Obama and Honduras, 2009: portent of things to come
Commenter “kcom” wrote yesterday:
What I’ve been thinking about lately is something that happened early in Barack Obama’s administration and that Neo talked a lot about, and that was his efforts to back the (wannabe) despot in Honduras. The guy was trying to grab permanent power through an illegal referendum and, when he was duly removed by the other branches of government in accordance with their constitution, who did Obama support? The wannabe dictator, of course. I’m not saying Obama’s going to try that here, but it is a good illustration of his lack of respect for constitutional controls on executive power. Keep that in mind in the coming months.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Honduras lately, too. In fact, I’ve thought about it quite often over the years. Obama’s actions re Honduras occurred early in his presidency, and what he did was largely ignored or defended by the MSM. Even though I suspected that Obama aspired to leftist tyranny, I was surprised at how early on he showed his hand, and how little anyone seemed to pay attention.
I said, in a post from last June:
The subject was the attempt by Honduras’ President Zeleya to seize more power, and the battle against him. I was deeply alarmed when it happened because Obama’s support for Zeleya solidified—nay, proved—what I’d strongly suspected and feared about him prior to that.
At the time of the events in Honduras I had written [emphasis mine, added now]:
Regular readers of this blog know that I have written quite a bit about Obama’s policy on Zeleya and Honduras. This isn’t just because I am concerned for the people of Honduras””although I am that””but for what Obama’s support of Zeleya’s attempt to expand his power in these time-honored ways tells us about Obama himself, and his own propensities and possible plans.
It’s not a mere question of Obama looking on and doing nothing while a Chavez-inspired Zelaya grabs more power; I could understand non-intervention in the Honduran process. But Obama has gone out of his way””in a manner that contradicts his own stated preference for the autonomy of other nations””to actively intervene in Honduran affairs in order to protect Zeleya and his undermining of Honduran due process and its constitution.
There is no benign explanation for this policy of Obama’s. If the American people don’t understand what it tells us about him, it would mean that we have failed to understand history and learn from it.
Chilling then, and even more chilling now. Have enough people finally learned the lesson that must be learned again and again? Or is it too late?
In that same post from September of 2009 I also wrote [emphasis mine, added now]:
…I have observed that every single step of the way [Obama] has shown his propensity for consolidating government and his own power, stomping on or eliminating the opposition…, affiliation with figures of the far Left, lying and misrepresenting himself in a host of ways, secrecy about his past, and cozying up to dictators such as Hugo Chavez.
At present, it’s Chavez whom I see as closest to Obama, both in goals and in modus operandi.
It’s interesting, too, and perhaps fitting, that the big issue on which Obama is attempting to extend his power grab involves illegal immigration, mostly from Latin America. His devotion to this cause is multiply-determined. It will increase the rolls of voters on the left, as well as those who are dependent on government largesse. It will anger the right. It shows contempt for the rule of law, and should increase that contempt in society at large. And of course it’s a demonstration of his own power and a way of thumbing his nose at those who would oppose him, and who voted against him and his party.
In the quote with which I began this post, kcom wrote, in reference to Honduran dictator Zelaya’s attempt to seize more power through an illegal referendum, “I’m not saying Obama’s going to try that here.” Well, I’m saying, “he would if he thought he could get away with it.” I have little doubt on that score.
I also wonder where the common sense democrats went. There were quite a few after Reagan was elected who actually worked to lower tax rates and pass other legislation.
Now there is only one type of legislation that ANY Democrat is interested in. BIG government legislation.
The president is only part of the problem. If we could get vveto proof legislation passed with caring democrats crossing the aisle what a different world this would be
“Well, I’m saying, ‘he would if he thought he could get away with it.’ I have little doubt on that score.”
With the executive order on immigration, Obama is going to do pretty much the same thing – unilaterally and unconstitutionally abrogating duly enacted laws – and is going to get away with it. The Republican House won’t impeach him, and even if it would, no Senate Democrat would vote to convict. And I don’t think his action can be effectively challenged through the courts, given the limitations on standing to challenge government action. So he’s effectively overthrowing constitutional government to entrench his party and its philosophy in power.
Baklava, 2:00 pm —
There are practically no “common sense Democrats” now. If there were, President Hopenchange would already be out of a job.
Thought experiment . . .
It would take 67 senators voting to convict, following an impeachment of President Hopenchange by the House. Given 53 Republicans, that still leaves 14 Democrats with enough principle to do what’s right and proper and necessary.
Challenge: find me 14 Democrat senators of principle.
Thought so.
(And I wouldn’t count on 53 Republicans having the cojones to convict, either.)
If/when bho makes good on his threat of amnesty by EO it is reversible by the next president (though unlikely).
