Pot, meet kettle

posted at 10:22 am on July 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When I first reviewed the headlines from the Washington Post this morning, I found one that sounded quite promising: In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis.  I assumed that the Post had taken heed of criticism of American media coverage at Accuracy in Media, Fausta Wertz’s eponymous blog, and other resources about the lack of any reporting on the constitutional violations of deposed president Manuel Zelaya and his naked power grab before his arrest.  Instead, the Post delivers a scathing criticism of Honduras’ media (and the “de facto regime”) without a hint of the agenda of our own:

It was the biggest story in Honduras in years — soldiers burst into the president’s bedroom, dragged him off in his pajamas and bundled him onto a plane out of the country. Hours later, his foes announced the formation of a new government.

Several countries condemned the events of June 28 as a military coup. But in Honduras, some of the most popular and influential television stations and radio networks blacked out coverage or adhered to the de facto government’s line that Manuel Zelaya’s overthrow was not a coup but a legal “constitutional substitution,” press freedom advocates and Honduran journalists said.

Meanwhile, soldiers raided the offices of radio and TV stations loyal to Zelaya, shutting down their signals. Alejandro Villatoro, 52, the owner of Radio Globo, said soldiers broke down doors and dismantled video surveillance cameras. …

Such allegations underscore the one-sided nature of the news that has been served up to Hondurans during the crisis. According to results of a Gallup poll published here Thursday, 41 percent of Hondurans think the ouster was justified, with 28 opposed to it.

The de facto regime headed by Roberto Micheletti cited such support as he began talks Thursday in Costa Rica with that country’s president, Oscar Arias, who has agreed to mediate. Zelaya met separately with Arias, who said representatives of the two men will continue meeting in the days ahead.

We can guess at the Post’s own bias in the phrasing “de facto regimes”.  “Regimes” are always “de facto”; the word regime is used for less-than-legitimate governments holding power by force, such as the Iranian regime, the Mugabe regime, and what would have been the Zelaya regime if the legislature and the Supreme Court hadn’t acted.  No reputable media outlet would refer to the White House as the “Obama regime,” and especially not the “de facto Obama regime.”  The proper non-judgmental term for the Micheletti presidency, by the way, is interim government.

I agree that the Honduran security forces should not have shut down broadcasters.  It’s one of a series of mistakes made by the interim government of Honduras, the first being the expulsion of Zelaya rather than trying him for his crimes.  Had the Hondurans not made that initial mistake, most of the international outrage would have been limited to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega, and no one would be meddling in Honduran affairs.  Shutting down broadcasters is inexcusable and gives more than just hints that the interim government may have as little tolerance for opposition than Chavez does in Venezuela.

But let’s see the media turn their perspective on themselves.  They’ve done a great job covering Zelaya’s expulsion, his attempts to return to Honduras, and parroting the White House position on Honduras.  They haven’t even made an effort to cover the crimes that Zelaya committed which prompted an almost-unanimous vote in the Honduran legislature for his arrest (including all but three members of Zelaya’s own party) and a unanimous concurrence by the Supreme Court.  Those crimes included violating the country’s constitution by attempting to hold an illegal referendum, conspiring to steal the ballots from a military guard once the court ruled the referendum illegal, and sacking the commander of the military even though that power lies with the legislature and not the executive.  The US media have also consistently failed to report that the military did not seize power, as their reporting has implied, but carried out the arrest warrant.  Power has remained with the elected legislature during this entire period.

Honduras needs freedom of the press under the interim government.  We already have that, and we’re still getting only one sided reporting from our media.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A lesson I hope the US Military is digesting for future use

bill30097 on July 10, 2009 at 10:27 AM

I fear we may be looking into a crystal ball as to what our future might someday look like.
RR

ramrants on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

It would appear that the ComPost needs lessons in honesty AND Englisgh 101.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

And I need a lesson in spelling!

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

No reputable media outlet would refer to the White House as the “Obama regime,” and especially not the “de facto Obama regime.”

