The Beat

Totalitarian Rightists Put Orwellian Spin on Honduras Coup

posted by John Nichols on 07/02/2009 @ 12:52pm

To hear Rush Limbaugh and the tribunes of the totalitarian right tell it, everything is going swimmingly in Honduras.

Yes, the military invaded the home of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya with guns blazing, kidnapped the country's elected leader and forced him to leave the country.

Yes, the military then installed an unelected president and a new "interim" cabinet.

But, says Limbaugh, "It really wasn't a coup. It was the constitution being upheld. It was not a government being overthrown. It was a government being upheld, a government being sustained and getting rid of somebody who wanted to turn into an Ortega, who wanted to turn into a Chavez, who wanted to become a Castro, and these are the people our president of the United States is siding with."

Reading from the same script, Fox's Sean Hannity declared it was "mind-numbing" that the Obama administration would side with the world community to condemn the removal of Zelaya by the military and its political allies. No one will debate Hannity knows a good deal about what it takes to numb a mind. But his spin on this issue establishes a new standard for braindead thinking by the totalitarian right that has so besmirched the good name of old-right, anti-interventionist conservatism as it was once practiced by Ohio Senator Robert Taft and Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett, and as it continues to be espoused by Texas Congressman Ron Paul and the publications such as The American Conservative.

Putting aside concerns that Limbaugh, Hannity and their lesser compatriots appear to be suffering from severe Obama Derangement Syndrome – a condition characterized by bouts of uncontrollable rage and deep depression separated by rambling ruminations on the need to prevent regulation of pharmaceutical products -- the argument that there was no coup in Honduras was pretty much put to rest Wednesday.

The country's new rulers, who removed Zelaya without due process or respect for the procedures outlined by the Honduran Constitution established a sweeping nighttime curfew, during which the following sections of that constitutionare specifically suspended:

ARTICLE 69.- Personal liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through modification of the laws.

ARTICLE 71.- No person can be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four hours, without appearing before a competent authority for trial.

ARTICLE 78.- The freedoms to assemble and meet are guaranteed, as long as they are not contrary to public order and good custom.

ARTICLE 81.- Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter and remain in the national territory.

Honduran politicians and jurists who have aligned with the country's powerful military – and been well rewarded for doing so -- make a point that not all basic freedoms have been suspended all the time.

Fair enough. But there are still some Americans who think that the suspensions of any basic freedoms any of the time is problematic.

In fact, the way that Limbaugh, Hannity and their echo chamber are talking, you'd think that Zelaya was the one assaulting liberty.

The complaint about Zelaya from the people who have taken over the country was that the legitimately elected president of Honduras wanted to hold an advisory referendum on whether to consider altering the constitution to allow elected executives to serve two terms.

In order to prevent the referendum vote, the coup kidnapped an elected president, spirited him out of the country and installed a new unelected president. Then they suspended civil liberties.

Outside of an Orwellian novel, or the mid-day slot on talk radio stations, some basic principles still apply:

Getting elected. Organizing referendums. Proposing constitutional amendments. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing democracy.

Kidnapping the president. Installing an unelected strongman who threatens to arrest his critics on charges of treason. Suspending civil liberties. These are the sorts of things that happen in a country that is experiencing a coup.

**************************************************************** John Nichols is the associate editor of The Capital Times. His book, The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism (The New Press), examines and compares constitutional procedures for removing executives in countries around the world.

Comments (104)

  1. And those on the far left like Nichols post their Chavez furnished talking points against the nation of Honduras.

    <For weeks, Zelaya -- an erratic leftist who styles himself after his good pal Hugo Chávez of Venezuela -- has been engaged in a naked and illegal power grab, trying to rewrite the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for reelection in November.

    First Zelaya scheduled a national vote on a constitutional convention. After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country's congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. (It would be ''non-binding,'' he said.) When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.

    His actions have been repudiated by the country's supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya's sanity) and most Hondurans: Recent polls have shown his approval rating down below 30 percent.

    In fact, about the only people who didn't condemn Zelaya's political gangsterism were the foreign leaders and diplomats who now primly lecture Hondurans about the importance of constitutional law. They're also strangely silent about the vicious stream of threats against Honduras spewing from Chávez since Zelaya was deposed.

    The Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note -- regardless of party -- has voiced approval>

    http://tinyurl.com/Zeyala

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 12:46pm

  2. I am really conflicted about this one...

    How do we define "coup?" I hate the idea of physically removing an elected official, and in the case of a President, I would define that as a coup...but if the military did it on the orders of the Supreme Court of that nation....?

    However, from the Supreme Court point of view, what was SO wrong about trying to have an "advisory vote" on term limits? I don't buy the "he was trying to become Chavez or Castro" argument.

    Now, if it turns out that the monied people in Honduras (and we all know who they are) are behind this, then I would be the first to call it a coup.

    I just dunno what to think.... (which is really an amazing think because I am one opinionated son of a gun)...or how the US should handle this.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/02/2009 @ 12:48pm

  3. And I'd rather trust the views of someone like Carlos Montaner

    <What's the Chance of Stability? By Carlos Alberto Montaner

    Almost by unanimity, the Honduran Congress, supported by the Supreme Court, had removed him for breaking the law and ignoring the rulings of the Electoral Tribunal. But that was a technical excuse. The deep truth is a lot more dramatic: Zelaya, obstinate and rash, intent on being reelected at any cost, heedless of all the warnings of the judiciary and the legislature, intended to drag the nation in the direction of Chávez, something that in Honduras would have been the beginning of a huge economic and social Via Crucis.

    Basically, because the ousted president in recent years had timidly joined (albeit in a rhetorical manner) the so-called ''21st-century socialism,'' a warring ideological family with a large resonance box. The family is directed by Hugo Chávez, who in 1992 was the author of one of the bloodiest military coups in the history of Latin America, but who today, invoking democracy, wasted no time warning that he will overthrow any president who replaces his friend Zelaya.

    What we're seeing in Honduras is not a clash between uniformed men and civilians, or between putschists and innocent functionaries. Nor is it a return to the lamentable past of military governments. We are witnessing a conflict between two ways of understanding the function of the state and the role of the political leaders. Chávez's way -- an incipient ruling concept that Zelaya irresponsibly assumed in Honduras -- is a variant of state-run collectivism, a political stream that does away with the separation of powers that is part and parcel of republics.>

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 12:50pm

  4. Carlos Montaner continued

    <It exalts the personalist style, eliminates replacement of the leader, and adopts anti-Western positions that are expressed in dangerous alliances with countries like Iran and North Korea.>

    http://tinyurl.com/kvkjyj

    So, as Montaner has so eloquently outlined, this is about the attempt by Chavez to do what Russia and Cuba failed to do 30 years ago.

    Chavez seeks to overthrow democratic govt's and become the "Trotskyist Jefe" of Latin America.

    And yes, Chavez by his own words is a Trotskyist.

    <"What is the problem? I am also a Trotskyist!" - Chavez is sworn in as president of Venezuela

    By Jorge Martin

    Friday, 12 January 2007

    Among the new ministers to be incorporated into the government Chavez also pointed to the new Minister of Labour, José Ramón Rivero, which he described as "young and a workers' leader". "When I called him" Chavez explained, "he said to me: 'president I want to tell you something before someone else tells you... I am a Trotskyist', and I said, 'well, what is the problem? I am also a Trotskyist! I follow Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution.">

    http://tinyurl.com/nncoyr

    And here as outlined at Marxist.com is how Chavez set the blueprint for his revolution with the "referendum"

    http://tinyurl.com/m53s2z

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 1:04pm

  5. Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/02/2009 @ 1:07pm

    your speaking out against the govt and people of Honduras is sufficient to show me you are as usual on the wrong side of freedom and liberty

    Your support of Chavez and Zelaya in their attempt to remove freedom and democracy from Latin America has your totalitarian stripes showing.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 1:16pm

  6. As usual Nichols and the leftist highly FAVOR takeovers by leftwing marxist like Zelaya supported by their idol Chavez as do the Obamanation that makes desolation and his henchwoman Hillary! Perverting the constitution and rule of law of another nation to justify and rationalize their view is nothing new. No surprise here as they do it consistently with the U.S. A. constitution and our own rule of law both of which they despise!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/02/2009 @ 1:37pm

  7. Now wanting to put something to a vote is the "wrong side of freedom and liberty "?

    As is suspending the right of citizens to move about freely.

