The media says yes. Tales of the Honduran coup are all over the major media outlets.  They are cheerfully repeating the claims of leftist Latin America leaders like Hugo Chavez, that President Zelaya was ousted in a “coup.”  A superficial understanding of the fact, that the military removed him from office, certainly supports this claim.  A closer inspection of the events that led up to Zelaya’s ouster, however, suggests that what transpired was actually a defense of democracy against the assault of a power hungry populist leftist.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

After the would be dictator was ousted, the military promptly stepped aside and allowed the political branches to follow the proper protocol in replacing Zelaya.  The Congress, after voting to remove Zelaya, subsequently replaced him in a manner “mandated by the constitution.” This is not the stuff of coups.

Dr. Palmer observes:

Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?

Meanwhile, while Obama felt that even rhetoric would constitute “meddling” in Iran, his White House has put considerable effort into first defending and now restoring to power a would-be leftist dictator.  Where are his priorities?

Update: Heritage has more.