Yet.

Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM

But let’s see the media turn their perspective on themselves.

surely you jest….

cmsinaz on July 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM

You didn’t think they’d come down on the side of democracy, did you?

When our elected Fuhrer decides that his National Socialist State “needs” him past 2016 they can’t have been on record opposing such a thing!

wildcat84 on July 10, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Honduras needs freedom of the press under the interim government. We already have that, and we’re still getting only one sided reporting from our media.

Not excusing them or saying it’s right, but perhaps the bold part explains why they don’t want freedom of the press right now. Was the press all pro-Zelaya?

Daggett on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

The WaPo’s support of the Obama regime is expected. Frankly, the media has done a poor job of protecting him lately. They failed to hide his inexperience and poor judgment in regard to Iran, Honduras, the Russia trip, the G-8 meeting, Can n trade, gov’t health care, and the economy in general. The polls bear this all out.

If I was Obama, I’d be furious at the WaPo, the NYTimes etc, for not doing their jobs as state run media organs. Everyone thinks that’s a knock on them. That’s what they are, and they have an responsibility and enormous opportunity to make the admin. look good–too make the Obama case, as it is.

The fact is, it’s starting to look like the SRM just doesn’t do its job well. Declining viewership and readership attest to that.

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

The US media have also consistently failed to report that the military did not seize power, as their reporting has implied, but carried out the arrest warrant.

…which was their function, in accordance with Article 272 of the Honduran Constitution. it’s as if there were no internets with these clowns!

Kid from Brooklyn on July 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Honduras is just a sleepy nation of little brown people who simply cannot be entrusted with the responsibility for managing their own political affairs without the oversight of the elites at the Washington Post.

guntotinglibertarian on July 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM

No reputable media outlet would refer to the White House as the “Obama regime,” and especially not the “de facto Obama regime.”

Yet.

Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 10:30 AM

It has all the trappings of a regeime. It’s breaking the law. Constitutional power is being given to extra-legal “czars”, property is being confiscated, industries seized and put into crony control, it wants a national “healthcare” system that will amount to Robert Mengele like political control…

And he keeps seeking more “Enabling Acts”.

Everything about Obama and his party, and his policies reeks of National Socialism, right down to the personality cult of himself.

wildcat84 on July 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM

I know nothing of the Honduras media, but I do know that “The Media” is often a prime source for the fomenting of violence.

OldEnglish on July 10, 2009 at 10:35 AM

No reputable media outlet would refer to the White House as the “Obama regime,” and especially not the “de facto Obama regime.”

Really Ed. “Reputable?” The media is dead, and their shenanigans over the years taint the good as well. If there’s one thing the media aint, it’s reputable. Give it up. The media are whores. We all know it now, and nothing from them is a surprise, or beneath their standards. Why the faux outrage?

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I agree that the Honduran security forces should not have shut down broadcasters. It’s one of a series of mistakes made by the interim government of Honduras, the first being the expulsion of Zelaya rather than trying him for his crimes.

One must balance respect for speech with concern that socialist organs will be screaming for blood in the streets. I can’t imagine pro-Zelaya television and radio stations not asking their viewers to go out and kill opponents.

Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I wonder if the outlets are still down or have they been allowed to resume operation? As for our media, they are clueless about their own inappropriateness.

Cindy Munford on July 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM

bill30097 on July 10, 2009 at 10:27 AM
ramrants on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Be careful what you wish for.

spmat on July 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM

It was the biggest story in Honduras in years — soldiers burst into the president’s bedroom, dragged him off in his pajamas and bundled him onto a plane out of the country.

Might have been instructive (or at least a little less overtly biased) for the WaPo to inform its readers that the soldiers who “burst into the president’s bedroom” were acting under the authority of a valid court order for arrest issued by the Honduran Supreme Court. Even in the good ‘ole U.S.A., police can “burst into” a home and drag a citizen off in his/her pajamas if they have a valid arrest warrant (it’s called a “no knock warrant” Post reporters).

