The Honduran Cardinal (the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga) is an elitist and is speaking and acting like it in plain sight.

He said he didn't support the coup. He says that he's told Zelaya to be a patriot by not returning — to avoid bloodshed. Well, Zelaya should avoid bloodshed, but the Cardinal is hardly going about the matter correctly considering where he does stand on all the issues. Has he told the coupsters to stand down? Who's been arresting and beating the people and shooting peaceful demonstrators and assassinating political and union leaders and organizers and shutting down communications and the press to keep the truth from getting out? It has been the oligarchical coup plotters and executors.

Delay is a tactic to keep progress toward helping the poor from being realized.

Oscar Maradiaga says that Zelaya was violating the Constitution. He's flat out wrong and either stupid or being duplicitous with the other elites (Maradiaga is one of the elites).

He couched the issue in the exact same terms as have the violent coup plotters and coup executers. Maradiaga lends his support to those who say Zelaya was attempting to convene a non-binding referendum for a constitutional convention. That is a total misrepresentation, as I've clearly documented here on this site and by links to other posts where others and I have left clear, plain, and unambiguous comments showing it. You don't convene a survey. Use the language properly.

He's expressed concern about $2 million in cash in the hands of Zelaya's people around the survey. That's a legitimate question. Why did they do that? Maradiaga assumed it was for vote buying. Is that the only possibility?

What exigencies were present? What coup threats were in the wind? How much tension was there leading up to the survey?

The survey materials had been seized and locked up on a military base while Zelaya was and remains the Commander and Chief of the Honduran military.

$2 million in cash if intended for right purposes of protecting the real legal process that disallows the coup would not be an issue were the whole truth to come out.

I am not prejudging the "left's" intentions here. I am reserving judgment on that aspect.

Maradiaga is throwing caution to the wind with his official Roman Catholic pronouncements that decidedly side with the coupsters. After all, if the survey and other Zelaya actions were unconstitutional and if the $2 million was for vote buying (did that happen — proof?), then the coup was at least justified in the mundane. So, Maradiaga wants to have it both ways and to project impartiality while his words do the exact opposite.

Cardinal Maradiaga complained that Zelaya was obtaining funds from Hugo Chavez. How much money does Honduras get from Barack Obama. If Chavez is Venezuela, then Bush, Obama, and all the other U.S. Presidents have been and are the U.S. here. Obviously, Obama isn't the U.S. and neither is Chavez Venezuela. The people of Venezuela are Venezuela, and if they want to support the poor in Honduras by backing Zelaya's efforts in that regard, they have every right to use the money from the proceeds of the shared ownership of their natural resource under their land and off their coasts called Venezuela. They have more right to do that than the U.S. has in supporting and training the Honduran military that is the tool of those who oppress even the most righteous of the poor.

Where is your heart, Cardinal Maradiaga? It isn't with Jesus Christ. Where is your Pope, dead, dead of the Holy Spirit of whole truth?

The Cardinal says, "I have known its secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza {of the Organization for American States (OAS)}, for a long time and he always acted as a gentleman during his visits to Tegucigalpa. I gave him all of the documentation about this case he never bothered to read it."

He also said, "Look at the irony here: a few months ago presidents Chavez, Evo Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador) and Raul Castro (Cuba) said the OAS serves no purpose. This is the double standard of the OAS." Well, did the Cardinal bother to ask those democratically elected leaders why they felt that way at that time? Right now, they are pushing to have the OAS serve a real purpose, which it is attempting now to do. Cardinal Maradiaga is just frustrated because they aren't buying his interpretation, which, as I've shown here, is prematurely judgmental and decidedly antichrist in slant.

Marxists are also antichrist. There's no doubt about that. Christians though use the spirit of Christ in calling people to stop being hypocrites. Here's a Cardinal calling for patriotism rather than asking all the people to look at their own constitution that does not outlaw what Zelaya was doing vis-a-vis a survey. He wouldn't even have been the President when the fourth ballot would have been offered at the polls.

Cardinal Maradiaga is in a mad scramble to defend the rich who prop him up for the very reason that he speaks out on their behalf even as they unrighteously oppress the poor.

(Source: "Honduran cardinal states he did not support military coup or legitimacy of new president." Catholic News Agency. July 15, 2009.)

He's no Archbishop Oscar Romero.

There is also this:

...the cardinal has taken an extraordinarily hard line when it comes to the trials in the U.S. of Catholic priest paedophiles. According to the Wiki cited earlier, in a May 2002 interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, Rodríguez Maradiaga claimed that 'Jews' had influenced the media to exploit the current controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests in order to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. No doubt the Israeli state (as distinct from the category of 'Jews' in general) is capable of all kinds of deviousness. But for Rodríguez Maradiaga to try to blame 'Jews' for media reporting on the outrages of priestly paedophillia is simply ridiculous. It smacks of a devious and divisive effort to divert attention from the real issues.

