In 1823 President James Monroe established a policy which came to be known as the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine stated that efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in North, Central, or South America would be viewed by the U.S. as an act of aggression. The policy effectively marked the entire western hemisphere as being under the protection and influence of the United States, and revolutions like the one in Cuba in the 1950s were seen as a direct threat to the U.S.
The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.
Obama should have welcomed the removal of Zelaya from Honduras. Zelaya had recently sided with the Iranian ayatollahs in their suppression of a democratic election: no wonder he demanded readmission to Honduras in the name of God. His illegal attempt to defy the constitution through a plebiscite his supporters were tooled-up to rig was condemned by the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the chief Electoral Tribunal. …
But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism. Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion.
It remains to be seen how the crisis in Honduras will play out or what the repercussions will be for that nation and throughout Latin America. But whatever the outcome, Obama’s lack of support for the Honduran government is alarming, and coupled with his equally flaccid stance against nations like Iran and North Korea, the position of the U.S. has been significantly weakened, not just in the western hemisphere but worldwide.
On June 28, the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was seized by that country’s military on the orders of the Honduran Congress. Upon being escorted out of the country, he was replaced by the head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who was named interim president until the scheduled election in November.
Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.
Who’s right?
Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.
Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.
Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro. By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.
Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court. Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.
Imagine if this had happened in the United States. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment. Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired? Of course not! So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?
President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.” Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya. If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.” At some point, that appeasement must end. It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.
Update: This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:
The Honduran institutions had only three options. The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya. The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war. They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …
Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …
9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror. The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:
What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech. In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)
Now, you may be asking, so what? Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world? After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith. It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration. He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons. He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world. But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.
The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead. They still want to destroy Israel. While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.
The point is that now is not the time for apologies. Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. Now is not the time to “change course.” If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.
Today is the National Day of Prayer, an annual event dating back to 1952, and this year’s observance will be much different than those of the past 8 years. That’s because Barack Obama is now in the White House.
Prior to George W. Bush, most presidents honored the day with proclamations or other low-key events. But President Bush went further during his administration, inviting Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House for a more formal observance. President Obama, however, is not continuing his predecessor’s tradition, instead opting for a proclamation and nothing more.
Does that matter?
Surely this nation needs strong Christian leadership in the White House and Congress. But should we as Christians be depending on the president to be our spiritual leader? Even with the strongest of Christians in office, I would say no.
As I wrote shortly after the election in November:
But Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and as Christians we understand that real hope doesn’t come from a politician. Real change — eternal change — doesn’t come from a political party or a presidential election. It can only come from the grace of God through the death and resurrection of His Son.
Longtime Obama supporter Patricia Jones Blessman donated $10,000 to the Presidential Inauguration Committee to ensure she would be able to attend the historic ceremony in January, but unfortunately she missed the swearing-in due to “security mayhem”.
Blessman says she felt treated “like nothing more than an ATM” by the inaugural committee. …
“Bereft, bittersweet disappointment does not even begin to describe the emotions we are left with on what should have been a joyous mountaintop experience. The irony is that we paid for this madness,” Blessman wrote in an email dated Jan. 22 to Julianna Smoot, a co-chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee and the national finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.
That’s OK, Ms. Blessman. You’re not the only one to feel disappointed and ripped off by President Obama. You’re just the only one to get a refund as a result of it.
Not only did South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford point out the glaringly obvious about the massive “stimulus” bill being hurried through Congress right now, he took a swipe at the Cult of Obama just for good measure (emphasis mine):
“A problem that was created by building up of too much debt will not be solved with yet more debt,” Gov. Mark Sanford said Sunday, making a reference to the federal deficit spending that will likely finance the federal stimulus package.
“We’re moving precipitously close to what I would call a savior-based economy,” Sanford also said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
The South Carolina Republican said such an economy is “what you see in Russia or Venezuela or Zimbabwe or places like that where it matters not how good your product is to the consumer but what your political connection is to those in power.”
