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.

Previously:
Choosing sides in Honduras

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.

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.

And so regardless of the outcome of this election or any other, our mission is the same as it has been for 2000 years: to share the good news of “hope” and “change” that can only be found through Jesus Christ.

And part of that mission obviously includes prayer, not just on the first Thursday of May, but every day.

Whether our elected officials join with us or not.

Previously:
The election is meaningless

And now she wants her money back.

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.

Unlike the rest of us taxpayers.

Source.

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….

Oops. Guess he was wrong.

Previously:
How history will judge the Iraq War

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.

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.

And so regardless of the outcome of this election or any other, our mission is the same as it has been for 2000 years: to share the good news of “hope” and “change” that can only be found through Jesus Christ.

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.

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.