"Based upon these two examples alone I have to ask: does President Obama like and respect democracy or is he deep down latent, wannabe dictator himself?"

I believe Obama respects democracy - when it gives him what he wants, which, very bluntly, is as much power as he can persuade people to give him.

Is he deep down a dictator? I'm thinking... it depends. He really and truely may believe that nobody can do the things he does better, therefore it's only logical that HE stay where he is as long as legally possible (and then some) - which would likely end up being viewed as pathological narcissism. The world revolves around his thoughts and opinions - the rest of us are just spear carriers in the opera of his life.

We're finding out, however, that massive self-confidence and charisma don't necessarily mean the person's got the skills or experience to lead.

Pretty soon, I think Obama's going to be unpleasantly surprised when the stuff he's been pushing blows up in his face.

How could Zelaya do this? His plan was a referendum to get the opinion of people on the issue of re-opening the constitution, which the congress refused to do. The purpose was to show to congress that the people support this effort.

Now, I see many articles claiming Zelaya to be unpopular. If so, then his initiative would probably fail. So the other assumption being made by those claiming Zelaya to want to force himself on the people, is that he planned to rig the referendum or use force somehow to impose his will. To do this, however, he would need institutions on his side like the military and a major political party. He has none of that - institutionally, he is isolated.

Only civil society organisations and organised labour backs him. In fact, had they left Zelaya alone, his opponents could have outlasted him, thwarting his efforts through their control of the major institutions.

This coup however has given them the chance to crack down on civil society, arrest and kill leaders who support Zelaya, and in fact set back the left wing there through state repression. This is the real story here. So it is clear that your interpretation of what is going on is incorrect - the coup leaders have after all have isolated the country by cutting off communications to the outside as much as possible.

Lastly, I doubt that this constitution that is so sacred that there are supposedly provisions making it a crime to even think of revising certain provisions, drafted as it was during the days when wise men ran the place when New Nicaragua aka Contraland, was carved out of its south, has a provision allowing the Supreme Court to order that troops storm the palace and kidnap the president. The Supreme Court has discredited itself with this and other acts motivated by politics, not law.

If the 2012 elections are "postponed" due to some "emergency" that will give you your answer.

John,
That line was tired and ridiculous when the left trotted it out for Bush 43.

He'll use the IRS, FBI and other agencies to demonize, disgrace and criminalize his opposition in 2012, that I can believe.

He'd push for repealing the FDR amendment (drawing a blank on the #) blocking additional terms. That I can believe.

How could Zelaya do this? His plan was a referendum to get the opinion of people on the issue of re-opening the constitution, which the congress refused to do. The purpose was to show to congress that the people support this effort.

Like this:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order. (emphasis mine)

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

If it's a leftest political group, Barry will embrace it.

It seems to me that hiring and firing top military commanders is a presidential power and not the business of the Supreme Court. At any rate, Zelaya's alleged evil scheme cannot succeed without having a majority backing him in a referendum. Zelaya's critics clearly are conceding that in fact he has the support of the majority.

That constitution was put into place after the infamous Incapaz military regime to perpetuate that regime with a civilian facade. It is not sacred and Zelaya's opening this discussion about changing it is overdue.

The Attorney General and Supreme Court are behaving not based on the law, but on politics. Their decisions are based on thwarting President Zelaya. That referendum was to be consultative to gauge support - there's nothing illegal about that and decisions that it is illegal is political and an overreaching of authority so as to perpetuate the kind of misrule that causes Honduras to have many kilometres of railway but not one passing through the capital Tegucigalpa.

the empire is on a full crash and burn trajectory. NOTHING will save it.

"Does Barack Obama Like Democracy?"
---
Only when it suits his purposes.

Can Obama actually pronounce the word freedom?

Anyone else thinking this is getting weird ...

Commander Zero is one supreme accident, 'duly' voted in.
The flames, they grow larger.
The Honduran situation is yet another 'example' of this absolute no minds total inability to grasp even the most minute pieces of detail.
He and his handlers will face the truth soon.
No escape from that......even coming from Chi-town.
Bonfire ahead.

