Honduras' conressional leader Roberto Micheletti (center) prays with other congressmen after being being sworn in as president. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)

By rejecting the rule of law and siding with tyrants in opposing Honduras' removal of its president, Barack Obama reveals his true colors.

When George W. Bush was waging what euphemistically became known as the "War on Terror," the left rabidly denounced what many considered his unconstitutional actions. Nary a day went by that leftists didn't bemoan the Patriot Act, for instance, although they didn't understand it or the Constitution well enough to know how much acquaintance the two actually had. Now, for the record, I oppose all unconstitutional actions, be they authored by the left, right or center. Because for a constitutional republic to work, we must accept the proposition that, well, we'll actually abide by its constitution.

Unfortunately, leftists play a different game. Their talk of constitutional adherence was never anything but posturing and political expediency, and nothing proves this more than the Obama administration's reaction to the ouster of Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya. In supporting Zelaya, Obama is siding with thugs Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega — and opposing the rule of law.

Obama has called the deposal "not legal," and I have even heard some leftists characterize it as a "right-wing military coup." But it was neither a military coup nor right-wing. The military isn't in power in Honduras and the man who took the reins is politician Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own party — the Liberal Party. And while the armed forces did oust the former president, they acted in a law enforcement capacity and under orders from legitimate civilian authorities.

To better illustrate what transpired in Honduras, I'll introduce a scenario. It is 2007, and President Bush's tenure is drawing to a close. But he's not satisfied to leave, however, and hatches a plan to extend his rule. He's going to hold a national referendum on altering the Constitution so as to allow him to seek a third term (he'll "find" the votes later), thereby circumventing the constitutional amendment process. So, although the Congress and Supreme Court decree his actions illegal, he orders the military to conduct the referendum. The military cites the law and refuses, at which point Bush orders a mob of his followers to break into the installation in which the ballot boxes are stored and distribute them themselves. At this point, the Houses impeach the president and he is removed from office.

Now imagine that instead of accepting this licit defense of the rule of law, Bush's overseas allies banded together and sought to coerce us into restoring him to office, even sometimes going so far as to threaten military action. Would we not consider this an egregious violation of our sovereignty? Would the left not be screaming?

The above is roughly analogous to the Honduran situation. Bolivian commentator Emilio Martinez provides us with many of the details, writing:

Zelaya was already moving toward despotism in 2008 as his relation with Hugo Chaves became closer. He began to execute the methodology of a gradual coup d’État that had already been exported by the Venezuela president to several Latin American republics. This system included persecution of the free media and implementation of an illegal procedure to change the Constitution in order to keep himself in power.

It was this blind ambition that inspired the illegal referendum, which Martinez says "called for a vote on the dissolving of Congress and the installation of a Constituent Assembly to allow for his [Zelaya's] presidential reelection."

Not surprisingly, the Honduran supreme court, congress and attorney general all warned that the move was unconstitutional. Despite this, Zelaya pressed forward, thumbing his nose at the law and ordering the military to conduct the referendum itself. The military refused, and Martinez tells us what happened next:

. . . José Manuel Zelaya dismissed the military Commander, General Romeo Vasquez. In response, the Supreme Court commanded Vasquez to be reinstated in his functions and the ballot-boxes to be kept inside the military headquarters. Zelaya counter-ordered his sympathizers to invade the headquarters, take the ballot-boxes and set them up for the referendum. 



A multi-party commission named by Congress to investigate the President concluded that Zelaya had violated Honduran law. That commission asked Congress to declare him unfit to govern and begin a legal process of impeachment.   

Thus, Zelaya's removal is simply an example of a Third World nation taking Old World actions, the precise opposite of the Obama-Media Axis narrative. While much of the world asks that a would-be tyrant be restored, Honduras proclaims that it will not regress to that dark South American tradition of coups, connivance and strongmen. It will not be a banana republic.

Yet this cannot be said of Zelaya's shameless allies. And what to make of Obama standing shoulder-to-shoulder with communist tyrants (in name or in sheep's clothing) such as Chavez, Ortega and Castro, in supporting the rule of the lawless in Honduras? Is it really surprising? Has the left — to which there are no absolutes, no eternal laws — ever truly accepted the rule of law, constitutional restraints and rejected the principle "The end justifies the means"?