    OK Larry, why don't you rant about what Zelaya WANTED to do VS what the current govt IS DOING, which appears to be

    suspending:

    ARTICLE 69.- Personal liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through modification of the laws.

    ARTICLE 71.- No person can be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four hours, without appearing before a competent authority for trial.

    ARTICLE 78.- The freedoms to assemble and meet are guaranteed, as long as they are not contrary to public order and good custom.

    ARTICLE 81.- Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter and remain in the national territory.

    As far as Chavez, it seems like the voters of Venezueala don't have the same phobias as you.

    Who would you support?

    Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova?

    Gustavo Alvarez Martinez?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 1:43pm

  8. well to a hard core right winger its like this...

    if a people vote for and anti-communist for president...that's democracy in action, the people taking charge of their live, standing up for freedom....

    but if the majority of the people vote for a leftist...

    THEY STOLE THE ELECTION! ANOTHER CASTRO MESMERIZING IGNORANT MESTIZOS WITH SOCIALIST LULLABIES!!!!

    lol...amazing...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2009 @ 1:58pm

  9. Posted by BigPasture at 07/02/2009 @ 1:37pm

    Babble on....

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 2:01pm

  10. An aside: I notice Dreyfuss is now posting articles WITHOUT the option for us to comment on.

    Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/02/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i think its just you...

    that's kool...the editors can specifically ban posters on their blogs without a total ban?

    u sure?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2009 @ 2:07pm

  11. Larry, do you have any more info about Honduran Constitutional law than you did the other day?

    I agree that if the const says the congress can ask the Supremes to oust the pres, no coup.

    But, is that the way it is supposed to work? And if so, did it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 2:10pm

  12. Anti, where would you draw the line at removing anyone you felt was a socialist? Is simply attempting to amend, legally, a constitutional law enough of a reason? Would it be acceptable if it were a staunch, conservative, capitalist trying to do the same?

    Another question, purely out of curiosity, what politician, alive today, do you admire?

    Posted by !immutable at 07/02/2009 @ 2:12pm

  13. The Honduras' "Yes, it's a Coup!" or "No, it's NOT a Coup!" may take years to sort out......or perhaps it may NEVER be sorted out (see FL, Nov. 2000) to everybody and their 5th cousin's satisfaction.

    So, the best indication is to take the opposite stand of OUR foreign enemies.....NOT Magic's enemies since he doesn't have ANY.

    Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 2:36pm

  14. Let's cut to the chase, readers.

    The most poignant question here is whether or not the Obama administration was complicit in the overthrow of Zelaya. Since the prime mover in the coup, General Romeo Vasquez, is a graduate of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA --you know, the place where we train our lackies in the tools of terror and propaganda-- observers who assume that our clandestine operatives were not in communication with the coup leaders during the planning stages right up to the plot's execution can be safely accused of gross naïveté.

    Here's an absorbing Nicholas Kozloff excerpt:

    www.counterpunch.org/kozloff06292009.html

    In November, Zelaya hailed Obama's election in the U.S. as "a hope for the world," but just two months later tensions began to emerge. In an audacious letter sent personally to Obama, Zelaya accused the U.S. of "interventionism" and called on the new administration in Washington to respect the principle of non-interference in the political affairs of other nations. According to Spanish news agency EFE which saw a copy of the note, Zelaya told Obama that it wasn't his intention to tell the U.S. President what he should or should not do.

    He then however went on to do precisely that. First of all, Zelaya brought up the issue of U.S. visas and urged Obama to "revise the procedure by which visas are cancelled or denied to citizens of different parts of the world as a means of pressure against those people who hold different beliefs or ideologies which pose no threat to the U.S."

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

  15. As if that was not impudent enough, Zelaya then moved on to drug trafficking: "The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking…should not be used as an excuse to carry out interventionist policies in other countries." The struggle against drug smuggling, Zelaya wrote, "should not be divorced from a vigorous policy of controlling distribution and consumer demand in all countries, as well as money laundering which operates through financial circuits and which involve networks within developed countries."

    Zelaya also argued "for the urgent necessity" of revising and transforming the structure of the United Nations and "to solve the Venezuela and Bolivia problems" through dialogue which "yields better fruit than confrontation." The Cuban embargo, meanwhile, "was a useless instrument" and "a means of unjust pressure and violation of human rights."

    Run Up to June Coup

    It's unclear what Obama might have made of the audacious letter sent from the leader of a small Central American nation. It does seem however that Zelaya became somewhat disenchanted with the new administration in Washington. Just three months ago, the Honduran leader declined to attend a meeting of the System for Central American Integration (known by its Spanish acronym SICA) which would bring Central American Presidents together with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in San José, Costa Rica.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

  16. Both Zelaya and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua boycotted the meeting, viewing it as a diplomatic affront. Nicaragua currently holds the presidency of SICA, and so the proper course of action should have been for Biden to have Ortega hold the meeting. Sandinista economist and former Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Trade Alejandro Martínez Cuenca declared that the United States had missed a vital opportunity to encourage a new era of relations with Central America by "prioritizing personal relations with [Costa Rican President] Arias over respect for Central America's institutional order."

    Could all of the contentious diplomatic back and forth between Tegucigalpa and Washington have turned the Obama administration against Zelaya? In the days ahead there will surely be a lot of attention and scrutiny paid to the role of Romeo Vasquez, a General who led the military coup against Zelaya. Vasquez is a graduate of the notorious U.S. School of the Americas, an institution which trained the Latin American military in torture.

    Are we to believe that the United States had no role in coordinating with Vasquez and the coup plotters? The U.S. has had longstanding military ties to the Honduran armed forces, particularly during the Contra War in Nicaragua during the 1980s. The White House, needless to say, has rejected claims that the U.S. played a role......

    Even if the Obama administration did not play an underhanded role in this affair, the Honduran coup highlights growing geo-political tensions in the region. In recent years, Chávez has sought to extend his influence to smaller Central American and Caribbean nations.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

  17. The Venezuelan leader shows no intention of backing down over the Honduran coup, remarking that ALBA nations "will not recognize any [Honduran] government that isn't Zelaya's."

    Chávez then derided Honduras' interim president, Roberto Micheletti. "Mr. Roberto Micheletti will either wind up in prison or he'll need to go into exile… If they swear him in we'll overthrow him, mark my words. Thugetti--as I'm going to refer to him from now on--you better pack your bags, because you're either going to jail or you're going into exile. We're not going to forgive your error, you're going to get swept out of there. We're not going to let it happen, we're going to make life impossible for you. President Manuel Zelaya needs to retake his position as president."

    With tensions running high, heads of ALBA nations have vowed to meet in Managua to discuss the coup in Honduras. Zelaya, who was exiled to Costa Rica from Honduras, plans to fly to Nicaragua to speak with his colleagues. With such political unity amongst ALBA nations, Obama will have to decide what the public U.S. posture ought to be.

    End quote.

    Thus, a fascinating and potentially bright new chapter is opening in the long, dark tale that is the U.S. involvement in Latin America.

    Of one thing we can be certain. If Barack Obama chooses to side with human rights and democracy versus the usual ham-fisted, strong arm tactics that our clandestine operatives most often favor, he will be met with fierce resistance from within the miasma we call Washington.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

  18. How can people deny this was a coup?

    1. The Honduran constitution forbids the forced expulsion of ANY citizen including the President.

    2. The coup government has now removed 5 basic civil liberties and has begun raiding homes at night without warrants, carrying people off to torture centers.

