A trip back in time: remember Honduras?
Early in his first administration Obama showed us who he was, and most people probably don’t remember when and how.
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 I wrote:
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.
It was chilling when I wrote it. It was chilling back then when I saw how the MSM distorted what was happening in Honduras in order to defend Obama’s attitude towards it. And it’s chilling now that I’ve seen how the last five years have gone.
In that same post back in September of 2009 I also wrote:
…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.
The only revision I’d make to that now is that I think Obama is worse than Chavez. Chavez was a player mostly on the Venezuelan and Latin American stage. Obama is a player on the worldwide stage, in a country that has been far more important to and influential in the world.
It won’t be influential for long.
Ymarsakar:
No, of course not, that’s Obama’s goal.
Anti-Americanism is mostly a blowback result of the world feeling the pain of being affected by America’s Leftist alliance. This then turns into a criticism of all American foreign policies.
This will have reinforced the patriots of other countries, who think American “help” is a poison best left untouched.
“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”
That is not only “the Chicago Way” but the way of all ‘strong men’ who seek power. Consolidating power and eliminating the opposition is how one establishes dominance. Affiliation with the like minded, how you establish an unchallengeable elite. Lying and misrepresentation is how you keep the rubes confused. Cozying up to dictators how you keep potential enemies close and secrecy… secrecy is the keystone to maintaining tyranny.
“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how ‘holy’ the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” Robert Heinlein
Not entirely true, a man or women with children that can be credibly threatened, can also be controlled…
As I recall the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton obediently sang the same song. That Indicated that she was not influential or that she agreed with the President.
A free man and woman would teach their children to fight off all kidnappers and crims. Increasing the difficulty of taking them alive, and ensuring that death is the only result if they wish to capture the target.
Shades of Arakis in Dune.
Also given modern US families with strong traditions teach kids how to shoot .22 at six year olds, that’s not always a fantasy going on.
Neo-neocon – You deserve to enjoy an “I told you so.” So few accurately reported on Obama and the State Dept’s support of the subversion of the Honduran constitution. Ms. O’Grady of the WSJ and Michael Totten are the only journalists that comes to mind. Most chilling for me at the time is that nobody, left or right, seemed to care. I hindsight, the Honduras sanctions Obama imposed were more intrusive (downright bullying) than any subsequently applied to Iran or Syria.
Spunky:
Well, thanks, but this is one “I told you so” that’s not enjoyable. I not only paid attention to Honduras at the time, I was practically obsessed with it. I was already very very down on Obama by the time of the 2008 election, but after the election I decided to give him a chance, and his position re Honduras was shockingly awful. As I said at the time, there was simply no benign explanation for his position, and so I felt he was revealing his true agenda for all to see.
Except most people couldn’t have cared less. Honduras? Where’s that, and who cares?
Exactly, very time I mentioned Honduras as Obama’s political Freudian slip and the Netanyahu meeting as an example of Obama’s mental instability I get laughed at or a blank stare. As long as he can claim he saved people money he is safe. LIVs rule.
The goods news is also the bad news-democracies more than other countries deserve what they get, the peace and prosperity that allowed a frivolous silly people to elect a moral degenerate will pay. The question is how, how much and when? The only thing we can be sure of is that Bush will be blamed.
I remember the post and I agreed with the original and rev 2 or 3, whichever it is. I will add something I said before- if he thinks he can get away with it, he will do it no matter how illegal or offensive to democracy. And also that there’s nothing to hold him in check-we might all convince ourselves that the Boners and McConnels are practical choices, but they’re the wrong people to push back on a petulant adolescent who has no regard for the law. Even with safe majorities in both houses, they will throw out a few scalding comments about the president being a bad lawyer, while he systematically destroys our culture and our way of life. Then he will rub their faces in dodoo, and we will get the talking conservative chin pullers excusing the spineless party, and explaining to all dissenters the “political realities”
Which are we have to all understand there’s nothing those poor men can do for America unless they have the presidency too. They’re powerless, BUT we need to stick together and keep voting for the ineffective, because they CAN get elected and still lose on every issue, as opposed to the idiots who can’t get elected, and also lose every issue.
I don’t need to finish this story, we know how it ends if they win that too- they’re losers even as winners.
However there’s a Dark spot to balance out all this optimism- Bohner’s right hand man lost his primary.
According to Rolly Polly Karl and the rest of the conservative pundits, Our republic is circling the drain if we can’t recognize that our elected losers are way better than our non-elected losers any day.
In 2007, I was already researching how the Left’s dormant powers would destroy the nation. Honduras during Hussein was just some road sign that people were looking at. It wasn’t all that important for my research, however, because it already assumed that the Left was cooking up worse things than people could imagine. In 2008, certainly, in 2014? I think people are beginning to “imagine” what’s really going on, even if they don’t know for sure (due to lack of intel and research).
All I needed to know was that the creep was the protegee of Bill Ayers.
Really, that says it all.
Nothing that he has done has surprised me, alas. God help us.
Some people believed William Ayers was a washed out revolutionary, with no influence and no one to carry his memory on wards.
I wonder what they think now.