Also note something else. Whatever you think of Bush, like most of us, he was raised with a certain idea: this is America. You can reach for the stars and maybe one day become president, but your time at the helm is limited. And while it will end, the American system remains . . . forever. The rule of law is perpetuated, not the rule of a man.

In contrast, Obama was weaned on the preaching of unrepentant weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and that of Saul Alinsky, who, I'd remind you, wrote a book titled Rules for Radicals. In their universe, the American system is not to be respected; it's to be undermined, subverted and overthrown. Now, how much would you bet that Obama doesn't share this philosophy? Would you bet your country? Some of us already have.

If the United States is complicit in using international pressure to force Honduras to abandon rule of law, it will mark a dark day for America — the embrace of banana-republic foreign policy. We will have transitioned from the dubious but well-intentioned goal of installing constitutional republics overseas to something quite different. That is, ensuring that leftist tyrants may reign unfettered.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Doug Cragoe said:

... From what I've heard from the other side, the referendum was to be a non-binding one. So even if the election had gone forward, it would not have changed the constitution. True? Also, why did the military allow the ballot boxes to be taken out of their bases by mobs of citizens? Could it be that some of the military thought the election was legitimate? If the president's actions were illegal, why didn't their legislature quickly impeach him? Did they not have enough votes to impeach him? That would have been a legal method of removal. Perhaps they did not have enough votes to impeach him. So it seems like one part of government took over the military and ousted another part of the government. These are questions that news reports seldom answer. Maybe you can. It was still a coup to me, because the laws of that country were not followed when it came to removing the president from office.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2009
Votes: -3

danwhitehead1 said:

As ever and as always - - - Mr. Duke hits the nail directly on the head again. As far as Obama and would-be tyrants and thugs are concerned, don't birds of a feather flock together? As fas as the running of another country is concerned, how is is our business to interfere in any way shape or form? What did George Washington say about foreign entanglements? As far as the left is concerned, it has long been my sentiment that the left is composed of nothing but slippery, slimy, confused/confusion spreading scoundrels and fools (and dangerous fools at that). If we weren't floating on a vast ocean of ignorance, their foolish, trouble-making bleatings would never be heeded and their power nullified.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 15, 2009
Votes: +0

Ivan Nunez said:

- Doug, how can it be non-binding, if the out come of that "survey" would place a 4th ballot on the general elections? A ballot that would give the President (in this case Zelaya) to call an Constituent Assembly. And by the way, the votes were going to be counted by people from Cuba and Venezuela, the ballots where imported from Venezueal. The military did not stop the civilians because they didnt want a bloodshed, so it was a lot easier to let them have the ballots, they weren't going to be able to use them anyway. In Honduras we dont have established how an impeachment goes about, and the reason that they exiled him was to prevent people from attacking the jail in which he would be sent to. I hope this clears your questions. I'm Honduran and I live in Honduras.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 16, 2009
Votes: +1

Jorge Maradiaga said:

Response to Doug Doug: Congress voted 124 to 4 to have Zelaya removed. The Supreme Court voted unanimously that Zelaya had broken the law and issued an arrest warrant; and it also backed the decision to have him removed. The Honduras Constitution under article 239 states that any president who tries to extend their 4-year term or tries to be re-elected ceases IMMEDIATELY to be the president. It does not call for any trial or due process. It SAYS IMMEDIATELY, and the Supreme Court and Congress upheld the Constitution by removing Zelaya from office IMMEDIATELY. The survey was supposed to be non-binding, until a Zelaya-issued decree was published 2 days before the survey was to be held. Zelaya lied to the people by saying it was non-binding and then secretly issuing a decree making it binding 48 hours before the survey was to be held. The military let Zelaya's mob take the ballots because it wanted to prevent violence. Zelaya led 900 people to the Air Force facility where the impounded ballots were being stored. Note that it had been the Supreme Court that had impounded the illegal ballots. Since the place where the ballots were stored is not a maximum security facility, the mob tore down a fence and a gate. The few soldiers who guarded the warehouse opted wisely to let the mob continue its rampage. One other thing: the Armed Forces are not "split" as you suggest. When Zelaya removed the Armed Forces General Commander for refusing to obey an illegal order, the commanders of the Navy, Air Force, and Army as well as the Secretary of Defense resigned in solidarity.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 10, 2009
Votes: +0