by...
MICHELETTI OF HONDURAS: BOLDFACED HYPOCRITE
MICHELETTI OF HONDURAS: BOLDFACED HYPOCRITE
Google translation into English is immediately below the following (original) Spanish version:
NOTICIAS
El día en que Micheletti
también “traicionó” a la patriaEl jefe interino del Ejecutivo hondureño llegó ahí debido a que el depuesto presidente Manuel Zelaya fue acusado de traición 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 Córdoba.
Carlos Dada
Enviado especial a Tegucigalpa
Publicada el 09 de julio de 2009 - El Faron presidente que quiere extender su mandato contra lo que establece la Constitución. Un llamado a consulta para una Asamblea Constituyente. Una crisis política derivada de lo anterior. Esto ha llevado, en 2009, a la destitución del presidente Manuel Zelaya y a la llegada de Roberto Micheletti al Ejecutivo hondureño.
Esto también fue lo que pasó en 1985 en Honduras, pero entonces era Micheletti quien llamaba a una Constituyente para extender dos años más el período del entonces presidente Roberto Suazo Córdoba.
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 suspensión de varios artículos constitucionales, los llamados pétreos, los mismos que ahora le sirven a las autoridades hondureñas para justificar la destitución de Zelaya.
Argumentaban que la Constitución necesitaba una revisión plena, y que el Congreso debería 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 artículos 373, 374 y 375 de la Constitución de la República”, justo aquellos correspondientes a la inviolabilidad de la Constitución.
Aquella moción nunca pudo presentarse. Durante la sesión plenaria en la que esta pieza sería presentada, varios diputados llegaron incluso a sacar sus armas de fuego para evitarlo. Porque sabían que esa Constituyente tenía como propósito extender el mandato del presidente liberal Suazo Córdoba. Los nacionales querían destituir a los jueces de la Corte Suprema nombrados por el Ejecutivo, y se desató una crisis política de gran envergadura.
El documento para solicitar la Constituyente, del que El Faro posee una copia, está respaldado por 12 diputados del Congreso Nacional hondureño, entre ellos Roberto Micheletti Bain.
24 años después, Micheletti está instalado en la silla presidencial hondureña tras el derrocamiento del presidente Manuel Zelaya, acusado de traición a la patria por haber pretendido llamar a una Constituyente, bajo la sospecha de todos los sectores de que buscaba extender su período presidencial.
Carlos Kattán, presidente de la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Congreso, establece las diferencias entre ambos momentos: “Esa crisis no llegó como ahorita, porque (en 1985 el proyecto de decreto) nunca se alcanzó a meter y se quedó en anteproyecto. Ahora sí, había un decreto ejecutivo para llamar a consulta”.
La crisis de 1985 se resolvió, igual que la de esta vez, con la intermediación del ejército. El comandante en jefe telefoneó al Congreso para advertir a los diputados que quienes persistieran con la propuesta serían llevados a juicio por violar la Constitución.
Los dos principales partidos, el Nacional y el Liberal, aceptaron sacar nuevas candidaturas y el proceso terminó con la elección del presidente José Azcona Hoyo. La Constitución, redactada en 1982, sigue vigente en Honduras.
Translated into English:
NEWS
The day that Micheletti
also "treason to the homelandThe 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.
Carlos Dada
Special envoy to Tegucigalpa
Published on July 09, 2009 - El FaroA 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.
- Technorati Tags: 1985, army, Carlos Dada, Carlos Kattan, commander in chief, Congress, Constituent Assembly, Constitution, constitutional crisis, consultation, Cordova, El Faro, elfaro.net, Google translation, Honduras, hypocrite, Jose Azcona Hoyo, Liberal Party, Manuel Zelaya, Micheletti, National Assembly, National Party, plenary session, Roberto Micheletti, Roberto Micheletti Bain, Roberto Suazo Cordova, Supreme Court, Tegucigalpa, treason, Zelaya
Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.