    3. The media remains repressed, with soldiers even occupying radion stations to censor information.

    How is all this a "democratic transition"?

    DOWN WITH THE FASCIST COUP!

    LONG LIVE THE HONDURAN RESISTANCE!

    Posted by Communard115 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:02pm

  19. As a further clarification.

    Yes it is quite possible --even likely in my estimation-- that U.S. operatives assisted in the Honduran coup and that Obama may --probably unlikely-- wish to stand with the Zelaya camp and democratic principles.

    That a split personality exists in DC should not surprise readers here. As Eisenhower said of the CIA at the completion of his presidency, "It represented my eight year defeat" --i.e. the CIA has been a largely uncontrollable sort of Frankenstein's monster ever since its creation.

    For a ghastly tutorial readers here should consult Tim Weiner's fantastic and, frankly, horrifying, "Legacy of Ashes", or William Blum's, "Killing Hope", in which the introduction alone is worth the price of admission.

    Peace.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

  20. NOT Magic's enemies since he doesn't have ANY.

    Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 2:36pm

    Neither did Jeebus.

    Magic what, again Happy "i'm not a racist but Sotomayor must be"?

    Up is down, left is right, blue is the cost of pomegranates in Honduras, the continuing "logic" of the neo-conservatives rolls along, unencumbered by the thought process.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 3:13pm

  21. This situation is not as simple as either anti or Ilya make it out to be.

    On the one hand, Zelaya, like Chavez, is not the bee's knees of progressive leaders. And whether he calls himself a Trot or not, anti, Chavez is not one of us. He's a reformist and a potential Bonaparte.

    On the other hand, the coup against Zelaya was carried out by a united Honduran elite in defense of a Cold War-era constitution that protects the current economic and social structure in the third poorest country in the hemisphere.

    For more on these questions, I repeat my posting from Nichols' previous piece on Honduras:

    Good background information on the increasing tension between Zelaya (a 60% hike in the minimum wage is a Good Thing) and the Honduran elite that led to the coup:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff06292009.html

    Even better review of the popular and successful fights, over elite opposition, in a number of Latin American countries to amend or replace Cold War-era constitutions:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/ross06292009.html

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/29/2009 @ 11:54pm

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/02/2009 @ 3:16pm

  22. Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

    interesting take, especially considering the blanket condemnation issued by the White House and State Dept. But, ya never know with the CIA.

    But, according to Larry The Never Wrong, the CIA is chock full of "liberals"...so...

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

  23. To expand on my previous post, what I'm trying to say is that supporting or opposing a coup d'etat is not always a black and white thing. I don't support the coup against Zelaya because it was promulgated by the Honduran elite. On the other hand, I could support a coup IF it was part of a larger revolutionary process that overthrew either a dictator of the right (Pinochet, say) or one of the left (Castro).

    Would I have supported Chavez' pseudo-progressive but adventurist 1992 coup attempt in Venezuela? No, although I wouldn't have worked with the ruling class and its agents to put it down.

    On the other hand, while I did not support the attempted coup against Chavez, I would have gladly worked to suppress it, because it was reactionary to the core, a full-fledged attempt to restore the bourgoisie to complete, unassailable power.

    Life's complicated.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

  24. " ‘Balance and objectivity' creates an idea where both sides are balanced," he said when I spoke to him by phone. "In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors."

    Ewen argues that the forces for social change--look at any lengthy and turgid human rights report--have forgotten that rhetoric is as important as fact. Corporate and government propaganda, aimed to sway emotions, rarely uses facts to sell its positions. And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.

    "Effective communication requires not simply an understanding of the facts, but how those facts will take place in the public mind," Ewen said. "When Gustave Le Bon says it is not the facts in and of themselves which make a point but the way in which the facts take place, the way in which they come to attention, he is right."

    The emergence of corporate and government public relations, which drew on the studies of mass psychology by Sigmund Freud and others after World War I, found its bible in Walter Lippmann's book "Public Opinion," a manual for the power elite's shaping of popular sentiments.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:31pm

  25. "...the continuing "logic" of the neo-conservatives rolls along, unencumbered by the thought process."

    ~King Crab

    I second that one, dude.

    Here's another in a lately long succession of literary and intellectual masterpieces issuing from the pen of Chris Hedges.

    tinyurl.com/m3noht

    Excerpt:

    There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.

    Stuart Ewen, whose books "Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" and "PR: A Social History of Spin" chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of "objectivity and balance" that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as "poison."

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:31pm

  26. Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate "symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas." The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an "intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance."

    These corporate forces, schooled by Woodrow Wilson's vast Committee for Public Information, which sold World War I to the public, learned how to skillfully mobilize and manipulate the emotional responses of the public. The control of the airwaves and domination through corporate advertising of most publications restricted news to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance," while the real power to persuade and dominate a public remained under corporate and governmental control.

    Ewen argues that pamphleteering, which played a major role in the 17th and 18th centuries in shaping the public mind, recognized that "the human mind is not left brain or right brain, that it is not divided by reason which is good and emotion which is bad."

    HE ARGUES THAT THE FORCES OF SOCIAL REFORM, those organs that support a search for truth and self-criticism, HAVE MISTAKENLY SHUNNED EMOTION AND RHETORIC because they have been used so powerfully within modern society to disseminate lies and manipulate public opinion. But this refusal to appeal to emotion means "we gave up the ghost and accepted the idea that human beings are these divided selves, binary systems between emotion and reason, and that emotion gets you into trouble and reason is what leads you forward. This is not true."

    The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

    End quote.

    Excellent food for thought. I suggest readers gorge themselves.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:31pm

  27. Oops......

    Above 3 posts are ordered 2,1, 3. In other words readers should read the second before the first.

    Sorry.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:33pm

  28. Looks like CKA and I are on the same wavelength on this thread.

    No huge surprise, but a happy crossing of trails here nonetheless.

    :-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:43pm

  29. Life's complicated.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

    Only at the times of these Coups or non-Coups.

    Hindsight is 20/20 and you're blessed with it...:)

    Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 3:48pm

  30. No surprise here as they do it consistently with the U.S. A. constitution and our own rule of law both of which they despise!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/02/2009 @ 1:37pm

    Surprised, then, you're still in town.

    Going to try and make a go of it in this socialist hellhole?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/02/2009 @ 4:25pm

  31. Like I said the Congress and the Supreme Court defied the Constitution. No matter what the President did there were Constitutional and democractic ways of going about stopping him. Instead they went with the dictatorial totalitarian method. Whether the Congress and Supreme Court were doing it for the right reason you have to see Larry that they also defied the Constitution, which is what you are saying the President did, in order to gain a bit of security. Which I believe it was said that those who five up freedom for security deserve neither.

    I also think this puts a bit of a pall on the democracy because it shows that the Congress can not whenever it wants to militarily oust any President who isn't doing what they think is right instead of handling it Constitutinally. As my US example since the left leaning Congress believed Bush to be doing un-Constitutional things would you have approved of a military removal of the President? Do you support the military removal of Obama since he is doing things that you believe to be not within the framework of the Constitution?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 4:50pm

  32. Larry, do you have any more info about Honduran Constitutional law than you did the other day?

    I agree that if the const says the congress can ask the Supremes to oust the pres, no coup.

    But, is that the way it is supposed to work? And if so, did it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 2:10pm

    Try this site which is purely Honduran News. They present chronologies and some of the Constitutional laws that were used to remove Zelaya.

    http://www.hondurasthisweek.com/

    the only protest demonstrations in Honduras have been led by marxist groups with the encouragement of Cuba and Venezuela.

    http://tinyurl.com/ndxnns

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 4:54pm

  33. Do you support the military removal of Obama since he is doing things that you believe to be not within the framework of the Constitution?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2009 @ 4:50pm

    If you read the link from my post, it provides the legal framework and chronology of the removal of Zelaya. And it was not done merely by the Congress. It was through their Supreme Court, Attorney General, and the Congress. The Military was carrying out the instructions of the other branches of govt.

    http://www.hondurasthisweek.com/

    Impeachment in the US is primarily a political process. That said, your question of the military removing Obama is nuts since there is no provision in our constitution to do any such thing.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 5:08pm

  34. The hypocrisy of left amazes me. If a right-wing leader started taking steps to extend his time in power in clear and direct violation of BOTH the letter and intent of the law (as Zelaya was in the process of doing) they would be screaming for his head.