According to reports, some of the Honduran army is changing sides, the resistance is blocking highways and the coup regime is shutting down media it doesn't like - who knows, they may have a real revolution on their hands and Zelaya will win totally - no wonder Obama opposes this ridiculous and stupid coup.

R
You can't be that naive. Zelaya doesn't need to have a majority he only needs the claim of a majority. He holds some mock vote then claim it pass regardless of the actual vote. If he had such great supports why not have them vote in legislator to change the constitution? Instead he is using the typical dictator's tricks.

Imagine a President of the U.S. claiming that people want to throw out the Constitution then ignores the steps in the Constitution to actually do it, ignores orders from the Supreme Court and Congress, and orders the military to conduct illegal activities and starts firing the Generals who won't.

R
What would be the proper procedure to dispose of a law breaking President? If the combine power of Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court isn't enough, what is?

"Does Barack Obama Like Democracy?"

Short answer, when it's to his benefit.

Longer answer, not as much as he likes and promotes national socialism.

By opening his mouth and making a pronouncement before his speechwriters could get it on his teleprompter shows just how shallow his knowledge of the situation and his inability to see facts is. The man is an accidental president and I predict he will leave office even less popular than W.

Well Obama obviously believes in lying his ass off to get elected.

Gibbs is asked if the pledge to not raise taxes on those making under 250k still active and the press laughs at his nonanswer and says no for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTmkB3NUL6Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair%2Ecom%2Farchives%2F2009%2F06%2F29%2Fvideo%2Dpress%2Dcorps%2Dnow%2Dopenly%2Dlaughing%2Dat%2Dobamas%2Dbacktracking%2Don%2Dtaxes%2F&feature=player_embedded

Commander Zero was a Contra commander based in Costa Rica, not in Honduras. He was previously the Sandinista who seized the national palace in Managua.

Does the United States Supreme Court have the right to cancel the President's decision on sacking a military commander? Can it order the military to declare martial law and kidnap the President and dump him into exile? It seems to me, those complaining about Zelaya's alleged lawlessness, that his opponents have disregarded the law long ago.

Again, how can Zelaya claim that a majority voted in a referendum if they don't? What of it anyway? The army and other bodies of power and administration would have to back him up... one of these at least.

The reason that the legislature does not support him is because the two major parties oppose him and what he's trying to do, even if he was elected running for one of them. The existing system favours the heavily-institutionalised and not popular movements... it would be as if a Democratic president really went radical and the establishment lined up against him.

Argh!!!

You beat me to it, Kim!

Had a whole article written on this, but you pretty much said it all.

Good piece..

Shawn

Shawn, I really, REALLY feel your pain. DJ used to do that to me on a fairly regular basis...

Occasionally, I'd get the jump on him, but it was almost always him first.

J.

r,
Have you read the Constitution of the United
States?

I agree that Obama loves democracy when it suits him. I also think he probably feels a constitution can be such an inconvenience when it obstructs his agenda. His approach to policy, both foreign and domestic, is becoming alarmingly bizarre. I feel like we've been dealing with him for 4 years already.

Shawn,

You should post it anyway because you probably have brought up ideas I didn't include here.

R,

You are arguing your points as if the Honduran government is set up like the US government, and it isn't.

big difference between Iran and America:
we have the 2nd Amendment!

Please bear that in mind, Mr. President, and let us go peaceably when we divide up the geography of what was the "United States"

I wish I was kidding

Deep down inside his sorry soul, Obama wishes he were a dictator...but as his popularity plumments over the next few years, he he is going to realize that in this here United States his wishes do not matter and we are going to boot his ass out of the White House in 2012.

"So, this is the pattern that is forming with Obama..."

And this surprises you because...?

How come Adriane Browne isn't here to talk about some republican sex scandal?

Hey R, I see your point. Firing the Commanding General and then refusing to reinstate him when so ordered by the court is no big deal at all. Now if he'd fired 8 federal attorneys, well that's be cause for all you communist-supporting leftists to scream for months and years about!

A communist take over.. not so bid a deal. I hear ya.

