Thursday, July 02, 2009

Not in Kansas Anymore...

I am not sure where I am anymore, I damn sure am not in Kansas.

The Honduras Legislature expels El Presidente Zelaya after he tries a power grab. Now the so-called main stream media, the OAS, Spain, the EU and a bunch of left wingers are calling it a coup d'etat and characterizing it as an overthrow of power, referring to the leadership in Honduras as a 'provisional' government. It is anything but. The Honduran government, courts and legislature remain intact. Only Zelaya was removed from power.

I know what you are thinking. "Bob, if it is not a coup, then why did the OAS pass an extremely harshly worded ultimatum?" Here is one of the 'resolves':

To condemn vehemently the coup d’état staged this morning against the constitutionally-established Government of Honduras, and the arbitrary detention and expulsion from the country of the constitutional president José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, which has produced an unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order.
And, you are asking "If it wasn't a military coup, why are headlines shouting Coup d'Etat above the fold?"

I have no idea. I am stupefied. Because they can? The loons on the left wing blogs appear to be without reason as well. Rule of law is a foreign concept to them. Only a few bright spots in the MSM exist, a blogger on the HuffPo, this unbiased Bloomberg report, and a Washington Examiner editorial are several propoganda-free examples.

By a plain reading of the events in Honduras, its government expelled a traitor who reached for unconstitutional powers. This is the opposite of coup. The concepts of 'freedom', 'rule of law' and 'democracy' are the watchwords of the Honduran government.

Zelaya fired the head of the country's armed forces because he refused to participate in Zelaya's unconstitutional and illegal measures. That's like Nixon trying to fire Archibald Cox and having Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, the USSR, AP, UPI, CNN and MSNBC support him on it. From Fausta:
The Honduran Congress, led by members of Zelaya's own party, named a commission to investigate Zelaya. The Commission found that Zelaya acted against the mandates of legal and electoral laws, the Public Ministry, the National Congress, the Attorney General, and other institutions of the State. On Thursday the Attorney General requested that Congress impeach Zelaya. This is why Zelaya was removed from power: all branches of government and the country’s institutions recognized that he had broken the law.
I have to criticize the Honduran legislature here, because they expelled Zelaya, they should have arrested him. Now Zelaya is running around drumming up support in Costa Rica, Washington, with the Organization of American States and with the UN. He is providing the press with tremendous above-the-fold-fodder as he promises a dramatic return to claim power in Honduras.

Obama is doing his Dr. Jekyll /Mr. Hyde impersonation. On one hand he says in a White House Press Release "tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference" and on the other hand the administration is backing the OAS resolution calling for unconditional return to power by Zelaya. Can you say cognitive dissonance? It makes my head hurt so much. He can't have it both ways, and the press should be calling him on it. Instead, I'm calling him on it with many others. Instead of supporting the OAS we should withdraw from the OAS on principle.

Somebody pass me the ruby slippers, I want to go home.

(H/T to Wolf Howling and Guest Contributor OBloodyHell)


OBloodyHell said...

Yeah, I'm just so disgusted with Obama, as well as the LeftStream Media, here, it's not even funny.

The details around it are obvious, but the LSM is doing everything but explain them, even as they give an open mic to the power-hungry SOB.

Meanwhile, WtF is going on in Iran? Ah, well, that's nothing to pay any attention to at all!!! "Nothing to see here. Move along... move along... Nothing to see..."

Nosirree bob!!

An illegitimate election, that's barely worth reporting on.

A legitimate, democratic action by a national government to act against a power-grabbing PoS engaged in illegitimate and blatantly unconstitutional (that is, "Honduran Constitution") actions, well, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

I am trying hard just to think of ANYTHING in the last year where Obama is on the CORRECT side of ANY ISSUE.

...and failing.

Bob in Los Angeles said...

OBH --

Obamination is dreary.

The Iranian Election being illegitimate, I'm not so sure I'm ready to go that far. While I have seen a lot of protests and violence, it does not equate to illegitimacy. Where is the impartial jurist for Iran?

And even if it was illegitimate, why should I care? I want to be clear: my opposition to meddling in Honduras is the same as my opposition to meddling in Iran. I want neither for my tax dollars.

However, I agree with you it seems that Obama is suffering from rectal-cranial inversion on every issue. He says one thing and does another.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

This is because he believes if he sits down and has cocoa with all concerned they would all come away in reasonable agreement.

OBloodyHell said...

> The Iranian Election being illegitimate, I'm not so sure I'm ready to go that far.

Go surf over to the Wolf Howling site -- he had one entry to a nonpartisan UK thinktank which indicated that there is no way in hell the election was not rigged. Numbers were produced which don't make sense in the context of known information.

> And even if it was illegitimate, why should I care? I want to be clear: my opposition to meddling in Honduras is the same as my opposition to meddling in Iran. I want neither for my tax dollars.

1) Define "meddling". It is in not only America's best interests but in her historical makeup to encourage democratic reform anywhere it shows promise. This is not the same as overthrowing a government, but, if with small measures (such as, say, refusing to recognize the product of an illegitimate election, or fostering communications where the "winning" thugs are blacking them out to reduce social networking) we can encourage such, I'm all for it.

2) "Why should you care?" Uh, are you kidding? There is no reason to suppose that a successor government would have any interest in brandishing a nuclear sword. And even if these programs were not fully dismantled, they would at least be set into disarray as the reins shifted power. And, by all indications, the ones potentially taking power in Iran are not first-order religious whackjobs, unlike the existing ones.

Bob in Los Angeles said...

Well, I would tend to lean on the side of isolationism here, carrying a very big stick to protect our interests.

Yes, I'm willing to go to war over our interests, and have no problem wiping aggressors off the face of the earth. This is a topic I might like to explore in greater depth.