, b/c you’ll never get an answer – you will only receive an ocean of tu quoque in reply. The answer comes in two parts.

    First Part:
    For some leftists, such as Penn and Sheehan, they truly believe communism is a noble solution to human suffering. They are atheists. They do not believe in the soul, and therefore they do not believe that freedom feeds the human soul, that humans long for freedom.

    Since all humans have some freedoms, Penns and Sheehans cannot understand why humans long for just a couple more freedoms, such as freedom to self govern, freedom to choose one’s avocation, freedom of speech. If a human already has 20 freedoms, why does a human make a big deal out of wanting a couple more freedoms? It makes no sense to the Penns and the Sheehans. You can see echoes of this in many leftists failure to support the Iranian people vs. the government. Iranians already have many freedoms. It baffles these leftists that Iranians would risk their lives for a few more. These leftists think: Where is Iranians’ sense of perspective? It makes no sense to them. Plus these leftists are INCREDIBLE narcissists, some of the most incredible narcissists in all of world history, and cannot imagine risking their lives for much of anything (maybe excepting their wives and children), and definitely cannot imagine risking their lives for something as silly as a principle which is – after all – merely an opinion, given that all truth is relative.

    Second Part:
    Other leftists are wiser. These leftists merely lose their way and engage in (hopefully) momentary poor thinking, and they succumb to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and they (sometimes subconsciously) begin rooting for Chavez, et al. These leftists become so frustrated by what they believe are U.S. policy mistakes, they lose their way and forget who walks with the angels: the democratic republic of the U.S.A., and who walks with the opposite of angels: Chavez, et al. There is more which can be said, but this is enough: it is temporary bad thinking, of the type we all fall into from time to time.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Now, John, I’m going to go over the line, and kind of where I do not belong, and I trust you’ll forgive me as necessary:

    I’ve enjoyed many of your comments, and many of your comments have not been the comments I would make, but we are each of us individuals, and I have understood where you were coming from in any event. And what I think is this: these bloggers are not going to give you what I think you usually want, which is conversational give and take on the issues. And if you unleash opinions about how foolish you believe they are being: such is not going to be ultimately fulfilling and satisfying for you. I hate to see you bang your head against a brick wall. I have been there.

    These guys want to hang out in a friendly neighborhood with other people who agree with them. It’s kind of a social thing, or maybe a cyber type of intellectual/social thing, and there’s nothing wrong with it at all. Think of it as a bar, like the bar in “Cheers”, where the bloggers walk in and everyone knows their name. Think of CFLF as their friendly and sociable place.

    Many of these guys do not believe in objective truth. They are looking to examine their truth with friends who share similar opinions about their truth. If you say “Hey, actual truth is different from what you think it is”, they hear that as “He is arguing that his opinion of truth is superior to our opinion of truth. How rude. How like a troll.” It’s close to useless to say: “Wait, we are searching for actual, objective truth. How is that trolling?” For many of these bloggers, objective truth does not exist.

  8. Macswain says:

    gcotharn,

    Your last post is absolutely wrong about me. I work a more than full-time job and am raising kids; so I don’t always have time to debate these issues as fully as I’d like and will more often than not use the time I have putting up a front page post rather than writing responses in the comments section.

    As to the writers at Patterico & WSJ, they both out ran their headlights by assuming everything the court & military did in the dispute with the president was lawful. Yet, it doesn’t take a rocket science to understand that Constitutional Democracies have impeachment processes which do not include forcibly removing the President from office and exiling him from the country without any due process. That is “dictatorship by allegation” which is the antithesis of democracy.

  9. gcotharn says:

    Mac,

    I note your comments about truth. I’ve no reason to disbelieve you.

    I thought about impeachment, also. In a perfect world, impeachment seems a good option.

    They supposedly arrested him for violating law. Why, thought I, would they not then put him in jail? Possibly they could not trust jailers to keep him jail? Either due to sympathy for him, or due to bribery, or due to threats against the families of the jail guards? But, I”m wildly speculating.

    My main point is: I just don’t think we will disagree about Honduras. If we see the same facts, and trust the same facts, I fully expect we will agree about what the U.S. ought say and do. And when Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton support Zelaya, I’m thinking there’s a good chance some facts are going to come to light which support Zelaya. We shall see.

