Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.

The facts seem at odds with your assessment...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum

What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your
article.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++
His ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional
referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court
and the attorney general said it was illegal. ***The constitution bars
changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving
more than one term, they said.***
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the
constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the
constitution.

The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that
Zelaya is in the right.