Chile Forum

How long does Chavez have on his term? He almost got the hook himself after trying to become president for life. Think he'll go quietly?

How can anyone rationize the overthrow of a democratically elected President? What is the problem with allowing Zeyala to serve out his term in office? Retroactive justification for the coup based on alleged corruption charges ring hollow.

I have this crazy notion. When you hold an opinion, that opinion should be able to withstand the BEST other points-of-view can throw at you. As such, I do not just focus on the weaknesses of opposing arguments, but also on their strengths, which should be met head-on. That approach is clearly not popular in the press or with politicians (birds of a feather when it comes to honesty). Here’s a question for you – have opponents of the Honduran “coup” truly addressed the facts and arguments that led to the ouster?

Here on the website Laura points out that the government’s restriction of the press doesn’t make the Congress (run by Zeleya’s own party), Supreme Court, military and temporary president (also from Zeleya’s own party) look good. In other words, it looks like a typical banana republic overthrow by a thuggish military, so let’s deride it…..and (implicitly) support the other guy, you know, the mini-Chavez Castro-wannabe who used force to defy the legal system and his own party to pull a “Chavez” (which is very different from receiving a “Monica”). In evaluating Laura’s response, let us first recognize that there was no attempt to address the facts or the larger argument. There was simply a potshot of “Hey, this smells, it must be bad”. That is a sign of at least one of two things – weakness (you cannot do more than make allusions and take pot-shots but desperately want to support the leftist anti-US position) or lack of interest/time to really address the thing. If it’s the latter, fair enough. We all have lives and things to do that preclude spending hours arguing with electronic ghosts for the sheer fun of it.

Given prior precedent, I think the situation is likely grave enough to warrant restricting the press, especially the elements most likely to stir Zeleya’s thuggish masses to violence. And I think it both telling and accurate that CNN would find itself in the same league as Chavez’ pet station in Venezuela, just as I think it telling and accurate that the same Obama who ignored real freedom fighters in Iran is now shoulder to shoulder with Castro and his “amigo” Chavez. What else would one expect from our “Carter of Color”? Given any history, and especially Central American history, I think that the Hondurans have acted in a very civilized and democratic manner, even if it is not what we would desire as an ideal reaction. Come on, where that liberal sensitivity & multiculturalism? Why so fast to be judgmental and impose Gringo values on the Hondurans?

Did I forget to mention that US law would very, very likely allow our government to restrict freedom of speech under such circumstances? And that we actually did do so, in World War One, for example? When speech presents a clear and present danger (Schenck vs. United States, 249 US 47 1919) or would promote an imminent lawless action (Brandenburg vs. Ohio 395 US 444 1969), the government can restrict it. A bunch of propaganda providing one side of the story (emphatically includes CNN) would likely cause pro-Zeleya mobs to engage in more immediate violence….sounds like a clear and present danger or promotion of imminent lawless action to me. Even under US standards, the government could likely move to constrain free speech. Perhaps that’s just confirmation that the US is a “fascist” state, per the Left’s absurd repetition of a nasty word that they do not understand.

I find it telling that Obama would not support a true pro-democracy movement in Iran because it would interfere with his ability to play Neville Chamberlain to Ahmadinejad’s Hitler (predictably, Mahmoud rewarded Obama with a verbal B-Slap, gee, who knew?). At the same time, when Honduras’ legistature, supreme court, military and Zeleya’s own party moved to replace a president (with a temporary non-general of Zeleya’s own party who stood in lawful order of succession) who used violence in a blatantly illegal attempt to keep power, Obama & Hillary IMMEDIATELY took the same line as Chavez and Castro. Welcome back, Carter.

Let me ask you this – what do you think would happen to a US President who led a mob to break in to a military base to seize material meant to extend his power beyond Constitutional limits? Let’s pretend that the president was a Republican, otherwise I might not like the answer. Here’s one: How about a US President whose cronies committed a comparatively minor illegal act by breaking into the opposing party’s office in a place called Watergate?

The one-sided presentation by most of the press is shameful. The knee-jerk reaction of liberals such as Obama and Hillary to defy democratic rule of law in Honduras is shameful. The knee-jerk solidarity of such liberals with Zeleya, Chavez and Castro is shameful. The blatant (and predictably unsuccessful) attempt to appease an Iranian nut-job (that guy is nuts even by the low standards of the Middle East) at the expense of true democratic reformers is shameful. It will only get worse – Carter took an unsavory but strong ally in Iran and converted them into even less savory and deadly enemies. Looks like Obama is working on Carter 2.0. Get ready for staglation and insecurity.

