Zelaya, Chavez, and Lula: Socialist intervention in Honduras

What should be one of the most important stories in the Western Hemisphere is going virtually unreported.

By now, only the profoundly and permanently ignorant can deny that former president Manuel (Mel) Zelaya violated the Honduran constitution when he called for reform of the constitution in order to give himself the option of re-election.

In a video-taped recording of a speech Zelaya gave to his followers four days before his destitution, he stated:
“Here the judges are re-elected, the fiscales (prosecuting attorneys) are re-elected, the mayors are re-elected, the Legislators (Diputados) are re-elected…the only one who is not re-elected is the President, but the Re-election is the theme of the next constitutional assembly.”

Constitutional Assemblies are organized efforts to re-write constitutions under Latin American democratic rules. The problem with this is that the Honduran constitution explicitly prohibits Presidents from requesting or even suggesting their own re-election, and he who violates this norm, according to the Honduran Supreme Court, automatically loses his mandate and is to be removed from power. This is what happened to Zelaya.

Yesterday, 21 of September 2009, Zelaya somehow slipped through the border and arrived in Honduras. The most common report states that he arrived secretly overland, while at least one other report suggests he was flown into Honduras aboard a Venezuelan military plane. He then managed to seek refuge in the Brazilian embassy.

In response, the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, stated: “I can’t help but think that he’s here to try to put up obstacles to our presidential election” that is scheduled to occur in November. Micheletti, in agreement with the Honduran constitution, cannot and will not postulate himself as a candidate, now or ever again, since he served as President, even if it was for only a few months.

The most important factor in this story is that Zelaya apparently left Nicaragua with the help of the socialist Nicaraguan government of Manuel Ortega and was given protection in the Brazilian embassy. It appears that the leftist governments of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil are colluding to intervene in the internal affairs of Honduras, in order to overthrow the “de facto” government there and restore Zelaya to power, in opposition to what appear to be the legal and constitutional orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran congress (or parliament), and the standing president.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to waffle and wobble, speaking out of both sides of its diplomatic mouth. Publicly they have called for the return of Zelaya, but then in the past written letters acknowledging that it was Zelaya’s own actions that caused his removal.

It is shocking to see the UN, OAS, and United States behave in such an inept and unhelpful manner. The moral confusion that appears to run these organizations and our State Department will eventually contribute to a violent upheaval in Honduras and could result in the ultimate destruction of the Honduran democracy.

UPDATE:
Interested parties should listen to this blistering critique of the Obama policy on Honduras by none other than the great Newt Gengrich.
Selected quote:
"I think this administration may rapidly parallel Carter, in that Carter had this deep almost psychologically driven compulsion to attack America's allies and apologise for our enemies, and this administration has a very similar pattern..."{he then reviews the situation in Honduras I have outlined in my posts}..."The Obama administration has already announced they will not honor (the upcoming November elections). In fact, they went further and just withdrew the visas of the 15 Supreme Court Justices (who ordered Zelaya deposed for constitutional violations). This is waging war on Democracy."

Bite your forked tongue, Speaker Pelosi

Indeed, Madam Speaker, there may yet be violence. Let us hope there is not, but it is about time you take note of the rage simmering in the nation. Meanwhile, your pathetic speeches do not absolve you and your cohorts of blame.

I heard the little chat you gave to the press today, Speaker Pelosi. I heard your voice quiver with emotion, and I was glad of it. You said:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … uh…I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and what they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

I’m pleased to hear you recognize this very real possibility. I hope you understand that citizens across the country have been warning the government for some time: you are out of control, and have strayed too far from the constitution, infringing on our rights and liberties, at the individual and state levels.

The recent dramatic increase in firearms purchases in the USA was not because the ultra-leftist statements made by you, President Obama and your ilk kindled a new interest in deer hunting. No. Rather, a significant portion of the citizenry is concerned about social deterioration, increased crime, and what appears to be an unrestrained government whose actions are becoming increasingly tyrannical.

The fact that twenty states have made moves to reiterate their sovereignty is no insignificant fact. Contemplate that for a moment.

It should be understood that we are in dangerous waters. The ever-expanding federal government, which habitually hefts unfunded programs upon the states and refuses them the right to nullify the policies, is an unacceptable violation of states’ rights, is creating an untenable burden upon the citizenry, and is considered by millions of Americans to be a real, and not rhetorical, cause for revolt.

So yes, you had reason to speak with emotion, Madam Speaker: there is a very real possibility of violence. For the first time in my life, I’m hearing red-blooded America-loving citizens speak of civil war.

You and your Liberal friends cannot grasp the sentiment that has been stirred, but clearly you are aware of it. But get this through your head: the people making these statements are not a bunch of “imbalanced” crazies. The people I know saying this are not like David Koresh or Tim McVeigh...or Bill Ayers, for that matter.

These are highly intelligent, highly educated individuals; some are doctors, others professors, while many are ordinary corporate workers whose patience with government intrusion is running out.

So before you point fingers and accuse everyone else of irresponsible behavior, reflect on your own! Who it is that has appointed radical Marxists to the highest echelons of our government?

Who has appointed dozens of “czars” who are unaccountable to the people? Some of these have openly suspected President Bush of conspiring to destroy the Twin Towers, sympathized with the terrorists, while others wrote books proposing forced abortions and sterilization.

Whose administration is promoting doomsday predictions about global warming and imposing incredible tax hikes on our energy, while simultaneously promoting a radical restructuring of the entire national healthcare system?