(Source: "The Honduran Catholic Church's True Colours: Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga."; also in Spanish: "La Postura Política de la Iglesia Católica en Honduras: Cardenal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga.")

No doubt, there were some awful Jews who were gleeful at the exposure of the pedophile priests and glad for the miserable company to be able to point back when rightfully accused for their utterly false-Zionist wickedness done toward the Palestinians. It is just as with those Jewish spies who were caught dancing with joy within eyeshot of the Twin Towers burning and being brought down on 9/11. They both bring a pox upon both houses. The pedophile priest needed and still need to be stopped and will be one way or the other. So too will the false-Zionists be stopped. Stand against all evil, Maradiaga. Quit the false church that protects pedophiles to protect that church's elitism and terribly misled and misleading hierarchy. Don't just point to those who are as bad or worse. Rise above your current situation. Aren't you given to do it? Don't you have the brain that is capable?

That ecologics article goes on to tie this in with the on-going battle between Liberation Theology (with it's justification of violence by some) and Distributism (lukewarm socialism also with it's justification of violence). Maradiaga is anti-liberation. He works for the elite who, under Roman Catholicism, always are to maintain the upper hand for wholly selfish reasons. It is the central, defining point.

The Real Liberal Christian Church holds with no violence and no such elitism. It holds with harmlessness and unselfishness that are one and the same. If it is ultimately harmful, it's a sin. If it is ultimately selfish, it's a sin.

Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) says charity is everything. The problem with his application is that he allows for ownership apart from God, which Jesus does not. Read his boring, Distributist, far off, far from God writing on this: "ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS THE LAY FAITHFUL AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHARITY AND TRUTH."

However, here's a blatantly antichrist view against Distributism: "What's Wrong with 'Distributism'" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ludwig von Mises Institute. October 6, 2002.

If you read that, just imagine how far the laissez-faire capitalist minds are from Jesus's common purse and New Earth and New Heaven. The article goes on and on about scarcity while Jesus's New Commandment in application (The Christian Commons ) would remove all artificial scarcity. You won't read any more Satanic discipleship than that article.

Capitalism is always a net loss when the whole is considered. Thomas E. Woods credits capitalism with everything he thinks is great, but he doesn't credit it with anything negative, such as the pollution of the Industrial Revolution as it has been and still is being brought forth by both the mercantilists and capitalists and their cronies. The article is purely self-oriented where that self is not God within but rather Satan, as defined by Jesus Christ. Thomas E. Woods actually claims to be a Christian while he is a disciple of antichrist atheists, such as his dead and lost steward-gurus, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, et al. What a mess. Repent, Thomas. Get right with Jesus. Rothbard and von Mises are not with Jesus in Heaven and never will be unless their souls may still pay, repent, and atone and they do.

beati servi illi quos cum venerit dominus invenerit vigilantes amen dico vobis quod praecinget se et faciet illos discumbere et transiens ministrabit illis et si venerit in secunda vigilia et si in tertia vigilia venerit et ita invenerit beati sunt servi illi hoc autem scitote quia si sciret pater familias qua hora fur veniret vigilaret utique et non sineret perfodiri domum suam et vos estote parati quia qua hora non putatis Filius hominis venit (Luke 12:37-40 Vulgate)

Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when he cometh, shall find watching. Amen I say to you that he will gird himself and make them sit down to meat and passing will minister unto them. And if he shall come in the second watch or come in the third watch and find them so, blessed are those servants. But this know ye, that if the householder did know at what hour the thief would come, he would surely watch and would not suffer his house to be broken open. Be you then also ready: for at what hour you think not the Son of man will come. (Luke 12:37-40 DRB)

Let me interpret that for you since you have been heretofore incapable of reading it. It means, dear Cardinal and dear Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, and Roman Catholic Thomas E. Woods that you have to be for the righteous poor completely and all the time. It also does not mean you are ever to be violent, quite the contrary.

Here is a useful but dated (1987) link: "A Concise History of Liberation Theology By Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. From the book Introducing Liberation Theology published by Orbis Books. Reprinted by permission."

As the ecologics article rightly points out, Joseph Ratzinger was in his place as the head of the Inquisition under Karol Jozef Wojtyla (John Paul II). John Paul II was a strange dramatist (phony) who knew that small-c communism is actually right. Nevertheless, he didn't, and Joseph hasn't, required the faithful all to live it. No pope ever has. That's their problem. That's why they aren't real.

The truth of the matter is that the Peace Church people in the Roman Catholic Liberation Theology Movement should become Real Liberal Christians. They should see that the "Apostolic Succession" of the Roman Catholic Church is fatally flawed and irrevocably broken. That hierarchy is not Christian. Jesus did not teach that hierarchy. He demonstrated quite the opposite. He died to show it.


Posts covering Honduras


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • This is the economic environment that the coup plotters and executers, the elite in all walks of life (political, industrial, religious, financial) seek to conserve. It's not my conservatism. It's the devil's.

      "Honduran women speak out over sweatshops," by Daniel Barlow. Vermont Reformer. Global Exchange. November 13, 2003.