Cliff Kincaid has a report that ties Obama to Chavez with regard to Honduras:
The Chavez goal is not just to conquer Latin America.
A leading member of the "Progressives for Obama" network is speculating, apparently with good reason, that the leftist governments of Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez have come to an understanding that Honduras should be turned over to anti-American forces allied with the Venezuelan communist ruler.
Tom Hayden, once known as Mr. Jane Fonda because of his marriage to the pro-communist actress, has written a piece for the Talking Points Memo website about "new diplomatic collaboration" between Obama-who swore an oath to represent American interests in foreign affairs-and Chavez, who represents the interests of Iran and the Castro brothers.
The destabilization of Honduras and the attempted forced return of exiled leftist president Manuel "Mel" Zelaya could represent "a new era" of friendly U.S. relations with Chavez and other anti-American governments throughout Latin America, Hayden suggests.
In a July 2 press statement, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed the hope that Obama "grows in office" and "will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya," who was deported by the military on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress for his violations of the law and the Constitution.
However, the Hayden article strongly suggests that the Obama policy is not the result of incompetence or inexperience but is deliberate in nature.
Hayden, once a famous anti-Vietnam War protester in his own right and former official of the Marxist Students for a Democratic Society, claims that "something profoundly new began developing between Obama and Chavez at the hemispheric conference in April in Trinidad.
And there are those in Honduras who are not happy about this:
But Accuracy in Media has been receiving dozens of emails from Hondurans disappointed and angry not only with the Obama policy but the media coverage of events on the ground.
In a July 6 Wall Street Journal column, Mary Anastasia O'Grady also writes about receiving complaints from Hondurans and goes on to denounce the Obama/Chavez policy as "insane." After analyzing previous U.S. policies toward Chavez, she writes, "If Washington does not reverse course, it will be one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator."
But why would Obama be appeasing Chavez? Could the "appeasement" reflect the fact that Obama and Chavez are ideologically in sync and see events in Latin America through the same Marxist lens? That is what the Hayden article suggests.
The Marxist ideological basis is a religion called Liberation Theology…Latin American Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology:
Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls "black liberation theology." Well, "liberation theology" has its roots in Latin American liberation theology.
And if you ask the average Christian leader in this country, it is way, way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, and, in fact, it's based in Marxism. At the core of his theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous.
As I have been reporting, Obama is a tyrant.
Comments