AZCoyote on July 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM

It has all the trappings of a regime. It’s breaking the law. Constitutional power is being given to extra-legal “czars”, property is being confiscated, industries seized and put into crony control, it wants a national “healthcare” system that will amount to Robert Mengele like political control…
And he keeps seeking more “Enabling Acts”.
Everything about Obama and his party, and his policies reeks of National Socialism, right down to the personality cult of himself.
wildcat84 on July 10, 2009 at 10:34 AM

What are you saying? Do you DARE to compare the Fauxbama regime to others like it?

After all, they’re only part way to such a thing, maybe 20%.

We all have to be patient and wait until it’s 51% like other ‘regimes’, THEN we can speak out!

- At which point we won’t have the right to speak out, ohh well….

Chainsaw56 on July 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM

The bigger story is that even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, the media still parrots this sham for the White House. I mean, that’s like a kid caught stealing who’s got the item in his hand saying “I didn’t steal anything”. It’s so frustrating to even listen to them talk.

And our government is defending the thief! Even when they know he’s a thief! Go figure.

Thunderstorm129 on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I agree that the Honduran security forces should not have shut down broadcasters.

I wouldn’t be to critical of the Interem Government shutting down broadcasters sympathetic to Zelaya. Our very own legislators would love to shut down Fox News, Rush,
Hannity, Levin, and other conservative broadcasters.

fourdeucer on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The WaPo conveniently overlooks facts that don’t suit its purpose. Also makes research and ‘multiple layers of fact checking’ easy.

GarandFan on July 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM

One sided, biased reporting is the standard modus operandi in this country, so why not Honduras? As far as calling Obama’s gaggle a regime . . . well, you know the old saying – - if it walks like a duck etc., etc., etc.

rplat on July 10, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I’m not sure I want to be on record supporting the shutting-down of radio stations, but it might have been an issue of exhorting to violence (not stated).
Also, the exile might have been part of a deal to get the resignation letter out of Zelaya, on the theory that such a clean break would be better for the country than a drawn out trial, particularly if the impeachment process was a bit muddled.

In this case, I don’t want to criticize Honduras until someone can show that these “might”s are not the case.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Even in the good ‘ole U.S.A., police can “burst into” a home and drag a citizen off in his/her pajamas if they have a valid arrest warrant (it’s called a “no knock warrant” Post reporters).
AZCoyote on July 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM

Ahh but that’s different when it’s here(and often at the WRONG address) and they shoot any dogs or people in the area that might look suspicious – or reacting to someone smashing in their front door.

Chainsaw56 on July 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM

It’s possible that WaPo had an access selling arrangment with the Zelaya government. It’s more than possible that Zelaya would be using some friendly media as a go-between with those who wanted to do business with him.

Buddahpundit on July 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM

MSM Regime.

bluelightbrigade on July 10, 2009 at 10:59 AM

MSM Regime.

bluelightbrigade on July 10, 2009 at 10:59 AM

+1

excellent

cmsinaz on July 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Does anyone know who the douche bag debating with De Mint in the video at Fausta’s site is?

You all should really watch the entire thing (11 minutes) though I’d forgive anyone who gave up after the first response.

It’s not just Obama.

gh on July 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM

The media are whores. We all know it now, and nothing from them is a surprise, or beneath their standards. Why the faux outrage?