As to John's comment - "what's wrong with" letting a violent law-breaker who is trying to keep permannent power stay in office? Take a look at Cuba and especially Venezuela for your answer. Those guys (especially Chavez) broke the law "little by little" to eventually destroy democracy and create a dictatorship. That, and I do not consider leading a violent mob against your own military in defiance of your legislature, supreme court, own party and nation's laws to be a "little by little" breach of the law.

Kudos to Hondurans, who presently enjoy greater clarity of principle and courage of action than a majority of Americans, starting with the Obama Administration. THERE is your Hope and Change!

John Hyre, I’ve Seen This Movie Before

PS: New info. Looks like their Congress initiated impeachment proceedings & military followed Supreme Court orders. I'm sure more details will emerge.

A substantial, thoughtful posting, JHyre. Thanks for writing it.

My own impression is that the ordinary Joe-on-the-street (not Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, who must know the truth of the matter) who condemns the deposition of Zelaya does so not out of career-politician hypocrisy and cynicism but because that ordinary Joe either ignorantly thinks that all national constitutions resemble our own or blithely believes that they should. 'Too bad that he should think or believe this, though, and so disregard that Honduran governmental institutions in removing the former president actually followed the same Honduran law that Zelaya both violated and conspired to demolish further.

RWS wrote:ordinary Joe either ignorantly thinks that all national constitutions resemble our own

I doubt ordinary Joe knows much about his own constitution to start with. I see huge misconceptions all the time such as people thinking the First Amendment protects them from private censorship.

otravers wrote:I doubt ordinary Joe knows much about his own constitution to start with. . . .

Having come out of criminal court this morning (defending a client, not myself, thank goodness!), I must agree. The usual misconception seems to be some variant of "I'm allowed to do anything I want, if I think it desireable." (Desireable for whom, we might ask? Well, that's in the mind of the misconceiver!)

JHyre,

You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that the International community (including the US) claims that the overthrow of Zelaya (sorry for misspelling his name in my last post) is illegal. What is your evidence, not conjecture on your part, to the contrary (please do not site opinion pieces from right wing organs such as WJS, Forbes, and the NYPost in your response)? Also,I'm intrigued by your P.S. comments. What is your source?

I don't know the specifics of what happened in Honduras, and frankly I don't care that much. I'll make a broader comment. People whose education in political science and philosophy doesn't stop at senior high school understand that democracy and the rule of law are two entirely different things. Democratic states are routinely lawless to the point of voting and enforcing nonconstitutional laws, while some autocratic regimes constrain themselves within what their constitution allows. Democracy might self-constrain itself more than your typical dictatorship, but it's pretty obvious that being elected doesn't give you a blank check to do whatever you want. And democracy has also very well known tendencies to derive into populist favor-seeking and vote buying ultimately leading to trampling the rule of law.

Here's more of what obviously must be more atrocious right wing propaganda:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... GENUiy9yKs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03210.html

John,

Typical response from a true believer, just more stone-throwing. I posted my sources and no small detail in the way of explanation. Like a faithful believer, you dismiss evidence with a perjorative, sort of like Soviets dismissing facts as "false consciousness". I presented facts, cotradict them or refute them with actual sources, as opposed to one sentence with "the international community says". I will not do your homework for you. Are you saying that the legislature was not needed for change to constitution? That Zeleya did not use a crowd to break into military compound to seize Chavez-sent ballots? That referendum would have been legal? Address the facts, sir, if you can. I don't care if you cite Mother Jones, as long as they get the facts right. I can distinguish facts from opinion. A sneer for my sources is a cheap "out" that might work with your average weak-minded citizen. It won't work with me. Here let me help you - to the extent that the Hondurans did not follow the letter of the law, it is likely in that the court and/or military did not wait for the impeachment proceedings to take their course in the legislature....at least that's the appearance so far. If that is true AND the court did not have the authority to issue the order, then the issue becomes what is the greater evil: Leaving a violent, law-breaking demaguoge near the levers of power, or not waiting for the impeachment? All in the context of the having left the same party in power via respect for otherwise proper order of succession. And maybe some context of how things usually go in Central America. And perhaps some context & frank discussion of what Zeleya was trying to do, something that Obama & other leftists do not apparantly wish to discuss.

Otravers,

Dead on. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of who (masses or dictator) imposes it. The genius of the US Constitution, before being shredded by liberal judges, was that it once placed strict limits on government power. Those limits got in the way of progressive "experiments" and power-grabs and were quickly overrun. And now we pay the price in lost freedom.

