Secretary of State Clinton Backs El Jefe

We were recently treated to a jokey Barack Obama in Texas, telling us our borders are secure, he's the immigration president, and dumb Republicans want to install unnecessary border moats filled with alligators. In all the glow of the words coming from the mouth of The Anointed One, perhaps you missed Hillary Clinton's follow-up speech at the forty-first Washington Conference on the Americas.

Clinton luxuriated in the wonderful interdependence between Latin America and the United States. Particularly when it comes to immigration. She loves it. She also forgot to mention any distinction between legal and illegal immigration. She said that immigration from Mexico particularly "makes some people nervous." Uh, not really. Massive illegal immigration makes a lot of us considerably more than nervous. She further exulted that "the United States is blessed to have one of the largest Spanish-speaking populations in the world." I'd rather we had the largest Hispanic population that speaks fluent English.

She explained how she is a huge fan of Mexican President Calderon (you know, the guy who addressed Congress and denounced immigration-related legislation in several border states). She mused over Calderon's honesty about the unfortunate need for Mexican citizens to swim or hike across the American border. After all, Calderon has said "emigration from my country will continue as long as Mexico cannot offer its people the job opportunities they deserve." And who's fault is that, you two? Now get your hand out of my wallet, Senor Presidente.

She further spoke of our "joint problem of narcoterrorism." Well, how does that justify erasing the American border? We have the junkie problem. They have the narcoterrorists. The real problem is that the Obama administration is willing to allow the narcoterrorists to form up on our side of the border. Then we'll have both problems. The Mexican police have done next-to-nothing to halt the murder and mayhem in Mexico, and are often directly involved in those activities themselves. Calderon can't even control his own law enforcement agencies. American undercover narcotics agents, supposedly working in cooperation with the Mexican police, are frequently outed or attacked by the very Mexican authorities they are working with.

Let's move on. We also share the problem of climate change, says Hillary. But it's so impressive that Mexico has taken such a strong position on the issue. She becomes rhapsodic, in fact. Says the Secretary: "We are building bilateral and multilateral (she almost forgot the other Latin Americans) partnerships to help us address the strategic challenges we face."

"Pathways to Prosperity and the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas are promoting inclusive growth and sustainable energy security." I have no idea what that means, but if it's "security," it must be good. Undaunted, she went on to say: "It was a Mexican proposal for the Green Fund that will serve as the vehicle for assisting developing countries in meeting their climate needs." Yep--their needs, our green. When Hillary says "green initiative," she means greenbacks being spent on other countries who are also crazy enough to think that "climate change" has nothing to do with the sun or terrestrial internal thermodynamics. If you believe in anthropogenic global warming and Mexico's contribution to stop it, you might want to take a look at a Mexican delivery truck spewing out more noxious greenhouse gas fumes in a day than your entire family will produce in a year.

My favorite part of her speech relates to our shared values. Particularly where it comes to free elections, a republican form of government, the rule of law, and private enterprise. Says the Hill: "Now, Latin America has undergone a stunning transformation over the past few decades." Like Venezuela, I suppose. Never one to allow one lie to go untold or one fact to go undistorted, Clinton spoke specifically about Honduras. "Now, in Honduras, we have seen how effective that kind of common approach can be. And now that the obstacles to former President Zelaya's return to Honduras have been removed, I am confident that we will soon welcome Honduras back as a full member of the inter-American system. That is a step that is long overdue." WTF?

Hillary is still fighting the fight to put a disgraced wannabe dictator back in power in Honduras. The Obama administration has quite literally gotten everything wrong about Zelaya's attempted Hugo Chavez-style takeover of a constitutional republic. The Obamists don't understand our own Constitution, but they're more than willing to tell Hondurans what their constitution means. A year and a half after it became apparent that Zelaya had no intention of following his own nation's laws, the Obama administration is still saying and doing all the wrong things.

They've attempted bribery and threats to get the duly-elected government of Honduras to let Zelaya back in. The "removed obstacles" to Zelaya's return were the result of money and pressure applied by leftist US Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens. Since Zelaya's ouster, Llorens and the State Department have lavished at least $100 million dollars on Honduras, each "gift" specifically containing a provision that the strictures against Zelaya be relaxed. Meanwhile, Llorens and Clinton have used multiple tricks to isolate Honduras from trade and mutual security agreements with other Latin American nations until the Honduran government caves in and lets Zelaya back into Honduras without legal charges pending against him.

And you thought Obama was the master of sound and fury signifying nothing. Hillary makes him look like an amateur, and she's an even-more facile liar. For fully fleshed-out discussions of the Zelaya/Honduras fiasco, check our Index over on the right side of the cover page, and click on "Honduras."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honduras Flopped. Obama Tries Ecuador.

After failing to threaten, bribe, cajole and trick Honduras into abandoning its constitution and perpetuate a tin-pot dictator, the Obama administration has fared much better in Ecuador. On the left of the picture is US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela. On his right is Hugo Chavez clone, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.

Earlier this week we discussed the systematic elimination of our western-style democratic allies from the president's guest book. Hillary Clinton has yet to inflict the coup de grace to Ecuador, but unlike the case in Honduras, our president's advance men have successfully ensured the permanence of another Latin American socialist president-for-life. Barack Obama seems entirely oblivious to the fact that every time a duly-elected, constitutional democracy falls, he helps to create not another ally, but rather another fair-weather friend who will stab America in the back at the first opportunity. All that's left now is for Obama to give Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa a big hug and smooch, just as he did with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Correa was first elected Ecuador's president in 2007. He ran, among other things, on the desire of the people of Ecuador to create a new constitution more along the lines of the US Constitution, to avoid abrupt changes in government and protect against the accumulation of too much power in any branch of government or any single person. Correa was unfortunately elected by a very conclusive popular majority, and like someone else I can think of, Correa took that to mean that it was time to "fundamentally transform Ecuador." Correa, and his leftist allies in the unicameral Congress (called the National Assembly) held a powerful hand. The nation then conducted a national referendum that created the Constituent Assembly to draft the new constitution.

But Correa and his political allies in Congress determined the makeup and mode of election of the new Constituent Assembly. Once in control of that body, Correa and his friends engineered matters so that the Constituent Assembly was empowered to determine who in the current Congress would be allowed to remain in the legislature. In the event that Congress didn't cooperate with the Constituent Assembly (and by inference, with Correa), the Assembly granted itself the power to dissolve Congress. Though a minority, the Correa opponents still comprised a substantial bloc of the Congressional votes. When they objected to this broad grant of power to the Assembly, Correa did what all banana republic leaders do--he dissolved Congress and with the assistance of his allies, took on extensive "emergency" powers. He used the military and the mob to cow opponents into submission.

But before the new constitution could be approved by the voters, the nation remained under the existing constitution. The Congress had told Correa that it would not grant the Constituent Assembly the power Correa wanted, which resulted in its dissolution. In order to maintain the pretense of a government of law, Correa and the Assembly turned to the court. One small problem. The authentic constitutional court was not under the thumb of Correa, so the Assembly simply created one--the electoral court. That court confirmed the dismissal of the opposition members of Congress. The actual constitutional court stepped in and declared that the dismissed Congressional representatives had to be reinstated and Congress left intact until the new constitution was approved by a vote of the people. Correa simply ignored the decision of the duly-installed constitutional court, and the game was essentially over.

Trusting that this was merely a temporary measure to restore order, and quite possibly believing Correa's propaganda, the people of Ecuador accepted the dissolution of Congress, and voted heavily in favor of the new constitution that Correa's thugs had written. They didn't have much choice in any event, since any serious opposition had now been entirely silenced. The choice they were handed was to vote for the new constitution, or face a government with no constitution at all, since the Constituent Assembly had dissolved Congress and rendered the constitutional court impotent. So they would have gotten the Correa constitution anyway, only in a bit bloodier fashion.

It's a sad commentary on Ecuador, but if the Ecuadorian army had supported the duly-elected Congress, and enforced the order of its constitutional court, Ecuador would have ended up with a true government of laws, much like Honduras. The police who were sworn to protect the Congress and the courts cooperated with mobs that stormed the halls of government in support of Correa.

Correa has followed all the traditional patterns of dictatorial leaders. All opposition newspapers and television stations have effectively been silenced. Former members of Congress who were ousted by the Correa coup are forbidden to speak publicly. Even leftist reporters are not safe from the wrath of Correa and his gang. One of the few publications allowed to continue operation, El Universo, ran a less than complimentary assessment of Correa's rule. When a suspiciously "spontaneous" mob attacked the newspaper's offices, socialist columnist Emilio Palacio objected in print. Correa publicly stated that Palacio should be sued. Conveniently, Palacio was arrested, tried and convicted of criminal libel, and is serving three years in prison.

