More Foreign Policy Dichotomy

On Drudge Report today, contrasting headlines:

US revokes visas for Honduran officials, and:

USA, British envoys attempting to open talks with Taliban.

So let me get this straight: the Obama administration is willing to open dialogue with the murderous Taliban, but is unwilling to speak with the constitutionally-legitimate, democratic government of Honduras.

Would someone from the press PLEASE ask Obama to explain this dichotomy?

Obama's policy on Honduras threatens freedom and democracy in Latin America

Why doesn't the mainstream media take on Obama for his stance on Honduras? Is it because the reporters are ignorant of the situation? Or because they think the American people don't care about a small country that happens to be our near neighbor and ally? Or do they simply avoid criticizing Obama at all costs?

The Honduran crisis is almost a month old. That means Obama has had plenty of time to read the Constitution of Honduras and realize that what he has called a "coup" is really the legitimate government of Honduras defending the rule of law. Their Constitution explicitly demands that anyone who attempts what Zelaya did be removed from office and deported:

The Constitution of Honduras:

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

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

ARTICLE 42: Citizenship is forfeited by those who:

5. Incite, encourage or support the continuity or re-election of President of the Republic

Article 374: It cannot be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirement and prohibitions on who can and cannot be President.

Zelaya attempted to do each of the things prohibited by Articles 239, 42, and 374:

• The term for President of Honduras is 4 years. Article 239 prohibits anyone who has served as President from running again. Zelaya attempted to remain President beyond his 4-year term. By this action, the Constitution says he must immediately resign the Presidency and be barred from any public office for 10 years.

• Zelaya desired to remain President beyond his 4-year term. He made this known publicly, which explictly violates Article 42, and by doing so Zelaya has forfeited his Honduran citizenship.

• Zelaya tried to hold a referrendum to extend the Presidential term limits so that he could hold the Presidency beyond the Constitutional 4-year term. The referrendum was barred by the Supreme Court, so he enlisted the help of Hugo Chavez, who printed the ballots in Venezuela and shipped them to Honduras. Zelaya's illegal referrendum violates Article 374, which explicitly prohibits reforming Presidential term limits.

So there you have it. The Constitution of Honduras demands that, for his actions, Zelaya be removed as President and stripped of his Honduran citizenship. That's exactly what happened: Zelaya was removed from office and exiled.

Yet the AP is still supporting Obama's assertion that this carrying-out of Constitutional law was a "coup". In addition, so-called Latin America expert Vicki Gass says "Constitutional order and rule of law have to be restored", meaning reinstating Zelaya as President. How the AP could cite an "expert" who hasn't even read the Honduran Constitution is beyond me.

Obama's decision to support a man who attempted to usurp his country's Constitution and instill himself as a perpetual dictator is the most outrageous and shameful American foreign policy I have ever witnessed. I would expect this from the U.N. and Europe, but I'd hoped that even under Obama America was still a nation that stood for freedom in the world. It's sad to be proven wrong in such spectacular fashion.

U.N. General Assembly Demands Restoration of Honduras' Ousted President

U.N. General Assembly Demands Restoration of Honduras' Ousted President

Of course they do. Most world leaders, apparently Obama included, have dictatorial aspirations themselves. Therefore it is not their motivation to defend freedom and liberty and the rule of law, but to defend one of their own.

What happened to the days when the USA stood for freedom?

When thousands of protesters in Iran stand up for freedom and democracy and some get slaughtered in the streets, Obama won't pick sides lest he be seen as "meddling".

Yet when the democratically-elected government of Honduras acts in defense of their Constitution and ousts a dictator from the Presidency, Obama comes out in full support of the dictator and accuses the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court of staging an illegal coup.

How is the arrest of a dictator who attempted to violate the Constitution and usurp the authority of the citizens and Congress a "coup"? How is it "meddling" to support people who are fighting and dying for freedom?

Why does the United States support a leftist dictator - an enemy of freedom and friend of Hugo Chavez - in Honduras, but refuses to stand against another dictator - a sworn enemy of the United States, our allies, and freedom - in Iran?

Why is nobody asking these questions of President Obama?