The UN has been on the wrong side of almost every issue in history -- effectively, if not verbally. It looks like Honduras will be no exception. Check out this loaded statement:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Monday on the Organization of American States to work to restore constitutional order in Honduras, where the president has been blocked from returning after a coup. The OAS bloc must "take a leadership role to find the peaceful solution to that issue whereby the constitutional order can be restored," Ban told reporters in Geneva.

Noted: UN decides that the Honduran Constitution authorizes presidents to overturn term limits, thus the order in Honduras now isn't a "constitutional" one. There isn't even an admission there could be a debate here. Absolutely one-sided. (As, I might add, our own media and President have also been.)

And never mind the text of the Honduran Constitution itself; the fact that term limits the Honduran president was moving to violate are spelled out in the Honduran Constitution as a non-changeable amendment. (More detailed legal analysis here, for those who care, and those who merely pretend to.)

I suppose the reaction is understandable: we democrats (lower-case "d") and republicans (little "r") believe the Constitution is a body of law arising from those governed, our opponents believe the state is essentially a leader or group of them.* In their one-sided approach, the UN, the American press, the Obama administration inadvertently reveal they ascribe to the the Tin-Pot Dictum: L'etat, c'est moi! — the state is its leader; power flows down from the top.

(*When there's a conflict, such as between the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court (on one hand) and the ousted president (on the other), the one(s) furthest to the left will reflexively be treated as legitimate.)

A similarly forgone conclusion is that other countries (the OAS, strongly influenced by Chavez other allies of the ousted president) should now decide Honduras' fate — again in marked, and hypocritical, contrast to the UN's inability to conclude it could change Iraq's government, even in the wake Iraqi invasions of its neighbors, and cartloads of violated UN resolutions.

I think this cartoon aptly sums up the hypocrisy of the "non-interventionists":

Yet the word "foe" is being used wrong in the second caption. If you take a look at Obama's self-listed group of allies from his college years (Dreams of My Father), people holding ideologies like those held by Ayers, Chavez, and Zelaya were the same ones Obama "chose carefully" as his allies and friends. Ideology is a stronger bond than race or nationality.

Sadly, the situation is no different today than during the height of the cold war: Even the mildest forms of aid to those seeking democracy came under fierce criticism as "meddling in the in the affairs of others", while outright military takeover (piled upon a heap of human rights violations) by the USSR and her satellites would elicit at most a nice even-handed verbal condemnation of both sides, and, at worst, would be treated as an internal "debate" (a term also ascribed by Obama to the violence in Iran) between those funded and armed by the USSR and their victims.

Pray for the people of Honduras.