The position of the executive branch perhaps… but certainly not the entire U.S. government. The president isn't a king.

She seems to have retreated to her newest thread on Honduras. Hopefully she will return here to comment on things mentioned here.

Plenty of Americans objected to what you failed to notice then, and don't say now, while you “notice” what doesn't currently exist, Kathy: We objected to Pelosi and her traveling Middle Eastern Circus that was deliberately presented as an alternative to, and blatant undermining of, Bush and official US foreign policy. (Just as we objected to the other objectionable behavior we saw during the Bush years, and that which was directed against Reagan in the Eighties.)

What about International ANSWER? Move On? And has “Cindy” relocated there from Crawford yet?

[snicker]

At least they're more entertaining and less ugly than when you have someone formerly in Congress like Cindy McKinney or Ron Dellums (Grenada), or Barbara Lee (Grenada) who is still in Congress. [scowl]

I'll note aloud again that we should also be considering the mischief the Clinton lib USA did and to what lengths they were ready to go on behalf of their love object of the time back then, Aristide in Haiti.

Even earlier, in the 1980s, the scummier left-activist (including Washington Dem) behavior related to Latin America (taking the USSR's side against the the USA and the West; the “sanctuary” movement that had extended to lib local governments in the USA, similar to deliberate immigration-law violations during the G.W. Bush years; sympathy with Ortega and other lefties, as well as radical-Religious-left “liberation theology”) was bad. We need to at least glance back at that behavior (and related political mischief such as the US-Western-nuclear-”freeze” movement) to see worse models of subversion then that could be revised and reapplied now.

So far, there's nothing to fear with Obama Latin American policy, but we need to be concerned. Even mere sympathy for the leftist authoritarian-and-worse threats in Latin American encourages more of the same. Obviously sane people would not sanction or approve (even implicitly) such behavior to our southeast.

Leftist agitation, as well as likely extremism.

“Besides the Nicaraguans that were arrested yesterday, the officer claimed that there were foreigners from Cuba and Venezuela as well.”

This isn't surprising in the least, nor that Kathy is quiet, not to mention reluctant to object to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maMA3PTYoZE&eurl...

http://hondurasabandoned.blogspot.com/search?up...

Excerpt:

<snip>

Regarding the demonstrations that occurred within Honduras yesterday, July 2nd, here is a list of numbers attended according to the July 3 issue of El Heraldo:

Number of Protesters for the New Government:

Tegucigalpa – 55,000
Choluteca – 25,000
San Pedro Sula – 50,000

Number of Protesters against the New Government:

Tegucigalpa – 3,000

<snip>

Another:

<snip>

The Minister of Defense Adolfo Lionel Sevilla said this afternoon that the bullet that killed a young man at the demonstration Sunday in the Toncontín airport did not come from a military weapon.

According to the experts, the bullet that took the life of a young 19 year old, was not from a military caliber. The report reveals that the direction the young man died does not coincide with the trajectory of the direction of the bullet from the armed forces.

<snip>

a 3rd

<snip>

As the rally came to a close, the police arrested 20 Nicaraguans from the crowd, who were armed with .357 pistols. Right now they are being detained and questioned as to their entry into the country and actions at the rally. Besides the Nicaraguans that were arrested yesterday, the officer claimed that there were foreigners from Cuba and Venezuela as well. He was unable or unwilling to provide more details on the other nationals.

<snip>

Oh BTW these photos on the blog show that the Looney Left have arrived on the scene in Honduras

Code Pink in Honduras

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5XsmLMPl0kM/SlF0vfmHU...

Honduras Supreme Court Judge Defends President Ouster

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086...

<snip>

“The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order,” Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. “There’s no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.”

<snip>

The arrest order she cited, approved unanimously by the court’s 15 justices, was released this afternoon along with documents pertaining to a secret investigation that went on for weeks under the high court’s supervision.

<snip>

A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop….

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras.

Glad to see the Republicans are supporting the enforcemnet of Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution by the army of Honduras, by the order of the Supreme Court of Honduras, with overwhelming support (125-3) of the Congress of Honduras (controlled by Zelaya's own party who 96%of voted to sanction the Supreme Court order). Also glad to see they are not backing down from Hugo Chavez and his threated military action against the sovereign nation of if he doesn't get his way.

If Obama really cared for the rule of law he would be supporting the legitimate ousting of President Zelaya,

Instead he calls illegal a government that replaced Zelaya, a man who disobeyed the Supreme Court, was kicked out by the Congress which his own party controlled and which all but 3 members voted in favor of the Supreme Courts removal of him, He stormed army bases with supporters taking away what the legal system had ordered to be held by the military, he tries to fire anyone disagreeing with him, and had the attorney general call investigation of his mental health which the Congress was investigating. All that while after the ousting of Zelaya, turning power over to the next in line, a member of the same party who was unanimously approved of by the Congress.

Meanwhile he is in Russia and his staff are working on plans to bypass the requirement for confirmation of treaties (at least temporarily) by the Senate which his own party now has a filibuster-proof majority in.

You seem to like Jake Tapper reports, well here ya go

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07...

” With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.”

So how is that rule of law thing work on this one?

“That is their right to do, of course, but it does seem a bit unseemly that they are deliberately undercutting the POTUS so brazenly.”

Gee, I wonder from whom they learned to do that??

I believe that when a democratically elected leader is removed from office through illegal means that we, the US, should support his or her return. However as Mr. Bader points out, the removal of Zelaya was legal.

