I'm also surprised by the reactionary support for the illegal coup regime. But, given the poor coverage of this event by the major western press and given that most people really don't know the facts of what happened here, it makes sense. I don't think anyone who has really examined all the facts can possibly support the coup since it is so clearly wrong -- which is why the entire world has forcefully condemned it.

There was nothing legal about the removal of democratically-elected president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya. Any truthful observation of the situation would see an entrenched social elite that has maintained an oligarchic republic ever since the last military dictatorship (which catered to the same social elite) ended in Honduras. It was that military dictatorship which authored the current Honduran Constitution and it is written in a way to guarantee political advantage to this social elite, and not the vast majority of Hondurans. A constituent assembly to democratize that constitution has been the goal of every community and political group that sits outside the tiny, elite minority. President Zelaya had really nothing personal to gain from pushing for the constituent assembly -- and, in fact, everything to lose, as history has proven out -- and it should be clear that he favored it because he is a patriot who is committed to a real democracy for Honduras.

Once the military violated civilian authority by exiling Zelaya at gunpoint rather than letting him have his day in court to prove his innocence, and then proceeded to kidnap at gunpoint key members of his cabinet, as well as sympathetic allies like the Mayor of San Pedro Sula, a clear military coup had taken place. The post-facto rubber-stamping of the military's actions by the National Assembly can hardly be seen as legitimate since, by that time, it was clear to all MPs that the military was ready to forcefully remove anyone who opposed the will of the coup plotters.

Since then, the coup regime has acted like any other Latin American military dictatorship in history, by suspending key constitutional rights, imposing martial law, imposing a 24/7 curfew, carrying out arbitrary detentions and beatings, well-documented torture including gang rape of women dissidents, shutting down critical media outlets at gunpoint and generally using military and police repression to maintain their hold on power.

Without this repression, the coup regime would have been overthrown long ago, just like what happened in Caracas 2002. It is for all these reasons and more that the entire global community, without exception, has condemned this illegal coup and demanded the immediate return of President Manuel Zelaya.

Anyone who supports this coup should be ashamed of themselves. The history of military coups and dictatorships in Latin America is a painful, shameful era and it is sheer hypocrisy that the US is engaged in wars to "promote democracy" while simultaneously being the major western power taking the least action against the criminal coup regime.

I'm not sure where you infer what the popular will of Honduras is -- you simply state it. However, the most credible facts show that the vast majority of Honduran people not only support Zelaya but have also supported his return to the presidency after the illegal coup d'etat against him.

The polls I'm referring to are:

1) The COIMER & OP survey, commissioned by the coup regime itself, and
2) The Greenberg, Quinlan & Rosner Research poll

I'm unaware of any polls which show data contrary to these findings. Aside from the public support Zelaya enjoys, he IS the democratically-elected president and rightfully belongs in that office until his term ends -- that is the will of the people, as expressed through the ballot box.

ElJefe:

It's interesting that you find chemical warfare funny. Had you actually researched this before opening your mouth, you might have learned the following:

1. The Brazilian government lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations about the illegal coup regime's attacks on their sovereign soil at the Embassy in Tegucigalpa. Among the allegations they made was that the coup regime was using some kind of chemical to attack the Embassy.

2. Numerous testimonies were documented at the Embassy from people who experienced acute symptoms of respiratory difficulties, vomiting and nausea.

3. The Brazilian Embassy requested a public health researcher to examine the air in the Embassy following one particular attack -- in which they could see the attack happening and could identify the source of the gas. Dr. Mauricio Castellano arrived on the scene and took air samples. Upon testing the samples, he concluded that an unnatural gas had been released inside and around the Embassy and he identified it as HCN, hydrogen cyanide.

4. The results of these tests were provided to the press and numerous media outlets reported the findings, including CNN (09/25/2009).

Aside from HCN, numerous witnesses saw Honduran riot police fire tear gas canisters into the area around the Brazilian Embassy, which went into the building.

In addition, the other "mad ravings of Zelaya" all ended up being well-documented and proven out. The sonic weapon he talked about was ironically used not only against the Brazilian Embassy (there are now countless photographs of the Honduran troops using it) but on the very same day, US law enforcement used a similar sonic weapon against protesters at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.

As for the grenade at HRN, who knows who put it there? Could have been anyone. What is proven, though, is that uniformed Honduran police & military engaged in chemical attacks against the Brazilian Embassy and it is unfortunate that you didn't do the basic research to verify these claims before going on about how they were unverified.

... and you believe these are "socialist" and "communist" policies. You're just too stupid to waste time on. Read some books.