Back to assistant secretary of state Valenzuela (or is that Venezuela?). Valenzuela's people have been in constant contact with Correa since Barack Obama's election. Many of the career diplomats who surround Valenzuela were working behind the scenes to promote Correa even before Obama's election. In keeping with the public mouthings of the Obama administration, Valenzuela figured his position was so secure with Correa that he could question Ecuador's growing friendship with Iran. Valenzuela quickly found out how well making nice-nice with dictators works out. Correa read him the riot act, and told him that America should mind its own business (see, Hillary? It doesn't work with dictators, either).

Obama's half-baked diplomats not only consort with dictators and wannabe dictators who pretend to support Obama's America, but when dressed down by the likes of a Correa, they further damage American prestige by cowering in a corner. After recovering from the shock of finding out that even socialists in Latin America don't have much use for Obama, instead of asserting American opposition to authoritarian regimes, they promptly go into conciliatory mode. Valenzuela is now promoting another love-fest, much like the earlier hug and kisses meeting between Obama and Chavez.

Obama and Correa, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. For God's sake, Obama, wake up, grow up, listen up, and start acting like a president instead of some amateur self-help guru. Bullies take accommodation as weakness, and they are stopped only by standing up to them. "Can't we all just get along?" is just fine to say for great moral philosophers and statesmen like Rodney King, but it's beneath the leader of the free world. Your weakness and disdain toward our friends and your sneaky support of dictators are not proper American diplomacy.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Wields Big Stick--Backwards

Who knew that Barack Obama would become the Teddy Roosevelt of the 21st Century? Like Teddy, Barack is wielding that big stick in Latin America. Teddy wielded it against repressive regimes and for the interests of the United States. Unfortunately, Barack is using it in exactly the opposite direction. We've discussed Obama's support of power-grabbers in Honduras in the past on this site. We thought it was over. We were wrong.

The Obamists and their socialist cohorts decided last year that Honduras could not exercise its sovereign power to protect its own constitution because it would result in ousting the next banana republic president-for-life and insult his good friend, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Manuel Zelaya violated the clear terms of the Honduran constitution by attempting to change the voting and election rules during his term of office. The Honduran legislature and the Honduran supreme court exercised their powers under that constitution to remove Zelaya from office. Fellow socialist Barack Obama ordered the State Department to go into high gear and mend Honduras's constitutional ways by reinstating the wannabe future dictator.

Honduras ducked Obama's big stick and proceeded with its originally-scheduled exercise of constitutional sovereignty, installed an interim president according to the rule of law, and expelled Zelaya. Despite Zelaya hiding out in the Brazilian embassy (imagining Israeli plots to kill him by using poison gas from an invisible Israeli encampment outside the Brazilian embassy) and Hugo Chavez threatening Honduras with his nonexistent Venezuelan air force, the Hondurans stood their ground.

So the American messiah sent teams of fellow leftists from the State Department to work out a compromise which would have reinstalled Zelaya pending the next election. Since Zelaya, like his friend Chavez, believes in the rule of banana republic democracy--one man, one vote, one time--the Hondurans refused to cooperate or be bullied by a president from the north who doesn't even understand his own Constitution, let alone Honduras's. Obama and his leftist friends were publicly humiliated, and bullies don't like to be humiliated. The elections went forward, violence was minimal, the people made their constitutional choice, and for once, Obama's support of a leftist dictator went straight to hell.

But bullies don't give up easily. After being beaten fair and square, they sneak off, plot, nurse their grievances, and decide on a plan to gain the upper hand. Obama is no exception. It has now been four months since the Honduran elections, and the Honduran people are perfectly happy with their choices. But the Obamabully is determined to destabilize Honduras, and put the leftist Zelaya back in power from his exile in the Dominican Republic. It's a two-prong attack.

First, there are the subversive activities of Obama's senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the National Security Council, Dan Restrepo. He is actively attempting to undermine the current constitutional government of Honduras. He has made the sovereign power of a constitutional republic the target for Obama propaganda. During the attempt to force Hondurans to accept a compromise that violated both the Honduran constitution and the sovereign rights of Honduras, Restrepo said: "The Republicans were using the administration's support for Zelaya, (an ally of Venezuelan Hugo Chavez) against the Democrats. It's not going to work because we [the Democrats] have the power and would be keeping it for a long time." In other words, the need to retain Democrat power in the US outweighed any interest Honduras itself might have in conducting a sovereign and constitutional republican form of government.

Restrepo's ally in place is US ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens. Llorens has been agitating in the Honduran capital for the ongoing US demand that Zelaya be allowed to return. He has been in constant contact with the Honduran opposition (which does not necessarily support Zelaya either) to get them to convince the majority of the Honduran Congress (a unicameral legislature) to order a new election and call Zelaya back to Honduras (another purely illegal act under the Honduran constitution). It's a nefarious plot by the two Obamists. They know it's unlikely that they could ever convince the legislature to do anything so lawless and contrary to the will of the Honduran people, but it could accomplish the secondary goal--to destabilize the current Honduran government.

Llorens is so blatant in his attempts that many Hondurans have now dubbed him "Obama's proconsul in Honduras." Restrepo, equally blatant, inept and obnoxious has irritated even many of the moderate-leftist members of the Organization of American States. Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva would like to see Obama and Chavez succeed in destabilizing the Honduran government, but even he has doubts about Restrepo's high-handedness.

On the home front, Obama's State Department early on in the bullying pulled the visas of dozens of pro-constitution supporters of the Honduran legislature and supreme court. Later, the administration started pulling the visas of Honduran businessmen who were largely apolitical, but refused to support the US position on restoring Zelaya to power. Since the Honduran election, the war of attrition has gone on. The day before the new Honduran president, Porfirio Lobo, was inaugurated, the State Department pulled the visas of somewhere between fifty and sixty diplomats who had merely suffered the misfortune of being appointed by interim Honduran president Micheletti.

Restrepo (and quite possibly Llorens) was involved directly in meetings with the Zelayistas who had attempted to overthrow the interim Micheletti administration as head of the winning party. If they could weaken his hold on what was becoming the majority party, he could weaken the party itself, and possibly bring in a pro-Zelaya coalition in its place. That also didn't work. But it did produce a small victory for the wounded Obamists. New president Lobo has indicated (not verified) to Salvadoran president Mauricio Funes that he (Lobo) would allow Zelaya to return in exchange for reinstituted US foreign aid. This allegedly occurred when Lobo met behind closed doors with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There's the destabilization at work. Bribe a country that needs US aid, and get a newly-elected and inexperienced chief executive to cave in without consulting the important members of his own party. The result is that the Honduran state minister of security has declared publicly that if Zelaya returns against the wishes of the legislature and the supreme court, he will be arrested. Divide and conquer.

Obama's ultimate hope is that he can achieve so much dissension in Honduras that the current administration will be unable to accomplish anything. At the same time it stirs up the notoriously violent and oppressive Zelayistas. If the plan is successful, the Zelayistas can pull whatever destablizing shenanigans they choose, get the support they need from Obama and Chavez, and bring the Zelayistas back into power somewhat constitutionally at the next regular election. And that would put yet another leftist wannabe president for life back on the road to permanent power.

Obama sees the American Constitution as a troublesome document that gets in the way of his fundamentally transforming the nation. It would be both sad and ironic if a small nation in Latin American ended up defying Obama and proving that the form of constitutional government and the rule of law put together by the American Founding Fathers can exist somewhere, even if it isn't in Obama's America.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

America Loses--And It's A Good Thing

All right. Now that I have your attention, take a look at the photo of another President who "doesn't look like us." To wit: President-Elect Porfirio Lobo of Honduras. In fact, this was a great victory for America, and a great embarrassment for the American President and his party of leftist dictator-supporting know-nothings.

But since conservative/constitutionalists in America really couldn't care less about whether a president "looks like us," this is a double-whammy for the racist and radical government of "doesn't look like us" Obama. Lobo (who will undoubtedly earn the sobriquet "The Wolf"), his party, and his nation stood up to the hegemon to the North, defied an American administration that knows what's best for everyone, including Hondurans, and handily won the election that Obama didn't want to take place.

Lobo came from essentially nowhere to become the leader and odds-on candidate to win from the party in opposition to wannabe dictator Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya was supported by the communist and socialist nations worldwide, and specifically by president-for-life (as long as he can control the army) Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who is, in turn, the kissing cousin of one Barack Obama. After Zelaya attempted to become president-for-life himself by changing the Honduran electoral law in direct violation of the Honduran constitution, he was lawfully removed from office by the Cortes (legislature) and the Supreme Court, and removed from Honduras by the military following orders from the other two bodies. So naturally, constitution-hating dictators and wannabe dictators worldwide called the lawful action "a coup."

Western hemisphere constitution-shredders and Marxists who opposed the "coup" include the aforesaid Hugo Chavez, President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and interim President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. Each of their countries have constitutions which they routinely ignore or denigrate, so how dare those people in Honduras decide that they like their constitution just fine and intend to abide by it?

