Anyway, a lot of information on what really happened with the constitution etc. in the Honduras recently, is also provided on the following link. This a google search via the Information Clearinghouse and there are a ton of articles to sift through, but it’s all there. You should be able to see the difference in what is really happening and what the US press prints. The news we get in the US is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Enjoy the following link:

http://www.google.com/custom?domains=informationclearinghouse.info&client=pub-5174720432180771&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en&q=honduras&sa=Search&sitesearch=informationclearinghouse.info

In response to the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, the U.S. State Department cut off foreign aid to Honduras and stopped approving visas for government officials. The U.S. is even threatening now to de-legitimize that nation’s upcoming November elections, and has been treating the interim government of Roberto Micheletti as a rogue regime.

But State’s is not the only opinion. By way of contrast, a new report from the Congressional Research Service bears out what our editorial board has been pointing out for months now: The situation in Honduras should not be a cause for concern in Washington. It should a relief.

President Zelaya, who was attempting to subvert the constitutional order of Honduras by seeking re-election (considered a crime there) was removed from office by the order of civilian authorities, and the constitutional order of succession was honored afterward.

Obama’s position – and the various quotes above by loquaciousmomma – suggest that the rhetoric of Collectivism is a powerful weapon in forming “public opinion”.

There was a very telling quote from him in the article:

“with or without an order the referendum will be held, and it will be on Sunday Jun. 28. Everything is ready and we are going ahead because it is what the people are calling for, and we have collected signatures to legitimate it; and rather than legality, this is about legitimacy,” he said.

(emphases added)

What I see is that Mr. Zelaya was carefully manipulating the poor people of Honduras, using class warfare language, to change the government. From what I see, the Honduran government was trying desperately to stop a socialist revolution.

Another article has a perfect example of this language:
“

The court, which only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, only causes problems for democracy,

This use of the word democracy really irks me. It is a favorite form of doublespeak for socialists. Socialism takes away the freedoms of would be business owners and ultimately the freedoms of all citizens, and yet it is pushed on people by making them think they are being given more freedoms rather than less.

in any event the best quote of all, and a real eye opener in trying to understand Mr. Zelaya’s intentions is this:

“I’m taking the people on a mission to guarantee the democracy and rule of law,” said Zelaya. “Nobody is going to take away my legal authority because the people, who are the voice of God, are with me.”

The only person I’m aware of so far is Senator DeMint.

In these circumstances, it seems unlikely that either side would back down. This would set the stage for a military confrontation at the border, during which it is conceivable that Mr. Zelaya and others would be killed.

That’s what may happen. What I think should happen is rather different. Panamá has it right, and foreign countries should keep their noses out of Honduras’ internal affairs. The early elections proposed by the interim Honduran government would very likely defuse the explosive situation there and, like the vote a few years ago when Mr. Zelaya was elected, would be fair and transparent. Honduras would most likely welcome international observers, should they be prepared to observe but not to interfere.

Unfortunately, the “international community” has already said and done too much. If it continues on that ill-fated course, Honduras’ willingness to advance its November election may well diminish and Honduras may well become a locus of military confrontation in Central America.

I’ve been listening to NPR for a while now just so I can see what the arguments are on the other side. They have to have some reasons right? Well sometimes they do. But the primary tools they have are:

1) Ad homenim attacks combined with rhetoric and condescension.
2) Ignoring any facts that they don’t like and continuing in their course of action.

#1 is inexcuseable in a public debate forum. & #2 is a sign of a weak argument –however, it is a sign of a weak argument on either side. Only judgement and time will tell which is right.

In this particular situation with the envoy interview, it is quite easy to see which side had the weaker argument.

Chatting with my dad this weekend, he suggested an NPR interview with their (former?) US Envoy. (It’s here if you’d like a listen.) The NPR lady questioning him sounded like she couldn’t quite get the word “coup” out of her mind (likely because it involved the military, and you know, guns and stuff); but Ambassador Bermudez made it very clear that it was a completely consitutional procedure.

Interesting how much the mass media has been “getting wrong” lately… but anyway, thanks again for the great post! :-)

When I lived in Venezuela, and Chavez was running for president, virtually every educated person I spoke to greatly feared his win, while the uneducated and impoverished just went along with the emotion and believed his lies and propaganda. Those who understood his platform could see what path he would lead them down, but they were unfortunately the (apparent) minority.

Here’s a question for all these new-found defenders of Honduran democracy: Where were you last week? Perhaps if some of these warnings about sticking to the constitution had been addressed to President Zelaya, the Honduran army would still be in the barracks where it belongs.
…
His actions have been repudiated by the country’s supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya’s sanity) and most Hondurans: Recent polls have shown his approval rating down below 30 percent.

In fact, about the only people who didn’t condemn Zelaya’s political gangsterism were the foreign leaders and diplomats who now primly lecture Hondurans about the importance of constitutional law.
…
The Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note — regardless of party — has voiced approval.