The Democrats In Honduras

…have to cave in to the fascist dictator huggers in Washington. This is shameful. Obama has given this country something to really apologize for.

[Update mid morning]

More thoughts:

The Obama team did an excellent job of undermining the Honduran economy by cutting off economic assistance, throttling tourism with travel warnings, yanking visas away from Hondurans, and creating a climate of massive uncertainty that spooked U.S. investors and businesses. The U.S. embassy in Honduras did yeomen’s work watching out for the interests of the Zelaya clan, leaving many to wonder which side it was pulling for. In short, against a small, friendly, anti-Chávez ally, the administration mustered the sort of muscle it would never dare use against Iran, Russia, or Venezuela.

Guess it’s just more of that bullying people that you vastly outweighspeaking truth to power, like they did with Fox News.

[Late morning update]


…the administration can’t show that it actually saved any jobs — other than Manuel Zelaya’s.

That one may prove very expensive.

56 thoughts on “The Democrats In Honduras”

  1. Bob,

    Number one, you don’t seem to have a clue about the US Constitution, so it is not surprising you don’t understand the Honduran Constitution. You keep trying to apply concepts that you think the US Constitution has in it to the Honduran Constitution, and in both cases you are wrong.

    Let’s go through a few fallacies here. Providing the President the power to create a national referendum is not liberty. That’s a dictatorship. No amount of arguing that the President is a citizen will help you make your point, because no citizen has that authority either. Not in the US, and not in Honduras.

    Term limits were requested by the citizens of both the US and Honduras. You say that’s a restriction of liberty, yet it seems rather clearly a restriction in government. It limits the power of the elite in government, and when applied, it has served both the US and Honduras.

    Finally, you’re the one who enjoys discussing Obama. Yet, you missed my link where he was using the UN to ban speech against religions and nationalities. He wants to make it a worldwide wrong to draw cartoons of Muhammad. So if you really think it is wrong to restrict speech in any way, particularly like anti-Nazi and anti-Holocaust denial; well, we’re waiting for your righteous anger.

    We’re not holding our breathes though that you really mean what you write.

  2. Rand, you say my arguments don’t hold water, but you didn’t say why they don’t hold water.

    Also, you said “But unless there is no way of amending the Honduran constitution, we (or at least I) still fail to see the point”, but when I showed you that the relevant part of the Honduran constitution has an entrenched clause which can not be amended, you didn’t acknowledge it. When I pointed out that you were using the non-interference argument used by China, you actually denied doing so in the very same sentence that you said “it’s none of this administration’s business”. And of course, you do think the US should interfere in repressive regimes, such as Iran and Saddam’s Iraq. We agree that the US ought to interfere with repressive regimes — You just don’t see Honduras as having a repressive constitution, military, or supreme court, and I do. It is true that Zeyala is a scoundrel, but that’s no reason to support the other scoundrels Honduras has on offer, instead of supporting freedom and good government.

    Leland makes the argument that non-binding referenda are tools of a dictatorship. American citizens who live in localities which have very frequent referenda will interested in hearing more.

    Leland also advances the potentially interesting argument that term limits in the united states do not restrict liberty because they restrict government and not the people, as if we in the united states do not have a government of the people. I think there are grounds for an interesting debate here. I think we should start with the idea that my right to have a meaningful vote for someone is an enhancement of my liberty, not just the person I’m voting for. So, for example, if women are not permitted to be president, not only are women’s freedoms being restricted, but my freedom to choose my leaders is being also restricted. Not permitting women to be president would not only be a restriction on government, it would also be a restriction on the people’s freedom to have the leaders they choose. Similarly, not permitting young people or two term presidents to be president is not only a restriction on government, it is a restriction on the people’s freedom to have the leaders they choose.

    Unfortunately, Leland’s arguments are marred, as usual, by unnecessary personal attacks. I didn’t follow your link just as you’ve refused to follow my links in the past. Leland, I’ll carefully address each aspect of your comments when you start showing some common courtesy.

  3. Rand, you say my arguments don’t hold water, but you didn’t say why they don’t hold water.

    Yes, I did.

    of course, you do think the US should interfere in repressive regimes, such as Iran and Saddam’s Iraq. We agree that the US ought to interfere with repressive regimes

    Even if I agreed with you that the Honduran government is repressive (or more repressive than it would be were Zelaya to get his way), I’ve never said that the US should interfere in repressive regimes simply because they are repressive regimes. This is the stupid fallacy that critics of removing Saddam always came up with — that there couldn’t be more than one reason for a policy action, and that it somehow couldn’t result from a combination of reasons.

    Chavez’ regime is much more repressive than the current Honduran government could hope to be. Do you think we should fix that? How about Cuba?


    I continue to see no basis for US government interference with a constitutional action in Honduras, other than that the White House (and probably SecState as well) likes left-wing dictators. I also notice that it continues to stonewall on its legal justification, while attempting to strong-arm and muzzle the Library of Congress, via John Kerry.

    I won’t speculate on why you continue to defend it.

  4. I’m sure we agree that the extent of our interference with repressive regimes should depend on, among other variables, the threat they pose to the US, but also the cost of pro-democracy or pro-freedom interference. My point was that if a regime is repressive, they are not entitled to a lack of interference.

    In general, it is in our interest to promote good government around the world, for lots of reasons, including ones of self-interest with respect to commerce and defense (

    I’m unclear the relationship between a member of Congress and the Law Library of Congress, so I’m not sure about the propriety of Kerry and Berman’s request, but I’m quite sure that it is better for there to be multiple alternative analyses available. I reflexively agree with Adler that the lawmakers would be better off promoting alternate points of view instead of squelching them.

  5. The link I provided above (no need to follow it if you’re familiar with the “democracies don’t fight each other” theory) included a map from Freedom House. I think of Freedom House as an organization that you would usually agree with, Rand. Is that true, in general? (I usually agree with it too – I just think it represents common ground for us — usually at least.)

    You might be interested in Freedom House’s take on the Honduran Coup.

    No doubt, you’ll disagree with them, but the article provides a pro-freedom justification for condemning the Honduran govt’s actions and calling for Zeyala to be re-instated, even while not giving any support to Zeyala’s policies (which I believe is the stance the Obama admin takes, and it is my stance as well.)

  6. Bob, I’ll show you common courtesy when you quit doing chickenshit things like change a debate on term limits to a suggestion of gender bias. Where in the 22nd Amendment do you find a restriction to a President being a woman? Find that, and I will take your arguement as serious rather than an obvious slur.

Comments are closed.