MICHELETTI OF HONDURAS: BOLDFACED HYPOCRITE
Google translation into English is immediately below the following (original) Spanish version:
El jefe interino del Ejecutivo hondureÃ±o llegÃ³ ahÃ debido a que el depuesto presidente Manuel Zelaya fue acusado de traiciÃ³n a la patria, por llamar a una consulta para convocar a una Asamblea Constituyente. Pero en 1985 fue Micheletti quien quiso convocar a una constituyente para extender el gobierno del entonces presidente Roberto Suazo CÃ³rdoba.
Enviado especial a Tegucigalpa
Publicada el 09 de julio de 2009 - El Faro
n presidente que quiere extender su mandato contra lo que establece la ConstituciÃ³n. Un llamado a consulta para una Asamblea Constituyente. Una crisis polÃtica derivada de lo anterior. Esto ha llevado, en 2009, a la destituciÃ³n del presidente Manuel Zelaya y a la llegada de Roberto Micheletti al Ejecutivo hondureÃ±o.
Esto tambiÃ©n fue lo que pasÃ³ en 1985 en Honduras, pero entonces era Micheletti quien llamaba a una Constituyente para extender dos aÃ±os mÃ¡s el perÃodo del entonces presidente Roberto Suazo CÃ³rdoba.
El 24 de octubre de 1985, varios diputados intentaron introducir una pieza al pleno legislativo llamando a una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, y para ello solicitaban la suspensiÃ³n de varios artÃculos constitucionales, los llamados pÃ©treos, los mismos que ahora le sirven a las autoridades hondureÃ±as para justificar la destituciÃ³n de Zelaya.
Argumentaban que la ConstituciÃ³n necesitaba una revisiÃ³n plena, y que el Congreso deberÃa transformarse de inmediato en Asamblea Constituyente "con las facultades y atribuciones que corresponden a un Poder Constituyente". Justificaban entonces que el Poder Constituyente es el pueblo. "Asimismo pedimos queden en suspenso los artÃculos 373, 374 y 375 de la ConstituciÃ³n de la RepÃºblica", justo aquellos correspondientes a la inviolabilidad de la ConstituciÃ³n.
Aquella mociÃ³n nunca pudo presentarse. Durante la sesiÃ³n plenaria en la que esta pieza serÃa presentada, varios diputados llegaron incluso a sacar sus armas de fuego para evitarlo. Porque sabÃan que esa Constituyente tenÃa como propÃ³sito extender el mandato del presidente liberal Suazo CÃ³rdoba. Los nacionales querÃan destituir a los jueces de la Corte Suprema nombrados por el Ejecutivo, y se desatÃ³ una crisis polÃtica de gran envergadura.
El documento para solicitar la Constituyente, del que El Faro posee una copia, estÃ¡ respaldado por 12 diputados del Congreso Nacional hondureÃ±o, entre ellos Roberto Micheletti Bain.
24 aÃ±os despuÃ©s, Micheletti estÃ¡ instalado en la silla presidencial hondureÃ±a tras el derrocamiento del presidente Manuel Zelaya, acusado de traiciÃ³n a la patria por haber pretendido llamar a una Constituyente, bajo la sospecha de todos los sectores de que buscaba extender su perÃodo presidencial.
Carlos KattÃ¡n, presidente de la ComisiÃ³n de Relaciones Exteriores del Congreso, establece las diferencias entre ambos momentos: "Esa crisis no llegÃ³ como ahorita, porque (en 1985 el proyecto de decreto) nunca se alcanzÃ³ a meter y se quedÃ³ en anteproyecto. Ahora sÃ, habÃa un decreto ejecutivo para llamar a consulta".
La crisis de 1985 se resolviÃ³, igual que la de esta vez, con la intermediaciÃ³n del ejÃ©rcito. El comandante en jefe telefoneÃ³ al Congreso para advertir a los diputados que quienes persistieran con la propuesta serÃan llevados a juicio por violar la ConstituciÃ³n.
Los dos principales partidos, el Nacional y el Liberal, aceptaron sacar nuevas candidaturas y el proceso terminÃ³ con la elecciÃ³n del presidente JosÃ© Azcona Hoyo. La ConstituciÃ³n, redactada en 1982, sigue vigente en Honduras.
Translated into English:
The day that Micheletti
also "treason to the homeland
The interim chief executive Honduran arrived there because the deposed president Manuel Zelaya was accused of treason, calling for an inquiry to convene a Constituent Assembly. But Micheletti who in 1985 was to convene a constituent wanted to extend the government of President Roberto Suazo Cordova.
Special envoy to Tegucigalpa
Published on July 09, 2009 - El Faro
A president who wants to extend its mandate as established by the Constitution. A call to query for a Constituent Assembly. A political crisis resulting from the above. This led, in 2009, the impeachment of President Manuel Zelaya and the arrival of the Executive Honduran Roberto Micheletti.
This was also what happened in 1985 in Honduras, but then Micheletti was a constituent who called to extend the period over two years of President Roberto Suazo Cordova.
On October 24, 1985, several members tried to introduce a piece of legislation calling for a full National Assembly, and it called for the suspension of several constitutional articles, the so-called rock, they now serve the Honduran authorities to justify removal of Zelaya.
They argued that the Constitution required a full review, and that Congress should become immediately Constituent Assembly with the powers and duties that correspond to a constituent power. " Justified then the constituent power is the people. "We also call on hold are articles 373, 374 and 375 of the Constitution of the Republic", just those relating to the inviolability of the Constitution.
That motion was never filed. During the plenary session that this piece would be presented, including several deputies arrived to take their firearms to prevent it. Because they knew that this constituent was intended to extend the mandate of liberal President Suazo Cordova. Nationals want to remove Supreme Court judges appointed by the Executive, and unleashed a major political crisis.
The document request to the Constituent Assembly, of which El Faro has a copy, is backed by 12 deputies of the Honduran National Congress, including Roberto Micheletti Bain.
24 years later, Micheletti is installed in the presidential chair after the overthrow of the Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who is accused of betraying the country for having tried to call a Constituent Assembly, under the suspicion of all sectors of seeking to extend his presidential term.
Carlos Kattan, president of the Foreign Relations Committee of Congress, establishing the differences between the two moments: "That came as no crisis now, because (in the 1985 draft decree) is never reached and stayed put in draft. Now, there was a decree to call for consultation. "
The 1985 crisis was resolved, just like this time, under the auspices of the army. The commander in chief telephoned to warn Congress MPs who persist with the proposal would be brought to trial for violating the Constitution.
The two main parties, the Liberal and National, agreed to make additional nominations and the process ended with the election of President Jose Azcona Hoyo. The Constitution, drafted in 1982, still in force in Honduras.
Micheletti is a boldfaced hypocrite.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)