Neo said:
“I’m saying, “he would if he thought he could get away with it.” I have little doubt on that score. ”
Unfortunately Neo is correct. I’m sure she would rather be wrong in this case.
Will Obama leave after his 8 years are completed? Probably, since he lost both the house and senate. Obama has been packing the courts with leftists but he needs the support of the senate and house to pull off a coupe.
“Well, I’m saying, “he would if he thought he could get away with it.” I have little doubt on that score.”
All he needs is a plausible crisis severe enough that there is bi-partisan support for a Presidential declaration of nationwide martial law.
That said, I don’t think Obama’s cut out to be another Stalin, he’d rather be the next U.N. Secretary General. After a year or two of giving $300k per speech.
And, if he can get an EO for amnesty for 34+ million ‘undocumented’ democrats to stick, his legacy is secured as the man who brought the democrats permanent one party control of America.
GB…
UN rules prohibit any General Secretary native to any of the permanent members of the Security Council. (IIRC) That’s why virtual nobodies always get the nod.
&&&
Lest we forget: Adolf LOVED to use referendums to verify his diktats.
For some reason those votes have fallen off the table.
The biggest Nazi referendum was to confirm Hitler’s enablement act. If you recall correctly, the Nazis basically passed that act while most of their opponents were absent from the Reichstag. It was a ‘snap vote’ that was in the (Nazi) works for some time.
Even without Nazi intrigues, the anti-Nazi factions had shamed themselves for years. This produced what the Soviets call Demoralization. (The primary goal of the KGB/ SVR)
All during the early years, the Nazi state held referendums to confirm Adolf’s big moves. This later had a huge impact on all anti-Nazi activities: the players felt that they were in the extreme minority — traitors, even.
Ever since Hitler, dictators everywhere have worked the polls. Hence we seen 155% turnouts in Iran, Iraq and other places, despotic.
Which reminds me: what of the 100% turnouts during 2012? Such extreme turn-outs ALWAYS are fraudulent. For various personal reasons, some souls always are unable to get to the voting booth. Barry had entire city sectors voting up to 100%!
If Obama tries to remain after 8 years, he’ll be assassinated within 3 months. Even an EO on amnesty might be enough to prompt that response.
I’m not convinced that his EO next week will be as earth-shattering as everyone thinks. I think he’s trying to BS the Republican Congress into doing his dirty work. Lord knows there are sympathizers on our side.
The economic impacts of 0-care taxation AND the EO on illegal aliens will compel President 45 into reversing both, for Barry has brought on a national crisis of epic scope.
We’ve been Buchanan’d !
[ Buchanan personally meddled with Dred Scott. He flatly admitted it. Dred Scott triggered the Civil War. It Federalized slavery laws. Overnight, southern boys were bringing their travel-slaves up by train into northern states. Simon Legree’s were now active up north. ]
Don’t forget that Ms Clinton was heaviily invested in supporting Zeleya as well as Obama. Repubs should dig up all relevant info to use against her if necessary in 2016. It show her lack of regard for the rule of law.
“Well, I’m saying, “he would if he thought he could get away with it.” I have little doubt on that score.”
And I’m not saying I disagree with you even. But I think that we haven’t quite reached the point where he would think he could get away with it (although one never knows what someone else is thinking). But if it’s a bridge too far today that doesn’t mean that he can’t capture some of the intervening bridges now and some future co-ideologue will then have a much shorter jump to make to get there.
But Geoffrey Britain also got me thinking:
“That said, I don’t think Obama’s cut out to be another Stalin, he’d rather be the next U.N. Secretary General. After a year or two of giving $300k per speech.”
Being a dictator might just be too much bother for Obama. It’s a lot of work if you want to do it right and he hasn’t shown an inclination to put in that much effort. I think he would prefer living the high life of golf and speeches and not be responsible for much of anything except yapping his trap.
Obama, from the beginning, stated that he planned to accomplish both short term and long term goals via a “permanent majority”(shades of FDR).
What if … Obama, coming into his administration, knew his permanent majority must be partly established via vastly increased numbers of Latin American immigrants (i.e. Dem voters) … and Obama planned to work with both Zelaya and Hugo Chavez in order to accomplish a vast increase in numbers of illegal immigrants.
This, also, would explain Obama’s support of Zelaya.
“…he would prefer living the high life of golf and speeches and not be responsible for much of anything except yapping his trap.”
Obviously the wrong choice of word because he recognizes no responsibility for his words. But worse, he has never been held responsible for a single yap emitted from his trap.
This post shows me that I should be following you closely rather than being an occasional visitor. The Honduran fiasco comes to my mind often and when Liberals ask me exactly what Obama has done wrong, it heads the list because it was the first. Apparently not many paid attention or want to remember it. I agree that it was the first big tell.