    But, if the leader in question is a "Fellow Traveler" then all that self-rightesness goes right out the window and we get to listen to mealy-mouthed justifications for letting Hugo Jr. remain in office.

    Of course they would feign being "shocked" when the little tin-horn finally did succeed in extending his power.

    Unbeleivable!

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 07/02/2009 @ 5:25pm

  35. "Yes, the military invaded the home of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya with guns blazing,"

    Did the soldiers actually open fire when they did this? I had not heard this in any other reporting.

    Posted by zmann at 07/02/2009 @ 5:46pm

  36. I had not heard this in any other reporting.

    Posted by zmann at 07/02/2009 @ 5:46pm

    But John Nichols always hears more than there was or are.....gifted writer that he is...:)

    Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 6:46pm

  37. Hey Zmann,

    Here's one source relaying that shots were reportedly fired:

    narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/coup-honduras

    Posted by Kristin Bricker - June 28, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    School of the Americas-Trained Military Detains and Expels Democratically-Elected President Zelaya

    Early this morning approximately 200 Honduran soldiers arrived at President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya's residence, reportedly fired four shots, and detained the President. Zelaya told TeleSUR that the soldiers took him to an air force base and put him on a plane to Costa Rica.

    Zelaya told TeleSUR from San Jose, Costa Rica, "They threatened to shoot me." Honduras' ambassador to the Organization of American States, Carlos Sosa Coello, reports that the president has been beaten up.....

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:16pm

  38. "The complaint about Zelaya from the people who have taken over the country was that the legitimately elected president of Honduras wanted to hold an advisory referendum on whether to consider altering the constitution to allow elected executives to serve two terms."

    Does the Honduran Constitution allow the president to hold advisory elections? Simple question. If not, then Ilya is blowing so much smoke, and Nichols is a chauvinist, paternalistic American. It does'nt matter what OUR constitution says about removing the President from office. It matters what the Honduran Constitution says.

    Posted by twillie at 07/02/2009 @ 7:21pm

  39. If you read the link from my post, it provides the legal framework and chronology of the removal of Zelaya.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 5:08pm

    What part of that legal framework includes invading Zelaya's home and forcing him on to a plane out of the country?

    No charges have been layed against Zelaya.

    I look forward to you citing the legal precedent. After all, the recent coup in Haiti followed this same bromide.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 8:43pm

  40. Try this site which is purely Honduran News. They present chronologies and some of the Constitutional laws that were used to remove Zelaya.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 4:54pm

    The coup is a text book case based on the the repertoire of the late Gen. Alvarez.

    Understood in the context of Honduran history, the effort by Zelaya to change the constitution is an effort to wrest power away from the military and invest it in the civilian sector, not a quest for personal power.

    What's going on in Honduras is yet another chapter in the protracted struggle against the unrestrained power – economic as well as political – of the military, and, as such, Zelaya was a threat to the establishment.

    There is no doubt this was a coup.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 8:52pm

  41. "I look forward to you citing the legal precedent. After all, the recent coup in Haiti followed this same bromide." Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 8:43pm

    I look forward to you citing the Honduran law that makes the actions of the Supreme Court and Congress illegal.

    Posted by twillie at 07/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

  42. No surprise here as they do it consistently with the U.S. A. constitution and our own rule of law both of which they despise!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/02/2009 @ 1:37pm

    It was Bush that said the Constitution was nothing but a Goddam piece of paper and under the Bushies, the FBI defined the Constitution as a potential terrorist document.

    It must be amazing to spend time inside BigPasture's skull.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 8:55pm

  43. It must be amazing to spend time inside BigPasture's skull.

    ~Shingo

    "Amazing"?

    Perhaps something akin to the adventure of riding astride the carapace of a Dung beetle.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 9:07pm

  44. the only protest demonstrations in Honduras have been led by marxist groups with the encouragement of Cuba and Venezuela.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009

    The standard response from antisocialist. Anyone he disagrees with is always a marxist and Cuba and Venezuela are the new axis of evil.

    How's this little gem from antisocialist's link. hondurasthisweek.com?

    "Today I saw a large group of brave men and women stand side by side yelling, singing, dancing, cheering, clapping, and making their voice be heard all over the world."

    Does this sound familiar? Like say the stuff were used to hear from a state run news source like the Soviet Politburo?

    Of course, what would you expect from a news source that it under her thumb of the military in a state run by the military?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 9:38pm

  45. Here is a fascinating post by a reader to antisocialists' hondurasthisweek.com link:

    "Jose Manuel Zelaya was trying to violate our constitution and because of that he was condemned but let's see the other side of the coin, Roberto Micheletti has violated our constitution,too and what have happened to him?. Answer: he is the president of Honduras rigth now. Remember; according to our constitution no one can change or modify ´´Los articulos petreos´´ but Micheletti and many another congressmen modified them and because of that here in Honduras we do not have the person (Designado presidencial) that according to law has to replace Manuel Zelaya. Where were all the people and organizations that is accusing Manuel Zelaya rigth Now?. HONDURAS OPEN YOUR EYES. The congress, the Supreme Court and a few other organization felt affraid of what Manuel Zelaya was doing because it would reduce their power and that is the reason why the condemned him, otherwise they were supporting him. Manuel Zelaya is guilty, Yes. but Micheletti is guilty, too. All the people that is in favor of Micheletti is violating the constitution,too. At the end of this chapter in our history the winner are going to be the ones that have been ruling our country for decades and for the rest of the country that God help us. sorry if i misspell any word but i am just learning english."

    Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 9:44pm

  46. Here are a couple of visually captivating posts for your delectation:

    informationclearinghouse.info/article22957.htm

    Pictures of the Honduran army in action here:

    tinyurl.com/mx3mdz

    Enjoy.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

  47. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/01-7

    Posted by twiceonce at 07/02/2009 @ 10:10pm

  48. I look forward to you citing the Honduran law that makes the actions of the Supreme Court and Congress illegal.

    Posted by twillie at 07/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

    How about the fact that the new regime suspended multiple articles of the constitution?

    Jeez you guys take the cake. ANYTHING goes if it supports your lopsided agenda.

    shameless.

    This bizarre trip sounds a lot like your love affair with Saddam Hussein, because he was fighting those darn leftists. Or support for Suharto, because he was fighting those darn communists. Or aligning yourselves with the Mujahadeen, because they were fighting those darn communists. And support for Honduras's own Gen Martinez, and of course that wonderful Pinochet.

    I like this quote from Jim Lobe; speaking on the neo-cons..."On closer examination, however, their zeal for democratization appears to depend significantly on whether the target is considered friendly or hostile to U.S. interests."

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:35pm

  49. "How about the fact that the new regime suspended multiple articles of the constitution?"

    I hadn't seen that. Be so kind as to tell us which ones.

    Posted by twillie at 07/02/2009 @ 11:39pm

  50. Thanks twiceonce.

    I do want to cut and past some portions for those neo-cons anti-democracy types that won't follow links to "leftist" sites.

    "President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

    ...The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya's term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya's term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected.

    It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress."

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:42pm

  51. Can't read so well, Twil?

    Look up the page and you will find it. Looks something like this:

    "....established a sweeping nighttime curfew, during which the following sections of that constitution are specifically suspended:

    ARTICLE 69.- Personal liberty is inviolable and can only be restricted or suspended temporarily through modification of the laws.