So, do you view Nixon's friendly relationship with Mao Tse-Tung a form of appeasement with a mass murderer? Certainly, no one in their right mind would open diplomatic relations with Hitler or Pol Pot or other historical mass murderers. Yet, the Republicans view Nixon's friendly relationship with Mao as one of the greatest achievements of their party. How does this fit into the view that Mao Tse-Tung is a genocidal mass murderer who shouldn't even be quoted or studied? Isn't real politik appeasement of someone like Mao a far worse crime than citing them as an astute political philosopher?

First, to assert that any of these policies (even if they were truly policies of the Obama Administration) are "communist" or "socialist" is just flat wrong. Nearly all of Europe has a state-corporate relationship similar to the arrangement with GM and there's a reason people don't call it "nationalization," let alone "communist" or "socialist". The rest of your examples are "maybes" and "threats" and "might bes" ... it's ridiculous. "Talk of taxes" is not COMMUNIST. Really, it's embarrassing to have to write these words.

GM was not "nationalized." The executives at all the companies in the bi-partisan bailouts are making extraordinary high salaries and bonuses. Health care is not being nationalized, even though there are plenty of capitalist countries that do have a single-payer form of health care, and even that is too far to the left for Obama. Single-payer health care is not communism. But even if it were, Obama is not proposing that. "Threatening to take company profits" -- who even knows what this is supposed to mean. "Talk of seizing 401K's" -- same. "Attempts to redistribute wealth" -- like WHAT?!

Just to give you a hint, the Bolsheviks seized state power, seized the private property of every single person, instituted forced collectivization, abolished corporations altogether and replaced them with soviets, etc. Is that what you see happening in the United States today?

Perhaps if Nixon / Reagan / Bush / etc HAD invested a little more money in public education and a little less money for their friends in the arms industry, people would understand historical concepts like socialism and communism and would realize how absurd it is to even remotely suggest that anyone in either the Democrat or Republican Party is anywhere near that on the political spectrum.

Again, I have to ask... if Mao Tse-Tung is one of the greatest mass murderers in the world, then don't the Republicans have a proud history of appeasement to mass murderers, given their accomplishment of thawing relations with Red China and meeting face-to-face with Mao Tse-Tung on friendly terms?

First, I'll remind you also that it was the Republican Party and Richard Nixon who shifted US foreign policy towards Red China and met with Mao Tse-Tung to thaw relations. Second, to take part of a sentence that someone said one time doesn't really equate to the exaggerations you're presenting: hero worship? Give me a break. I'm quite certain that Anita Dunn is not a Maoist. But, by all means, accept my challenge and provide even one policy position advocated by the Obama Administration which is Maoist. Such a concept is so absurd that it is even hard to ask but I have no choice based on the assertions here.

The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, are, for the most part, made up of neoliberal capitalists. I don't really think that is challenged by anyone -- anyone in the Republican Party, anyone in the Democratic Party. The Washington Consensus of neoliberalism and economic globalization is just that ... the Washington Consensus. There may be a few Democrats who disagree (i.e. Dennis Kucinich) and there may be a few Republicans who disagree (i.e. Ron Paul), but the vast majority are neoliberals. Those are the facts.

Again, anyone who wishes to point out even one "socialist" or "communist" position advocated by the Obama Administration, please do so. Otherwise, give it a rest.

First, I will have to foul you for invoking Godwin's Law.

Second, I'll have to explain that to you. The question is irrelevant; Adolf Hitler isn't Mao Tse-Tung. And, as I've already posted, Bush & Cheney DID from time to time turn to Mao Tse-Tung for historical education. Bush recommended a biography on Mao to Cheney. And it didn't ignite a firestorm in the media; you don't even appear to know that it happened.

More than that, is your memory so short that you forget that Richard Nixon himself, along with the Republicans of the time (including Cheney), prided himself on opening US foreign policy to Red China through his extensive diplomatic sessions with Mao Tse-Tung. Remember that, or not? Tricky Dick Nixon and Mao were good friends. Dick Nixon spoke fondly of him in his memoirs. Dick Nixon went out of his way to soften US foreign policy on China, he re-established diplomatic ties by hanging out with Mao Tse-Tung. Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and the Republican Party as a whole consider it one of the most important achievements of the Nixon Administration.

By your absurd analogy, that would be equivalent to Nazi appeasement. The only people who, after a certain point, had diplomatic sit-downs with laughing and fun and opening diplomatic relations with Hitler was Japan, Italy and Juan Peron.

So, by all means, enlighten me. By your analogy, why does the Republican Party revere to this day Nixon's cozy relationship with Mao Tse-Tung / Adolf Hitler?