|
Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
Honduras Snubs Obama
December 9,
2009
In a December 4 editorial titled “The Honduras Conundrum,” the New
York Times tries its best to cover Barack Obama’s backside in his
ham-handed attempt to transform Honduras from a pro-American democracy
to a Castro or Chavez style socialist dictatorship.
To review, Manuel
Zelaya was elected to a four year term as president of
Honduras in November 2005 and, under the one-term limit imposed by the
Honduran Constitution, was scheduled to leave office in January 2010.
However, seeing himself as the newest member of an exclusive club of
Latin American socialist dictators...Raul Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela, and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua...Zelaya decided to inflict
himself on the people of Honduras for an additional term of office, or
more.
Unfortunately, Zelaya was about the only person in Honduras who hungered
for four more years of his leadership. When his proposal to remove the
one-term limit was presented to the Congress and to the Honduran Supreme
Court, it was soundly rejected. But Zelaya was undeterred. He simply
ignored the constitutional amendment process and, instead, launched a
campaign for reelection by national referendum, an effort that was
strongly opposed by every branch of the Honduran government, including
the national Congress, the Supreme Court, and the military...even
members of his own party.
Nevertheless, Zelaya stubbornly proceeded with the illegal referendum,
and just hours before he was to go to the polls to cast a vote for
himself he was taken into custody at his home and flown to exile in
Costa Rica by members of the Honduran military, acting under orders of
the Congress and the Supreme Court. Immediately after his departure,
Speaker Roberto Micheletti, a reliable democrat and a friend of the
United States, was sworn in as interim president.
The first hemispheric leaders to speak out against Zelaya’s ouster were
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno
Rodriguez. Chavez threatened that, if a new Honduran government was
sworn in he would “bring them down.” He went on to say that, if the
Venezuelan ambassador in Tegucigalpa was harmed in any way, or if the
Venezuelan embassy was entered, his country would attack Honduras
militarily.
The Organization of American States (OAS), in a sharply-worded
ultimatum, condemned the “coup” and Zelaya’s “arbitrary detention and
expulsion.” The OAS warned that the Honduran leaders had three days in
which to restore Zelaya to power or face expulsion. This
was followed by a UN resolution calling on all 192 U.N. member nations
not to recognize any government in Honduras other than Zelaya’s.
Finally, after waiting
to take his cue from the communist dictators of Cuba, Venezuela, and
Nicaragua, Barack Obama issued a brief statement, saying, “I
am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the
detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya...I call on all
political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the
rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any
existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through
dialogue free from any outside interference.”
According to an Associated Press report, “Obama declared that the United
States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and
assailed the coup that forced him into exile as ‘not legal.’ ”
So the question arises, why would Obama refer to Zelaya’s ouster as an
“illegal coup?” As the AP reminds us, “The term ‘coup’ is defined as ‘a
sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is
subverted without the consent of the people.’ When a country’s legally
and democratically elected government ‘removes’ an individual, using the
processes outlined in its Constitution, it is not a ‘coup,’ but a
legally authorized act of State…”
As a Harvard Law graduate, a former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, an
instructor of constitutional law, and a practicing attorney, Obama
should understand the difference. What happened in Honduras was not a
coup, but a constitutionally mandated process to remove an unfit
leader. When the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court declared Zelaya’s
reelection to be at odds with constitutional principles and he refused
to abandon his referendum, it became necessary to remove him by force.
The Congress and the Supreme Court made the decision and the military
carried out their wishes.
Of course, none of these constitutional legalities had any real meaning
in the Obama White House. As the Associated Press explained, the
Honduran situation would be analogous to an American president
attempting to serve a 3rd term over the objections of Congress and the
Supreme Court and in direct violation of our 22nd Amendment.
If an American President attempted to retain power as Zelaya had
attempted to do, he would be impeached, convicted, and removed from
office.
The AP asked, pointedly, “But
what about Obama? Why does he relate to these megalomaniacs (Castro,
Chavez, Ortega, and Zelaya) who believe they are omnipotent? Why does he
side with the ‘repressors’ rather than those who stand for freedom? If
Obama can’t distinguish which of the parties in Honduras acted legally
and (which) did not, he doesn’t deserve to hold his office.”
Between June 28, 2009, the day of Zelaya’s ouster, and the national
elections of November 29, even to the present day, the Obama
Administration has consistently sided with the communist dictators of
Latin America, insisting that Zelaya’s ouster amounted to a “coup”
and demanding the return of the ousted would-be dictator to power.
And now that the Honduran people have spoken once again, electing
Porfirio Lobo Sosa of the conservative National Party to succeed interim
president Roberto Micheletti, Obama and his leftist advisors give only
lukewarm support to the election results.
In the November 29 elections, Lobo Sosa won 55.9% of the vote, followed
by Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos with 38.2%. The remaining 5.9%
of the vote was divided among three minor candidates. Nevertheless, the
far left in the United States finds it difficult to give full credit to
the Honduran people. Attempting to minimize the importance of the
constitutional processes that resulted in the removal of Zelaya, the
New York Times tells us, “The
Obama administration started off strong. It resisted the importunings of
some Congressional Republicans who considered democracy far less
important than Mr. Zelaya’s cozy ties to Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.”
This
represents a total misstatement of Republican support for Zelaya’s
removal. Their support was based primarily on supporting the democratic
processes used to remove Zelaya, and only secondarily on Zelaya’s
position as a Castro-Chavez-Ortega wannabe.
Implying
that the Honduran people and their democratic institutions have
something to atone for or to be ashamed of, the Times goes on to
say, “There is little point in ostracizing Honduras — one of the poorest
countries in the hemisphere. Rather, the United States, other countries
in the region and Europe should take the election as a starting point to
try to patch back together a democratic government.”
“Patch
back together a democratic government?” It was precisely a “democratic
government,” bearing true faith and allegiance to its constitutional
principles that resulted in the removal of a Chavez/Castro-style
socialist dictator.
What the
Obama Administration and other hemispheric socialists demand is the
establishment of a “unity government” to rule Honduras from now until
the Lobo Sosa inauguration on January 27, and the creation of a truth
commission to investigate events surrounding what they continue to
mischaracterize as “the coup.” The interim government of Roberto
Micheletti would be required to step down and be replaced by a unity
government that would include a number of top-level Zelaya appointees.
The people of Honduras removed their president because he, like Hugo
Chavez, attempted to remain in power beyond his constitutionally
prescribed term, a move that was opposed by all four Marxist leaders of
the region...Castro, Chavez, Obama, and Ortega. As a replacement, they
chose a pro-democracy conservative to lead their country. However, not
satisfied with that outcome, Obama and his allies in Cuba, Nicaragua,
and Venezuela have attempted to subvert the democratic processes in
Honduras by imposing a so-called “unity” government, heavily infiltrated
by communists and socialists from the former Zelaya regime.
With few exceptions, the most significant mentors, advisors, and
father-figures in Obama’s life have been dedicated Marxists, so we
should not be surprised that he has spent so much political capital
trying to establish yet another socialist dictatorship in the Western
Hemisphere.
For those who remain unconvinced of Obama’s true colors, his
thinly-veiled attempt at “nation-building” in Central America should
provide proof enough of where his sympathies lie. |