JiangxiDad

Ed lives in a make-believe land where presidents are basically good and major media is basically honest. Acknowledging the truth results in cognitive dissonance. The next thing you know you end up supporting people like Sarah Palin. Can’t have that.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Once a paper or an administration takes a stand…they do not change that stand, no matter the facts.
That is a fact of life, no one admits they made a mistake, especially newspapers, reporters, and bureaucrats.
We are stuck with the mis-reporting until this is over.

right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

***
President Obama (PBUH) is O.K. with any government leader ignoring the constitution of a country and setting himself up to be the PRESIDENT FOR LIFE regardless of the law. He supports President Zelaya’s takeover attempt.
***
Remember–Zelaya is only doing this to help out the “little people” in Honduras. Like his good buddies Fidel Castro (Cuba), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and other “democratic” / liberal / socialist / marxist / statist / communist leaders are doing to their countries.
***
Read Yoani Sanchez’s excellent blog GENERACIONY to see how well this has worked out for the “little people” (aka PEONS) in the Cuban “worker’s paradise”. We don’t need any STEENKING CONSTITUTION!
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on July 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Does anyone know who the douche bag debating with De Mint in the video at Fausta’s site is?

You all should really watch the entire thing (11 minutes) though I’d forgive anyone who gave up after the first response.

It’s not just Obama.

gh on July 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I’m starting to like this DeMint guy.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Does anyone know who the douche bag debating with De Mint in the video at Fausta’s site is?

Arturo Valenzuela, Ogabe’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. The vid is from his nomination hearing.

Pablo on July 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Pablo on July 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Excellent. Thanks very much.

gh on July 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM

“But I don’t want to get into some of the details of this. I’m not familiar myself with all of the details. And I’m aware of the allegations being made by some of the people supporting the legitimacy of the ouster of the president. What is clear is it’s not only the United States that looked at the evidence, Senator, but all of the countries in the hemisphere.”

And Hugo’s opinion is what matters. Why get bogged down in stupid details like the Honduran Constitution? Yeah, this gasbag will fit right in.

Pablo on July 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Ed lives in a make-believe land where presidents are basically good and major media is basically honest. Acknowledging the truth results in cognitive dissonance. The next thing you know you end up supporting people like Sarah Palin. Can’t have that.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I don’t know, but I feel sufficiently threatened by the Dems and the media to not feel that this a game, or business as usual in any way. I want my enemies permanently disabled, at the least. I don’t just want to vacillate back and forth between far left, and leftists govt’s like they do in Europe. I’m not into slow deaths.

JiangxiDad on July 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM

And Hugo’s opinion is what matters. Why get bogged down in stupid details like the Honduran Constitution? Yeah, this gasbag will fit right in.

Pablo on July 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

For someone who wasn’t familiar with all the details, Mr.Valenzuela sure had fine list of loopholes that he insists mean that Zelaya should be able to make himself dictator for life in defiance of the Honduran Constitution.

Buddahpundit on July 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I think it is important to repeat that the Honduran Constitution has no impeachment provisions under which Zelaya could have been sidelined. It has provisions which act when the President is “incapacitated”, which were followed immediately to the letter after Zelaya was exiled.

The point is Zelaya had to be exiled so he could be sidelined. No provisions under which he could have been arrested and impeached.

As to the radio stations, it might have been a good move in the short run to keep bad information from being broadcast, I dunno. That all the curbs were rescinded quickly is a good sign.

Harry Schell on July 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Ed lives in a make-believe land where presidents are basically good and major media is basically honest.

SKYFOX on July 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

There is a perfectly good case to be made that Obama is doing what he feels is best and that the media are reporting in good faith. The problem is then, his underlying philosophy which includes an extreme moral relativism, a belief that the end justifies the means, and that progressivism is infallible. Obama is unforunately a fearless exponent of this philosophy.

Unfortunately, this is where the last 80-100 years or so of cultural decay of the west has left us.

gh on July 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

For someone who wasn’t familiar with all the details, Mr.Valenzuela sure had fine list of loopholes that he insists mean that Zelaya should be able to make himself dictator for life in defiance of the Honduran Constitution.

Buddahpundit on July 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM

It sounded as if all he really needed to know about the incident was that the military was involved somehow, at which point it immediately became a “classic coup”, and something to denounce.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I fear we may be looking into a crystal ball as to what our future might someday look like.
RR

ramrants on July 10, 2009 at 10:28 AM

That was my first thought. I’d bet that the 0ne is taking notes.

4shoes on July 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Was the press all pro-Zelaya?