  10. gcotharn says:

    And best luck with your kids!

  11. SomeOldGuy says:

    Of course Obama and Clinton support all these little “President For Life” despots. I think there are a couple of reasons for it.

    First:
    The “common enemy” rational::

    “What a country. It makes me want to puke.”
    Bill Ayers (early Obama mentor), 2001

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
    rule of triadic interaction

    Second:
    “There but for the grace of God, go I.”
    John Bradford, paraphrased

    I think they probably fear our own military. They are already on the record as fearing veterans, and active duty have far bigger guns and vote conservative in a block. Having a military decide to protect its country’s Constitution from a despot is a very dangerous example, from their point of view. Any sitting government up to no good has a vested interest in propagandizing these events, early and often. I don’t think any of us know what Obama’s end game really is; whether he plans to stop at socialism, or go for the whole totalitarian enchilada. I could easily see a pathological narcissist like Obama yearn for the “President For Life” title, himself.

  12. radical_moderate says:

    “I think they probably fear our own military. They are already on the record as fearing veterans, and active duty have far bigger guns and vote conservative in a block. Having a military decide to protect its country’s Constitution from a despot is a very dangerous example, from their point of view. Any sitting government up to no good has a vested interest in propagandizing these events, early and often. I don’t think any of us know what Obama’s end game really is; whether he plans to stop at socialism, or go for the whole totalitarian enchilada. I could easily see a pathological narcissist like Obama yearn for the “President For Life” title, himself.”

    What are you people smoking?

  13. JohnHolmes says:

    Headline should read: “Obama, Clinton support Honduran Dictator” …

    The facts at this time are the current Honduran President is violating the Constitution there by running for a 3rd term. The Honduran Supreme Court apparently ruled against him and asked the Military to intervene. Who knows what this guy had planned to secure a 3rd term rather than follow the rule of Law. This new guy could be worse, who knows yet, I have not found info about him yet.

    Thus far it seems pretty obvious who’s principles have been compromised … and it’s the Left … guys like Macswain … favoring Dictatorship over the Law and people’s rights to be free.

    Wanna rethink your headline yet Macswain??

  14. opit says:

    “Any sitting government up to no good has a vested interest in propagandizing these events,early and often.”
    Now as to what is ‘being smoked’. Quite a bit actually.
    Disneyland and Hollywood are both American inventions. It’s even known that Disney did propaganda in WW II. So why does a nation that watches commercials with a jaundiced eye switch off skepticism about the aims of government ?
    Let’s look at how it is done elsewhere for illustration
    http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/12/western_news_me.html
    Western News Media and the Manufacturing of Conventional Wisdom
    What about the home front ?
    http://www.alternet.org/world/103345/private_military_contractors_writing_the_news_the_pentagon's_propaganda_at_its_worst/
    Those are enough links – I don’t need to set off the spam trap.
    Search for American Military Bases and for American Interventions abroad.
    Then you can try and tell me with a straight face that foreign concerns about US intervention are silly if you like. If you can get Ahmadinejad to agree I’ll cave.

  15. JohnHolmes says:

    Oh and gcotharn, I agree and understand what you are saying but I have my own reasons for being on here. Well said diatribe though.

    While Progressives stake sole claim to open mindedness … this site exemplifies how closed minded and mean spirited they really are. I am a “troll” for daring to bring to the table t different point of view or pertinent facts. It’s a “group think” mentality here and they don’t even realize it, which makes it funny to me. Plus everyone likes demons, so to Progressives the GOP and Conservatives are demons and evil, the antithesis of “Progressive” formerly known as Liberal… . Progressives like to characterize people’s motives more than any other ideology, results mean less than perceived motives. Hence we see Maddow, Olbermann, CFLF .. and all these other Groups attributing such horrible things to Conservatives and people like me while completely overlooking their own issues.

  16. gcotharn says:

    John,
    thanks for the “diatribe” compliment, lol. And best luck to you.

    I am honor bound to restate, however: as facts become clearer, I expect if Macswain and you and I can agree on what is happening in Honduras, then Macswain and you and I will agree on what the U.S. should say about it. This is not an instance where I expect disagreement. This is a case where it is good to examine what are the true facts. Then our opinions will fall harmoniously into place, probably. I have been wrong, so many times, when I thought opinions could fall harmoniously into place between me and some bloggers here. And, in a very few instances, such has occurred. I expect this will be another such instance. We shall see.

