It’s a question that’s been posed on both sides of the aisle since the White House issued its first statement on Honduras. Despite Manuel Zelaya being lawfully removed from office following his violations of the Honduran constitution, President Obama has stood by the deposed leader and demanded his immediate reinstatement. It’s begs the question: Why?

For starters, Obama’s no stickler for the rules himself. Just yesterday we learned that he intends to bypass Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution in order to sign-on to the nuclear treaty without the consent of Congress. Our own president intends to ignore our constitution because he wants to do something without the hassle of, oh, meeting the law. Zelaya did the same thing when he ignored the Honduran constitution to hold a referendum that was ruled illegal.

Secondly, Zelaya is a committed leftist who likely shares much of Obama’s agenda. Washington has spent the last 7 months nationalizing American industries, while Zelaya is close buddies with the king of nationalization: Hugo Chavez. The deposed leader favors the legalization of drugs, maintains friendly relations with Cuba, has expressed intentions to get involved in even more world bodies, pursued what The Economist described as “economic populism”, and has a fuzzy history with the required oversight of elections. The OAS has said he engages in censorship and his opponents within Honduras have gone as far as calling him “authoritarian”. Right up President Obama’s alley, in other words.

Perhaps the most hysterical claim by the Obama Administration has been that it’s acting forcefully and loudly in order to ensure the international community that is has nothing to do with the Central American coup. Right after it claimed that it was silent and cautious in regards to Iran in order to ensure the international community that it has nothing to do with the Mousavi opposition there. If this is the foreign policy we have to look forward to for the next four years, we’re all screwed.

More: Hot Air.