This post is hilarious!!!
Support a military coup against a democratically elected government - to prove that you are a supporter of democracy.

There is nothing left to say. Its the perfect, self-refuting argument.

Hey Jpe, that democratically elected president was trying to subvert the country's constitution....he wanted to keep himself in power against the lws set forth in the Honduran constitution. But that is okay with you as long as it is a left wing president. I wonder how ypu would react to a right wing president doing the same thing?

If someone wants to be U.S. president, it's almost essential that he run for one of the two major parties. A real radical would thus need the nomination of one of these parties. If somehow one managed to gain a nomination with the help of popular movements, and was elected, the party establishment would pressure him into betraying the popular movements and acting as a cog for elite interests. If he or she chooses to try real change, the establishment would try to block him, from the legislature, to the courts, everything. This is what is going on on Honduras - only things are more open to the point where someone could try carry out "change we believe in", unlike a certain Obama who wants so badly to be "respectable" to the elite..

If the president cannot sack the army commander, this means that there is no civilian control over the military. This constitution, adopted when much of the country was under foreign occupation, isn't thus worth the paper it's written on if in fact this is so... I somehow doubt this and believe that it's the Supreme Court that made this up in thin air.

Ending term limits in Honduras will help shake the legacy of military dictatorships in that country. The military dictators ran for short terms and were interchangeable and so were civilian presidents that followed.

Hey R, the Honduran Supreme Court can do want it wants and what they did was follow the country's constitution. It was Zelaya who was making things up and trying to subvert the Honduran law. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? It is because Zelaya failed in his attempt at dictatorship isn't it?

The Honduran Surpreme Court cannot make up laws out of thin air... If the Court ordered Zelaya to reinstate an army chief it is ruling thus that the President has not the right to sack an army chief - and thus the military becomes a law onto itself free from civilian interference. I doubt that this is in the Honduran constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court did not make this decision based on any law, they just made up a law on the spot, a perfect example of an "activist court".

If there is an impeachment mechanism in the Honduran constitution this was not respected. It was a coup and martial law - which is outside the law and constitution.

They didn't...Zelaya had no legal right to do what he was trying do and the Supreme Court dealt with it. Simple as that. Exactly where to you find Zelaya's right to subvert the constitution?

"It was a coup and martial law - which is outside the law and constitution." - your simple-minded opinion R, ...and our idiot president's too.

What is pretty telling R is your unwillingness to address Zelaya's illegal actions...but liberals do that don't they?

Supreme Courts doing what they want - so if the Supreme Court ordered you to report for execution outside town then that's just fine... they are a Supreme Court after all, above all. Nixon infamously spoke of the idea that "If you are the president, everything is legal". I guess that many disagree with that , agreeing instead with the phrase, "If the Supreme Court decides something, it must be legal".

Again R please comment on the illegal actions that Zelaya was attempting to do? I really would love to hear your b.s. on that.

Michael, perhaps you don't know that there's a curfew, that communications have been cut, that there have been political arrests, that media has been shut down - that sounds to me like martial law... effectively.

you can't R admit it...your a Stalinst at heart.

These actions were declared illegal by a rogue Supreme Court that makes things out of thin air. Not credible. One decision effectively says that the military there is a law onto itself, subject I presume only to the Supreme Court! I guess they fancy themselves to be a junta in its own right.

R respond on Zelaya's illegal actions...which are the very reasons why all this happened. Had he just followed the law...he would still be president. You really can't respond can you. Amazing?

R can read anything beyond the Daly Kos. Only the country's legislature can change laws like Zelaya was attempting to do. Please explain where was Zelaya right to subvert the law. I realize he wanted to be tin-pot Castro or Chavez...but it did not work this time. ...did it?

In 1993 the Russian Supreme Court declared that Boris Yeltsin was impeached and removed from office, that Aleksandr Rutskoi was the legal president. Yeltsin got the military to shoot up parliament and kill hundreds in Moscow. That court was far more credible than the farce in Tegucigalpa.

If following the law means dancing to the tune of a rogue court with the purpose of making your presidency meaningless, then that would be a cowardly thing to do.

