Honduras and Barack Obama’s ‘Justice’-Driven Foreign Policy

Central American ‘coup’ provides answer for many conservatives who maintain that the administration’s approach to foreign policy is non-existent or, at best, inconsistent — in reality, it’s quite the opposite

Since the weekend, I’ve been following the ongoing political situation in Honduras with interest and curiosity. Reading that the United Nations adopted a resolution today mandating that all U.N. member states refuse to recognize any Honduran government other than that of the nation’s ousted leader finally was enough for me.

As it turns out, the transition of political power in a small Central American nation has perhaps taught me more about our own president and his foreign policy–not to mention how that foreign policy is embraced by the rest of the world–than any other occurrence or set of events so far, and the way it has been handled by the rest of the world has sent chills up my spine — quite different, I assure you, than a thrill up the leg.

So far, the goings-on in Honduras has been widely reported by pretty much everybody as a “coup” but, in reality, such a characterization could not be further from the truth. In fact, what we’ve seen in Tegucigalpa has been a nation upholding its constitution, peaceably taking action to maintain the rule of law. And it is that distinction which lends so much insight into our own president’s designs, goals, aspirations and mere tendencies.

Like in the United States of America as it stands now, Honduras is a nation bound by a constitution. And, much like in America, a head of state in Honduras is bound by term limits, though in that country it constitutes a single, four-year term. For a better understanding of exactly what is going on in Honduras, I want to play a little “make-believe,” venture a few steps into the realm of God-I-hope-not:

The year is 2016, four years after American President Barack Hussein Obama won a decisive re-election victory over the Republican Party’s Colin Powell, a moderate candidate foisted upon the American political right by means of a constant bombardment of misinformation, specifically that the GOP could only see success by abandoning its conservative roots. The American economy is in shambles, but the state of crisis only leads the poor and politically ignorant to believe that government cures all, and that contrary to what Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned of back in January 2008, blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is the only key to renewed prosperity.

As a result, Obama has pushed for a special vote intended to serve as a litmus test determining public support among the politically ignorant for the possible repeal of the 22nd Amendment, thus lifting the provision for term limits added to the U.S. Constitution in the wake of the exponential expansion of government during the four terms of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and allowing Obama to serve as president in perpetuity. The proposed vote is met with opposition from concerned Americans on both sides of the political spectrum, and the twice democratically-elected president of the United States is forced out by judicial and legislative branch officials simply honoring their sworn obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Almost instantaneously, people from across Europe–where Obama is loved second only to David Hasselhoff–and leftist leaders from across the globe denounce what they deem a “coup.” Obama himself travels to New York City and addresses the United Nations; shortly thereafter, the world body adopts a resolution demanding that all 192 member nations refuse to recognize any government in the United States other than that led by Barack Hussein Obama.

Given the hypothetical, what business would the United Nations have in determining whether or not a sovereign nation upholds its Constitution? Yet, in the case of today’s resolution, that’s exactly what the United Nations is doing with regard to the situation in Honduras. That nation has a constitution, its people are looking to uphold it, and yet the rest of the world is siding with an ousted leader fraught with dictatorial aspirations.

And our president has joined dictators like Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega in embracing him. Not only that, but the very same Barack Obama who, purportedly afraid to “meddle,” waited for ten days before voicing support for those in Iran seeking freedom from a tyrannical regime–and waited days after that to rescind an invitation to celebrate July 4th with Iranian diplomats–almost immediately came to the aid of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, trying to stop the so-called “coup” and later denouncing the action as “illegal.”

Here’s the very same American president who, just six months before in his historic inaugural address, called upon the American people to “let it be said by our children’s children that . . . we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations” and yet, instead of championing freedom, Barack Obama has done nothing but support dictatorships and tyranny, whether it be through his fervent protests in terms of those seeking to uphold their constitution in Honduras, or those laying their lives on the line for freedom in Iran.

It is the root of Obama’s selective action and inaction which is so telling, and which worries me. While conservative pundits everywhere are beginning to argue that the American foreign policy under Barack Obama is aimless, that it is non-existent, I find myself worried because I see its stark consistency.

For Obama, see, it’s all about justice, and the resulting worldview has been bred into him from his beginnings, and reinforced by those in his inner circle. (After all, it’s the concept of “justice” which made Michelle Obama so “proud of her country” for the first time after her husband began to gain popularity during last year’s campaign.) Previously, I led myself to believe that our president’s yearning for that nebulous goal of “justice” only affected his domestic policy — I saw it as the reason for his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court vacated by Justice David Souter; I saw it as the inspiration for increased goverment control over the banks and automakers; I’ve seen it as the driving force behind the socialist aspects of the cap-and-trade legislation currently working its way through Congress. Yet striving for “justice,” whatever that may be, greatly affects his approach to foreign policy as well.

