The ODE administration has been demanding the return of Honduras' former dictator to power, even though the Honduran supreme court ousted him. I wrote the following letter to the editor to the Wall Street Journal on that subject.
Mary Anastasia O’Grady has been the one clear voice describing the Obama administration’s unprincipled actions against Honduras, and her adjective of “embarrassing” hits the mark for any constitutionalist American. But I have two adjectives the best explain the Obama administration’s detestable coercion: “sympathetic” and “frightened.”
Mr. Obama and his eminence rouge (Hillary Clinton) have tried (and are trying) to remake America into a socialist camp and therefore have great sympathy for former Honduran strongman Manuel Zelaya, as well as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the leaders of a half-dozen tin-pot dictatorships around the world whose good graces they continuously court. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton do not see these “leaders” as mortal enemies of liberty; they seem them as paradigms for the takeover of private industry, capitalism and the invisible hand of free commerce.
What frightens Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton in the Honduran crisis is a constitutional judiciary dethroning a tyrant – just as crowned heads of state used to fear popular revolutions in neighboring countries. This is the reason that the Obama cabal will not comment on the particulars of the Zelaya removal. To utter any nonsense broadside against the proper judgment of the Honduran judiciary would highlight the eminence of the law over executive power.
And that might lead to arguments within the United States for the rule of law against the enormous welfare-state (socialistic) plans of this current administration – and, one might hope, for a judicial removal of any sitting president who so blithely ignores the U.S. Constitution in his quest to commit grand larceny against productive American citizens.