So Mr. Obama put what little is left of American prestige into opposing the constitutional government of Honduras, supported an ousted future dictator, demanded that Honduras return his good buddy to power, and gathered the other tinpot dictators together to refuse recognition of the November Honduran election unless Zelaya was allowed to return to office in triumph immediately. Now he is hoist on his own petard. Obama, having the spine of a jellyfish, but the eye of an eagle, saw the handwriting on the wall from thousands of miles away, and the words said "you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

The constitutionalists did not reinstate Zelaya, and the noble Obama immediately started backpedalling. He knew that he would look like even more of a fool than he already does if he continued his strident opposition to the free elections in Honduras, and like the dictators he supports if he actually refused to recognize a lawful election. Still, there have been no words of congratulations or signs of reconciliation from the office of the American messiah to the new president-elect of Honduras.

Lacking entirely in any real knowledge of American history (he only knows the Marxist-racist version), Obama would be unable to recognize the irony of his hostility to a small band of people in a faraway country building and defending a constitutional republic in defiance of the world's greatest superpower. During his short presidency, Zelaya's administration had joined the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) which was formed by dictator Chavez and peopled with the Marxist heads of state of Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua. In fact, Zelaya had planned a big rally of the ALBA gang for the night of his planned June referendum on his electoral permanency. But those pesky constitutionalists thwarted his plans, and the Obamists and their counterparts in Central and South America couldn't just let that slide.

Over four hundred foreign observers from nations all over the world went to Honduras to observe and report on the Honduran election on November 28. Peru, Costa Rica, Panama, the German Bundestag, and the Japanese government have all declared the election fair and conducted under the rule of law. Of course in advance of the election, Obama had a stalking horse from Illinois go down to Honduras and come back to announce that the whole governmental action against Zelaya was invalid, and therefore the election itself would be invalid. You have a nice little hole to dig yourself out of this time, Mr. Obama.

And Zelaya himself, despite the danger of speaking out when large Israeli forces are stationed right outside the Brazilian embassy where he has been cowering, maintains that he is still the rightful president. He is still lucid even after those Israelis were pumping poison gas into the embassy for months on end. Well, look at the bright side, Manny. You can always become a speechwriter for Mr. Obama, who will shortly be finding himself facing a constitutional system just dying to kick him out.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Illinois Congresswoman In Honduran Wonderland

The smiling face you see in the photo is the first Democrat Congress Critter to visit Honduras since the U. S. president declared the Honduran constitution void. Numerous Republicans have made the trip on fact-finding tours, but it took a Democrat finally to go down there on a fact-fabricating tour.

It should come as no surprise to any thinking person that the Democrats would show up late for the party, and then get everything wrong--purposely. After all, the Democrats have consistently supported left-wing takeovers in Central and South America for the past fifty years. And since the action on the part of the Honduran government was a valid legal and constitutional move to prevent such a takeover, the Democrats must oppose it.

Ms. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois (where else?) spent three days wandering around in a daze in Honduras, meeting up with the obviously crazed Manuel Zelaya, ousted power-grabber. She waved at the Honduran Supreme Court building and took a quick look at the houses of the Honduran Cortes ("Congress"), but didn't spend a lot of time speaking with the judges or the legislators. Had she done so, she might actually have learned that the removal of Zelaya from office was done by the book, with a due respect for law and the national constitution. But as I've said on numerous occasions before, the Democrats don't follow our own Constitution, so why would they care about somebody else's?

Upon arriving back in the United States, Schakowsky hastily called a press conference to announce "the coup against President Zelaya is illegal and along with every other nation in the region and the world, we don't recognize the coup regime as the legitimate government of Honduras." Ms. Schakowsky's legal credentials which allow her to make such pronouncements are that she received a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois, and as an Illinois legislator got a law passed requiring that groceries be labeled with expiration dates.

But she does have more than a nodding acquaintance with illegality. Her husband, Robert Creamer (different last name, of course) was indicted on multiple counts of bank fraud and check-kiting, but being a privileged Chicago pol was allowed to plead guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of failure to collect withholding taxes. He and Schakowsky were both officers of the Illinois Public Action Fund (think North Side version of South Side ACORN). As is almost always the case with Democrat politicians from Chicago, "public" means "private method of raking off public funds." Schakowsky signed the joint tax returns with her husband, but amazingly escaped the prison sentence hubby got. He served five months in prison and then an additional eleven months on "house arrest." While in prison, he wrote a guidebook for leftists entitled: Listen To Your Mother: STAND UP STRAIGHT. How Progressives Can Win." In press reports, he is referred to as "an Evanston politician," but rarely as the husband of Schakowsky, and never as "convicted felon."

No doubt Schakowsky has developed secret legal skills which allow her to refute the opinion of the Law Library of Congress which stated: "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system." They must be wrong, since Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and now legal scholar Schakowsky have said so.

Schakowsky is also unable to explain what kind of coup follows the law, promotes the lawful successor of the ousted power-grabber, allows regular elections to go forward, and has no military or civil authority which is attempting to perpetuate itself in power. Some coup. When forced into a corner by a reporter to explain how it was a coup if Zelaya's successor will surrender power in due course following the elections, Schakowsky went into a liberal song and dance: "I think there were a number of things, including raising the minimum wage. A number of things that the Zelaya administration had done that were offensive to the business class, the elites in Honduras, and so , I know, I think they wanted him out." Well, that explains it.

So where is the business community's hand-picked successor? Well, there isn't one. Zelaya's current successor is no more of a business puppet than was Zelaya, and in the free elections coming up this week, there is no clear business candidate. These business elites must be real amateurs. And of course Schakowsky makes no mention of Zelaya's attempt to amend the Honduran constitution to perpetuate himself in office in direct violation of Honduran law regarding a sitting president.

Schakowsky made a good Obama-type speech in which truth was turned on its head. She said "democratic order needs to be restored in Honduras." As opposed to what, pray tell? What she obviously means is "our favorite leftist Hugo Chavez buddy must be returned to power." This must have been a painful experience for Schakowsky. They miss the good old days where they got to go to banana republic leftist nations which governed extra-constitutionally, but loved money-bringing Democratic political hacks.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honduras Update -- Zelaya Will Not Be Reinstated!

The Honduran Congress has decided not to schedule a vote to reinstate Zelaya, after Thomas A. Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, twice confirmed on the record that Obama will recognize the election even if Zelaya will not be reinstated.

Republican Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) also has confirmed that he obtained a private assurance of this from Hillary Clinton and Shannon before he agreed to lift his stay on Shannon's nomination.

An angry Zelaya is blaming Obama and Shannon. Said Zelaya supporter and member of Congress Elvia Valle: "The United States is no longer interested in punishing a coup-installed government. [This] has left a bitter taste in our mouths."

Yeah, Kool-Aid will do that. . .


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Economist Reads Commentarama

Ok, that’s a bit facetious. . . they probably just skim. Still, in the past couple weeks, The Economist has finally discovered what Commentarama readers already knew about China and Honduras. Good for them. Interestingly, as a result of their realizations, they’ve turned on Obama on both issues.

The Economist, for those who don’t know, is a center-left European magazine that was once center-right. But its center-right days are long behind it and its economics focus is shaky at best. Still, it’s one of the best sources of world news in a media world that runs from foreign news like vampires run from sunlight. . . or Democrats run from voters.

So what did The Economist finally discover? Let’s take a look at their recent article on China, and then we’ll discuss their shock that things are not as they thought in Honduras. Oh my!

China: Not An Economic Giant? Military Threat?

As Commentarama readers will recall, last August we debunked the idea that China was about to replace the United States as the world’s dominant economic power. We noted that their economy is actually quite small compared to ours, and that they aren’t even the second largest. We’ve also mentioned that China’s holding of United States debts does not give China any real power over America (except to the extent that we want them to loan us more money). Now it appears, The Economist has caught on:

There is now talk of a G2 of China and America, implying that their global weights are nearly equal. In fact, as our special report argues, this is a misperception, and a dangerous one.

China’s economy is still less than a third the size of America’s at market exchange rates. Its GDP per head is one-fourteenth that of America. The innovation gap between the two countries remains huge. America’s defense budget is still six times China’s. As for the [$800 billion in] Treasury bills, dumping them is not an option for China: a tumbling dollar would hurt its own economy.

But that’s not all The Economist has discovered. They’ve also discovered that China is becoming a military and geopolitical threat:

China has engaged in a rapid military build-up that could challenge America as the defender of Asian peace (and Taiwan’s sovereignty). Unannounced, China is building its first aircraft carrier, yet its generals often refuse even to talk to their American peers.

Underlying the strategic competition is China’s economic rise. Its companies are “colonizing” swathes of Africa and Latin America, cozying up to regimes Westerners shun.

Sound familiar? Perhaps you recall reading about China’s military build up and the problems this could cause for the United States in the region, as well as China’s troubling creation of “bamboo republics” throughout the world in our September article describing why China is becoming a danger to us today. Welcome aboard Economist.

