July 02, 2009

Something tells me ...

... that if a Republican was in office -- or at least a Democrat in the vein of JFK or Harry Truman -- we wouldn't be so quick to want Honduran President Zelaya back in office.

The people I've spoken with here in Costa Rica just don't understand Barack Obama saying Zelaya's ouster was "illegal." Did The Messiah even bother to consider what Zelaya did?

What on earth makes Obama think he knows better about what is legal under the law of Honduras than the Supreme Court of Honduras and the law-writing legislature of Honduras? The Honduran military acted after Zelaya defied an order by that nation's highest court which pronounced his coup attempt illegal; he has been replaced under a Honduran legal process by that nation's Congress, which essentially impeached him and democratically voted in a successor. That sounds pretty legal to me. I am the first to admit I am not an expert in Honduran law, but I'd bet the Honduran Supreme Court has a better grasp on it than President Obama. On the issue of what is legal in Honduras, as between Hugo Chávez and the Honduran Supreme Court, our president has decided to go with Chávez. (Source.)

Not surprisingly, a "Tico" (Costa Rican) friend and I watched the Honduras segment on ABC's World News Tonight this evening and they never once mentioned Zelaya's illegal actions under Honduran law. The only thing they said against Zelaya was that there were "some demonstrations against him" in the capital city of Tegucigalpa.

And again -- people wonder why Fox News dominates? Because in this case Fox was the ONLY American network that reported on Zelaya's illegal actions as noted above -- at least that I saw in the last few days. CNN en Espańol mentioned them, as did the Costa Rican press. Surprising? Ha! The Messiah wants Zelaya back! Who are the MSM to disagree!

It's well known that Obama is worrisome about perceptions of past American meddling in other countries, and in some, perhaps many cases, rightly so. But what in the hell would it hurt to support [what appears to clearly be] a case of upholding the rule of law? What would have Obama and other Democrats have said if George Bush had attempted what Zelaya did? The phrase "just imagine the outcry" wouldn't do it justice. (Indeed, our First State Desirer of Death for All Things He Dislikes would want the death penalty for GW for much less.) The Honduran "coup" was not the "typical" Latin American variety witnessed ad nauseum in the 50s-80s. On the contrary, it was an affirmation of Honduran democracy.

Obama can find almost a billion dollars for the freakin' terrorists in Gaza, but is threatening to withhold $200 million from Honduras because it ousted a wannabe Hugo Chávez. That's change you can spit on, frankly.

More here.

Posted by Hube at July 2, 2009 01:35 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I'll tell you what -- if those who got rid of Zelaya suddenly start klilling innocent Jews, Obama will throw his full support behind them.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 2, 2009 10:55 AM

LOL ... I appreciate the sentiment; however, it's really beyond me why Obama doesn't take the lead for the OAS and say that upholding the LAW is of prime importance over someone who was democratically elected. I mean, hell -- Hamas was democratically elected, but they're a freakin' exterminationist group. Based on Obama logic, we have to support them. Zelaya wanted to do his own thing and was essentially impeached and removed based on Honduran law.


Posted by: Hube at July 2, 2009 11:04 AM

Actually, Obama DOES support Hamas. He just doesn't support the democratically elected government of Israel -- or, for that matter, the democratically elected government of Iran.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 2, 2009 01:59 PM