Previously, I had dismissed Obama’s approach to foreign policy as “detente-at-all-costs,” an unintended homage to former President Jimmy “Dhimmi” Carter. But I don’t think that’s it. Detente, it seems, is just a desired side effect of Obama’s justice-driven foreign policy. After all, it’s that hope for his brand of “justice” which allows him to weigh in on where Jews can build homes in Jerusalem and embrace a wanna-be dictator in Honduras but not want to “meddle” with affairs in Iran.

The question, however, remains: what, exactly, is Barack Obama’s definition of “justice?”

I don’t know. But I’m starting to understand it. When he finally broke silence on the uprisings in Iran, President Obama never once spoke of the protests in terms of freedom, choosing instead to define them in terms of a frustrated people seeking “justice.” And his statements on Iran, of course, come weeks after he spoke to the Muslim world in Cairo, delivering a speech during which he weighed the moral equivalency between Palestinians wandering the desert for six decades looking for a home and the six million Jews murdered during the Holocaust.

Justice, to Barack Obama, seems to hinge upon government being the ultimate arbiter with regards to fundamental rights bequeathed upon an obedient people. The Palestinians had no such government to trade in fundamental rights, so such an absence of governance was a travesty on par with the death of six million Jews. With regard to Iran, Obama’s silence itself is telling, as he likely felt as though “justice” demanded the current regime stay in power, but capitulated after ten days of silence only due to political pressure from those on the right and left. And with regard to the ongoing situation in Honduras, in the interest of his brand of “justice,” Obama could do little else but side with Manuel Zelaya, as he believes that government knows what is best for the people, even if that means scrapping the constitution in order to provide that government in perpetuity.

That’s why the so-called “coup” in Tegucigalpa shed so much light, at least for me, on Barack Obama’s own tendencies. Conservatives often argue that liberals are unable, in terms of foreign policy, to discern between good and evil. When Barack Obama is concerned, however, it is becoming increasing obvious that the struggle is not so much between forces of good and evil as it is between liberty and tyranny. Sadly, that very constant I’ve found in Obama’s foreign policy, the consistency so many conservative commentators seem to believe to be missing, is that he will always side with the latter.



  1. Jennifer says:

    consistency? Someone needs to put down the crack pipe. I do not see a shread of consistency between Iran and Honduras.

  2. John Feeny says:

    I don't want to seem like a know-it-all; God knows I'm just a regular guy. This might be a long comment, so I'd ask Jeff to please bear with me on this one and for everyone else to be patient. I'll try to cut to the heart of what I have to say rather quickly.
    Up until the end of last summer, never in my life was I what you'd call a political junkie. When I began to notice what I'd term some 'odd' things about the presidential candidate who seemed to have come out of nowhere, I began to play closer attention. As his following grew to be nearly 'religious' in nature, I began to become concerned, and I began asking some of the history teachers at my school (some of the most knowledgeable men I've ever known, and some who are veterans) about the fate of the 22nd Amendment. This question they saw as coming from a political novice and an English teacher, so I was somewhat brushed off. In my book,I wrote about those conversations; just this morning, my mother and I were discussing the very thing about which Jeff is writing here: Obama, and apparently the U.N., support dictatorships.
    Something is wrong, people. Something is very, very wrong. In the coming months we're all going to be dealing with people who dismiss us out-of-hand as 'crazy'; don't for a minute believe it. We see the truth.
    I'm going to post the entirety of that excerpt from my book on my blog site, which I believe you can access by clicking on my name highlighted in blue. The address, in any event, is http://www.conrest.blogspot.com. Please don't believe that I'm merely trying to sell my book, because that's the furthest thing from my mind. It's already been published. Getting the message out, even as one voice in the wilderness, was what ultimately drove me to the project.

  3. KelleyAnn340 says:

    Jennifer — I think it's fairly easy to think that there is no consistency between Obama's actions in Iran and Honduras, but what Jeff is trying to point out is that it is Obama's SILENCE, NOT HIS ACTION which provides that consistency.

  4. Gail B says:

    Thank you, KelleyAnn340. Well put. I was just going to suggest to Jennifer that she read it again–and again–until she figured it out.

    And, yes, somebody does need to put d9own the crack pipe, and it AIN'T Jeff, if you were referring to him.

    Jeff, another outstanding piece! Absolutely right on spot, and sadly true.

  5. Anonymous says:

    My goodness Jeff … that was spot on!

  6. Anonymous says:

    The consistency is simply that O backs dictators and wants to become part of their circle. Of course, in the end, they always eat each other because they each want more power than the next. As one cartoon depicted – "the Marx brothers!"