    ARTICLE 71.- No person can be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four hours, without appearing before a competent authority for trial.

    ARTICLE 78.- The freedoms to assemble and meet are guaranteed, as long as they are not contrary to public order and good custom.

    ARTICLE 81.- Every person has the right to circulate freely, leave, enter and remain in the national territory."

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:46pm

  52. Arresting journalists.

    Firing shots in the presidential residence

    Firing shots at citizens

    Suspending articles of the constitution

    establishing curfew

    forcibly removing a democratically elected president, instead of arresting him or impeaching him BEFORE the exile.

    Yep, sounds like a new style of democracy taking root. A style reminiscent of the top down "we know best, we are fit to rule" Calvinism the neo-cons love to love.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:53pm

  53. Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 3:31pm

    mmmmm, king crab...with Freedom Fries....mmmm

    tasty.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:59pm

  54. Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:46pm

    That's nice, but try this one:

    ARTICLE 321 .- The servers of the State has no powers to those expressly conferred by law. Performing any act outside the law is null and implies responsibility.

    That means that the president has no powers outside the ones specifically granted to him by the Constitution. Holding a national referendum is not one of those powers. He violated the constitution.

    But, hey, maybe you know more about Honduran constitutional law than the Honduran Supreme Court.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:20am

  55. Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 5:08pm

    Can you find a copy of the Honduran Constitution, preferably in English. It would be easier to prove the case of Constitutionality if you posted the Constitution and simply said here, take a look for yourself. Posting commentary about the Constitution seems unnecessary.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2009 @ 12:30am

  56. Oops. you left out part of Article 81. Inadvertently, I'm sure.

    "Nobody can be forced to change his domicile or residence except in special cases and with the requirements established by law"

    Removing a president who's ignoring the constitution MIGHT qualify as a "special case"

    "ARTICLE 71.- No person can be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four hours, without appearing before a competent authority for trial."

    Nice try. He has been anything BUT incommunicado. I expect to see him on the talk show rounds soon. Pictures of him with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can't be far behind.

    "Yep, sounds like a new style of democracy taking root. A style reminiscent of the top down "we know best, we are fit to rule" Calvinism the neo-cons love to love." Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:53pm

    Funny, that sounds like the new style from the Chosen One, brought to power by you-know-who.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:31am

  57. Yep, sounds like a new style of democracy taking root. A style reminiscent of the top down "we know best, we are fit to rule" Calvinism the neo-cons love to love.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:53pm

    Better than those crazy laws (circulating is that like rotating?) that underpin another tin pot C. American "democracy". Anyway here's something we ex Brits have always known and from the NYT:

    ..Likewise, the Declaration's defense of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" conveyed nothing more radical than established British law. Much ink has been spilt arguing that those concepts came from the English philosopher John Locke, or perhaps the Scottish enlightenment, or even American Indian tradition. In reality, the drafters were probably inspired by dowdy old common law, which had long before recognized life, liberty and property as an Englishman's "absolute rights." Even Jefferson's reference to "the pursuit of happiness" was founded on British constitutional principles.

    And yet, the Declaration of Independence makes no explicit claim to British pedigree, but appeals to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" and "the supreme judge of the world" to support its argument. That turned what otherwise would have been a mere restatement of English law into an invitation to the world to recognize certain "self-evident" truths about equality and freedom.

    President Obama, speaking at Cairo University last month, described his "unyielding" belief that various rights espoused by the founders, including free speech, representative government, and respect for property, deserve global support because they are "not just American ideas." In fact, they never were.

    http://tinyurl.com/kvjtah

    Looks like you Americans were plagiarists right from the start.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2009 @ 12:33am

  58. Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 11:53pm

    One of the powers granted to Congress:

    23. Order the suspension or restriction of rights under the provisions of the Constitution and ratify, reject or modify the restriction or suspension that has given the executive power under the Act.

    Now, you may not like that they can suspend parts of the constitution. You may not like the Constitution itself. You may not like the governing Liberal Party. But, it is not your country, and they didn't ask for your input, now did they, crabtalk?

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:48am

  59. Looks like you Americans were plagiarists right from the start. Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2009 @ 12:33am

    Damn redcoats.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:51am

  60. I was struck by what Mr. Nichols syndrome suffered by such right wing commentators such as Hannity and Limbaugh. He called it the "Obama Derangement Syndrome". I thought of it as O.D.S., and it occured to me that I had thought these people to be O.D.S. long before I knew that the O stood for Obama. I just had that feeling about them. And a few words to my good friend, antisocialist, whose contributions I also find O.D.S. It seems that antisocialist values the values of capitalism above the values of democracy. Capitalism is about the rule of capital, i.e. money. Democracy is about the rule of people. Socialism is essentially about economic democracy. Socialism, i.e. economic democracy is an anathema to antisocialists of all stripes, and if political democracy threatens to become economic democracy, then political democracy must be curtailed. Antisocialist value capitalism over democracy because they value money over people. They will not brook democracy if it threatens capitalism. And that is the root cause of right wing O.D.S. ness.

    Posted by JackCanuck at 07/03/2009 @ 01:46am

  61. I was struck by what Mr. Nichols called a syndrome suffered by such right wing commentators such as Hannity and Limbaugh. He called it the "Obama Derangement Syndrome". I thought of it as O.D.S., and it occured to me that I had thought these people to be O.D.S. long before I knew that the O stood for Obama. I just had that feeling about them. And a few words to my good friend, antisocialist, whose contributions I also find O.D.S. It seems that antisocialist values the values of capitalism above the values of democracy. Capitalism is about the rule of capital, i.e. money. Democracy is about the rule of people. Socialism is essentially about economic democracy. Socialism, i.e. economic democracy is an anathema to antisocialists of all stripes, and if political democracy threatens to become economic democracy, then political democracy must be curtailed. Antisocialist value capitalism over democracy because they value money over people. They will not brook democracy if it threatens capitalism. And that is the root cause of right wing O.D.S. ness.

    Posted by JackCanuck at 07/03/2009 @ 01:48am

  62. Sir,

    You preach to the choir

    Posted by SHUNK at 07/03/2009 @ 03:20am

  63. I suggest folks read the article: "A coup in Honduras Nonsense" in the July 2 Christian Science Monitor. When the people have the courage to rise up against tyranny the international left calls it a coup. When a small group of leftist thugs seize power thru violence and intimidation the international left calls it a victory for the people. Now the professional crybabies are out weeping about how one of their own was thwarted in his attempt to subvert Honduran law. Zelaya was removed after a vote of the Honduran congress and an order from the Honduran supreme court. When he refused to step down and relinquish power to the constitionally authorized successor, he was removed. You can't get much more due process than that even if you dont like the outcome.

    Posted by trafford65 at 07/03/2009 @ 06:33am

  64. It was a group of right wing thugs, who graduated from the School of the Americas, that demonstrated the power grab.

    The neocons as so discredited and such pathological liars (along with most of the right wing) that a sure way to decipher the facts it to identify the position taken by the neocons. The opposite of interpertation is always the right one.

    The neocons accused Saddam of having WMD and being behind 911, and neither were true. The neocons keep telling the world that Iran has nukes when our intel says they don't. The neocons blamed Russia for invading Georgia, but it turned out that Georgia started it. And now, the neocons are blaming Zelaya and insiting it wasn't a coup, so rest assured, it most certainly is.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 06:44am

  65. Hindsight is 20/20 and you're blessed with it...:)

    Posted by Happy at 07/02/2009 @ 3:48pm

    What hindsight? My entire post at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm was in the present tense. I'm not claiming to be a prophet, but I do have principles and some knowledge of history and current events, so I hope that I could have decided pretty darn quickly on each of these fairly obvious - for someone with my principles - situations; i.e., the elites are bad and the other side is imperfect but worthy of some level of support.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/03/2009 @ 08:03am

  66. Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/02/2009 @ 7:16pm

    Thanks, but it seems that it's just his word, and not independently confirmed.