  17. gcotharn says:

    Also, John, I agree that Progressives are shockingly close-minded and mean-spirited.

    The mean-spirited part troubles me. I see it again and again: people who loudly proclaim their concern for the downtrodden are the first to stomp on and oppress the downtrodden. Meanwhile, the greedy and uncaring conservatives and Christians which progressives denounce are opening their wallets, their hearts, and their lives to those same downtrodden persons. I don’t have an explanation for it. I have some suspicions, yet they are too speculative to put into a public forum.

    The close-minded part which you speak of is self-defense. Many on the left (unconsciously?) believe their political opinions confer virtue upon them. Conversely, I believe my political opinions are just opinions, and my personal virtue and self-worth are an entirely separate issue. My opinions are going to be wrong sometimes, and if I learn of it I am going to change them, and I am not going to feel that I am unvirtuous or unworthy b/c I changed them. OTOH, my virtue and my self worth come from a more sacred place.

    It is different for many on the left. Their sense of their own self-worth is tied into their advocacy of virtuous political opinions and ideology. Therefore, when you disagree with their opinions, you are not merely disagreeing with an opinion(as you would be if you disagreed with my opinion). Rather, you are threatening their very concept of themselves as virtuous persons. You are threatening their self image and self-construction of themselves as worthy persons. They are not trying to understand your point of view so much as they are trying to attack that person who they perceive as attacking them.

    So, anyway, you touched on some good points.

  18. opit says:

    ‘I believe my political opinions are just opinions, and my personal virtue and self-worth are an entirely separate issue.’
    Ahem. ‘Many on the left believe’.
    So you are confessing to being a Leftie, then ? Otherwise you are playing with ad hominems. You don’t get to state what other people believe.

  19. gcotharn says:

    By the grace of these bloggers, who (excepting mattbastard) so far have not censored me, I get to state my opinions and my observations in this forum.

    You misinterpret “ad hominem”. Wikipedia:

    “Ad hominem … consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

    I was not refusing to address the substance of an argument. I was sharing personal opinion and observation which I cannot prove, and which I never represented as other than speculative.

    Your larger point, i.e. if you have never walked in my shoes you don’t know how I feel, is a frequently cited affectation and dodge which is used to shut off conversation and accountability, and to increase drama and attention to the speaker. I have walked in your shoes, b/c I am human.

    You have feelings? I am human and I have had feelings. You have extreme feelings? I am human and I have had extreme feelings. What do you feel? Anger? Hatred? Love? Fear? Bitterness? Frustration and confusion? Pain? Grief? I have felt all those, and I have felt them in extremes. If you will describe your feelings, I will understand them. If you will not describe your feelings, then you are reaping some benefit from withholding your feelings. That benefit is a comment about you, and about your circumstance, and is not a comment about me.

    And the same dynamic plays out vis a vis reasoning. If you will describe your reasoning, I will understand it (which doesn’t mean you ought to describe your reasoning, but only that I will understand your reasoning if it is skillfully explained).

    Even though I cannot prove my speculation about many left persons’ intermingling of self-virtue and self-worth and proper and virtuous and self-evidently correct political ideology, I can explain my reasoning about it.

  20. SomeOldGuy says:

    Well, radical, nothing. “We people” are smoking nothing and that’s just it. “We people” are intelligent, attentive, sober adults. We’re unindoctrinated, independent thinkers. We are not your enemies, we’re your neighbors. And we are on this ride with you. But while you relax in the back seat and sip your narcotic laced kool-aide, we are strapped in up front, stone cold sober and wide eyed as we hurtle, white-knuckled, down an economic road eerily reminescent of the Weimar Republic. Though the monitary policy is a very good match between the two, the Weimar Republic’s failures opened the door for Hitler and we are desperately hoping for a better outcome. The sober grown-ups up front are trying to look out for you kids in the back, but there’s a madman at the wheel.

    Then, of course, in addition to the hair-raising monetary policy (Obama’s policies, not Bush’s) there are the other 10 or 15 mind boggling things afoot. By design, so many things, so fast, we don’t have time to digest one before the next is rammed down our throat. And these things, necessarily, interconnect. But we can’t see the grand plan because these people do not want us to see it. They are playing the cards close to the vest, I believe, because the vast majority of Americans would not support their vision.