    Just as O has been laying the ground for what he thinks will pave the way to his own dictatorship, he doesn't realize that he too is laying the world ground for another big timer to arise out of nowhere. And I think most know the title of THAT "one"!

    Pray for ourselves and our country … and the world.

  7. CAL says:

    Sounds like you need to read Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny. He explains that statists like Obama are set on destroying our civil society to gain more and more control over our lives. This is what Obama seeks and everything he has done to date in terms of domestic and foreign policy shows this to be true.

  8. THE UNIT says:

    Let him try. In the end, all the Saddam's, Uday's and Qusay's end up deceased. Bring it.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Jeff, but you're really stretching here. When members of a country's military storm the residence of that country's democratically elected president before his constitutionally mandated term of office has expired, detain him while he's wearing his pajamas, escort him to a military airfield, and put him on a military plane out of the country, that's not "a nation upholding its constitution, peaceably taking action to maintain the rule of law." That's a coup.

    Now, if you want to argue that this particular coup is justified, or that the people in Honduras will be better off, than by all means, go for it. That POV can certainly be supported. But turning semantic cartwheels in order to characterize these events as anything other than a coup just comes off as slightly ridiculous

  10. DAVY CROCKETT says:

    The UN are pussies. Tennessee alone could take care of them

  11. John Feeny says:

    If it looks like crap and smells like crap, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience, it has always turned out to be crap. But maybe it's just me.

    Rock on, Jeff.

  12. Gail B says:

    Lynn Westmoreland (3rd Ga) held a telephone town hall meeting. He spoke about the global warming.

    What we would be doing to decrease global warming would save one polar bear's life each year. Then he added that permits are granted to kill 300. He said it would be better for Americans if they would issue a permit for 299 polar bears.

    He is as concerned as we are about the power that the Democrats have. He said that some people in Congress are there to represent the people, but unfortunately there are those who are there for the power of being a senator or representative.

    We in the 3rd Congressional District are blessed to have him in D.C. Everybody loves Lynn Westmoreland!

    I was telephoned and connected to the telephone meeting; I was not able to ask any questions. Cong. Westmoreland answers my questions and addresses my concerns through emails, however.

    (Now, David Scott is quite another story!)

  13. UNfair says:

    We've got ten year olds that can knock a deer down at 200 yds….. little blue helmets will be no contest.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Annon @ 7:14.

    A stretch? LMAO You're an idiot.

    Open up an "honest" history book and learn something.

    A coup in a supposed "democratic form of government" (of which, the US, sorry to tell you, was never intended to be)is no different than a usurper not obeying the legal precedent for the office held….. I bet you were thinking of Obama, I was referring to Alexander Strong of Alaska. Now that you mention it, at least Strong had the decency to resign.

  15. Gail B says:

    UNfair, you mentioned "little blue helmets would be no contest."

    You're talking about firing at the police.

  16. Anonymous says:

    To anonymous 7:14:

    So their president is above the law? He was breaking the law of the land so he was removed by the proper authorities – they have their own consequences for that. He got off better than if put in jail. Now he can run around to the world organizational nannies and whine about his citizens expecting him to be responsible.

    There was a time when America, being true to herself, would have given backing to what these Honduran citizens have done to maintain their freedom. If not directly, they would have at least had the knowledge that there was help if the going got rough.

    Not today – with more and more thugocracies. Amazing just how many people are so soon scared of 0 and his cronies – and the MSM are too actually afraid now even of each other – watching who might just step out of line. All such power and control is based on fear.

    Did anyone hear the caller from Honduras today to Rush's program? An American who had been a missionary there for 14 years. He said that everything was done peacefully and according to the law. He said that 95% of the population was for the action taken. But he said everyone was now really fearful of what Chavez would do next.

  17. John Feeny says:

    My only question here is this: what's the 'spark' going to be that lights things off here? I think – I KNOW – we'd like to just ride this out and hope that 2010 delivers the congress back to Americans. At the rate this maniac is moving, however, November of 2010 looks awfully far away.

  18. ITS ALL IN THE HUE says:

    baby blue helmets – they will never be MY police

  19. Anonymous says:
  20. Rix says:

    > UNfair, you mentioned "little blue helmets would be no contest." You're
    > talking about firing at the police.

    These blue-capped stinkers are not "police". Most of them wouldn't know a good gun if it was thrust up their posterior. All they are good for is whitewashing U.N. money and providing military cover to cherry-picked dictatorships and terrorist groups with the "right" (or rather, left) agenda such as Hamas and Hezbollah to whom they supply ammo and transportation. Being a IDF soldier, I still owe U.N. a *very* hefty debt for it.