    I have read reports on the coup from several different sources, and one detail popped up that I think will either confirm Zelaya's actions as illegal or not. I read that according to the Constitution or law of Honduras, only the Congress can call for a public consultation (single-issue poll.election), not the president, and that's the main basis for the Supreme Court finding what he did illegal. Anybody know for sure?

    Posted by zmann at 07/03/2009 @ 09:21am

  67. Nichols says: 'But, says Limbaugh, "It really wasn't a coup. It was the constitution being upheld. It was not a government being overthrown. It was a government being upheld, a government being sustained and getting rid of somebody who wanted to turn into an Ortega, who wanted to turn into a Chavez, who wanted to become a Castro, and these are the people our president of the United States is siding with..."'

    We must recognize that the usual freakazoid suspects who are mouth-breathing more vigorously than usual at Limbo's sweaty, pill-driven hallucinations are doing so for one central reason.

    They may not really give a shit about Honduras which contemptible rigthwing refuse cannot find on a map and likely had not heard of prior to this week. Rather, the sickly rightwingers are projecting onto Limbo's love letter to thuggish political violence their own deep-seated desires for a coup in America. They want, with every fiber of their sorry existences, for America to go bananna republic and install a macho (preferably mustachoed) "strongman". The bigger the epaulettes, the more glistening the mirrored shades, the more repressive, the better for the rapidly fecal right. They pant for an American Saddam or Pinchet instead of our democracy.

    Make no mistake. Creatures like ANTISOCIAL, BIG_PILE_OF_SHIT_ON_THE_PASTURE, & SJ_ASSCLOWN are not our equals in their will/capacity to carry out human endeavors. Let's not be PC about inescapable facts. They are inferior to us. They are not ready for democracy and in every pathetic orner of their empty skulls they pine for a coup, bloodshed and violence. It is in their DNA.

    As the guardians of civilization, which is the product of liberalism, we must be ever vigilant against its sick and disgusting enemies.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 09:39am

  68. But, hey, maybe you know more about Honduran constitutional law than the Honduran Supreme Court.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:20am

    And you are claiming more knowledge than I am.

    That's whats really funny about you guys Twillie, you have no more knowledge of this than I do, but you are damn sure you are correct. As I read through the posts it is pretty damn clear that Zelayas crimes are ;

    1: being a leftists

    2: associating with Chavez.

    That is all you guys need to indict him.

    The rest is murky. Was it a non-binding poll? Did the congress follow the constitution or did they post facto impeach Zelaya, AFTER he was out of the country? If this is democracy in action, why the need to suspend the constitution? To me it reeks of a coup when the media is shut down, journalists are arrested and the Army shoots at it's citizens.

    I have not really taken a firm stance on this situation as I cannot get to the bottom of the details regarding legality, and neither can you . But that has not prevented you from assigning a "side" to me, has it? Why? Because you view me as a "lefty", therefore I am as guilty as Zelaya.

    I have emailed factcheck.org, I will see if they can offer clarification.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 09:46am

  69. Another interesting part of this is that the Commander in Chief of the USA, during wartime, has declared that it is a coup, and the "patriotic" neo cons IMMEDIATELY take the opposite opinion, based on information that is sketchy.

    Fascinating.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 09:50am

  70. Posted by Big_Pile_of-Shit_on_the_Pasture at 07/02/2009 @ 1:37pm

    "BIG",

    Question time again. A couple of tuffies...

    1. Speaking for yourself as a rightwing freak, whose 'compound' do you most favor as a place for children to be apprenticed in their role as servants to benign adult authority?

    __ Warren Jeffs

    __ Josef Fritzl

    __ Micheal Jackson

    2. Are you a homo sapien?

    __ Yes

    __ No

    3: (If "yes" to 2) How and when did you become aware of being a homo sapien? How did it change your perspective? Have you talked about being homo sapien with people in your vicinity? Why or why not?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 09:50am

  71. But, it is not your country, and they didn't ask for your input, now did they, crabtalk?

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 12:48am

    Too fucking rich coming from someone that supports the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the 150 military bases scattered around the world.

    ----------

    Looks like you Americans were plagiarists right from the start.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2009 @ 12:33am

    Yes, we should have started from scratch, ignoring Christian Judeao traditions, the Magna Carts, Greek republicanism Iroquois democracy etc etc.

    would you "feel" better?

    ------------

    the only protest demonstrations in Honduras have been led by marxist groups with the encouragement of Cuba and Venezuela.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/02/2009 @ 4:54pm

    Don't let the facts get in your way, Larry. You never have before.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:08am

  72. oops, meant to put this in:

    "Even as Zelaya spoke at the United Nations, his opponents held a large and noisy rally in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. Crowd members waved blue and white Honduran flags and signs denouncing Zelaya"-CNN.com

    Kind of the opposite of what Larry claims, that ONLY Marxists are marching in the streets.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:14am

  73. "THE SENATE COAT ROOM", IN ONE ACT, 1ST DECADE OF THE MILLENIUM

    DAVID VITTER: Shit, where is my coat? Oh yeah, as I was saying John, it's just a total hoot how fucking stooopid our party's base is. Every 2 or 4 or 6 years we go running around our districts talking complete half-assed bullshit about how we want to gut the government when we are raving statist asholes.

    JOHN ENSIGN: I hear you, homie.

    DV: Yeah, our base is like the high school skank who gives everyone who flatters her a hummer and does not get an itoa of respect. Least of all from the guys getting the hummers (laughs uproariously). That's our skanky base. Gotta' love 'em!

    JE: Speaking of hummers, are you getting any?

    DV: Yeah dude, have I got a story to tell you. I know this 'ho...I mean, she is real 'ho. But high class. And-

    JE: Ugh, Dave man, you've been paying for it? Fuckin' A, all you hsve to do is play the "I'm bigdicked Senator So-and-So" card and you can be drowning in pussy juice!

    DV: Yeah, I know that. But (lowers voice) I really get off on paying for 'hos. Can't explain it, it's a turn-on.

    JE: Turn on? Tell me about it! Fucking your best friend's wife while they are both on your payroll will firm up your boner.

    DV: You mean you're--

    [Suddenly, LARRY CRAIG enters]

    LARRRY CRAIG: Hi Guys.

    JE: Hey Larry, John and I are talking about our extramarital bitches. You got any---

    LC: (Sternly) I'm sorry. Very sorry. But I am a family values Republican. And I am wedded to the sanctity of the covenant of marriage. Understand?

    DV: Umm, oh yeah, right.

    JE: Sorry, Lar', didn't mean to--

    LC: (suddenly nervous) Don't--Oh, and by the way, is any one in the men's room? (taps foot nervously). Gotta go now.

    JE: He seemed jumpy. Well, gotta run to Promise Keepers...

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 10:22am

  74. Mr. Nichols,

    You are quoting about the Constitution. My I ask why, when our own President will not follow ours, and is not being held to do so.

    bfuller

    Posted by bfuller at 07/03/2009 @ 10:29am

  75. BigP is a fan of David Koresh, Phil.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:29am

  76. Posted by bfuller at 07/03/2009 @ 10:29am

    it's called "precedent" and it was set on or around 2003.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:31am

  77. Big P, I am wondering, when you write out "Obamanation that brings desolation" does your voice go up into Michael McDonald range on .."nation" and then down to Paul Robeson range on "..desolation"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:37am

  78. It's shithouse obvious that that is a coup in Honduras as gun-boy thuggery is not the manner in which power is transferred in any functioning republic. Period.

    As for Zelaya's bids for more time in office: Big fucking whoopee shit. It's not a crisis & about as shocking as David "John" Shitter in a whorehouse that pols want to extend their terms. What IS revealing here is that relativistic rightist dog feces is FOR protest in Iran but AGAINST the same in Honduras. I am FOR the protests in BOTH countries as expressing the will of the people.