John Hyre, Waiting for Actual Facts to Be Discussed

PS: Potshots with a smile welcome, ala Laura. Potshots as actual substitute for argument will be mercilessly derided.

Anyone who's taken the time to read the facts (my thanks to Olivier for making this even easier) and to give a moment's rational consideration to them (thanks to John Hyre for completing the simple equation) recognizes that the Honduran government acted as that country's constitution requires, in order to remove an official who had abrogated his own constitutional oath. So that, I think all here would agree, is established.

Of more interest to me now is understanding the official reaction from the American president and his government. Has he condemned the Honduran government out of ignorance (difficult to believe, but Mr. Obama has in other instances shown himself to be much more provincial than I had anticipated)? Out of a grotesque chauvinism (if another country's constitution doesn't follow the American model, it's illegitimate)? Out of a hoodwinking pandering to the bigotry that lies not far below the surface of the American (or any other) electorate? Or is this plain cynicism, a simple attempt to deflect the national attention from more substantive and ultimately more threatening issues?

Why did Obama do it? Knee-jerl liberal. Castro good, "mi amigo" Chavez of the handshake & little red book good, anything to do with Latin military (unless it is Cuban, etc) bad. Carter of Color, simple. In fact, if you remember, it was Carter who "certified" Chavez' first "election" as legitimate. Same mentality, same prejudices and same result.

As to facts, they are still unwinding. Legal dot & tittle that opponents ("international community") will hang their hat on appears to be that someone jumped the gun on impeachment. That's all that will get mentioned, with no analysis of overall facts and situation. Dissent will be dismissed as "right-wing" with no further discussion, and the average American Joe, who doesn't understand our own laws (I very much agree with RWS & Otravers on that), much less someone else's, will buy it, to the extent he is paying any attention at all. Result: Pressure for one more country to go the Chavez way, loss of freedom, destruction of economy, more overall suffering inflicted by caring leftists and loss of a country with traditionally strong ties to the US. Welcome Back Carter!

John Hyre, No, Really, I HAVE Seen This Movie Before

PS: Next topic for discussion: Present silence of so many who decried Bush deficits.

Just read Otravers links, hadn't seen the one from Christian Science Monitor before. THAT one lays it all out. Importantly for me, a lawyer, I see that the Supreme Court had the authority to remove the guy based on the clear language of the Constitution, including some background as to why that language is in there. Also, note the unanimity of the court, rare for those of us used to 5-4 decisions in the US. Nice link, Otravers.

I simply do not see what argument the "international community" has got to support their Pet Red Thug Dejour (little sop to Otravers mother tongue there). Oh wait, here's one: We all know that Christians are nasty, evil, bigoted, opinionated, un-scientific, judgmental, ignorant people, exactly as portrayed in the press and Hollywood. Really, who can take the CHRISTIAN Science Monitor seriously?

Your ball, Leftists.

John Hyre, Buehler, Buehler, Buehler..........

JHyre wrote:. . . . Really, who can take the CHRISTIAN Science Monitor seriously? ..........

Even though it be neither "Christian" nor "Science"!

Seriously, JH, you may be correct in supposing Mr. Obama's reaction to have been made without thought. I suspect (from having spent a year in one of the more destructive White Houses of my lifetime) that it was predicated by the inadequate (and, yes, probably biased) research hastily assembled by a young and ill-prepared aide, a political appointee in the EOP, and sanctioned by -- again -- a belief that the position would play well to an American electorate ever eager (when unaccompanied by a price in blood or gold) to believe that our own current political morality is or ought to be universal.

As for your question regarding justification of governmental deficits (fiscal, not mental) . . . .

RWS,

There you go citing facts again. So old-fashioned, so passe. Don't you know that good intentions and "caring" are all that matter? Would love hear WH stories some time. Given how much you've given in terms of "walking the walk" trying to help others (so unlike those who talk lots about how much others should give), you've got some credibility, especially in re American underclass.

I think that Obama and his underlings are knee-jerk liberals. Also, I do not think quality of their research will improve, for no one will call them out on it (except for "Publishers of Right-Wing Propaganda") until things are REALLY bad, and maybe not even then. The lapdog press (ABC employees gave EIGHTY times as much to Obama as McCain - that's EIGHTY! No bias there!) certainly won't do it.

A Republic, if you can keep it. So prophetic, so sad.

John Hyre, Bad Day to Quote Franklin