    An example of this opaque interconnectivity is the provision in H.R. 2454 (Energy Tax) for the creation of “Green Banking Centers” (without any detail) coupled with the strengthening of the power of the Federal Reserve coupled with bullying banks to take TARP money and refusing to accept repayment to the obvious end of nationalizing and controlling the industry. What is the grand plan here? It smells like cronyism on a grand scale is brewing. I believe in a few years, bankers will have either toed the Green line and joined the Holy Eco Church, or they will have been shut down by Tio Obama.

    The examples just go on and on and on. Talk to the police and teachers in Indiana who lost their retirements to Obama’s union cronies in the Chrysler nationalization and subsequent US Treasury illegal financial raid.

    I have no love for these tassel-loafered Harvard MBA morons looting the country either, but the Obama cronies are no better. It’s like being a serf in 16th century Europe. It didn’t matter whether the Church or the King was starving and enslaving them, because starving is starving.

    You just go ahead and keep your head in the sand. You will be very surprised when you pull your head out in an AmeriCorps re-education camp in a few years because it’s the only place to get a meal and a bed.

  21. JohnHolmes says:

    opit: your circular argument doesn’t work here. If so then the whole CFLF site should shut down for misrepresenting what other people believe on this site. Really that’s all CFLF does, since its main focus is still all about the Right, and how evil they are … little about Obama or discussion of Administration policy pro or con here …

    I’ll state whatever the hell I like. If I misrepresent the “Left” or whomever, please feel free to correct me …

    Also, yea, I hope we can agree on Honduras if the facts above end up as true. The only other thing me and Macswain agreed upon was the Music Industry post.

  22. Dan says:

    Enough re-action and over re-action.
    The Honduras government is a poor example of democracy and even a poorer example of communism.
    Zelaya is a Castro/Chavez/Ortega wannabe. No argument allowed.
    Zelaya is responsible for the countries problems more than the fairly elected congress, military, and Judicial systems there.
    A) He refused to submit a budget – so as to hide/shelter his dirty little power and money hungry friends.
    B) He refused to follow the decisions of the Honduras courts on his attempt to permanently establish himself as the father of Honduran communism (sic) with this referendum that he now claims he won’t hold (really! trust him).
    C) He fired the head of the military branch for not following a constitutionally illegal order (which he now claims he really didn’t fire). He then ignored the Honduran Courts which instructed him to re-instate the military commander.
    D) He now is sucking on the legitimite efforts of honorable countries and organizations and playing them like a Chavez fiddle.
    1) I want to return and grab power back immediately – stay tuned
    2) On Thursday I will return with my crony friends Chavez and Ortega, and grab back power – stay tuned
    3) This weekend I will return with my cronies and grab power – stay tuned

    The only mistake the legitimate Honduran legislature, military, and courts have made is not immediately arresting and charging this clown with Treason, and all the other violations he has perpetrated on the Honduran Constitution. By accepting the easy road of expulsion from their country over the time and fund consuming effort of impeachment and trial for his indiscretions.

    I say open the door for him, Chavez, Ortega, Hillary and any other of his cronies to walk onto to Honduran soil and arrest all of them for attempting to overthrow the legitimate constitution of Honduras. If Zelaya isn’t happy being a house boy for Chavez, Ortega or Castro, let him enjoy a life in a Honduran jail.

  23. gcotharn says:

    Okay, I’m ready to throw all in with John Holmes and with Dan. Given that Barack and Hillary have access to intelligence I do not, and have an entire State Department to advise them: I felt it prudent to watch and wait, and to see if facts became known which explained Barack’s and Hillary’s support of Zelaya. And I have seen … nada.

    I have learned the entire Honduran Congress voted 100% to oust Zelaya. Given the rushed circumstances(Zelaya’s people were about to begin illegally distributing election ballots), that’s as good as an impeachment vote, and I don’t see how the Congressional action is illegal.

    Brilliant Barack, chess player extraordinaire to the checker players (if not Cro Magnon rock chunkers) who inhabit the rest of the world; Brilliant Barack, a man who breathes deep strategy in his sleep: is too arrogant to overcome his ignorance.

    Brilliant Barack is ignorant of history. What he doesn’t know is bad enought. But what he does know that ain’t so is killing us.