Daggett on July 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM

My understanding is that at least one of them was Chavez’s propaganda outfit from Venezuela. I’m not sure that freedom of the press was meant to cover the right of foreign powers to instigate a coup.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I think it is important to repeat that the Honduran Constitution has no impeachment provisions under which Zelaya could have been sidelined. It has provisions which act when the President is “incapacitated”, which were followed immediately to the letter after Zelaya was exiled.

Impeachment wasn’t necessary as per Article 239:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Upon both Congressional and Supreme Court findings that Zelaya had gone afoul of 239, he was no longer President.

Pablo on July 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM

It sounded as if all he really needed to know about the incident was that the military was involved somehow, at which point it immediately became a “classic coup”, and something to denounce.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I wish DeMint would have asked him who he felt had final authority to judge the constitutionality regarding the Honduran Constitution. By all appearances, it looks like the Obama people don’t even want to acknowledge any Honduran Supreme Court authority in matters of the Honduran Constitution.

He should then be asked if his answer to that question applies to matters of the US Constitution as well. We might be able to find a new way to rescind some terrible SCOTUS decisions with his answer.

Buddahpundit on July 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM

…on the theory that such a clean break would be better for the country than a drawn out trial, particularly if the impeachment process was a bit muddled.

In this case, I don’t want to criticize Honduras until someone can show that these “might”s are not the case.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM

According to DeMint, Honduras didn’t think it had a jail that was secure enough against rioters which would likely storm the jail in an effort to free him.

Even if they did, it would create a flash point that would lead to all sort of turmoil, certainly a lot more than they have now. Obama and the other leftist leaders in the world would be calling, “free Zelaya!”. There would be bumper stickers and t-shirts.

I think Ed is just wrong that imprisonment would have been preferable from Honduras’ standpoint. They’d probably already be mixed up in a full fledged civil war, rather than war only being a potential that exists in the future, largely because Obama is isolating Honduras in an effort to force their surrender to a dictator.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Chainsaw56 on July 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Yes, no-knock warrants have been abused and some have been ineptly (to say the least) executed by police. But the fact remains that even we here in the U.S. (where the sleaziest slimeball criminals are still entitled to due process) recognize the fact that there are circumstances where the police simply can’t afford to give the bad guy advance notice that they’re coming for him — either because he’ll escape, destroy evidence, grab his guns and start shooting, etc.

Zelaya had already demonstrated his willingness to break Honduran law, ignore valid court orders, and do whatever else he thought was necessary to illegally prolong his stay in office. The Honduran military probably had good reason for arresting Zelaya the way they did, and the fact that he was unhurt indicates the military did not use excessive force on him. If this had been an actual “military coup” they wouldn’t have bothered with an arrest warrant or an arrest; they’d have just put a bullet through his brain.

But we all know the Post’s agenda here, and it has nothing to do with reporting facts. It’s about defending Obama, and his indefensible decision to support a thuggish, Chavez-controlled dictator wannabe, instead of supporting Honduran democracy.

AZCoyote on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Any child could understand what’s going on in Honduras. Obooba and the WaPo are pretending not to.

So let’s all pretend that Alcee Hastings’ “Round Up the Patriots Act” could never amount to anything.

Akzed on July 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I’ve had interest in this Honduras story since the get-go and have been amazed at the lack of Fox news reporting even at on the first day. I put if off to Michael J mania. But still…. very little coverage. It was like the news media didn’t know which way to lean. (of course they all lean)

Ernest on July 10, 2009 at 1:00 PM

What are you saying? Do you DARE to compare the Fauxbama regime to others like it?

After all, they’re only part way to such a thing, maybe 20%.

We all have to be patient and wait until it’s 51% like other ‘regimes’, THEN we can speak out!

- At which point we won’t have the right to speak out, ohh well….

