Yesterday, the United States celebrated its 233rd anniversary of its independence. This president, however, doesn’t seem to put a priority on liberty. Instead, he’s joined with Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers and the OAS in criticizing Honduras for throwing out its tyrant leader. Now the OAS has suspended Honduras’ membership in the OAS:

A week after Central America’s first coup in more than a quarter of a century, tensions were at breaking point in the Central American nation as ousted President Manuel Zelaya planned to return.

The country’s interim leaders were more defiant than ever in the face of growing isolation and public anger, apparently set on staying put until November elections despite freezes in aid, withdrawn foreign ambassadors and temporary trade blockages.

The Organization of American States suspended Honduras late Saturday, in the first such move since the exclusion of Cuba in 1962, adding to the growing international pressure.

Let’s first put in place the foundation of facts on why Zeleya was ousted. Here’s Jim Hoft’s post on Zeleya’s ouster:

Honduran El Heraldo reported:

The president should not allow Barack Obama a victory of “Chavism” in Honduras and should take into account that the impeachment of president Manuel Zelaya was made by order of the Supreme Court and of respect for institutions, said Wednesday the Wall Street Journal.

Zelaya was plotting to remain in power, the Journal reported in an editorial. He added that the Honduran president had help from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to reform the constitution to run for reelection and to meet its target as it did the same Chavez.

“The events of Honduras should be interpreted in light of the decade of chavismo in Latin America,” said an editorial in the Journal.

In other words, Zeleya was planning on rewriting Honduras’ constitution so he could stay in power forever. The Honduran Supreme Court said that that action violated the Honduran Constitution, at which time Zeleya tried throwing out the Honduran Surpreme Court.

The minute that happened, the Honduran Supreme Court gave the Honduran military the authority to remove Zeleya from power, which it did.

It’s at that point that Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega and President Obama criticized the Honduran Supreme Court for enforcing the Honduran Constitution. That’s what led to the OAS’ suspension of Honduras from the organization. The next logical step is for the OAS to impose sanctions on Honduras.

This is insanity but it’s perfectly understandable. It’s insanity because an organization of thugs is criticizing a sovereign nation for abiding by its constitution. It’s perfectly understandable because Chavez, Ortega, Castro and Obama have little regard for their nation’s constitutions.

Especially in light of yesterday’s Independence Day celebrations, We The People should send President Obama the message that siding with Ortega, Castro, Chavez and Zeleya is the worst possible decision he could’ve made. We The People should also insist that the Honduran Constitution be obeyed and that sanctions not be imposed.

We’re supposed to be the nation that stands for liberty and the rule of law. Had this happened during the Bush administration, there’s little doubt but that we wouldn’t have sided with power-crazed thugs like Castro, Chavez, Ortega and Zeleya. We would’ve sided with the rule of law and Honduran sovereignty.

It’s charitable to say that President Obama’s foreign policy is erratic. It’s accurate to say that President Obama’s foreign policy hasn’t been properly thought through and that there isn’t a hint of consistency in it. Frankly, he’s looked ill-equipped to make important foreign policy decisions.

As for the OAS, they’re disgracing themselves by siding with a lawless thug like Zeleya. What does it say about an organization that sides with a thug that tries rewriting his country’s constitution and criticizes a nation’s leaders for obeying their constitution?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

4 Responses to “Honduras, OAS & the US”

  • eric z. says:

    Is the suggestion that if Obama wished to advocate a constitutional amendment a majority of our Supreme Court could authorize a military coup.

    I thought you embraced a nation’s chief executive as commander in chief. You did, I thought, up to January of this year. Even as to secrecy in decision making.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, This has nothing to do with a president’s responsibilities as commander-in-chief because Honduras wasn’t at war.

    Zeleya simply tried unilaterally undoing Honduras’ constitution. When Honduras’ Supreme Court told him that his actions were unconstitutional, Zeleya tried disbanding the Honduran Supreme Court.

    What do you think the reaction would’ve been had an American president tried pulling a stunt like that? Would the citizens have accepted that president’s actions? Of course they wouldn’t have.

    That president would’ve been impeached & convicted in a heartbeat.

  • J. Ewing says:

    The question was, why wasn’t he removed through the legal impeachment process, rather than sending in the military? If we err, as I believe we have on all sides, by calling this a “Military coup” rather than a “legal reaction to an illegal Presidential plot,” then I think we need to somehow distinguish between the two and show how the facts support the latter description.

Leave a Reply