  21. Rix says:

    And, Jeff, a great article yet again. The example of yours has really set my teeth on edge, being so close to what we'll actually have in just a few years.

  22. goddessdivine says:

    And yet another great piece. You are so on your way to becoming a syndicated columnist. And thank you for clarifying some things; the media hasn't done a very good job of that (surprise).

    Also, your hypothetical situation wouldn't be so scary if it weren't so possible (anything can happen under the slogan of "yes we can!").

  23. Let us move forward says:

    Administration is following GWB's first policy on North Korea, i.e., cut off the money. It was the only thing that got North Korea's attention and is a good move if it is not too late.

    Wonder who pushed this policy? It is definitely "strong armming" and not "engagement".

  24. Anonymous says:

    Gail…the blue helmets are the UN not American police.

  25. tm says:

    Great article Jeff.

    PS to Cal:
    I agree we should buy Jeff the book.
    Liberty and Tyranny should be read by every American. It does explain everything that is going on and when I drive home from work there's only Mark Levin The Great One on my radio. Gets you through.

  26. Robert Wallace says:


    I disagree with you on this one. The President of Honduras wanted to hold a referendum that would have allowed him to seek a 2nd term. The Supreme Court of Honduras told him "no", and the military refused to hold the referendum. (Apparently they are in charge of setting up votes.)

    Where in this sequence of events is a coup justified?

  27. Anonymous says:

    Great piece and chilling in thoughts.
    Anonymous, June 30, 2009 7:14 PM – Their military was acting on a court order approved by their Congress.
    Robert- There's more to that story. They did tell him no and they also refused to print the ballots. HE then had the ballots printed in Venezuela and brought in anyway. The military refused to distribute them, so he was going to have his supporters do it. Their Congress acted to avoid Tyranny.
    I heard the caller on Rush from Honduras. He was afraid for the safety of his family to name the town they were in.

  28. HOGANS HEROES says:

    Lone gunmen suck, but damn I wanna serve in a battalion of Rix's.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Unfortunately, we will be going through this process in 2016. ACORN (now COI.. Community Organizing International) will ensure another round of voter fraud in 2012 from the information gathered by their collection of data in the 2010 census to keep the usurper in 'office'.

    Obama and his socialists… they couldn't win the decades old "War on Poverty" (which was really a ruse to begin with) and now that they have all three branches of government, the war has been exposed as it was really meant to be which was a War on Success.

    Germany, Hungary and France have it right. Hopefully WE will learn in time for the 2010 elections, and we can get an electorate that will DEMAND accountability.

    BTW, you may see this comment in reference to a newer post but remember

    "Anonymous, June 30, 2009 7:14 PM – Their military was acting on a court order approved by their Congress.
    Robert- There's more to that story. They did tell him no and they also refused to print the ballots. HE then had the ballots printed in Venezuela and brought in anyway. The military refused to distribute them, so he was going to have his supporters do it. Their Congress acted to avoid Tyranny.
    I heard the caller on Rush from Honduras. He was afraid for the safety of his family to name the town they were in."

    In 2016, I'm sure Obama's Civilian National Security Force (his Brownshirts) will 'strongly encourage' you to vote 'for' the repeal of the 22nd Amendment despite the view of the few remaining courts that will still use the Constitution as their guide…

  30. Jennifer says:

    "Jennifer — I think it's fairly easy to think that there is no consistency between Obama's actions in Iran and Honduras, but what Jeff is trying to point out is that it is Obama's SILENCE, NOT HIS ACTION which provides that consistency."

    Jeff, et al. -

    Read it again and still disagree. His silence on Iran was probably the best move he made for his administration and the Iranian people. Obamas problem is that there is no justice in Iran and it is obvious that the election was a fraud. The people of Iran have no voice. Who will give it to them? Not this administration. Iranian people have to rely on news outlets and bloggers to get their message out to the world.

    While you may not agree with him on his stance of the Honduran coup, and even though I feel like throwing up for agreeing with the dictators of the world, I stand by the administrations assessment that the Honduran government went way overboard in this instance. The consistency is that in both instances he took the side of the crooks, but it does not necessarily make him wrong in both cases.

    He is inconsistent in that he supported a democratic governments right to due process under its constitution but failed to give the people of Iran a glimpse of that same freedom. Under the current regime there will never be any resolution of freedom that is of, by and for the people.

    This may seem a little messy but I have 4 kids wanting snacks and driving me crazy!

  31. Dr. L. B. Paint says:

    Would to God that someone here in America would have the gusto to enforce OUR constitution the same way that Honduras did for theirs.

    Apparently the folks in Honduras have a lot more balls and a greater appreciation for liberty that those of us in the USA.

Speak Your Mind