WSJ Critical of Obama on Honduras

Mary Anastasia O'Grady's piece in the Wall Street Journal today is very critical of Obama's stance on Honduras. With a title like, 'The U.S. Steers Left on Honduras', you know it has to be. Steering left on Honduras necessarily means aligning with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro brothers.

Throw on top of that the fact that as the sitting government, led by Roberto Micheletti, continues to stand up to Zelaya and practically the rest of the entire world, it is looking more and more like Micheletti is with the good guys. Another benefit to Micheletti is that Zelaya's rhetoric has been so incendiary and caustic since his ouster, he appears to be unmasking himself by the minute.

For her part, O'Grady does a great job of zeroing in on the consequence of Obama's policy toward Honduras having the effect of aligning the United States government with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan may feel that his aims have enough support from the U.S. and the Organization of American States (OAS) that he would be justified in forcing Mr. Zelaya on Honduras by supporting a violent overthrow of the current government. That he has reason to harbor such a view is yet another sign that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Obama on the wrong side of history? Naw.

Anyway, O'Grady cites none other than Miguel Estrada who quotes directly from the Honduras Constitution:

"Article 239," Mr. Estrada noted, "specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection 'shall cease forthwith' in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any 'infraction' of the succession rules constitutes treason."

So the United States is supporting a man whose own Constitution points to him committing treason to boot?

O'Grady then nails the reality of the current situation had Obama sided with Micheletti and against Chavez / Zelaya:

That might have been the end of it if the U.S. had supported the Honduran rule of law, or simply refrained from meddling. Instead President Obama and the State Department joined Mr. Chávez and his allies in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be restored to power. This has emboldened Venezuela.

But No.

Here's another lesson to be learned by what is happening. The courage shown by Micheletti and the sitting government appears to be concerning Chavez.

Mr. Chávez understands that Mr. Zelaya's star is fading, which is why he called Tom Shannon, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at home at 11:15 p.m on July 9. Mr. Shannon told me that Mr. Chávez "again made the case for the unconditional return of Mr. Zelaya, though he did so in a less bombastic manner than he has in the past."

Chavez the bully. We all know what bullies really are, right? Think Scut Farcus in "A Christmas Story". We all know what Ralphie did to him.

I urge and encourage you to read O'Grady's entire piece.

One last thing on Obama and Honduras... I know there's almost a reticence to pay much attention to what's going on with a country like Honduras but when you peel away the layers, we see much about Obama.

Whenever Obama's affiliations are brought up and he is forced to acknowledge them (Ayers and Wright), he attempts to distance himself by saying he doesn't agree with them. In the case of Ayers, he was on a Board with him but didn't share his views. In the case of Wright, he belonged to his church but didn't share his views.

Now, Mr. Obama finds himself in a situation where he cannot say he doesn't support the views of Hugo Chavez. Those views consist of installing a stooge of the latter as the president of Honduras. A stooge that was allegedly going to rig the results of a referendum that showed the country wanted him to illegally change the Constitution.

The group formerly known as ACORN is planning to be very involved in administering the census and we're all familiar with allegations of fraud relating to voter registration, right?

"An acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
- Barack Obama, 2008