Disclaimer:
https://nacla.org/...
Since the June 28 military coup in Honduras, in which President Manuel Zelaya was deposed, U.S. news reporting has been marred by pro-coup bias, inaccuracies, and incomplete coverage. This was particularly evident in four ways: false claims that Zelaya had sought to extend his term in office; claims that a plurality of Hondurans supported the coup; imbalanced reporting of U.S. congressional opinion on the coup; and under-reporting of repression in Honduras under the coup government.
A fellow kossak mentioned Honduras as an example of Hillary's record as Sec of State. I decided to research it. Was Hillary responsible for the human rights abuses and the coup? Did she support the coup? There are indications that she did. And why did we send money to the military and police when they have so many human rights abuses on their record?
First something about Honduras:
http://www.hrw.org/...
Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity for human rights abuses. The murder rate, which has risen consistently over the last decade, was the highest in the world in 2013. Perpetrators of killings and other violent crimes are rarely brought to justice. The institutions responsible for providing public security continue to prove largely ineffective and remain marred by corruption and abuse, while efforts to reform them have made little progress.
I felt like I was in a time warp from the eighties. Military coup? Really? And I hadn't known about it?
A picture of the slums of Honduras
https://media2.wnyc.org/...
First the guy removed from office:
President Zalaya:
From wiki:
In spite of a number of economic problems, there were a number of significant achievements under Zelaya's presidency. Under his government, free education for all children was introduced,[17] subsidies to small farmers were provided, bank interest rates were reduced,[18] the minimum wage was increased by 80%, school meals were guaranteed for more than 1.6 million children from poor families, domestic employees were integrated into the social security system, poverty was reduced by almost 10% during two years of government, and direct state help was provided for 200,000 families in extreme poverty, with free electricity supplied to those Hondurans most in need.[19]
Looks pretty good, right?
This might be the reason he was removed:
Alliance with ALBA[edit]
Main article: Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas
On 22 July 2008, Zelaya sought to incorporate Honduras into ALBA, an international cooperation organization based on the idea of social, political, and economic integration in Latin America and the Caribbea
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
Today in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/...
after the coup:
Washington was dragging its feet, but even within the Obama administration a distinction was seen very early seen between the White House and Secretary Clinton’s State Department. Obama called Zelaya’s removal an illegal “coup” the next day, while Secretary Clinton’s response was described as “holding off on formally branding it a coup.”
It was becoming widely believed that the Clinton State Department, along with the right-wing in Washington, was working behind the scenes to make sure that President Zelaya would not return to office.
The new York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
The military overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras on June 28 has become a clear example of Obama’s failure in the hemisphere. There were signs that something was amiss in Washington when the first statement from the White House failed to even criticize the coup. It was the only such statement from a government to take a neutral position. The U.N. General Assembly and the Organization of American States voted unanimously for “the immediate and unconditional return” of President Zelaya.
How is this connected to Clinton?
With Clinton associates such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff running strategy for the coup government, the Pentagon looking out for its military base in Honduras, and the Republicans ideologically tied to the coup leaders, it should be no surprise that Washington is more worried about protecting its friends in the dictatorship
than about democracy or the rule of law.
New York times placing the blame with the secretary of state:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
from salon again:
Just weeks before the coup in Honduras, the State Department acted on behalf of a “tiny assembly zone elite” and intervened in the Haitian government’s plan to raise the [minimum] wage. This was after President Clinton had already ravaged the island nation and enriched U.S. agricultural companies with a devastating trade deal that led to Haitians eating dirt cakes to survive.
This sort of engineering of regional politics in the service of the economic elite appears to be something of a hallmark of the Clinton camp. A case is being built that it’s the family business to cater to the global elite, despite the Clinton campaign’s salt-of-the-earth optics in Iowa and New Hampshire, which appears disingenuous in light of virtually everything else we know about Clinton. And with a growing list of Clinton associates being complicit, concerns about a President Clinton’s criteria for cabinet and agency appointments grow, as well.
Keeping wages down in places like Honduras and Haiti virtually ensure that those formerly decently paying, often unionized, jobs will never return to the U.S.