Interestingly, having now discovered both of these issues, The Economist is becoming critical of Obama’s China policy. They particularly argue that Obama has pushed China too hard economically (out of mistaken fear of a co-equal China), but has failed to push China hard enough regarding human rights, which The Economist sees as something the United States must do to turn China into a more responsible international power. I see that as a misreading of the Chinese mindset -- which struggles against an inferiority complex that makes outside advice more than just unwelcome. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see an enthusiastic endorser of Obama become so openly critical of Obama’s brilliant foreign policy.

Honduras: This Was No Boating Accident

The Economist also is now critical of Obama’s Honduras solution. Indeed, after initially declaring the negotiated agreement between Zelaya and Honduras to be a victory for Obama over the evil coup, The Economist has suddenly discovered that the agreement doesn’t do what they thought it did. What do you mean he doesn’t automatically get reinstated? Left to Congress? Obama going to recognize the elections regardless? Who could have known this? No one. . . except, apparently, Commentarama readers.

Time Magazine also has discovered that they’ve been had. Check this out:

When the U.S. last week finally brokered a deal between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and the man who replaced him following the June 28 coup, de facto President Roberto Micheletti, observers wondered how the Obama Administration had won Micheletti's agreement. That's because the pact allowed for Zelaya to be restored to office before Honduras' Nov. 29 presidential election — a prospect Micheletti had fiercely opposed. But as the dust settles, the more common question this week is, What was Zelaya thinking when he signed this accord?

The Oct. 30 agreement, in fact, leaves it to the Honduran congress to decide whether the leftist Zelaya should be restored before the presidential vote (in which he's not a candidate). But Zelaya, still holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa since sneaking back into the country from exile in September, appears to have grossly miscalculated the odds of the legislature voting in his favor, and that leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the accord. On Friday, Zelaya told Radio Globo that the accord was "dead," adding that there was "no sense in deceiving Hondurans."

Ok, so the Hondurans broke the agreement and we need to crush them to maintain Obama’s honor, right? Strangely, no. Get this. . . Time notes that it should have been “apparent to Zelaya” that the Congress would not back him. Funny, it wasn’t apparent to anyone else at the time, except for Commentarama readers. Sounds like they’re ready to abandon Zelaya, just like Obama has abandoned him.

Indeed, while Zelaya is now arguing that his restoration should be a precondition for international recognition of the result of the November 29 election, that is being described as “naive.” According to chief U.S. negotiator Thomas Shannon, the United States will recognize the election results even if Congress declines to restore Zelaya. Really? Those are the sounds of abandonment you're hearing, right there. No one could have seen this coming!

Equally interesting, Time points out just how naive Team Obama was in this matter. Apparently, they actually thought the Honduran Congress (the one that voted 5-1 against Zelaya on two occasions, the one that listened to Zelaya threaten invasion or insurrection, the one that watched the world crap on their constitution) would actually have a change of heart! Said Time:

U.S. officials say they hoped that four months after the coup, the congress would be less of an anti-Zelaya hothouse and therefore more amenable to letting him finish the last three months of his term as the democratically elected President.

Wow, that is naive. Or is it? Was this really just wishful thinking or did Team Obama just wash their hands of Zelaya? You and I know the answer because we've already discussed this. Now, apparently, Time is figuring this out too. Indeed, taking a surprisingly critical stance against Obama, Time now suggests a certain cynicism on the part of Team Obama in this whole affair:

The Obama Administration is technically correct when it argues that last week's pact allows it to recognize the Nov. 29 election even without Zelaya's restoration — a result that would let Obama wipe his hands of the Honduras mess while getting U.S. conservatives off his back. But. . . it could certainly have negative implications for Obama's credibility in the region if he is perceived to have brokered a deal that allowed a military coup to succeed. Then again, the U.S. President could always shift the blame by pointing out that it was Zelaya that signed the deal.

Can’t you just feel the love. . . fading?


** Update: The Honduran Congress has now decided not to schedule a vote to reinstate Zelaya. Zelaya is blaming Obama and Asst. Sec. Shannon. Said Zelaya supporter Elvia Valle, "The United States is no longer interested in punishing a coup-installed government. [This] has left a bitter taste in our mouths."


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honduras Explained

With the details of the deal in Honduras finally coming out, it’s time to analyze why Honduras became so important to the international community, what this deal really means, and why this is anything but the “historic” victory that the internationalists claim. This deal has, in fact, exposed the emptiness of the “rhetoric and peer pressure” approach to foreign policy. Expect the world to become a more dangerous place.

Why Honduras Mattered To The International Community

First, let’s explain why Honduras became such a big deal for the international community, and why they chose to support Zelaya despite his attempts to remake himself into a dictator.

• South/Central Americans. All of the Americas panicked when they heard that the Honduran military had tossed President Zelaya out of the country. The reason is simple. Central and South America were dominated by military coups for decades, Honduras included. In the past twenty years, they believed they had finally broken that cycle and become stable democracies. The prospect of a new military coup in Honduras reigniting that cycle scared the entire region. That’s why both left and right condemned “the coup.” This is also the reason they kept insisting that “the negotiations must not reward a coup.”

• The Internationalists. The internationalists, i.e. the effete Europeans who dominate the international talk shop, became involved because they saw this as their first chance to show that their brand of “international peer pressure without resorting to military means” could solve a crisis. In other words, this looked like an easy victory and they needed one badly since they can’t seem to solve anything else (Middle East, Iran, North Korea, Georgia, etc. etc.).

Some have attributed the support for Zelaya by the international community to being simply the support of leftists for a leftist. But that's not correct. Indeed, across the international community (and particularly in South/Central America), both left and right condemned “the coup.” Moreover, despite the MSM rebranding Micheletti’s government as “conservative” (which they always do with their perceived bag guys), Micheletti and Zelaya are both from the same leftist party (the Partido Liberal de Honduras).

In reality, the internationalists needed to support Zelaya because their theory of foreign policy requires that they maintain the unanimity of the international community, and with the South/Central Americans already choosing to support Zelaya, they had little choice. Nevertheless, this choice suited them because it also fit with their instinctual opposition to unilateral action, like throwing out a president, and with their desire to avoid disruption of the international order, i.e. they don’t like change, especially forced change. Not to mention that public perception is everything to the talkers, and supporting the government would have put them on the side of what appeared to be a military coup, which is unacceptable in their circles.

• Team Obama. Obama, who was late to the party, saw this as his first chance to let multilateralism work in South/Central America, with the United States taking a back seat to Brazil and other emerging powers. He thought this was a good way to show that the United States had changed since the end of the Bush administration, and would treat the South/Central Americans as more equal partners.

This is why Hillary Clinton has stressed that this “victory” was the result of diplomatic talk shops set up by Central/South Americans, and why they relied for so long on Costa Rica’s President to negotiate a resolution. Said Clinton: “This is a big step forward for the Inter-American system and its commitment to democracy as embodied in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

This “follow the crowd policy” also fit with his seeming utter disinterest in foreign affairs. However, this approach has brought on significant criticism of Obama from that same community, with Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim grousing that these negotiations were taking too long. And more recently, Julie Sweig, Latin American Director of the Council on Foreign Relations complaining: “Why didn't they go down there four months ago? I have no idea why we didn't just do this to begin with, other than the fact that we wanted to give others a chance.” Also, Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, asserts that Obama “made the mistake that multilateralism doesn't mean letting others do the work.” Instead, he argued, the situation needed “intense U.S. engagement.”

These are the reasons why this became important and how the sides were chosen. And while this was not a coup, see prior article, the Honduran government admittedly handled this poorly from a public relations perspective. Given the touchy nature of military coups in the region, they should not have sent the military to arrest Zelaya. They should have sent their equivalent of the United States Marshalls. Secondly, they should have voted to impeach him in their Congress before sending anyone to arrest him. Since their Congress would have done so easily, and it is dominated by members of his own party, few in the international community would have raised an objection (other than Chavez).

Position Of The Parties

Now, let’s explain the position of the international community versus the position of the Hondurans:

• The international community wanted Zelaya restored immediately to serve out his full term -- no restrictions. From their perspective, this was about undoing a military coup, and there could be no compromise. Thus, they took the position that they could not allow any part of that coup to succeed.

• Honduras wanted Zelaya removed from office until he could be replaced by the winner of the November 29 election. Though, in reality, all they really wanted was to stop him from holding a referendum to change the constitution to allow himself to remain in power. This was identical to the process used by the quasi-dictators in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, to gut their own constitutions.

The Honduran constitution forbids even the attempt to amend the constitution to allow the president to serve a second term. And not only had Zelaya done that, but he'd acted illegally in attempting to pull it off:

• Zelaya supporters told people to sign the petition to hold the referendum under threat of being denied health care or other government benefits.

• Zelaya violated a Supreme Court order not to attempt to hold the referendum.

• Zelaya illegal fired General Romeo Vasquez, who refused to carry out the illegal order to distribute the ballots and the Supreme Court order to reinstate him.

• Zelaya led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots were stored, and told his supporters to distribute them.

Zelaya also was accused of other crimes, though these were not the reason he had been deposed:

• Zelaya’s government was accused of accepting kickbacks and of being involved in the drug trade.