Whose administration is it that condemned the previous president for running up the debt and deficit, and then quadrupled said debt and deficit by 400% in less than one year? Who is it that has doggedly accused good American citizens of being racists, Nazis, hypocrites, and liars for opposing the radical agenda?

Was that what you meant when you promoted “change” in America? Was that what President Obama meant when he promised “fundamental transformation of America”?

I’ve seen all of this before. It is what has been happening in my wife’s country of birth, Venezuela (she's now a US citizen), ever since they elected another “progressive” named Hugo Chavez. Watching you and your minions at work, I have been struck by the similarities in your policies and outlandish behavior. Chavez was able to trash the 40 year old Venezuelan constitution after only a few years in office, implant a neo-Marxist totalitarian regime, all without any real violent resistance.

But this is not Venezuela. Americans are not pacifists. We are, by nature, tolerant and peaceful when possible, but bellicose when necessary. We love our Constitution as much as others love their god. Patrick Henry’s demand, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death”, still reverberates in our hearts. We understand that sentiment and value those same values. We are still ready to fight and die so that our children may live free.

You seem to be living under the delusion that your intentions are good, so therefore the results of your actions must also be good. But your good intentions are paving a road to Hell, and your stubborn determination to take us on that journey with you clashes with our determination to preserve this, the most perfect of imperfect nations.

Let me make clear that I am not inciting violence, so bite your forked tongue before you accuse me of that crime. To the contrary, I am hopeful that the Democrat super-majority in control today will tame its hubris, restrain its giddy arrogance, and that reason will prevail. But meanwhile, heed my warning; the People who recently assembled peacefully in Tea Parties , town halls and marches were not a “mob”. No, when the “mob” comes knocking, you will instantly recognize the difference!

Are we headed toward a second civil war?

I can’t express how worried I am—and I think you should be, too. We have a very serious problem, it goes beyond parties. We are in grave danger, it’s not an exaggeration, not just right-wing fear mongering. The constitutional violations keep mounting, starting with some of the ones the liberals worried about (such as abuse of executive privilege, warrantless wiretaps, a move toward a police state, pre-emptive military strikes), but the conservatives are also correct that the uncontrolled expansion of the government, the massive spending, the intent to control the means of production, banks etc. We are sliding toward a fascist state, I never believed we’d get to this point but over the past 15 years a slow slide has converted into a rapid decent. I worry about what will happen, what kind of country this can become for my kids.

I’ve been mocked and ridiculed for saying that we might be on the way to a civil war, because it sounds insane to say that. But the radical increase in military-class gun and ammunition sales indicates that there is a massive movement building to arm up in preparation for civil unrest. Yesterday’s declaration of state sovereignty by the Texas governor is serious business. If other states join the call, a movement toward secession may start. That will be the rallying cry and I have no doubt that tens of thousands of armed volunteers will respond, flocking to Texas. If Texas makes a move in that direction, you’ll see Alaska join. I hear that the people are talking openly of a revolt. They are increasing their arsenals, organizing, and preparing for a major conflict. The Tea Parties are a symbolic and peaceful action, but we must keep in mind the historical significance: in colonial days, these were the acts that galvanized the colonists into rebellion.

The spark that triggered open warfare was the “shot heard round the world”. To review: the British government had levied heavy taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, which had just ended. These taxes impacted the people heavily on goods they wanted and needed desperately. In protest, they organized rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party, dumping British goods into the harbor—a criminal act of civil resistance. The British got worried, and made moves to disarm the colonists, and formed a plan to seize the provincial stores of munitions at Concord. Spies warned the colonists of the impending action, resulting in the famous ride of Paul Revere. The Minutemen turned out to resist, the British fired on them, and the outrage spread across the colonies, resulting in the Revolutionary War.

The Constitution was written with these events in mind, hence the Second Amendment: the people are the militia who has the right to remain armed to defend against tyrannical governments.

Today’s conditions are shaping up very similarly. The outrage is deepening and spreading. Even the Federal government appears to be worried; that’s why they published the 9-page report warning of “right wing extremists”. The appearance of “tea parties” and the creation of groups such as “Minutemen” along the US-Mexico border are cultural reverberations of the previous conflict that are gaining ground. We should never ignore those. In 1775, Colonists dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party. Why is that important? It was a symbolic image evoking the recently ended French and Indian wars. At that time, it must have been an outrageously provocative act, because it showed a kind of solidarity with the Indians who had fought against the British.

The Russian analysts who are predicting a split within the United States are not far off. Oil rich states like Texas and Alaska really have very little interest in being part of the United States. The citizens love the country, and would like to stay a part of it, but only as long as it continues to resemble the United States of America as described in the Constitution. Unfortunately, as our government continues to morph into a “fascist state”, the citizens of more traditional, conservative states will begin to feel less solidarity with it.

Keep in mind, there will be massive support in the South among whites to revive the confederacy: the Confederate outrage against federalism is alive and well. In the South this will lead to a horrendous race war, because the blacks will obviously react fearfully to this movement, but they won’t just migrate to other states.

Here’s a prediction: the outrage we are witnessing now is going to grow exponentially. It will be focused on the two parties equally, opening an opportunity for third party candidates. Initially, most people are happy with that notion. The common thought is that we need a fresh approach; “we have to break the backs of the two parties”. But the benefit of two parties is to consistently promote centrist candidates. As much as I dislike Obama, as much as you disliked Bush, it can get worse, MUCH worse. This is how Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez were elected; the electorate vote was not split in two, but in thirds or even quarters. So you can actually elect a president in that case with as little as 34% of the voting electorate. How easy is it to get one-third of the electorate radicalized?