Honduras - It's not a coup d'etat

There's been a lot of stuff flying around in the news about a coup d'etat in Honduras. It's not a coup d'etat, at least not in the capacity that we know of it. The Western press have largely called it a huge blow to democracy, but was it really? Let's find out.

Bullshit: The military in Honduras staged a coup d'etat.
The truth: The military in Honduras was ordered by the National Congress and the Court to remove President Zelaya from office for attempting to break the law and end democracy.

Modern day Mussolini, except more incompetent and less charismatic

What Happened:
Zelaya attempted to change the constitution making the maximum number of terms for a President unlimited. Sound familiar? The National Congress voted against it.
Then failing that he attempted to conduct a poll among the people to see if he could use that to pass his new "ammendment." Doesn't seem very illegal, but somehow also seems not so legal since you're circumventing the proper channels (i.e. the National Congress). However, what most Western publications fail to emphasize is that Zelaya wanted the military to conduct "logistical support" for this poll. This of course sent alarm bells ringing throughout the National Congress and the military itself (who wanted no part in this).
When President Zelaya ordered General Vasquez to conduct this poll, the General consulted with legal authorities about the matter and then refused to carry it out. President Zelaya fired the General for not carrying out the order.
Zelaya then attempted to go ahead with the poll anyway despite warnings and so the National Congress decided to act. The military was ordered to remove Zelaya from office and Roberto Micheletti was instated as temporary President until the end of the term which is in November of 2009 (this year).
(Compiled by both me and a Spanish speaking friend)

Important things to consider:
Zelaya was obviously trying to be the next Chavez and was pretty much determined to end the democracy in Honduras, turning it into another Venezuela style dictatorship.

Why was General Vasquez's firing highly controversial to the point where the National Congress did not recognize the General's firing and the Chiefs of Staff of every branch of the military turned in their resignations? It is because you cannot be fired or legallly punished for refusing to follow in illegal order. That is what Zelaya's orders for the military to conduct the poll was: illegal.


General Vasquez refused to follow an illegal order

No General currently is heading the government, officially or unofficially.

Zelaya is lucky that Honduras has come a long way. Years ago he would have either succeeded or he and his family would have been shepherded to the basement of his palace where they would have been riddled with bullets.

Roberto Micheletti belongs to the same political party as Zelaya, the Liberal Party.

The Conclusion:
Depending on how the elections go in November 2009, that is, that they prove to be fair, this would be in fact not a defeat for democracy but a major victory for it. There is nothing wrong with having a system (and people with the courage) in place to challenge actions taken by a President who wishes to end democracy and bring in dictatorship in its place (especially when the democracy is working just fine).

The Western media condemns the actions by the military, but what if, back in the 1930's the German Army decided that Hitler (who was democratically elected) was a threat to German society and democracy, overthrew him and reinstated democracy? Would we be accusing the German Army of committing a serious crime?

Although I am generally in support of President Barack Obama, the condemnation by him and others on the Honduras issue is one I am very much against. Depending on what happens on November 2009, I think a lot of heads of government will owe Honduras' military and National Congress an apology.
Maybe leftist pussies the world over can't seem to recognize courageous and righteous action when they see one.