• Zelaya was accused to taking several million dollars from the Honduran Central Bank.

• Zelaya forced all radio and television stations to broadcast his daily speeches.

• Zelaya’s government began monitoring private phone conversations in the country.

The Deal

This entire matter settled late-Thursday after some last minute diplomacy by Thomas A. Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The deal will be signed Monday. Here is what Honduras got under the deal:

• Zelaya must drop his attempts to amend the constitution.

• The international community will recognize the results of the November 29 election.

• Financial aid would be restored to Honduras.

• The visas of the Honduran leaders are to be restored.

• The international community will send poll workers to help perform and monitor the fairness of the November 29 election.

• A truth commission will be established to investigate the events leading up to and following “the coup.”

That’s everything Honduras wanted.

In exchange, the Internationalists got a promise that a national unity government would be installed by November 5. That sounds like everything the Internationalists wanted, except. . .

Whether or not Zelaya gets restored to the presidency has been left to the Honduran Congress, after a review by the Supreme Court. (According to Shannon, the “when, if and how” will be left to the Congress.) While the Congress backed his ouster five to one, they have signaled that they “will not stand in the way” of this agreement. And there's really no reason they should stand in the way, because they will be defining his power for the last month of the term. For example, it is clear already that control of the army will be transferred from the office of the President to the Supreme Court. Also, his term will not be extended to make up for the six months he lost.

Summing this up, even assuming that Zelaya is returned to “power,” Honduras got everything it wanted. Zelaya was kept out of power from June until mid-November. He must drop his attempts to change the constitution, and he will be stripped of any real power by the Supreme Court and the Congress. There is no mention of any amnesty that would cover the allegations against him. Moreover, Honduras gets its aid restored and returns to the international community none the worse for wear.

Internationalists Try To Claim An Historic Victory

Not surprisingly, the internationalists are calling this a huge victory for international pressure of the talking variety:

• Gushed Hillary Clinton: “I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic institutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue.” Yes, the Hondurans won a great victory over you.

• Daniel Restrepo, senior director for Latin America at the White House National Security Council attributed this grand victory to the “recognition throughout Honduran society that, for Honduras to move forward in a sustained way, the election had to be accompanied by international support.” Uh huh, and the fact they got what they wanted and gave up nothing had nothing to do with it?

• Sen. John Kerry (D, Masshole) said this was “an historic accomplishment.” Worthy of a Nobel Prize perhaps?

Yet, it's a phony victory at best. They wanted Zelaya restored to serve out the entire remaining six months of his term. That won’t happen. They wanted him restored unconditionally, that won’t happen. Instead, assuming he is restored, all they got was that he would be re-installed as a figure head for the remaining month of his term. If that’s a victory, I’d hate to see what it takes for them to admit defeat.

In the end, these fools can delude themselves into thinking that they’ve “won,” but troublemakers around the world will see through this Orwellian doublespeak and self-delusion. The lesson here is that the international community was unable to push around a country of 7.5 million people. Their peer pressure strategy crashed and sank against the rocks of an opponent who simply refused to be swayed. Out of ideas, the internationalists did what they always do, they surrendered and then lied to themselves for comfort, declaring their surrender to be what they really wanted from the get-go.

And you can be sure that the lessons of Honduras will not be lost on countries like Iran and North Korea, or on future coup plotters everywhere, who will see this as confirmation of the international community’s weakness. Anyone who declares a total surrender as an historic victory is ripe for the plucking.


** Thanks to Joel for pointing out that my analysis the other day beat the Wall Street Journal, which apparently agrees, by a day.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Mouse That Called Obama’s Bluff. . .

Want some actual news you haven’t heard anywhere: Honduras just won. Seriously. Funny that the MSM hasn’t mentioned this. Image, the entire world, standing shoulder to shoulder. . . led by the greatest power the world has ever known. . . guided by the greatest leader that country has ever produced. . . a man so compelling and hopeful that he deserves the Nobel Prize just for being. . . and Honduras just humbled them all.

Here’s the set up: In one corner, we have the current government of Honduras. They tossed their former president (Manuel Zelaya) out of the country when he tried to make himself into a Hugo Chavez-like dictator. (If you don’t know the background, or why this was not a coup, then read my prior article: HERE. I’ll wait for ya.)

In the other corner, we have the world. . . literally. Every other country in the world is doing their internationalist best to demand that Honduras allow Zelaya to return to power.

Here’s the twist: On November 29 of this year, there will be an election in Honduras. That election was already scheduled to take place before Zelaya got expelled, and will be between two men who had no involvement in the “coup.” The winner will become the new President, ending Zelaya's term. Democracy at work.

The current government in Honduras hopes that this election will make the Zelaya issue moot, and that the world will leave them alone thereafter. The international community, however, has loudly proclaimed that it will not recognize the results of that election unless Zelaya is first returned to power to serve out his term.

Except. . . Team Obama has now signaled (very quietly) that they will accept the election and move on. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooaal!!!!!

Honduras wins! Honduras wins! Honduras wins! Honduras wins!

Oh, the humanity!!!

This represents a truly humiliating moment for Team Obama and for the internationalists. For years, the internationalists have told us that international pressure could solve any problem without the need for evil, dirty force. War was history, international law had killed it. Team Obama bought into that hook, line and sinker, and based their entire foreign policy on talk and hope. Now tiny Honduras, with its seven million people, has exposed that policy in all its gloriousless impotence.

** Update: Speak of the devil, this morning they announced a "deal" where Zelaya gets to appeal directly to Congress (which opposes him 5-1) to be restored. In exchange, we, the US, will recognize the election later this month. Annoyingly, but not unexpectedly, the AP is calling this total surrender an "Obama victory" even though it gives the Hondurans everything they wanted and Obama achieved none of his goals!

Here’s a little background on how this debacle developed. . .

From the outset, every single country in the world declared that they would do their able best to force little Honduras to accept the return of then-President Manuel Zelaya. They would (and did) blockade the country in violation of their treaties and their obligations under the World Trade Organization. They would stop sending aid and tourists. They warned that the coup leaders would be arrested. Chavez threatened to invade (he's a little sweet on Zelaya). All unless the evil coup plotters (leftists now described as “conservatives”) promised to immediately restore Zelaya to power and to submit to his terrible wrath.

And Honduras responded, “Bite me.”

Thus began an interesting series of negotiations between Micheletti, Zelaya and the International Community. (As an aside, as you read this, keep in mind the following quote from Zelaya about Micheletti: “I have no confidence in Micheletti. He changes his attitude from one minute to the next.”)

Micheletti’s Position

From the beginning, Micheletti took the position that Zelaya may not return to Honduras, unless he faces charges for what he’s done -- like stealing several million dollars from the Honduras Central Bank. Micheletti also declared that he will serve out the remainder of Zelaya’s term until the election scheduled for November 29.

On August 28, Micheletti changed his position slightly, saying that he would agree to allow Zelaya to return to Honduras under an amnesty if Zelaya renounced his claims to the presidency. Micheletti also offered to step down as President as part of the deal.

That’s it. Funny, I don’t see the attitude changing Zelaya does, perhaps I’m missing something? Let’s see how Zelaya did. . .

Zelaya’s Positions

Zelaya took the initial position that he needed to be restored immediately to serve out his full term and that the coup plotters had to face punishment for their crimes. He then went about making threats.

July 15: Zelaya asserts that “Hondurans have a right to insurrection.” Hey, who doesn’t?

July 18: Zelaya’s foreign minister, Patricia Rodas, says that Zelaya was returning to wage a “final battle” against those who ousted him. Let’s get ready to rumble!

July 21: Zelaya says that he would return soon and that “It is impossible to sustain a regime with bayonets. The world will not allow it, starting with the United States.” Oh oh, is that reliance on Obama I’m hearing?

July 23: Saying that United States sponsored talks have broken down, Zelaya declares that he will cross the border into Honduras. He dismisses concerns about the possibility of violence.

When the United States warns that it does not support this trip to the border (“Any step that would add to the risk of violence in Honduras or in the area, we think would be unwise.”) Zelaya responds: “Defending our rights is not an act of violence. . . we are going to seek dialogue.”

July 24: Zelaya bravely arrives at the border between Nicaragua and Honduras. . . on the Nicaraguan side. He stays only thirty minutes and only symbolically steps into Honduras. He explains: “I am not afraid, but I’m not crazy either. There could be violence and I don’t want to be the cause.” I guess encouraging an insurrection is not promoting violence?

He goes on to note that: “The best thing is to reach an understanding that respects the will of the people.” Though he also calls on the United States to not accept the results of the November 29 election unless he is restored to power first. So I guess “will of the people” doesn’t mean the Honduran people?

July 26: After Hillary “Yoda” Clinton calls his move “reeeeckless,” Zelaya responds that she should “stop avoiding the issue. Secretary Clinton should confront the dictatorship with force.” So much for not being the cause of violence.

July 30: Man of peace Zelaya suggests that the Honduran military should rebel.