    Don't rightist freaks recall that much ballyhooed plank of the "The Con' On America"? Should the GOP Class of '94 be spirited out of the USA at gun point for going Zelaya & extending their own careers against their own sanctimonious promises in the "contract" ???

    from: www.house.gov/house/Contract/termlimd.txt

    "Summary: This resolution provides for consideration of two joint resolutions which propose amendments to the constitution limiting the number of terms members of the Senate and the House of Representatives can serve. The first joint resolution (identical to H.J.Res. 38 as introduced in the 103rd Congress) limits the number of Senate terms to two and the number of House terms to six. The second joint resolution (identical to H.J.Res. 160 as introduced in the 103rd Congress) also limits Senators to two terms, but it limits members of the House to three terms...

    Background: The idea of limiting the tenure of elected officials has recurred through our history, but it has become more popular in the last few years. In 1992, 14 states passed initiatives limiting the tenure of federal legislators. Two of these laws, however, have been challenged and found unconstitutional in court..."

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 10:44am

  79. BigP is a fan of David Koresh, Phil.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:29am

    True, KingCRAB, but I do not vision BIG as a strictly "one compound" kind of guy. I think BIG is more ecumenical. I find it reasonable to assume that BIG is able to breathlessly admire elements of the model for a compound that a Fritzl or a Jeffs have been able to introduce via their own forms of ingenuity.

    In other words, BIG is a pan-compound kind of guy, just so long as the lil 'uns are bein' learned the correct rightist lessons at their masters's feet.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 10:50am

  80. oops, meant to put this in:

    "Even as Zelaya spoke at the United Nations, his opponents held a large and noisy rally in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. Crowd members waved blue and white Honduran flags and signs denouncing Zelaya"-CNN.com

    Kind of the opposite of what Larry claims, that ONLY Marxists are marching in the streets.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:14am

    No, I said those who were protesting Zelaya's removal were marxists.

    I didn't say anything about the demonstrations in support. Hence the difference between the word protest and demonstration. The first is always an action AGAINST, while the second can be either for or against.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/03/2009 @ 11:56am

  81. John, thank you for making the connection between right wingers like Limbaugh and Hannity, and totalitarianism.

    Entertaining though it can be, parsing many of the issues in Latin America between pure left/right lenses is - to say the least - difficult. Personally I think Chavez is an idiot - his economic theories border on the insane, and only work when supported by high oil prices. Having said that, he has done more for the poor in his country than any of his predecessors. At least he is trying.

    One constant in the region has been tiny elites controlling the vast majority of wealth and power, supported by a military willing to brutally supress any opposition. One is justified in having suspicions of the "coup" in Hondoras, given this long history.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 07/03/2009 @ 12:22pm

  82. What hindsight? My entire post at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm was in the present tense....I hope that I could have decided pretty darn quickly on each of these fairly obvious - for someone with my principles - situations; i.e., the elites are bad and the other side is imperfect but worthy of some level of support.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/03/2009 @ 08:03am

    It's early in the morning......maybe you're hung over! You might want to reread, in full, your 3:30pm comments....to see if "present tense" is applicable 100%.

    As an aside, you said: "I don't support the coup against Zelaya because it was promulgated by the Honduran elite."

    Since I assume you include the Hond Congress as part of the "elite", why do you NOT think such Congress, elected as they are, is NOT representative of the Hond people? Must all supportable "coup" be initiated by dirt-poor peasants and/or factory `slaves'? Are all Iranians protesting AhmaDineInYourJeans, your coddled `types'?

    Leftists are conflicted....as their whole collectivist philosophy conflicts with human nature.

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 12:32pm

  83. Happy-Actually,humans who have lived closest to nature have been collective in their thinking and lifestyle..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2009 @ 12:46pm

  84. Since I assume you include the Hond Congress as part of the "elite", why do you NOT think such Congress, elected as they are, is NOT representative of the Hond people?

    Leftists are conflicted....as their whole collectivist philosophy conflicts with human nature.

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 12:32pm

    By its very nature, isn't a democratic election a "collectivist" action? Or are we to assume such action conflicts with human nature as well?

    Who, exactly, is conflicted?

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 07/03/2009 @ 12:49pm

  85. Happy-In fact,many of the cultures that lived according to nature did not and do not have words for ownership or personal property.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2009 @ 12:55pm

  86. Happy's not responding because he just realized the internet is collectivist. He'll also sell his vehicles to avoid collectivist road systems, disconnect from the collectivist power grid, and seal himself in an underground chamber to avoid breathing collectivist air.

    Human nature is a pain, isn't it?

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 07/03/2009 @ 1:11pm

  87. Happy-Actually,humans who have lived closest to nature have been collective in their thinking and lifestyle..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2009 @ 12:46pm

    Happy-In fact,many of the cultures that lived according to nature did not and do not have words for ownership or personal property.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2009 @ 12:55pm

    IM, do you think it makes any difference that...human nature do evovle?

    Did you know the world started with just a pair, and today, there over 6+ Billion? IF in your lifetime, you see no one others than your family, would the concept of ownership, individualism or collectivism ever evolve, for you?

    Even in successful collectivist societies, at any point in human civilizations, the pure takers are very few; usually the very old and the very young. How many in the modern collectivist societies, are moochers and looters? And how many are enables of such moochers/looters catering to them for their votes?

    Posted by Happy at 07/03/2009 @ 1:23pm

  88. Happy-Human nature does not evolve and we are,very much,as we have always been, as history clearly shows..The world,of course,did not start with a pair and the pair you refer to only had male children so how did we get to 6 billion?Moochers and looters exist in every society.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2009 @ 2:10pm

  89. What's also amazing is that the world got to 6 billion in only 6000 years!

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 3:25pm

  90. "Socialism is essentially about economic democracy." Posted by JackCanuck at 07/03/2009 @ 01:48a

    No, socialism is about seeking a commonality of mediocrity.

    1. If, in fact, Zelaya broke some law (that I am not aware, having actually read the absurd Washington-authored Honduran constitution) then the mandated procedure is to impeach him through the defined legal manner. Period. End of discussion point. 2. The MSM's portrayal of this "referendum" as a last-ditch "power-grab" allowing him to serve another term is false on it's face: he Did Not and Could Not have presented himself as a presidential candidate in the upcoming elections. Period. End of discussion point. 3. The "referendum" was NOT a Legally Binding process, it was an Opinion Poll to establish whether Hondurans, by a Direct process of one man-one vote method, WANTED constitutional reform placed to an Official BINDING vote in 2010 - i.e AFTER Zelaya had ceded his Presidency to Someone OTHER than HIM, since, of course, HE WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN ON THE BALLOT in November. Period. End of discussion point. "

    Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/03/2009 @ 06:20am

    We can take these one at a time. 1. How do YOU know what the "mandated procedure" is? End of discussion point - not.

    2. How do YOU what he had in mind for the election? Maybe this was the first step in consolidating power, the way Chavez did it. End of discussion point - not.

    3. Why did he propose a referendum -a power that the constitution does not grant him. If he wanted a referendum, why not have his fellow Liberal Party members in the Congress propose it?

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 9:17pm

  91. "4. Just as in the US, under the Honduran constitution the President is "commander-in-chief" of the Military. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. He can arbitrarily fire ANY Military officer At His SOLE discretion and there is not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it. If, by some convoluted reading of the constitution, such an action could be construed as "illegal", then the process of Impeachment and Trial is the Mandated Remedy. Period. End of discussion point. 5. The ONLY self-described "leftist" candidate in the upcoming elections HAS been killed by the Honduran military. He's as dead as fucking Julius Caesar folks, with a military bullet. Period. End of discussion point. 6. Given the above EXTANT FACTS: exiling the ELECTED President is a COUP D'ETAT. Period. End of discussion" Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/03/2009 @ 06:20am

    4. It is not at all clear in reading my translation of their constitution, that el Presidente can "arbitrarily fire ANY military officer at his SOLE discretion". In fact it looks like the Chief of the Armed Forces can only be fired by the Congress. so, NOT period. NOT end of discussion.

    but, it sounds like ending discussions is what you're all about, eh, Ilya?

