-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_supporting_marxist_thug_in_honduras_because_he_was_elected -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Your kind spent the 60s killing liberal leaders. You spent the 90s hunting a moderate. Now you want to remove Obama because he's "socialist".
Conservatives are dangerous people who don't believe in free and fair elections unless they win.
And again, it's no surprise that American cons would support the removal of the Honduran leader as they support the wealthy interests who wanted him out. True to form, conservatives ALWAYS support the rich and powerful over all else.
Troll.
[quote]"Try refuting the content of the post, stem."[/quote]
Kinda reminds me of when the Clintone's reinstalled the thug dictator of Haiti.
It's not unusual to demonize the left. You've raised it to an art form. The next thing we'll hear is that he was a pedophile.
This two bit tinhorn dictator-for-life wannabee was removed [i]by the courts[/i] in his own country for violating his country's constitution.
Why wouldn't any [b]freedom loving[/b] American president be supportive of [i]that?[/i]
What's this "We" nonsense, Swish? No body here agrees with your hateful Marxist prattle. You got a gerbil in your pocket?
Why not? The American president isn't exactly in favor of American policies either.
[quote]We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders.[/quote]
Unless its the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Indonesians, the Venezuelans, the Chinese...
If a rightist tries violating the constitution for any reason, Dino excoriates that person.
Dino is multiple people, one or more of them deranged, and all of them purposefully disruptive. It's a collective trolling effort.
Run Greasemonkey, use the ignore script.
*If you all haven't noticed it yet, the personality of "Dino" changes almost randomly, it posts sometimes logged in and other times not logged in but almost always uses its chosen handle, refers to itself in the third person, and varies between vicious insults and sadistic wishes of misfortune for others and inane non-arguments and very seldom, actual proper argument even if it is juvenile in quality.
"Dino" is more than one person, one of them seriously mentally disturbed, and all of it done for their amusement and not to take serious part in anything.
Just think if Hitler had only been taken out by a bullet a lot of the Worlds troubles could have been solved. Same could be said for the Iranian leader.
Under that reasoning, Nixon couldn't have been forced to resign over Watergate, since Nixon was elected twice, the second time in a landslide.
Honduras removed its would-be dictator, President Mel Zelaya, for violating his country's constitution by seeking to extend his term in office, and replaced him with a leading Congressman. Zelaya's removal was authorized by Articles 239 and 272 of the Honduran Constitution, and ordered by his country's Supreme Court, after he used coercion and aid from Venezuela's dictator to push an illegal referendum. But Obama has joined Cuban dictator Castro and Venezuelan dictator Chavez in demanding that Zelaya be reinstated.
Originally, Obama's justification for this demand was his erroneous claim that Zelaya's removal was "illegal." But when Honduras's new president, a veteran legislator, pointed to stacks of court rulings that Zelaya had violated, the fact that the Honduran Congress had voted 123-to-5 to replace Zelaya, and that the military had legally executed a warrant for Zelaya's arrest, Obama changed his tune.
Now, Obama claims that Zelaya must be put back in power because of the "universal principle that people should choose their own leaders". Never mind that even publications that criticized the manner of Zelaya's removal, like the Economist, have candidly admitted that Zelaya was unpopular with Hondurans, who overwhelmingly back the removal of their president -- and that Zelaya was a bullying crook with approval ratings below 30 percent who repeatedly violated his country's laws. In the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other papers, Hondurans have overwhelmingly supported his removal.
Apparently, Obama is determined to saddle Hondurans with Zelaya whether they want him or not, just because they once elected him. (Even though he radically changed his policies after being elected). Under Obama's reasoning, Richard Nixon, who was twice elected president, shouldn't have been forced to resign over Watergate, because that violated the American people's "universal" right to choose their ruler.
What Obama really means is that presidents, once elected, have a universal right to rule their subjects, and to flout the constitution, as Zelaya did, without being subject to removal. This sounds disturbingly like the "divine right" to rule (without following the law) claimed by medieval kings. (It's certainly not what Obama and I were taught at Harvard Law School.)