August 1: Zelaya vows to return to power through peaceful means and denies that he’s rallying groups of armed supporters. Assures Zelaya: “We do not use arms. I am not forming any armed military force, although I have the means to do it.”

August 5: Zelaya tells the Mexican Senate: “The United States is the one that really has the power to impose measures that go beyond diplomacy.” Which begs the question, what lies beyond diplomacy? The answer is usually war, isn’t it?

September 21: Zelaya bravely sneaks across the border in the trunk of a car and beats cheeks for the Brazilian Embassy.

September 27: Uber-Pacifist Zelaya, a virtual modern day Gandhi, declares over the radio: “I call on you to mobilize throughout Honduras, and that everyone who can come to Tegucigalpa to fight in the final offensive.” Thereafter, we get an answer to the old hippie refrain: “what if we had a war and nobody came?” Answer: Idiots end up living in other people’s embassies.

The International Community’s Incredible Shrinking Posture

Finally, we take a look at how the international community, led by Barack “The Second Coming” Obama demonstrated its impotence.

July 21: The United States gets off to a muscular start, declaring that it wants “the constitutional order” in Honduras “restored. . . now.” By this, they meant they wanted Zelaya returned to power immediately.

To make this happen, Obama cut $16.5 million in military aid to Honduras -- that will teach them. Obama also revoked the diplomatic visas of the four top members of Honduras’ government, preventing them from clubbing in Miami on weekends. The United States also sent President Oscar “The Grouch” Arias of Costa Rica to negotiate a resolution with both parties.

July 21: Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim adds to the pressure, warning that these talks are taking too long. Another Brazilian diplomat warned that “the negotiations must not reward a coup.”

July 22: The United States ups the ante by warning Honduras that it would impose tough sanction if Zelaya is not returned. Harrumph harrumph.

July 23: Then things start to go squishy. Upon learning that Zelaya was planning to return to Honduras from his luxury suite at the Venezuela Hilton, the United States suddenly announces that it doesn’t support this move: “we think [this move] would be unwise.”

Jose Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the Organization of American States, added his voice of caution: “It’s important to make an effort to avoid a likely confrontation.” Cluck. . . cluck.

July 24: Hillary Clinton states that: “President Zelaya’s effort to reach the border is reckless.” Cluck. . . cluck. . . bwak!

August 5: The United States heroically softens its stance, stating that no further sanctions would be coming. Run away! Run away! Whimpers Richard “The Vermin” Verma, of the State Department, “we reject calls for crippling economic sanctions and made clear that all states should seek to facilitate a solution without calls for violence and with respect for the principle of nonintervention.” Nonintervention? Except of course, when it comes to deciding who should rule Honduras.

September 21: Zelaya sneaks across the border even after Team Obama specifically told him not to do this. The United States responds by warning all sides to exercise caution, but takes no action.

September 27: In response to claims that the dastardly Honduran military surrounded the Brazilian embassy and “blasted music” at the building (like the US did in Panama), the United Nations Security Council condemns the Honduran government, but takes no action.

And now, Team Obama decides to give in to the mean old Hondurans. So much for the magical power of dialogue.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Flying Down To Tegucigalpa

As Barack Obama befriends banana republics by the bunch while turning the United States into the Chiquita Banana of banana republics, a small Republican Congressional delegation flew down to Honduras to see for themselves what was really going on.

The delegation was headed by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. For the record, they brought along a couple of law school professors of international law and constitutional law. Not surprisingly, their findings don't look anything like the putsch that Obama and his merry band of leftists would have Americans believe.

To start with, the delegation found that government and the private sector were just humming along with none of the signs of a military coup that Obama's left guard has been foisting off on Americans and the sycophantic mainstream media. Unlike the completely democratic Venezuela which enforces peace, love, and brotherhood in Caracas by maintaining large military encampments in full sight of the capital and close to the remaining newspaper offices, there is no strong military presence in or around Tegucigalpa. Well, there is one exception. The reserve troops maintained around the Brazilian embassy to keep power-hungry former president Manuel Zelaya from sallying forth to stir up civil unrest.

Even former Zelaya supporters freely admit that there has been no repression, that civil order is taking care of itself without any need for military or police enforcement, and though they didn't much like their candidate being summarily removed from office and spirited out of Honduras, they realize there are strong legal and constitutional reasons for the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress to have done so.

Another false Obama tale is that it was a military coup. There have been plenty of those in Central and South America over the years, and since Obama is a complete ignoramus about foreign affairs, he just jumped right on the bandwagon of ignorance. Zelaya attempted to overthrow the Honduran constitution in order to become president for life like his good friend Hugo Chavez. Because there have been so many "peaceful" coups like that in that part of the world, the Honduran constitution is extremely tough on sitting presidents attempting to hang on to power. It forbids any sitting president from proposing, supporting, encouraging, or in any other manner publicly attempting to change the constitutional term of office of president while holding that office. The enabling legislation is draconian. Once sufficient evidence has been produced that the president has broken that rule, the president is subject to immediate removal from office (and in a less clear provision, to be ordered out of the country if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the president would attempt to challenge his removal).

Zelaya refused to leave office after the finding of the Supreme Court and the censure of the Honduran Congress and there is some evidence he was preparing to mobilize troops to back him. That produced his expulsion. He was escorted to the airport and put on a plane by the military, under orders from the Supreme Court and the Congress. To a simpleton like Barack Obama, that makes it a "military coup." He doesn't understand the U. S. Constitution so how can we expect him to understand the constitution of Honduras? So exactly who would our prissy president have expected to remove a potential dictator from Honduras, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

Honduras, a solid constitutional republic, has shaken off its mini-crisis and moved on. If it weren't for the ignorant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation abiding by the rule of law, this whole incident would have been a mere blip on the radar screen. But three socialist presidents have managed to turn the facts and the law upside down--Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Barack Obama of Chicago. The elections that will occur in due course and in proper constitutional form on November 29 were scheduled over a year ago, and the candidates named at that time. If this was a military coup, isn't it a bit odd that the interim president, chosen as provided by the constitution, is not on the ballot and has no intention of running for the office again? Even Zelaya's vice-president and personal friend, who is the proper nominee of Zelaya's party, has stated very clearly that he believes the elections will be fair and untainted by any hint of military interference.

The opinion of Harold Koh, Obama's man in the Justice Department, is supposed to demonstrate that Zelaya's ouster was illegal. But Justice and the Obamists claim it is an internal memo, not subject to public review. Aw, c'mon you damned fools, are we really supposed to believe that? Meanwhile, the senior analyst at the Law Library of Congress has declared the ouster to be fully legal and constitutional. And unlike Barack Obama's invisible legal treatises from Harvard and Koh's alleged opinion, the Congressional analysis is not only public, but published and available on the internet Opinion of Law Library of Congress. Even James Kirchik, the legal writer for the liberal Democratic magazine The New Republic, wrote an article on October 3 declaring that the Obama administration had acted hastily, precipitously, and foolishly. He described Obama's policy as "a mistake in search of a rationale."

Obama and his two socialist ally presidents know that if they fail to blow up the November elections with their dishonest and dangerous position on Zelaya, the whole issue will die a natural death with the installation of the newly-elected president. Zelaya will simply have no legal or constitutional claim on the office since his term would have expired after the November elections anyway.

So as Senator DeMint concludes, the only figure of any standing whatsoever in Honduras who sides with Zelaya is American Ambassador Hugo Llorens. When DeMint asked how he could take a postition contrary to every lawyer, politician and judge in Honduras, Lloren referred the Senator to the legal opinion of Koh--you know, the one nobody is allowed to see outside of Obama's inner circle.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Not All Moonbats Are At The United Nations

At least one international moonbat is holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Who's the man behind the ten-gallon hat, you ask? Why it's none other than Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras and hopeful future president-for-life of the same beleaguered Central American republic.

You see, Zelaya is a friend of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Ahmadenijad of Iran, and Obama of the United States. That makes his political shenanigans perfectly acceptable to anyone outside of Honduras's constitutional republic. Earlier in the year, Zelaya proposed a change to the Honduran constitution which would have allowed him to succeed himself as often as he deemed necessary. Hugo Chavez liked that, and put considerable pressure on Honduras to enact the proposed changes. There's only one problem with that. Under Honduras's constitution, to avoid a Chavez-like presidency for life, it is an impeachable offense for a sitting president to propose a change in presidential elections while he is serving in office.

Since Americans have been shown by the Democrats that the Constitution is an impediment to good politics, the Obama administration has managed to paint Zelaya's exile as a military coup. After all, who cares what any constitution says about anything? When Zelaya refused to back down on his proposal, he was removed from office and sent packing. And the military was involved only because, well, who else is going to toss a potential dictator out of office? But the military took no action until the Honduran Supreme Court had declared Zelaya outlaw, and the Honduran legislature had voted to export him to some place other than Honduras.