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 9:30pm

  92. "Let's not be PC about inescapable facts. They are inferior to us. They are not ready for democracy and in every pathetic orner of their empty skulls they pine for a coup, bloodshed and violence. It is in their DNA. As the guardians of civilization, which is the product of liberalism, we must be ever vigilant against its sick and disgusting enemies." Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 07/03/2009 @ 09:39am

    A great example of what George Will refers to as "the colossal arrogance and condescension of the Left". It's just a short step from there, to their idea of government, which is, WE know what's best for YOU!

    "I have not really taken a firm stance on this situation as I cannot get to the bottom of the details regarding legality, and neither can you . But that has not prevented you from assigning a "side" to me, has it? Why? Because you view me as a "lefty", therefore I am as guilty as Zelaya." Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 09:46am

    I'm sorry. I thought you had taken a side:

    "Arresting journalists.

    Firing shots in the presidential residence

    Firing shots at citizens

    Suspending articles of the constitution

    establishing curfew forcibly removing a democratically elected president, instead of arresting him or impeaching him BEFORE the exile. Yep, sounds like a new style of democracy taking root. A style reminiscent of the top down "we know best, we are fit to rule" Calvinism the neo-cons love to love"

    If I have falsely acccused you of being a lefty, I apologize. I have no more claim to facts than you do. But, I suggest you read the source material yourself, and not just reprint talking points from a lefty organization.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 9:51pm

  93. "Another interesting part of this is that the Commander in Chief of the USA, during wartime, has declared that it is a coup, and the "patriotic" neo cons IMMEDIATELY take the opposite opinion, based on information that is sketchy. Fascinating." Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 09:50am

    Not THAT interesting. There is a difference in the dictionary definitions of "coup" and "coup d'etat". Which did he say?

    And, let's face it, neocons did not "IMMEDIATELY take the opposite position". I would say that both sides staked out their positions simultaneously, wouldn't you? Your statement suggests a certain petulance, as opposed to strongly held beliefs.

    Posted by twillie at 07/03/2009 @ 10:01pm

  94. "Yes, we should have started from scratch, ignoring Christian Judeao traditions, the Magna Carts, Greek republicanism Iroquois democracy etc etc."

    would you "feel" better?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2009 @ 10:08am

    I think the point being made by one of your mob or at least in your most famous newspaper, in "Independence, British Style" (Adam Freedman) is that your founders did in fact ignore "Christian Judeao traditions, (the Magna Carta-possibly excepted), Greek republicanism Iroquois democracy etc etc." And instead did what came naturally to them, as essentially Englishmen, and did nothing more radical than incorporate English common law and an English Bill of Rights into your founding documents. In his words "Little noticed today is that the Declaration co-opted the very language of English law to reject the mother country."

    http://tinyurl.com/lol4jd

    So what is it that makes America great?" oh just its historic English legal lineage and culture of liberty".

    (And Canada and Australia and NZ and India etc etc.)

    Now you say why on earth introduce that in relation to some little tinpot country of Spanish lineage?

    Seems pretty obvious to me. In the Americas, dictator- Generals a,b,c....x,y,z, trace back to the infamous Franco himself and to a political if not to a cultural matrix. Now if JR wasn't here we could look at an Austrian like Hitler and see how easy it was for him to beguile a whole nation who did not have the love of liberty flowing through its veins. Or that little Italian pip squeak or we could look at Russia today. The problem there is not only the leadership but as much a people that naturally embraces authoritarianism.

    What we are seeing in Honduras is democracy Spanish style. So let's not expect too much. Be thankful for small mercies.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2009 @ 10:24pm

  95. ps. Lest someone objects that this is not acceptable in a post modern world, where all cultures are assumed to take their place on a level playing field, I would remind those on the left (who are most susceptible to this nonsense) that almost every deviation from an acceptable leftist position is argued against on the authority of the founding fathers and the implicitly superior nature of your founding documents. So don't fall into the kettle calling the pot black error.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 12:14am

  96. Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2009 @ 10:24pm

    You raise interesting points about former English colonies. Countries like the US, NZ, Australia, Canada, and India have done fairly well democratically and economically. Is that a function of British influence, inherent political beliefs, or gaining independence? I don't know. But it appears that colonialism is not all bad.

    Posted by twillie at 07/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

  97. Posted by twillie at 07/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

    I was being a little provocative T but I think we, like you, owe a lot to our British heritage not only in terms of our similar legal systems (our Senate is unashamedly borrowed from your system so we don't have a House of Lords) but also a culture that produced for example a Wilberforce (anti-slavery and better conditions for workers) or a Churchill who was able to galvanise a nation behind him and thus help defeat Nazism.

    You Americans took up that challenge and mantle in WW2 and helped to make the world a better place not only by removing Nazism and Japanese militarism but also by things like the Marshall Plan and, in our region, helping birth and foster a democratic Japan.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 11:21pm

  98. "Obviously NO ONE ELSE here has bothered to actually read, or at least peruse, the Honduran Constitution,"

    It seems rather clear that you haven't. Read section 15 of article 205. That MAY provide the Congress the power. I'm not sure. Period. But I do know you have no cause to declare the issue resolved. Period. Also, feel free to show us the Honduran law that makes the action of the Congress illegal.

    Posted by twillie at 07/05/2009 @ 11:32am

  99. Posted by twillie at 07/05/2009 @ 11:32am

    What part of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to force the president onto a plane leaving the country and then, block a runway to stop his airplane landing upon his return?

    Posted by Shingo at 07/05/2009 @ 9:46pm

  100. Posted by twillie at 07/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

    Thinking about your relationship to KG3 and severing ties with England. It was not so much KG that was the tyrant, as by then the English parliament had made him little more than a figurehead in a constitutional monarchy, but rather the colonial office or whatever it was then called.

    The individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy and the Brits themselves were increasingly coming to enjoy were being "written" , not only through parliament, but also in common law.That arm of government (the judiciary), when independent, plays a vital part in defining a liberal democracy.

    Thus in the Honduras situation though we may not like the South or Central American way of removing a political leader from office by kicking him out of the country, the fact both the political and legal arms of government were involved encourages one to think that the process really was in essence a democratic one.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/05/2009 @ 10:32pm

  101. Posted by lrjones4 at 07/05/2009 @ 10:32pm

    I think so. And, unlike the way these have usually gone in South/Central America (leftist overthrow of right wing government/ right wing overthrow of left wing government), in this case, the president was deposed by members of HIS OWN party. And United Fruit is nowhere to be seen.

    Posted by twillie at 07/06/2009 @ 12:07am

  102. in this case, the president was deposed by members of HIS OWN party.

    Posted by twillie at 07/06/2009 @ 12:07am

    While there doesn't appear to be any evidence of US influence in this coup, the fact that he was deposed by members of his own party doesn't make it legal nor does it prove there was not a coup.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/06/2009 @ 03:44am

  103. There was, no doubt, a coup. By dictionary definition,"a strong, decisive action". But that doesn't mean it was wrong, or unlawful.

    Posted by twillie at 07/06/2009 @ 10:08am

  104. But that doesn't mean it was wrong, or unlawful. Posted by twillie at 07/06/2009 @ 10:08am

    When you have government crackdowns on dissent, imposed curfews and international media being forced to leave the country, it's a strong indication it was unlawful and illegitimate.

    When the plane carrying the elected president is bocked from landing, it's a strong indication it was unlawful and illegitimate.

    When the the growing isolation of the Honduran coup leaders is so apparent that even Micheletti's claim that Tel Aviv had agreed to recognize the military regime – which Israelis denied, it's a strong indication it was unlawful and illegitimate.

    When not even the Israelis or the Taiwanese will recognize you, it's time to hire an expensive public relations firm.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/06/2009 @ 6:44pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
64 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
106 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
71 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
62 Comments