But the entire purpose of constitutional checks and balances, and the constitutional impeachment process, is that even elected presidents can lose their right to rule if they violate their country's constitution or laws. In our constitution's impeachment process, the Congress removes the president from office for wrongdoing, even if he was elected by a landslide. In Honduras, the Congress voted by 123-to-5 to replace Zelaya, including the vast majority of Zelaya's own political party.
Honduras did not use a formal impeachment process because its constitution does not have a well-developed impeachment mechanism, says Latin American scholar Juan Carlos Hidalgo at the Cato Institute. But its unwieldy constitution does have other, less elegant means of removing abusive presidents: Article 239 bans presidents from continuing to hold office if they seek to extend their tenure, or merely propose an end to presidential term-limits. And Article 272 gives the military the power to enforce those term-limit provisions. (The military's law enforcement role is not unique to Honduras: in the U.S., federal troops were used to enforce a court order desegregating the schools in Little Rock in 1957, when the court's order was thwarted by the Arkansas Governor. When confronted with powerful executives with armed followers who refuse to comply with the law, the courts cannot rely simply on a handful of U.S. marshalls, but rather must look to federal troops or the national guard).
Journalists who romanticize foreign dictators have faulted Honduras for removing Zelaya and kicking him out of the country in his pajamas. But getting rid of tyrants is a messy and difficult process. You can't get rid of a tyrant by asking him nicely to leave office.
-- Hans Bader (a Washington lawyer)
You may be right, however, the Supreme Court of Honduras, the Legislature of Honduras, the Political Party of the President and the Army have a pretty good grasp of what is going on in Honduras. Since they all oppose the efforts of this idiot and have thrown him out of the country for breaking their constitution I bow to their superior knowledge of their own countries laws.
For you Dino, I'll do the research and show you why you are wrong.
5 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: "it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory"
Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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."
So when Zelaya proposed to amend the constitution of Honduras he fell afoul of these provisions. That's the rule of law in action. Sorry if you can't comprehend that. Please read those passages and tell me if you come to a different conclusion since you are all wired into Honduran politics and all.
He was actually removed because he insisted on pushing ahead with a nonbinding referendum on whether the Honduran President should be allowed to run for a second four year term. Had the referendum approved the proposal then the next step would have been a proposal to change the Consitution to permit a run for re-election. I don't think either side has played this one in a legal or ethical manner and the appropriate move would be to restore the duly elected Zelalya to his position and to advance the second term proposal in a less inflammatory manner.
That's because lefties are totalitarians. Duh.
Marxist lover leap
And then he was "unelected", by the Congress, and then ordered out by the Supreme Court, and then escorted out by the Military at the orders of the Congress, supported by a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, and backed up by MASSIVE rallies in support of removing Zelaya.
All that "duly elected" crap is just that... crap!
Zelaya's means took a wrong turn but his ends seem legitimate IMO. This pre-coup [url=http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47389]article[/url] provides some useful background.
The will of the majority of Honduran citizens is for Zelaya to be permanently removed from public office, as evidenced by the thousands of citizens rallying in SUPPORT of the government. As opposed to the hundreds of citizens rallying in support of Zelaya. And that is the end of it. The People of Honduras have spoken, and Zelaya is out.
And as for Nicaragua moving their military to the border? Honduras will stomp the living shit out of them, yet again.
Mike,
Let me acknowledge that the "minor point" could have been more succinctly expressed. The wailing referred to was when Mr. Reagan actually made it a policy to bring down the Iron Curtain and destroy the Soviets' "Evil Empire." His deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles to Germany and England, his call for the US to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense, his insistence on re-arming America after his hapless predecessor decimated both our military and our intelligence capabilities, his determination to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the face of Soviet and Cuban expansion in Central America, his whole-hearted, surreptitious support (along with Pope John Paul, Bill Casey, and Gen. Vernon Walters) for the Polish Solidarity movement which ultimately broke Poland free from Soviet/Warsaw Pact hegemony, and of course his absolute insistence on NOT compromising away any US superiority or advantage when negotiating with Soviet communist leaders, all were greeted with all manner of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by those on the Left.
Remember?
And now, ironically, we have a radical Left, anti-war president who cut his ideological teeth on the anti-nuke, anti-Reagan movement of the 1980s.