So what is it about tin-pot, banana republic dictators and wannabe dictators that requires, among other things, that they be absolutely baying-at-the-moon nuts? We've been treated very recently to Moammar Qaddafi, King of Kings of Africa, running off at the mouth incomprehensibly at the United Nations. We've heard President-for-Life Hugo Chavez declare that the satanic smell of sulphur from the Bush appearance has been removed from the Assembly chamber by the gentle breezes of hope wafting in the wake of Obama. We've heard Iranian loon Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket inform the world that the Holocaust was a Jewish lie that requires that Israel be wiped off the map.

But poor Zelaya didn't make it up to New York for the crazy festival. He was stuck hiding out in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras's capital city. Here's how that happened. After several attempts to return to Honduras as a grand liberator, and being rebuffed by just about everybody who had ever read the Honduran constitution, the Brazilian government ignominiously gave him a diplomatic passport and sneaked him back into Honduras. Obama, who has not read the Honduran constitution (or the American Constitution, for that matter) supports Zelaya's return to power, but as always doesn't have the guts to do anything about it. So for the time being, "Mel" (as he is known to his friends--all six of them) presently presides over his apartments at the Brazilian embassy.

Zelaya granted an audience (oops, I mean interview) to the Miami Herald last week. Expecting to hear the disgraced politician praise Obama, or Chavez, or his host, Lula, the reporter was taken aback by Zelaya going off in an entirely different direction. It isn't the plotters in Central or South America who are oppressing him. It's the damned Jews. Now we know why Imadinnerjacket likes him. He told the story of how Israeli secret agents were torturing him inside the embassy with high-frequency radiation. Not satisfied with that, the Israelis have given him a sore throat from the toxic gas they are piping into the embassy's air-conditioning ducts. His well-known penchant for Village People cowboy outfits and narcoterrorist funding of Latin American governments is starting to look downright normal.

Further declaring that he "knows" that there are at least two Israeli secret agent sharpshooters hiding in plain sight in the embassy to bump him off if the radiation and the gas fail, Zelaya describes how his life now hangs by a thread. He also "knows" that if the sharpshooters fail as well, there is a very close nearby camp of Israeli mercenaries who are ready at any time to storm the embassy, murder him, then disappear into thin air.

And this is the man Barack Obama supports with the diplomatic strength of the people of the United States. Not only does Obama remain neutral on world terrorists, but he apparently dislikes constitutional republics which exercise their sovereign power to enforce their own law. And this has led him to misstate the law in Honduras (as he often does at home) in order to support an attempted coup by a man who is clearly mad as a March hare. I feel bad for Honduras, but I'm even more concerned with whether America can survive another three and a half years of a weak-kneed, sob-sister, crooked south side of Chicago politician with strong red tendencies who actively supports anti-democratic governments in the western hemisphere.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Barack Doctrine: Status Quo, Status Quo Ante

Teddy Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. James Monroe declared that the United States would not interfere in Europe, and warned Europe to stay out of the Americas. Harry Truman believed in containment, Jimmy Carter in human rights, and Ronald Reagan in engagement. . . trust but verify.

Is there a Barack Doctrine? Indeed there is. President Obama has shown repeatedly that he desires to vote “present” in foreign policy, and that his administration will toss aside all of their principles to maintain the status quo (as things are) or, where the status quo has been shattered, to return to the status quo ante (as things were).

Status Quo

During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of engaging the world in dialog. He promised to improve America’s image and to defend human rights. He criticized modern soft-dictators like Chavez, who were elected as democrats, but ruled as tyrants, and he talked of breaking with the past. But that was then.
Observe that in each of the following instances, Obama subsumed his principles to maintain the status quo. . .

• China. . .

The first test for the young administration was China. Candidate Obama criticized China for its human rights, for their failure to fight intellectual piracy, for their suppression of Tibet, for the safety of their products, and for their currency manipulation. He swore he would hold their feet to the fire and might even ban some of their products.

But President Obama wants China to buy his debt. So his first official act was to send Hillary Clinton to bow and scrape and to assure China that he would never pressure them. When this was not enough, and China threatened to stop buying U.S. debt, Obama sent Tim Geithner to plead for the status quo.

• Russia. . .

Next came the Russians, who had invaded Georgia, cut off natural gas supplies to Europe, worked tirelessly to help Iran develop nuclear power, and threatened several NATO allies. Candidate Obama boldly proclaimed that he wouldn’t “shy away from pushing democracy, transparency, and accountability.”

His efforts to date? Obama sent Hillary Clinton with a gag gift (a reset button) and otherwise refrained from any actions that might upset Russia. End result: status quo maintained.

• India. . .

George Bush was roundly criticized by the left for allowing India to make a mockery of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that Treaty, all signatories must withhold civilian nuclear technology from any regime that has not ratified the Treaty. Even though India refuses to sign the Treaty, Bush negotiated a deal with India, whereby the United States would transfer nuclear technology to India. Obama’s party called this despicable and said that it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korean.

President Obama claims that non-proliferation is a primary focus of his foreign policy. Yet, not only did he publicly state that he is “fully committed” to implementing the Bush deal, but Hillary Clinton even voiced the hope that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.” Again, the status quo is preserved.

• North Korea . . .

Candidate Obama promised “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea. He called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the imposition of “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. He even stated his belief that the United States needs a missile defense system to counter North Korea’s threat.

President Obama has warned that North Korea is a “grave threat” and said that he would “not tolerate” North Korea’s strategy of extracting rewards with belligerent behavior.

But beyond that, no amount of nuclear tests, missile tests, threats to rain a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” on South Korea, or seized journalists has resulted in anything approaching a “strong sanction” or “sustained, direct, or aggressive diplomacy.” Again, Obama avoids disturbing the status quo.

• The Arab World. . .

The Arab world is a mess. The “good” countries are run by tyrannical dictators. The poorly run ones are run by the theologically insane. They support terrorism world wide and hate America for things we have never done and never will, and they use their hatred of America and claims of victimhood at our hands as a crutch to justify their own failures.

Candidate Obama told us that he was uniquely suited to travel to the Arab world and change this. Unlike honkus maximus, he could gain Arab sympathy. He was a fresh start, and that would let him set the record straight -- America has no interest in a crusade, he would proclaim, and all would be good.

President Obama traveled to Egypt, birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood (an old guard member of the terrorism fraternity) and home to a repressive Egyptian regime, and from his mouth did come the words: (and I paraphrase) “it’s not you. . . it’s us. We need to change. Give us time. Don’t do anything until I get back to you.” And thus, the status quo was preserved.

• Guantanamo Bay. . .

Candidate Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore habeas corpus for the detainees before his rear hit the Oval chair. When President Obama learned this would cause problems, he opted for the status quo.

• Iraq. . .

Candidate Obama promised to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” and to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2009. President Obama plans to remove only “combat” troops, by the end of August 2010, though this will leave “30,000-50,000 troops in advisory roles.” Once again, he opts for the status quo.

Status Quo Ante

But what will Obama do when the genie has left the bottle and shattered the status quo? In that event, Obama’s policy becomes one of status quo ante -- the quest for the peace before. Thus, if you want to know which party Obama will support in any conflict, do not look for his stated principles, look to see who caused the issue to become of international interest, he will oppose that party.

• Iran. . .

Candidate Obama promised “tough, direct presidential diplomacy” with the Iranian regime to solve the misunderstanding that had vexed Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He extended his open hand, and Iran spit in it. Obama quietly slunk off.
Then in 2009, after a rigged election, the people of Iran flooded their streets in a budding revolution akin to those that crushed the tyrants of Eastern Europe. Obama, the human rights candidate, the man who thought he could solve everything with words, found himself strangely silent. Indeed, he barely raised a peep as the regime shielded the eyes of the outside world and crushed their own people.

Why did he not even speak out for the protection of these people? After all of his talk about human rights and supporting democracy around the world, would it not seem to make sense that he would support the people of Iran? I would, except that it was the people attempting to overturn their government that were disturbing the status quo. It was their actions, not the rigged elections, which brought this issue to a head as an international issues, rather than just an intranational issue. Thus, he remained silent in the hopes of restoring the comfort of the status quo ante.

• Honduras. . .

The final piece of the puzzle came last week. Obama sided with the repressive regimes in China and Iran, so giving a quick nod to a “military junta” should be no big deal. But it was. Why? What was different? This “junta” was disrupting the status quo.

By arresting Zelaya and throwing him out of the country, the Honduras Supreme Court and military elevated their dispute with President Zelaya from an intranational issue to an international issue. It did not matter that Zelaya acted illegally or that he provoked the incident, or that the Honduran government acted in accordance with the rule of law. . . they forced the issue to rise to the level where Obama had to become involved. Thus, he chose the side of Zelaya, in the hopes of restoring the status quo ante, so that he could return to ignoring the country.

Whether you call Obama’s policy supporting the current world order or the policy of hope for no change, it is clearly guided by a strong desire to avoid anything that disrupts the status quo. And as this becomes more and more obvious, look for foreign governments to learn that they can exploit his desire to vote present to extract amazing concessions.

