Don’t Call it A Coup Barack!
July 2, 2009 · Salvaterra · Print This Article
Let’s imagine for a minute that our worst collective nightmare has come true. Yeah, you guessed it, I want you to imagine – just for the sake of this argument – that the Obama Administration has won a second term in the White House.
Now imagine that at the end of that second term, after eight years of damage done by Obama, he decides that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does not apply to him and he is going to serve another term no matter who wins the next presidential election.
We would not stand for any president trying to pull this in our country and we should not support actions such as these in any other country. Removing such a president from office would not be a “coup”, it would be the preservation of our representative republic government and our Constitution.
President Obama seems to disagree however based on his handling of the crisis currently taking place in Honduras.
The Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya, has been moving to extend the term limits restricting him to his single term in an attempt to follow the lead of other Latin American presidents in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. On the surface, it appears as though the Honduran government has acted too hastily by removing the president before he has finished his term, but a deeper look shows that they followed a very strict legal guideline to justify the removal.
Since the health of Cuban leader Fidel Castro has been in decline, power in Latin America has been accumulating in the hands of Hugo Chavez. Chavez has nationalized much of Venezuela’s industries moving the country closer to communism and making his government very rich on profits that come primarily from oil exports.
Chavez has been effectively using the influence that has come with his power and money to spread Marxism across Latin America much in the same way Russia grew into the Soviet Union. He is able to provide both economic and military security to countries that follow his lead and Honduras is just the latest gem he has had his eye on.
President Zelaya has been more than complicit in helping Chavez gain influence over Honduras, which is something that the Honduran government and population has been exceedingly aware of (as well as the US Department of State). Having recognized the danger their president has put them in by succumbing to Chavez, the government decided to act.
The Untied States should be backing the actions of the Honduran government 100% (you know Reagan would have), but instead the Obama Administration has decided to side with communist dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro calling the actions of the Honduran government an illegal military coup.
Check that, the administration is still “studying” to find a legal technicality in order to call it a coup so that we could then cut financial assistance to Honduras. We have already suspended military assistance.
But why would Obama go through so much trouble to punish Honduras, a government struggling against a fall to communism, on a legal technicality? Why would he go out of his way to fall on the side of Chavez and Castro?
Weren’t we all scorned and chastised during the 2008 election when we called Obama a socialist because of his statement on redistributing wealth and his associations with radical Marxists? After all since he had no experience we had to make a judgment of how he would act as president based on something didn’t we?
Well it’s sad to say, but our judgments are looking to be correct more and more each day based on Obama’s actions. It is even more clear now that the “change” Obama was promising was a change in the foundation of our government, not a change from “politics as usual” as he played it off.
So, when our president sides with communist dictators, nationalizes the auto and banking industries, allows countries in our backyard to fall to communism and pushes to redistribute the wealth of the United States, is there anyone left to defend Obama as not being a socialist?
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
I do agree on the majority of what you said. That being said, I was actually in Honduras last year, and I think the issue is a little more complicated.
I actually think both parties in this case over stepped their proper roll in this. President Zelaya was wrong for moving to stay in power, and wrong for wanting to interfere in the investments of foreign corporations in Honduras. The Honduran Military however was wrong in deposing him before he actually broke the law. If they would have been a little more patient it would have been open and shut.
The big loser in this whole situation is the Honduran people. Don’t get me wrong, life is pretty bad already in Honduras, but it has been getting better. They see their neighbors Belize and Costa Rica, thriving and want part of the action. Wal-Mart, cruise lines, as I am told by the people there, unnamed Texas oil men have been investing heavily in Honduras, making life better for the people. The one thing that can bring this crashing down is instability. Why invest in a unstable country.
Honduras is walking a fine line between being a developing country like it’s neighbors Belize, Costa Rica and Panama, or descending back into third world status like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.
I pray for the Honduran people, that their leaders can bring peace and stability back to this beautiful country and with it wealth and security for her people.
Than again, with this group excluded of course, I bet most Americans couldn’t find Honduras on a map. How could we expect them to even have a clue about her politics.
Thanks for your remarks Lou. I agree with most of what you say as well, especially your point about political instability forcing investment out of a country and hurting the people.
I know that the problem is complex, but in my opinion our president should be looking for reasons why we should be supporting the removal of Zelaya, not looking for excuses why we should cut off economic assitance in addition to the military assitance we have suspended. That will only hurt the Honduran people – who are fighting communism – much more.
I’m not saying that the president should be out there saying it was a great idea, but we should sympathize with the elements within the Honduran government that saw the situation being such that they felt it necessary to use the military to remove Zelaya. I’m sure they would not have acted that way unless they felt that Chavez would help Zelaya achieve what he, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa Delgado, and Bolivia’s Juan Evo Morales have already successfully achieved in extending their country’s presidential term limits.