“That is quite different than a market-based economy where some rise and some fall but there’s a consequence to making a stupid decision,” Sanford said after pointing to the powers granted to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to help deal with the current economic crisis.
“A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by the population at large,” he added.
I probably would’ve rephrased that as, “A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by a lot of stupid voters.” But then, that’s why I would never win any elections.
With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. …
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, points out:
The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London’s Canary Warf, and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots.
Nice. While we’re busy digging a nice, big hole in the sand to stick our heads back in, Osama bin Laden is laughing his off in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
You know, I seem to recall something Obama said in his inauguration speech:
[F]or those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us….
Obama’s economic agenda likely will include tougher government regulation for a variety of industries, including financial services, energy and health care. But those measures, if enacted, would do little to revive the economy in the coming months.
OK, maybe not entirely meaningless. Certainly, every election — particularly a presidential election — is important, and Obama’s victory will have repercussions that will only be truly understood with the hindsight of history.
But as I watched the election coverage Tuesday night, I realized how truly lost so many of Obama’s supporters really are and how insignificant this election is to us as Christians. The themes of Obama’s campaign were “Hope” and “Change”, and he was portrayed as some sort of Messiah who would somehow fix everything. His stance on the issues was irrelevant. His past didn’t matter. All that mattered was that he offered what so many people craved: hope. Even if there was little to no substance behind the slogans.
But Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and as Christians we understand that real hope doesn’t come from a politician. Real change — eternal change — doesn’t come from a political party or a presidential election. It can only come from the grace of God through the death and resurrection of His Son.
Am I disappointed in the outcome of the election? Sure. But unlike so many of the people on TV the other night, I don’t put my faith in a presidential candidate. My faith lies in the One who has already won.
We were watching TV the other night, and a Barack Obama commercial came on. Then out of the blue, I hear a small, angelic voice announce, “That’s who I voted for!”
Huh?
Turns out the girls’ elementary school held a mock election, and Megan and Erin both voted for Obama over McCain.
Interesting.
I asked them why they voted for Obama. Megan didn’t know. Erin (the angelic one who made the announcement) said it was because she liked him. I guess that’s about the most political analysis you’re going to get out of a five-year-old.
The school hasn’t announced the winner of the mock election yet, but Obama did win Nickelodeon’s online Kids Pick the President poll (51% to 49%). (The poll has been run every election year since 1988 and has correctly predicted the winner in 4 out of 5 races.)
Erin’s proclamation reminded me of when I was in first grade way back during the 1980 election. I don’t remember voting, but I do remember hearing an announcement over the intercom that Ronald Reagan had won. I was so happy, but I honestly don’t know why. Maybe it was something I had picked up from my parents or TV. Maybe I just knew how great a president he would be.
Since we certainly haven’t endorsed Obama, I don’t think the girls would’ve picked him because of us. My guess is, it has more to do with aesthetics. Obama is a tall, slender 47-year-old while McCain, at 72, is battle-scarred and about 7 or 8 inches shorter than his opponent. And since 1900, the taller candidate has won two-thirds of the time.
So the good news is, the girls’ votes don’t necessarily indicate a life-long affinity for Democrats. But the bad news is, they probably correctly picked the winner of the real election.
I find myself increasingly disengaged from our political class. Outside of local races, my vote will not matter this fall. …
I do not trust Washington to address our problems. I think both sides are going to blame each other, and keep right on doing what they want to do. … Both the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington allowed Wall Street, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to drive the economy off the cliff. Each had their own reasons.
I will vote in November. But right now, I don’t know that I will vote in any election but state and local. I have so little confidence in either the national Republicans or Democrats that I don’t want to encourage them by my participation.
I plan on voting, but my expectations are low. I don’t believe that either candidate will somehow fix all of our problems, but at the same time I know we can still prosper in spite of them as well.
Error: Unable to access Twitter at URL (http://www.twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/jasonspooner.json?count=5). Verify service status. (HTTP code 401.)