Indeed, this week, India and Russia both proposed ending the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Neither country is likely serious because the effects would be disastrous on the vast reserves of dollars they hold, but it will get concessions from Obama.

Russia is demanding the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missile defense system and the abandonment by NATO of Georgia and the Ukraine. North Korea wants money. And everybody else is getting their wish lists ready. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Honduras: Coup d’état? No.

Virtually the entire world is condemning the “illegal coup” in Honduras. But this was not an illegal coup. To the contrary, what happened in Honduras was the legal removal from office of a president who was attempting to subvert the country’s constitution in direct violation of the orders of the Supreme Court. It was in fact, a triumph for the rule of law.

Moreover, this event highlights the continuing failures of Obama diplomacy, and it gives us the final piece we need to understand our new foreign policy. . . the Barack Doctrine.

Honduras The Country

Honduras, a banana and coffee exporting country of 7.5 million, has been a democratic republic since 1979. Its current constitution went into effect in 1982.

The Honduran government is broken into three parts: an executive, the judiciary, and a unicameral legislature. Constitutionally, each of these branches is independent, though historically the executive has dominated the other two.

The Honduran Supreme Court has fourteen constitutional duties. These include the power to declare laws unconstitutional and the power to try high-ranking government officials, including the president, when the National Congress declares that there are ground for impeachment.

Zelaya Becomes President

Recently deposed President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales first became active in the Liberal Party of Honduras in the 1980s. He served three terms in Congress, during which time he advocated decentralizing the government and giving more power to communities.

In 2005, Zelaya (left) ran for president. His campaign focused on a populist platform of “citizen power,” with promises to fight corruption, increase transparency in government, combat narco-trafficing, maintain economic stability, and reduce poverty. During the campaign, he often attacked the rich, despite being wealthy himself. He was elected on November 27, 2005, with less than a 4% margin of victory, the smallest margin ever in a Honduran election. His Liberal Party won 62 of the 128 congressional seats.

The Honduran president may serve only one four-year term. The constitution explicitly prohibits any attempts to amend this term limit. Thus, his term must end in November 2009.

Why He Became Unpopular

Zelaya’s government struggled from the beginning. He doubled the minimum wage, but businesses refused to pay it. Violence surged in the country by 25%, making Honduras one of Latin America’s deadliest countries. He also managed no appreciable reduction in poverty.

Zelaya’s government also has been dogged by allegations of corruption. Several officials are accused of accepting kickbacks. In 2007, Zelaya refused to submit a budget to the Congress, thereby eliminating all transparency with regard to the budget. This fueled allegations that his allies were stealing from the treasury.

In February of this year, the U.S. State Department, declared that “official corruption continues to be an impediment to effective law enforcement and there are press reports of drug trafficking and associated criminal activity among current and former government and military officials.”

In the last two days, foreign minister Enrique Ortez directly accused Zelaya’s government of involvement in the drug trade: “Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds . . . and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking. . . We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it. The DEA has it.” The DEA has refused to confirm or deny the allegations.

Zelaya’s Hard Left Turn

After being elected, Zelaya sought financial assistance from the United States. When his request was refused, he turned to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who provided subsidized fuel and $300 million in aid.

Zelaya then steered Honduras into Petrocarbide, Chavez’s oil subsidy scheme, and the Bolivian Alternative for the Americas -- a Chavez-led trade bloc meant to counter-balance American influence -- even though Honduras had signed the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2004 and even though the United States is Honduras’ largest trading partner.

When the media criticized his moves, Zelaya accused them of doing so for the sake of economic gain and he ordered all radio and television stations to broadcast each of his daily speeches.

His government also declared that it had a right to monitor phone conversations, though it claimed to stop this practice after a month of public outcry.

All of this even turned his own party against him. Roberto Micheletti, the Head of Congress and a member of Zelaya’s own Liberal Party, became his biggest critic.

The “Coup”

With his term nearing its end, Zelaya decided to hold a referendum on amending the constitution to let him stay in office. This was identical to the process used by the quasi-dictators in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, to gut their own constitutions.

To make this happen, Zelaya’s people went around the country getting signatures on a “citizen’s power survey,” upon which voters would indicate that they wanted to amend the constitution. Many of these were gathered by civil servants, who were told to bring in a quota of “voluntarily” signed requests or lose their jobs. Signers were told that if they did not sign the survey, they would be denied health care or needed medicine.

With the survey complete, Zelaya announced his intention to hold a referendum. However, Honduran law provides that only the congress can call for a national referendum. Thus, the Supreme Court struck down Zelaya’s plan as illegal.

Disregarding the Supreme Court, Zelaya asked Venezuela’s Chavez to provide the ballots, which he did. In response, the attorney general declared that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying out the referendum. Regardless, Zelaya ordered General Romeo Vasquez, head of the country’s armed forces, to distribute the ballots. The general refused and Zelaya fired him, along with the secretary of defense.

The Supreme Court immediately ruled this illegal and ordered the General reinstated. Zelaya refused. Choosing instead to gather his supporters, lead a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots were stored, and tell his supporters to distribute them.

The following morning, Zelaya was arrested by the army, on the orders of the Supreme Court, and sent into exile in Costa Rica. In accordance with the constitution, Roberto Micheletti (right) was then named the acting president.

Two days later, before the United Nations, Zelaya stated that he would not hold the referendum, if he were allowed to return, and that he would not remain beyond his first term, even if offered the chance. Micheletti, however, states that Zelaya will be arrested if he attempts to return.

Triumph Of The Rule Of Law

So was this a coup or was Zelaya impeached in accordance with the rule of law?

The army arrested him. But it did so under the Supreme Court’s order. The Supreme Court has the right to impeach the president when the National Congress declares that there are ground for impeachment.

In this instance, the grounds for impeachment were Zelaya’s violation of the constitution. Not only did he illegally attempt to amend the constitution, but he did so in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of his actions. This violates his oath to defend the constitution.

Moreover, he gave the army an illegal order and then fired General Vasquez when he refused to carry out that order. He compounded this by refusing to reinstate General Vasquez in defiance of a second Supreme Court order.

Thus, the Supreme Court had the right to impeach Zelaya and it certainly had grounds to order him impeached.

If there is a legal infirmity here, it is that the Congress did not refer the impeachment to the Court. However, the Congress did adopt the Court’s action after the fact. Thus, while the form may not have been accurately carried out, the substance of the law certainly was. Also, there is no reason the procedures could not be repeated now if needed.

Further, the current government has strictly followed the constitution since the arrest. The Congress met in emergency session and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in by law. It also affirmed that presidential elections set for November will go forward.

Thus, the “coup” was in fact, done in defense of the rule of law and substantively followed the rule of law -- an opinion shared by Dan Taylor at the Huffington Post. Therefore, it is incorrect to call this action “illegal,” as Obama had done.

The World Reacts Ignorantly

At this point, only Israel and Taiwan have recognized the new government. The United Nations has denounced the coup, the Organization of American States has given Honduras 72 hours to reinstate Zelaya or be kicked out of the OAS, the World Bank has cut off financial support, and Hugo Chavez has threatened an invasion to stop this “yanqui coup.”

(** update ** Israel now denies that it has recognized the new government.)

Obama’s Position

Supposed-constitutional scholar Obama immediately described the coup as “not legal” and declared that the United States believes that Zelaya “remains the president of Honduras.” He declared his reasoning as follows: “It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.” Of course, as you saw above, this reasoning is backwards -- ousting Zelaya was the democratic process.

To apply pressure, Obama has threatened to cut off $215 million in aid and has cancelled joint military exercises. Though it is not clear what Obama would do if Chavez does invade Honduras, as the United States is bound by treaty to defend “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Honduras.”

The Barack Doctrine

Interestingly, Obama had a chance to solve this crisis before it happened. Indeed, the administration has confirmed that they were in discussions with both parties for several days trying to prevent this. Yet, clearly, his efforts met with no success. Once again, Obama's talk-centric foreign policy is shown to be threadbare. One wonders why the supposedly influential Obama could not convince Zelaya even to delay his illegal actions to avert this crisis?

And since Zelaya is the instigator, why does Obama now blame the legal government that acted in accordance with its responsibilities under the constitution? And why does he mischaracterize what has happened?

During his campaign, President Obama made a big deal of criticizing leaders who are elected democratically but don’t govern democratically. He had a chance here to stand up for those ideals. . . but he didn’t.

Obama speaks of the rule of law, but he didn't defend it here. He speaks of freedom, but as with Iran and China, he backs the tyrant. Why?

This is the Barack Doctrine. I will outline this further next week, but suffice it to say right now that Obama wants no disruptions in foreign policy. Change is fine, so long as it is not disruptive. If you want to know how Obama will respond to a future crisis, know that (1) he will always favor the status quo and (2) he will always oppose the party that causes an issue to become of international interest. This is the Barack Doctrine: call it turning a blind eye, call it the “Current World Order” or call it the Doctrine of Hope for No Change.
So much for liberal idealism.

More on this next week. . . [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...