The Coup That Wasn't

When is a coup not a coup? It's amazing that TPTB don't seem to care about stolen elections in Iran, or even Minnesota. But when the proper authorities in Honduras insist that the HMFC "president" follow the law and -- when he refuses and tries to take over the government himself -- have him arrested, all hell breaks loose.

It appears that the dominant media have largely fallen for that "military coup" stuff. Looking at the facts of the case, it's hard to see how any unbiased person could call it a "military coup". Consider:

Pres. Zelaya of Honduras wanted to change the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for office again.

Changing the constitution in Honduras requires convening a constituent assembly. The president cannot do that. The Honduran congress must approve a national referendum calling for the constituent assembly to consider changes to the constitution. But Zelaya decided to call one on his own, and had ballots printed in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal and unconstitutional, and then issued an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with the illegal referendum.

After the Supreme Court's decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells President Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya's referendum. So Zelaya fired him. The Supreme Court ordered Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refused to do so.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, The Honduran Attorney General said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country.

Now, how is that a "military coup"? One side attempts to circumvent the law and hold an illegal referendum. The other side upholds the law, prevents the illegal referendum, and arrests the one responsible.

Curiouser and curiouser....