Chainsaw56 on July 10, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Right now, we are in 1933′s Weimar Republic in the process of being morphed by the modern day NSDAP (democrat party) led by a charismatic speech maker who thinks he has all the answers (Obama). He’s even picked out targets to blame all his mistakes on (the so called “rich”), and is proposing all sorts of bad ways to punish them.

Yes, Obama and the Pelosi/Reid democrats are FAR beyond liberals, they are full blown authoritarian National Socialists.

wildcat84 on July 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Pablo:

Thank you! That’s the story in a nutshell, and I am mystified why Ed and others don’t seem to understand that.

I was long a faithful visitor to Captains Quarters. I don’t know what’s happened to Ed here at Hot Air (too busy to get it right?), but I am less and less inclined to stop by. Ed’s was a unique presence in the Blogosphere; here he’s sounding more and more like just another hack. It’s a damn shame.

JackOkie on July 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Putting aside the Post offering opinion as news the best news during the past few days have been the Repubs in the House and Senate demanding answers from Obama and Clinton.

In regards to Clinton they have specifically asked for the legal basis for her opinions as regards “the coup”. They have presented to the State department the legal basis for Honduras’s actions. They are demanding a response as it impacts our foreign aid to Honduras. The Honduran government now knows it has major support in DC!!!!

Who knows, maybe Repubs read our demands here last week!

The Repubs have stepped up. Three cheers.

patrick neid on July 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

I don’t know what’s happened to Ed…

JackOkie on July 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Based on the fact that he keeps making certain arguments without providing any evidence as a basis, which perhaps a hundred people here have requested on the various Honduras threads, my guess is that Ed hasn’t been reading our comments in these threads, especially Elduende’s, and is instead basing his analysis on the MSM.

I like to think that if Ed had been participating in these threads, or at least reading them, his analysis would be better, but I could be wrong. Maybe he keeps making the same baseless arguments time and again because he keeps getting called on it and still thinks he’s right.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

most of the international outrage would have been limited to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Daniel Ortega, and no one would be meddling in Honduran affairs.

Uh Ed, I think you forgot Obama in that group

blue1 on July 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Uh Ed, I think you forgot Obama in that group

blue1 on July 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM

And the UN, the OAS, ALBA and various left wing human right organizations. Pretty much all the people that are outrages already, only they’d be more outraged because Zelaya would be in prison… for a short time, before he’s freed by a mob and the military is forced to either shoot a bunch of rioters or retreat.

Ed’s plan would have been a disaster.

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Never mind the typos. :(

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM

FloatingRock on July 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

thanks for the shout out!

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Honduras’ non-coup
Under the country’s Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.
By Miguel A. Estrada
July 10, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM

The referendum Zelaya was pushing–which prompted the coup–asked citizens only if there should be a vote on “whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political Constitution.” In other words, Hondurans weren’t being asked to vote on term limits or even on revising the Constitution. They were simply being asked to vote on whether or not to have a vote on revising the Constitution, with the terms of that revision being left to an elected assembly.

For those who rule behind the scenes, Zelaya took a step too far when he began to push for the convocation of a constituent assembly in order to democratize Honduras’s notoriously exclusionary political system. Expectedly, these efforts were opposed by the national Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which are controlled by an inbred clique of career politicians and judges invested in keeping Honduran politics restricted–including members of Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

Zelaya was not seeking to stay in power by unconstitutional means; even if his political reforms had succeeded, he would have been out of power within the year. The only side guilty of unconstitutional action is the coup plotters.

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection “shall cease forthwith” in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any “infraction” of the succession rules constitutes treason.

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection “shall cease forthwith” in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any “infraction” of the succession rules constitutes treason.

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Please come up with the legal authority that trumps Article 239 in the Honduran Constituion, and share it with us, or stop posting your leftist propaganda.

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:39 PM

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:39 PM

He didn’t violate article 239. Does that article state that you can’t hold a Constituent National Assembly?

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Are you being deliberately dense? What was the purpose of that proposed national assembly genius? It was to change the constitution so that the one term limit could be overwritten. Stop beclowning yourself.