I haven't followed this particular story and have not heard a counter argument to Mr. Bader's comments. However they seem reasoned and reasonable. At the moment I'll take Mr, Bader's comments at face value.

In that context it seems to me that Obama made a hasty decision to support Zelaya's pursuit to be named president of Honduras. It also seems that Obama had some faulty intelligence in the early hours of this “military coup”. I wish I had some more insight or knowledge in these matters.

As far as the Republicans in Congress….. “the boy who cried wolf” comes to mind. They shout out warnings at the drop of a pin. As a group the GOP will oppose anything Obama does. Given that and many of their other recent actions there's no reason why I'm inclined to listen to them. However it could be that in this case they're right (for the wrong reason) or they may just be right for the right reason. But regardless I'm pretty tone deaf when it comes to the GOP's statement's these days.

Say what you want about me, but I've stated on here many times before that I'm for the comeback of the GOP. I consider them essential to a well-functioning US. However after giving them one chance after another, only to be met with more of their antics, I've really blotted them out at the moment as a serious political party.

Hadn't I heard that dissent is patriotic? I think it was about seven months ago.

I would prefer both Obama and the GOP avoid taking positions here other than to let Honduras work this out for themselves.

The Honduran Supreme Court, the supreme authority on Honduran law, has said that the president's removal was LEGAL, and pursuant to an arrest warrant it issued. The Congress, which voted almost unanimously to pick a new president, agrees.

Yet the above post claims that Obama — who is not an expert on Honduran law — should be blindly followed by Republicans in Congress when he conclusorily asserts that the removal of the Honduran president was “illegal.”

As I have explained above, the removal was perfectly legal (including the military's role in it) under Articles 239 and 272 of the Honduran Constitution.

But then, what would I know? I guess my Harvard law degree, and history of practicing international law and constitutional law is irrelevant.

Can you imagine how angry the U.S. would be if the UN told us that our system of electing presidents (the electoral college) was “illegal” because it is undemocratic? Or if the UN tried to overrule Bush v. Gore using the threat of sanctions and trade barriers?

What happened was legal and ordered by the country's supreme court.

The new president is not a soldier, but a legislative leader legally elected by an almost-unanimous vote by Honduras's Congress (123 to 5).

Honduras removed its would-be dictator, President Mel Zelaya, for violating his country’s constitution by seeking to extend his term in office, and replaced him with a leading Congressman.

Zelaya's removal was authorized by Articles 239 and 272 of the Honduran Constitution, and ordered by his country's Supreme Court, after he used coercion and aid from Venezuela's dictator to push an illegal referendum. But Obama has joined Cuban dictator Castro and Venezuelan dictator Chavez in demanding that Zelaya be reinstated.

Originally, Obama's justification for this demand was his erroneous claim that Zelaya's removal was “illegal.” But when Honduras’s new president, a veteran legislator, pointed to stacks of court rulings that Zelaya had violated, the fact that the Honduran Congress had voted 123-to-5 to replace Zelaya, and that the military had legally executed a warrant for Zelaya’s arrest, Obama changed his tune.

Now, Obama claims that Zelaya must be put back in power because of the “universal principle that people should choose their own leaders.” Never mind that even publications that criticized the manner of Zelaya’s removal, like the Economist, have candidly admitted that Zelaya was unpopular with Hondurans, who overwhelmingly back the removal of their president — and that Zelaya was a bullying crook with approval ratings below 30 percent who repeatedly violated his country's laws. In the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other papers, Hondurans have overwhelmingly supported his removal.

Apparently, Obama is determined to saddle Hondurans with Zelaya whether they want him or not, just because they once elected him. (Even though he radically changed his policy positions after being elected). Under Obama's reasoning, Richard Nixon, who was twice elected president, shouldn’t have been forced to resign over Watergate, because that violated the American people's “universal” right to choose their ruler.

But the entire purpose of constitutional checks and balances, and the constitutional impeachment process, is that even elected presidents can lose their right to rule if they violate their country's constitution or laws. In our constitution's impeachment process, the Congress removes the president from office for wrongdoing, even if he was elected by a landslide. In Honduras, the Congress voted by 123-to-5 to replace Zelaya, including the vast majority of Zelaya's own political party.

Honduras did not use a formal impeachment process because its constitution does not have a well-developed impeachment mechanism, says Latin American scholar Juan Carlos Hidalgo at the Cato Institute. But its unwieldy constitution does have other, less elegant means of removing abusive presidents: Article 239 bans presidents from continuing to hold office if they seek to extend their tenure, or merely propose an end to presidential term-limits. And Article 272 gives the miitary the power to enforce those term-limit provisions. (That's an odd constitution; although the military’s law enforcement role is not unique to Honduras: in the U.S., federal troops were used to enforce a court order desegregating the schools in Little Rock in 1957, when the court's order was thwarted by the Arkansas Governor. When confronted with powerful executives with armed followers who refuse to comply with the law, the courts cannot rely simply on a handful of U.S. marshalls, but rather must look to federal troops or the national guard).

Journalists who romanticize foreign dictators have faulted Honduras for removing Zelaya and kicking him out of the country in his pajamas. But getting rid of tyrants is a messy and difficult process. You can't get rid of a tyrant by asking him nicely to leave office.

Honduras was far gentler to its menacing ex-president than the U.S. was in the past to people who threatened its democracy or constitutional order. In the Civil War, the U.S. government jailed without trial thousands of suspected confederate sympathizers, some of them innocent, as William Safire has noted, and some of them died in jail.