While we lecture Egypt on Violence...

...police departments in the United States send out public service messages urging citizens not to react to the Zimmerman verdict with violence.  Good Lord.  Our State Department could have given this message.  Did you catch the 'hope' tee shirt the girl was wearing?

Yet the State Department is simultaneously running interference on whether a US law was broken regards a coup in Egypt due to the sensitive political nuance involved.  Funny, no such nuance existed in Honduras when a coup happened there so Hillary Clinton roundly condemned it (they are taking a side in Egypt as well, they just won't publicly admit it because it subverts our law).  There is no such thing as consistency on this according to State--every situation is different.  Wonder if the law stipulates that? 

Meanwhile the president feels he can arbitrarily change the health care law without consulting Congress.  And why not?  He engaged in a war in Libya without following the law just like he appointed nominees during a congressional recess--and nothing happened.   They arrest a guy loading a shotgun in DC on July 4th, a clear case of civil disobedience, while illegal aliens move around the country without fear of arrest, waiting to be made legal to serve the interests of politics and business.       

We denigrate our rule of law at our own peril. 

ORWELLIAN  TAP DANCING   7/10/13

When is a coup not a coup?  When the US administration rilly, rilly, rilly doesn't need it to be a coup.  If you want to watch some consequential TV, watch this train wreck.   The media folks in that room are not buying their tap dance for one second.  Rarely have we seen such pushback against administration press flacks. 

So why are they maintaining this ridiculous false front?  Because the options are worse. One, the US needs to keep the Egyptian military on the payroll to keep the peace in the region and two, Obama invested a lot of political capital in the Muslim Brotherhood, but now there are massive protests in the streets of Cairo with anti-Obama signs and venom for our Ambassador.  So it's time to throw the Brothers under the bus.

All of which is even more solid if reports out of Libya are true about the Benghazi perpetrators' connections back to Egypt.  The administration (and Hillary2016!) would rather walk through hot coals than to comment on something that would bring the Benghazi story back on the front burner.  The last time it was they released the IRS targeting story--themselves.    

Carrot and Stick Confusion

Obama promised to use diplomacy to fight our enemies instead of warmongering, using the old carrot and stick approach to get things done. In regards to Honduras the stick looks pretty big:

The Obama administration on Thursday cut all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras over the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya, making permanent a temporary suspension of U.S. aid imposed after he was deposed in June.

This quote from the State Department stands out:

Kelly said "restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras." He said the United States would not recognize the results of the election under current conditions and stressed it was imperative that the vote meet international standards.

"That election must be undertaken in a free, fair and transparent manner," he said. "It must also be free of taint and open to all Hondurans to exercise their democratic franchise. At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections."

Regardless of whether their Supreme Court was 100 percent correct in throwing out a Chavez clone trying to subvert their constitution the Obama administration is taking a position of demanding a court reversal before they recognize the new leadership. Bizarrely, this stance puts them on the side of the Chavez-lite president, since it's clear to anyone paying attention that the term limit provisions in their constitution were designed to stop the very type of leader they stopped in Zelaya.

The bigger question is how this position squares with our foreign policy towards established thugocracies such as Cuba and Iran. As Meteoric Rhetoric points out--we now allow US citizens unlimited visits to Cuba with no noticeable sticks being waved at Castro. Additionally, the United States recognizes the recently elected government of Iran, saying the problems with their elections was an Iranian thing dealt with by Iranians. Why not say the same about Tegucigalpa?

Granted, this may be some clever subterfuge employed by a bunch of forty-pound brains in the White House and State Dept who have a means to an end that has sailed right over my mobster head. But when does the next shoe drop? How is this strategy supposed to thwart thugs and promote democracies? And if it doesn't, when does the kickass kick in?

I'm also curious as to when the international media will start referring to our government as the "leftist government in Washington" as they sometimes do in stories about third world countries? In addition to our curious stance on the above, we've got admitted communists and avowed socialists serving as advisors and cabinet ministers and a president with connections to communists and socialists in his past. Seems somewhat fitting.

Honduras Chaos

There is usually more than meets the eye to such stories, but the initial news about the ousting of Honduras president Manuel Zelaya has once again shined some light on our own foreign policy and set up some interesting dichotomies:

Mr Zelaya's ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, blamed "the Yankee empire"

Not a exactly a ringing endorsement coming from an opponent of term limits. The Yankee empire responded thusly:

US President Barack Obama called on Honduras to "respect democratic norms, the rule of law".

Well yes, but in what context, the ousted president or the military? The former president explained:

Zelaya said a planned coup against him had been thwarted after the US refused to back it.

It's not surprising our current crew wouldn't back a coup but in the process it now seems the US has taken an ambivalent stance over a president who was possibly trying to rig a vote to extend himself in office by ignoring a court order and Supreme Court ruling and the wishes of their Congress. Hey, he was only pursuing hopenchange for the poor folks.

Obama is again 'deeply concerned'; obviously that's his style since it's unclear how everything will play out and/or whether the military might be more corrupt than the president, etc, but in the process it comes off looking like we're backing the leftist thug.

ADDITIONALLY 6/28/09

If nothing else we're all going to get an education on Central American politics from this:

Mr. Chávez was quick to react to the events unfolding in Honduras. In comments to Telesur, the regional news network backed by Venezuela’s government, he said: “Behind these soldiers is the Honduran bourgeoisie, the rich who converted Honduras into a banana republic, a military and political base for the North American empire.”

That's probably designed to trigger reactionary social justice parallels, which would force the US to step back, but it's too early to tell where our true interests were. McCain would have surely been pointing out stuff like this:

In addition to financing pressure groups, Zelaya has also been accused of intimidating journalists. In the past year, journalism has become a much more dangerous profession in Honduras. Journalists Carlos Salgado and Rafael Munguia were both shot in public places, and others have denounced threats on their lives. On May 19, Honduran human rights activist Ramon Custodio asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAHCR) to provide protection for journalist Armando Villanueva and his family, who were the targets of threats which Villanueva insists came from the president.

A'jad was cozy with Chavez but now his people lay beaten in the Tehran streets. Obama finally condemned it. Now Chavez is backing Zelaya, threatening military action, and Obama tepidly waits. The caution is understandable and perhaps even laudable at this point but eventually a stand must be taken--it's not above anyone's pay grade.

MORE 6/28/09

The Department of State has criticized the Honduran court for the removal, saying the act should be condemned 'by everyone' because they failed to follow the rule of law. Not sure who she means did the failing.

Meanwhile liberal comments here and there seem to be in favor of Zelaya, who was only trying to further Honduran self-determination. IOW, the Congress should have allowed the referendum. This begs the question as to how far the US go to stop 3rd world countries from voting themselves a dictator, who will then eliminate the democracy that spawned him. Obama seems in favor of letting the chips fall... at least today.