All that said about the "minor point", perhaps you'd care to address my major one? That is, that the people on the Left who are sanctimonious waving the flag of "duly elected" and "self-determination" have a long, loud history of studiously ignoring such concerns when doing so suits their leftwing ideological convenience. That history makes their purported reasoning less a matter of sacred principle and more a matter of socialist expediency... just another liberal quibble for the sake of gaining power.
My advice is to generally ignore the idiots and their idiotic programs unless you are concerned that the idiots may actually assume a position to do something at which point you call specific attention to the problem areas...otherwise enjoy the show like I do.
http://ptvscpt.blogspot.com/2009/07/excerpts-fr...
[b]I still can't agree that the military's action was appropriate and it should concern anybody who believes in democracy and the rule of law[/b]
Mike, By the Honduran Constitution, the protection of and the enforcement of "Presidential Changeability" is given to and ONLY TO the Honduran Military. They are the only group that is allowed to enforce the will on the Supreme Court and the Legislature. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial. Its Honduran Law. They followed it to the letter. This is not a coup.
But But But,,,he's a marxist thug. He gets to make up his own rules as he goes.
Seriously Mike, I expected better.
[quote]Still, I doubt that the Honduran Constitution permits the Military to play the role of final arbiter[/quote]
No, they were enforcing the clearly written constitution at the demand of the Supreme Court and Legislature of that country.
Of course the warrant would only be served should he be successful in his attempts to return to the country and foment civil unrest?
Come-on Mike, use some logic instead of thinking with you liberal side.
The issue is people on the political left wanted Zelaya to be executed, then they could screech&wail; and demand that the government elected by and responsive to the people of Honduras be torn down and replaced with tHugo Chavez.
Too bad, Mike. Honduras is not going to turn into another socialist shithole as Venezuela has.
TW...that's true since INTERPOL won't enforce it. Truth be told I'm not very sympathetic to Zelaya as his rule has been marked by acts of expedience and shiftiness but I do like to see justice done appropriately.
Its not wacky if you understand that it designed to stop the President for Life phenomenon.
Exactly. I'm sure we wouldn't have all this renting of clothes and gnashing of teeth if he wasn't a leftist dictator wannabe.
I appreciate your comments.
2H9...Congress didn't vote him out because it doesn't have that power, the Supreme Court ordered his arrest, the military took it upon itself to deport him. Let's try to keep the facts straight.
I don't have a problem with allowing anyone to run for office again. I have no real problem with whatever term limits a given country seeks to impose in their constitution. If they set themselves up to have a king, great, go for it. If they set themselves up to have one term presidents, two term presidents, whatever they want, great! I just want it to be know before the elections. I do have a problem with people not following the rules or wanting to change them mid stream.
Murder more women and children, Mike, that is the only option you have.
Oh the Naivety! Since when did a central American election require the sitting president to be popular in order to win reelection?
It only makes sense that that is the exact reason that provision was put in their constitution. Once a strongman has the power of the state it's easy for them to rig the election.
LMAO
And since the rule of law was followed you're arguing this why?
Read boys read...you still retain your ideological dignity even if you admit that what happened in Honduras wasn't technically legal.
For example...there is no provision for impeachment or removal of the President in the Constitution. [/quote]
[url=http://ptvscpt.blogspot.com/2009/07/excerpts-from-honduran-constitution.html]Well there is this.[/url]
[quote]Article 239: A citizen who has previously held executive power can not be President or designated to the Presidency. Those that break this provision or propose reform of this provision, as well as those that help directly or indirectly, [b]will immediately cease to hold and exercise the power of his/her post, and will be banned from holding any future public office for a period of ten years.[/b][/quote]
Assuming that that is a correct interpretation he had to go. He could not serve ANY more of his term.
[quote]The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, apolitical, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic.[/quote]
Mike, I know how you liberals love lefties dictators-for-life, but the law was followed by everyone BUT the deposed president.
The Supreme Court and the Legislature sure seem to think so so I'll defer to their interpretation over some article. Please feel free to post the constitutional articles you feel they have broken. Present your evidence as I have presented mine, I'll be happy to read it.