Who cares about Russia R? When are you going to explain to us all why you think Zelaya had the right to subvert Honduran law? Come on quit the b.s., tell us?

Back to the original question:
No.
Next question?

You can't be that stupid R. This is about the legislature not the court. The law clearly states only the legislature has the power to change the laws not a President commited to exceeding his power. The court was just ruling on existing law. Your the one who is making up his own fantasy scenario here.

One more time...R why do you think it was Zelaya's right to subvert the country's laws? Were waiting?

I think R went scuttling back to Kos to commune with the other lefty losers there.

This referendum was not a law... it was purely to be consultative. So Zelaya did not violate a single law. The Supreme Court was making it up out of thin air.

Russia is an important consideration. Surely you refuse to recognise Yeltsin's regime post-October 1993. Their supreme court decided this and thus must be right.

Why do Republicans have to support the most squalid oligarchies in Latin America? Tegucigalpa doesn't even have a railway! All rail lines are from the banana plantations to the coast. This is why Honduras is the quintessential "banana republic" and for some reason Republicans feel the need to preserve this indefinitely. Why? What's in it for you? I prefer conservatives who believe in minding one's own business; if people want progress in Honduras, let it happen, don't intervene to keep it a museum piece.

R.,

You continue to portray Zelaya as some innocent guy just trying to check out the feeling of the people. Yet all the constitutional authorities and political parties, including the one that got him elected told him that what he was attempting to do was unconstitutional.

Instead of debating these pertinent elements of the Honduran political system, he secretly colludes with one of the most despicable quasi-commies in the Southern Hemisphere, Hugo Chavez, to print up and smuggle in phony ballots to hold his impromptu referendum concerning how the Honduran people would feel about him taking illegal action to continue to be their wonderful and beneficent president.

And you have no problem with any of this, happily characterizing such shady actions as a man just "wanting to see how the people were feeling about things".

Meanwhile, of course, we are snickering and throwing popcorn in your general direction as you refuse to see any point but your own, mixing metaphors at such a rapid clip that one hardly has a chance to refute the one before you have another flying. When you cross reference the hypothetical behaviors of two different types of government, you are merely stirring up the sediment to further obfuscate and distort the quite simple event of a power hungry man not wanting to step down.

Here in the U.S. we may well have to face such a one ourselves and there is little sympathy for such a person in these parts.

Are you a Honduran citizen? Because, frankly, I can't see why anyone would be so intent on rhetoric such as yours without having a dog in the fight.

"Are you a Honduran citizen? Because, frankly, I can't see why anyone would be so intent on rhetoric such as yours without having a dog in the fight."

MichaelC - I believe it's practice for defending Obama when he starts pushing the same idea...

" I can't see why anyone would be so intent on rhetoric such as yours without having a dog in the fight."

He does have a dog in the fight, as does Obama. They both want to aid and encourage the spread of Communism. It's that simple. Anything else Obama or R says is just bullshit.

John Fund gives us the truth...not that it makes a difference to a leftist R:

"Many foreign observers are condemning the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya, a supporter of Hugo Chavez, as a "military coup." But can it be a coup when the Honduran military acted on the orders of the nation's Supreme Court, the step was backed by the nation's attorney general, and the man replacing Mr. Zelaya and elected in emergency session by that nation's Congress is a member of the former president's own political party?

Mr. Zelaya had sacked General Romeo Vasquez, head of the country's armed forces, after he refused to use his troops to provide logistical support for a referendum designed to let Mr. Zelaya escape the country's one-term limit on presidents. Both the referendum and the firing of the military chief have been declared illegal by the Honduran Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Mr. Zelaya intended yesterday to use ballots printed in Venezuela to conduct the vote anyway.

All this will be familiar to members of Honduras' legislature, who vividly recall how Mr. Chavez in Venezuela adopted similar means to hijack his country's democracy and economy. Elected a decade ago, Mr. Chavez held a Constituent Assembly and changed the constitution to enhance his power and subvert the country's governing institutions. Mr. Zelaya made it clear that he wished to do the same in Honduras and that the referendum was the first step in installing a new constitution that would enhance his powers and allow him to run for re-election.