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Bill Blizzard:

It is up to our Supreme Court to rule on our Constitution. Likewise for Honduras. You seem to be saying that since you don’t like the current Honduras Constitution, illegal and unconstitutional actions in Honduras should be ignored.

Forget what the “referendum” was for. Zelaya had no authority to call one; it takes two thirds of the Honduran Congress to call for a referendum. The head of the armed forces does not report to Zeyala; he had no authority to dismiss the general.

Bill, you sound like a typical leftist: To hell with constitutions and laws – let’s do what we want anyway.

JackOkie on July 10, 2009 at 7:22 PM

To follow up:

The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that Zeyala had tripped the provisions of Article 239, and the Honduran Congress agreed. They are the bodies authorized by the Constitution to make the call, so for all practical purposes he DID violate Article 239. You and I are not sworn to uphold the Honduran Constitution, nor are we charged with the responsibility for carrying out the law under that Constitution. And neither are Chavez, Clinton and Obama.

JackOkie on July 10, 2009 at 7:41 PM

He didn’t violate article 239. Does that article state that you can’t hold a Constituent National Assembly?

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM

It sounds like “playing dumb” is the only defense your kind can muster for poor ol’ Zaleya.

Yes, the supreme court decided that Zelaya’s actions were in violation of the article that forbids even proposing extending term limits for the president. Anyone can see that he was well past the planning stage and in the process of executing the plan when he was booted out of the country in his suddenly stained jammies.

Buddahpundit on July 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Nothing but spin from you guys since my last post. Again, does article 239 or any other article say you can’t propose to hold a Constituent National Assembly?

And don’t you think they need one if there are no impeachment provisions? I’m sure the constitution doesn’t say if 239 is violated that the fix is to kidnap and ship him off to a different country.

The only reason for that is because the powers that be in Honduras are afraid of the people. And that is what you are tap dancing around.

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM

To answer your question for the last time troll:

HE CANNOT CALL FOR A CONSTITUENT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IF THE PURPOSE IS TO CHANGE ONE OF THE FOUR IRON CLAD PROVISIONS OF THE HONDURAN CONSTITUTION.

los artículos pétreos lo cual es un delito de traición a la patria

TO DO SO IS CONSIDERED TREASON.

FURTHERMORE, HE AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITS HIS OFFICE NO IMPEACHMENT NECESSARY, NO DISCUSSION, NO DEBATE.

TO CALL HIS THUGS INTO THE STREETS IN THE FACE OF THE ILLEGALITY AND DO SO AFTER HIS OWN PARTY, THE JUSTICE MINISTRY, THE CONGRESS, AND THE SUPREME COURT, PUT HIM BEYOND HONDURAN LAW AND IN ACTIVE REBELLION AGAINST THE STATE.

IF THE HONDURAN MILITARY HAD ANY GUTS AND HAD PULLED OFF A REAL COUP BY RIGHTS THIS PIECE OF SHIT WOULD HAVE A BULLET IN HIS HEAD.

NOW GO AWAY TROLL!

elduende on July 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Again, does article 239 or any other article say you can’t propose to hold a Constituent National Assembly?

Bill Blizzard on July 10, 2009 at 10:15 PM

What, are you an idiot or is English you second language? Let me guess, you’re from Venezuela and Chavez is your idle, if not Castro and Stalin?

Frickin’ commies!

FloatingRock on July 11, 2009 at 12:42 AM

TO DO SO IS CONSIDERED TREASON.
elduende on July 10, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Then why didn’t they charge and try him for treason?
You are still tap dancing.

IF THE HONDURAN MILITARY HAD ANY GUTS AND HAD PULLED OFF A REAL COUP BY RIGHTS THIS PIECE OF SHIT WOULD HAVE A BULLET IN HIS HEAD.

NOW GO AWAY TROLL!

Now we know what your idea of justice is and that you don’t know the meaning of the word “troll”.

Bill Blizzard on July 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM