Post-American Presidency by Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller
Authors: Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller
Ads: Link
winners are in Russia and Iran.” 2
Even Obama’s old presidential rival John McCain was unhappy with the decision: “Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies. Missile defense in Europe has been a key component of this approach. I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided. This decision calls into question security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe.” 3
BETRAYING HONDURAS
“Coup” was the word du jour in June and July 2009, when the Obama administration at its most Orwellian used it to define, or defame, the healthy functioning of democracy in Honduras.
Superficially, it did look like a coup. Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was rudely awakened in the middle of the night: “I was awakened by shots, and the yells of my guards, who resisted for about 20 minutes. I came out in my pajamas, I’m still in my pajamas.… When (the soldiers) came in, they pointed their guns at me and told me they would shoot if I didn’t put down my cellphone.” Zelaya put it down. The soldiers, still holding their guns on him, then exiled him from the country. 4
What really happened in Honduras? A military coup, destroyingdemocratic rule? No. The United Nations, the leftopaths in the mainstream media, and the radical U.S. president tried to paint what happened in Honduras as a coup, but it was not a coup. What happened in Honduras was in reality an example of how democracy works—and constituted yet more confirmation that Barack Obama was not on the side of freedom, but of tyranny. What happened in Honduras was democracy at work: a free nation saving itself from a Hugo Chávez–backed takeover.
The real story behind the chaos in Honduras was that Barack Obama got it wrong,
again
.
Take this hypothetical: imagine that Barack Obama announced that he was going to hold a referendum on legalizing a third term for himself. Imagine that even his attorney general, Eric Holder, advised him that it was illegal. Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that in light of the Twenty-second Amendment, holding the referendum was unconstitutional. Imagine that in spite of that, Obama coerced the FEC into holding the referendum anyway.
Then—let’s further imagine—it came to light that the Venezuelan strongman Chávez (who has pulled off a similar power grab in his own country) was financing Obama’s referendum. What should the Joint Chiefs do in such a case? And if they removed Obama from office, would they be destroying the Constitution or preserving it?
That was exactly the situation in Honduras. The Honduran Supreme Court and attorney general ruled that Zelaya’s referendum was unconstitutional. The Honduran generals did what they had to do. But then Hugo Chávez, Zelaya’s friend and ally, announced that he had put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert.
And at that point Barack Obama spoke out—to side with Zelaya, Chávez, and dictatorship. Obama said he was “deeply concerned” about what was happening in Honduras and called upon that nation to “respect democratic norms.” 5
Obama had put himself, and America, on the same side as Chávez, Ortega, and the Castro brothers. It is a testimony to the Honduran people’s love for freedom that despite all the pressure Obama and Chávez brought to bear upon them, they still voted out Zelaya and the Leftists in the November 2009 elections. 6
HIDING A DAGGER BEHIND THEIR BACK
On November 4, 2009, the thirtieth anniversary of the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Obama struck an appeasing tone toward the Iranian mullahs, as he had so many times before. As he did so, the brave, brutally beaten people of Iran chanted in the streets, “you’re either with us, or you’re with them!” 7
Even Obama’s old presidential rival John McCain was unhappy with the decision: “Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies. Missile defense in Europe has been a key component of this approach. I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided. This decision calls into question security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe.” 3
BETRAYING HONDURAS
“Coup” was the word du jour in June and July 2009, when the Obama administration at its most Orwellian used it to define, or defame, the healthy functioning of democracy in Honduras.
Superficially, it did look like a coup. Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was rudely awakened in the middle of the night: “I was awakened by shots, and the yells of my guards, who resisted for about 20 minutes. I came out in my pajamas, I’m still in my pajamas.… When (the soldiers) came in, they pointed their guns at me and told me they would shoot if I didn’t put down my cellphone.” Zelaya put it down. The soldiers, still holding their guns on him, then exiled him from the country. 4
What really happened in Honduras? A military coup, destroyingdemocratic rule? No. The United Nations, the leftopaths in the mainstream media, and the radical U.S. president tried to paint what happened in Honduras as a coup, but it was not a coup. What happened in Honduras was in reality an example of how democracy works—and constituted yet more confirmation that Barack Obama was not on the side of freedom, but of tyranny. What happened in Honduras was democracy at work: a free nation saving itself from a Hugo Chávez–backed takeover.
The real story behind the chaos in Honduras was that Barack Obama got it wrong,
again
.
Take this hypothetical: imagine that Barack Obama announced that he was going to hold a referendum on legalizing a third term for himself. Imagine that even his attorney general, Eric Holder, advised him that it was illegal. Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that in light of the Twenty-second Amendment, holding the referendum was unconstitutional. Imagine that in spite of that, Obama coerced the FEC into holding the referendum anyway.
Then—let’s further imagine—it came to light that the Venezuelan strongman Chávez (who has pulled off a similar power grab in his own country) was financing Obama’s referendum. What should the Joint Chiefs do in such a case? And if they removed Obama from office, would they be destroying the Constitution or preserving it?
That was exactly the situation in Honduras. The Honduran Supreme Court and attorney general ruled that Zelaya’s referendum was unconstitutional. The Honduran generals did what they had to do. But then Hugo Chávez, Zelaya’s friend and ally, announced that he had put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert.
And at that point Barack Obama spoke out—to side with Zelaya, Chávez, and dictatorship. Obama said he was “deeply concerned” about what was happening in Honduras and called upon that nation to “respect democratic norms.” 5
Obama had put himself, and America, on the same side as Chávez, Ortega, and the Castro brothers. It is a testimony to the Honduran people’s love for freedom that despite all the pressure Obama and Chávez brought to bear upon them, they still voted out Zelaya and the Leftists in the November 2009 elections. 6
HIDING A DAGGER BEHIND THEIR BACK
On November 4, 2009, the thirtieth anniversary of the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Obama struck an appeasing tone toward the Iranian mullahs, as he had so many times before. As he did so, the brave, brutally beaten people of Iran chanted in the streets, “you’re either with us, or you’re with them!” 7
Similar Books