No one likes to see a nation's military in the streets, especially in a continent with such painful memories of military rule. But Honduras is clearly a different situation. Members of Mr. Zelaya's own party in Congress voted last week to declare him unfit for his office. Given his refusal to leave, who else was going to enforce the orders of the nation's other branches of government?"

--John Fund

It is very telling on how R refuses to comment on Zelaya's rogue actions.

The real issue is: does he support a Republic? The US is not a democracy; it's a representative republic. 0 is likely to prefer an oligarchy than a representative republic.

Assume for a moment that during the rule of Saint Dubya, the Supreme Court was packed with "activist, liberal justices" advocating the dread "living constitution". That one day it decided that Bush broke some law and ordered that the army seize Bush and dump him in another country. I'm sure you would have been cool with that.

Zelaya is considered to be guilty of "rogue actions" by a Supreme Court that has been proven to be prone to "rogue actions" of its own. As its finding that Zelaya has committed "rogue actions" is in and of itself a "rogue action", it is of no meaning at all.

What's your problem with Chavez anyway. He isn't gunning people down in the streets by the hundreds, unlike Carlos Andres Perez in the 1989 "Caracanza".

R you really are something. You are incapable of accepting the fact that Zelaya was the rogue in this situation. He was the one breaking the law. His own party deemed him unfit for office. You really live in a lefty alternate universe.

R
Is jumping through hopes and ignoring the facts. He claims it is some rouge Supreme Court but ignores the legislators and the military. If it was a rouge Supreme Court like he claims, the President and Congress could over rule them. Two branches of government over ruling a third branch who is trying to grab too much power is not a new concept. When the President can't even get the military to back him, he is on weak ground.

R like many liberals doesn't believe in rules of law of facts unless it promotes their agenda. If a court is legislating from the bench its o.k. if it is for a liberal agenda but it is wrong if it for a conservative agenda. A President ignoring laws and the constitution it is OK if he is a liberal but not if he is a conservative. Liberal hypocrisy know no ends.

While we're at it, Bush broke more American laws and violated the American constitution repeatedly, far more than it's suggested that Zelaya is doing... He should have been dumped in another country and organisations supporting him should have been subjected to repression and the country subjected to curfew and armed troops in the street, according to your logic.
depp=true
notiz=Bush is NOT the subject of this thread.

R Chavez is a dictator plain and simple. But you like that don't you? You are a little Stalinist.

R - get through your mushy skull...Chavez is a dictator and Zelaya wanted to be one to.

Nothing is going to happen in Honduras R. Zelaya poll nimber was 30% approval. The majority is happy to see his lefty ass gone. Accept it... your side lost this one.

R Zelaya is gone. Finito. He broke the law. He was removed. All your nonsense does not change that. If Zelaya was right wing I am sure you not have your undies in such a bunch. Go back to your leftist sewer. You are getting boring.

Next I'm sure you will be agitating for a coup in Guatemala, where this is being prepared because of a leader who dares look into the massacres of the 1980s under leaders like the illustrious Christian fundamentalist Jose Efrain Rios Montt, described by Pat Robertson as "enlightened", but who operated slave labour camps that I'm sure you'd approve of because they were Christian ones.

R,
Who are you calling a republican?
Broad brushing will get you a shovel.

What's the change we really need?

I see this talk of Communism, and this begs the question... What are we doing about the spread of witchcraft? It's about as relevent an issue and as current.

Someone mentioned "freedom", that Obama is committing a crime against freedom by not backing the coup. Since when is telling people that those outside after 9 pm are to be shot on sight an example of freedom? Not only is there a 9-6 curfew, but also media is being shut down and people arrested on political grounds.

I see someone removed some other interesting things I said - that there is a general strike in Honduras, that parts of the army changed sides according to reports, and so on. I guess this is demoralising for your cause of perpetuating a banana republic for eternity. I always thought Honduras beyond recovery so anything good out of there is just extra as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't understand these deletions - it distorts things as people are responding to posts that do not exist and yet these posts remain which I have to say makes this site look not too good.
depp=true
notiz=Try this instead.