    Brilliant Barack is ignorant of human nature, and thus doesn’t understand the freedoms and protections which speak to the human soul, and which consequently make America great.

    Brilliant Barack was ignorant of the Iraq Surge, and on the wrong side of the Iraqi Surge, long after it was obvious the Surge was a gigantic strategic success. June 30, 2009 Iraq Independence Day would have never happened if a President Obama had been in office in 2007 and 2008. And Barack doesn’t see why that is such a bad thing. He likely believes Iraqis would be just as happy under the thumb of Iran as they are living in freedom. It’s all about food on the table, you see. None of it is about freedom and self-determination.

    Brilliant Barack is ignorant of Iran for the same reasons stated above about Iraq. Barack is also ignorant of Iran b/c he is ignorant of human nature and of Islamic fundamentalism. Iran is an area where what Barack “does know that ain’t so” is killing us. In the Asia Times, Spengler describes Barack’s Iran strategy which now lies in tatters:

    America also sought Iran’s help in suppressing the Taliban in Afghanistan. In Obama’s imagination, a Sunni Arab coalition – empowered by Washington’s turn against Israel – would encircle Iran and dissuade it from acquiring nuclear weapons, while an entirely separate Shi’ite coalition with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would suppress the radical Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was the worst-designed scheme concocted by a Western strategist since Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery attacked the bridges at Arnhem in 1944, and it has blown up in Obama’s face.
    […]
    Offering Iran a seat at the table in exchange for setting a limit to its foreign ambitions – in Lebanon and Gaza as well as Iraq – seemed to make sense on paper. But the entity that calls itself revolutionary Islam is not made of paper, but of flesh and blood. It is in danger of internal collapse and can only assert its authority by expanding its influence as aggressively as it can.

    After the election disaster, Iran’s revolutionary leadership urgently needs to demonstrate its credibility.

    And now we come to Brilliant Barack’s pronouncement about Honduras: an epically idiotic pronouncement which encapsulates Barack’s lack of understanding of history and of human nature, and spotlights Barack’s lack of intellectual engagement and curiosity, as well as his arrogance in knee-jerking a statement of the U.S.A.’s position before understanding all the facts. Simply. Incredible. Incompetence.

    Barack is not ready for prime time. It’s killing the U.S.A. It’s killing the world. Spengler again:

    Obama’s continuing obsession with America’s supposed misdeeds – deplorable but necessary actions in time of war – is consistent with his determination to erode America’s influence in the most troubled parts of the world. By removing America as a referee, he will provoke more violence than the United States ever did. We are entering a very, very dangerous period as a result.

    That’s about right. The world is a serious place, and the U.S. has a child behind the wheel of the vehicle. The world has depended on the U.S. to make some hard decisions and some corrections in direction and course, i.e. to keep world matters moving along in a sane fashion. Barack is abdicating that role. Danger, Will Robinson.

  24. gcotharn says:

    Addendum: I’m also throwing in with Some Old Guy, as he used the “behind he wheel” analogy before me.

  25. Green Eagle says:

    This is insane. I look at a lot of right wing websites looking for material for my blog, and, as inured as I am to their mendacity, I am stunned by their reaction to this.

    What has taken place in Honduras is a military coup. No rational person can call it anything else. You would think that it would be a sign of deep mental disturbance (I’m serious, here. I don’t mean this remark as a cheap shot) to construe this sad event as a bold stroke for democracy.

    Yet, because the democratically elected leader of Honduras is a left winger, American conservatives are falling all over themselves to find some pathetic, implausible justification to applaud it.

    Guys, I’ve read your comments above, and I’ve read the same thing a hundred times, over the last couple of days. Calling a coup democracy in action is a malignant lie, and if you cannot even come that far in rejecting your fantasy world, there is no place for you in civilized discourse.

    You should be so ashamed of yourselves.

  26. SomeOldGuy says:

    So, let me get this straight, GreenEagle.

    If George W. Bush had tried to run for a third term and been denied by 535 members of congress, and then the US Supreme Court, in support of the Constitution, would you have been in favour of his sending out a mob to force an illegal election to give himself the veneer of propriety as he set himself above the law and above the Constitution?

    I thought not.

    You would be upset, and rightly so, if the would-be dictator was exiled instead of thrown in prison, or shot for treason, and so would I.

    You should be so ashamed of yourself.

  27. gcotharn says:

    Green Eagle,

    What should have been done? Seriously. No sarcasm from me. The President was day or two from distributing ballots to conduct and extra-constitutinal election to elect himself to a third term which would have violated the two term limit for President which is stipulated in the Honduran Constitution. The Honduran Congress voted, 100%, that the sudden election (which would’ve ignored the Constitutional Election already scheduled for November) was illegal; the Honduran Attorney General announced he would arrest anyone who proceeded forth in efforts to conduct the extra-Constitutional Election. So I ask for specifics: what should have been done? And John Holmes asks for specifics: what should have been done in the real, actual world situation, and not in a fantasyland situation? And Dan asks: why was Zelaya not arrested for treason and shot? And Some Old Guy asks … um …. are you a tassle loafered Harvard MBA type? But, skip Some Old Guy. Seriously, and not sarcastically: how would you have prevented Zelaya from conducting the coup he was attempting? What should have been done?

  28. gcotharn says:

    Or, don’t skip Some Old Guy, as he expresses himself better than I do!

  29. SomeOldGuy says:

    gcotharn:

    Thanks, but you certainly have the intellectual tools to hold your own in any debate, and you express your intellect very well.

    I am aware that I am sometimes more direct and plain-spoken than is easily digested, even by friends. I make no apologies for this, however. More absolutely candid discourse is needed in this country.

    The very wide social adoption of concepts like ‘Political Correctness’ and ‘Sensitivity’ are artifacts of successful social engineering by the left. These concepts have no validity, certainly in the left’s own discourse, but are useful tools in the effort to try to control and frame the language of dissent from those of of us who remain un-indoctrinated and free in thought.

    Anyone who finds my observations and questions too strong should examine the motives behind the actions that are occurring today in government.

    Why have the last 3 financially enormous bills been submitted / completed ‘in the dark of the night’, with House members not even reading the legislation before the vote, despite Obama’s “commitment” to publish all legislation to a public website for a minimum of 5 days of public review before any vote?

    Where did all those thousands of pages of bad law come from, virtually overnight? Seriously, we all have to agree that it takes a long time to type up thousands of pages of bad law. I’ve heard many rumors, like the core of the Energy Tax bill came out of Al Gore’s bottom drawer. The same Al Gore, by the way, who stands to become the first ‘GREEN’ billionaire created by the ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ boondogle.

    There is never an action executed , absent a reason. There is a group of people who, while opposing Obama’s policies, seems to think that the Alinsky trained Obama is simply incompetent, under-trained, or under-qualified for the job. That is too forgiving. There are motives in play.

    Obama is not ignorant on the real issues, nor is he necessarily unqualified to execute the “the agenda” he’s been taught. He may even be a “True Believer”, though I would be surprised to find that he believes in anything other than furthering his own power. Although he may believe he’s in charge, he’s just a tool, being used by people far smarter than he is, to execute long-standing plans to destroy America’s free market democracy.

    There have been those who have tried to link Obama to a Muslim background to explain his unapologetic, anti-Israel, pro-Islam stance in the mid east. I believe those folks are wrong, because I think the only thing Tio Obama believes in is Tio Obama.

    You Obama supporters need to try to turn your brains on, even though you may be feeling a “tingle up your leg” when you see him on TV. It is, after all, your future at stake.

  30. Ke Jac says:

    I suppose with so much discussion about democracy, some people might like to see what the vast majority of people in Honduras think about what happened. There was a tremendous movement of national unity behind the Constitution and its result in this case. Watch events from Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choluteca, La Ceiba and elsewhere.
    —-
    Watch youtube.com/SupportHonduras
    —-
    The international media clearly did not want to present this side of the picture even though it was a truely historic and watershed moment for the nation of Honduras. They chose to endlessly a pound a script to suit the appetite of their audience. Since the hits on these youtube videos are so tiny, I suppose nobody on the outside is all that interested in what the peaceful crowds were saying. I find it particularly strange, the number of videos of a democracy and unity march in Honduras were initally 1 star on YouTube. I guess that doesn’t feed the appetite of all the US and Euro people looking for videos of violence. Those had many hits and many stars.

Leave a Reply to radical_moderate Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook