by...
HONDURAS: ALTERNATIVE-NEWS UPDATE
HONDURAS: ALTERNATIVE-NEWS UPDATE
Roger Bados of the Bloque Popular & the National Resistance Front has been assassinated by three gun shots in Honduras. Ramon Garcia of the National Resistance Front and president of a cement workers union was also assassinated by the coup.
The foreign journalists of the Telesur network have all been expelled.
The coup has hired former Clinton advisors to represent them in Washington and in Costa Rica before President Oscar Arias.
Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel for President Bill Clinton (they went to Yale Law School together), is working for the Latin American Business Council. Davis testified for the coup to the House Foreign Relations Committee. Davis said, "democracy and civil liberties are flourishing in Honduras."
How can he say that when peaceful demonstrators are shot dead, swept up in mass arrests, journalists deported, and political and union leaders are assassinated, etc.? What kind of man is this Lanny Davis? Does he love fascism? Apparently he loves money more than truth.
Otto Reich, also testified to the Committee. He was Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs under George W. Bush. Bill Van Auken reports some of Reich's despicable history. He is best known as an anti-Castro Cuban. He was directly involved with the Contras who were mostly members of the former dictator's National Guard that became Ronald-Reagan-backed death squads attacking Nicaragua.
The Reagan administration did illegal secret weapons deals with Iran to fund the Contras and to get Iran to influence Hezbollah to release hostages in Lebanon (called the Iran-Contra Affair) against U.S. Congressional prohibition on funding the dirty wars in Central America and against the arms embargo against Iran. Israel played the intermediary between the U.S. and Iran. Reagan denied knowledge but how could he have not known? It was huge. Lots of records were illegally destroyed too. It should have brought down Reagan, but Americans in general are too selfish to be right.
Reich also helped CIA agent and terrorist Luis Posada Carriles and his underling, Orlando Bosch, avoid Venezuelan and Cuban justice concerning the downing in 1976 of a Cuban Douglas DC-8 aircraft. All 73 people on board were killed in the midair bombing. Reich was also deeply involved in the failed George W. Bush CIA-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002.
Bennett Ratcliff, a close Clinton advisor, handled the meeting in Costa Rica. Ratcliff presented that Zelaya can return as president but must have no power. He may not do anything further to empower the poor or the general population. He must stop befriending Hugo Chavez, which probably means that he would have to pull out of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. He must share governance with the coup leaders. He must agree to blanket amnesty to the coup plotters and executers. Eva Golinger also says that Hillary Clinton approved those points. How Eva knows that aspect, she didn't say.
Since the coup was completely illegal, the U.S. government should not support any of those conditions. Zelaya would be helping to establish a bad precedent were he to accept the conditions. Ginger Thompson reported though, "Zelaya indicated that he was willing to accept a compromise that would return him to office with significantly limited powers."
Tom Hayden adds that Clinton types such as James Carville and Stanley Greenberg are political consultants for reactionaries in Latin America. I never did like neoliberalism and the Democratic Leadership Council sellouts. Bill Clinton did as much as anyone to kill the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin Roosevelt.
Fernando Joya Amendola is also involved in the coup. He was known as Captain Billy Joya who headed up the infamous Battalion 3-16, one of the worst death squads in Central America. They murdered and tortured countless numbers of people in a reign of terror. They were generally a part of the network of American led and supported capitalist fascism throughout Latin America.
The longer they delay, the less Zelaya will probably be willing to compromise. Why he offered, if he truly did, doesn't make much sense.
- "Showdown in Honduras: The Rise and Uncertain Future of the Coup," by Benjamin Dangl, t r u t h o u t. June 30, 2009.
- "Honduras: Coup Leaders Hire Top Democrat Lobbyists to Justify Their De Facto Government," by Eva Golinger. MRZine. MONTHLY REVIEW. July 13, 2009.
- "Ex-Clinton aides advising Honduran coup regime," by Bill Van Auken. World Socialist Web Site. July 15, 2009.
- "Obama vs. Clinton on Honduras?" by Tom Hayden. The Huffington Post. July 14, 2009.
- "Honduran Rivals See U.S. Intervention as Crucial in Resolving Political Crisis," by Ginger Thompson. The New York Times. July 12, 2009.
- "OBAMA ON HONDURAS AND ZELAYA: FOOT DRAGGING," by Tom Usher. Real Liberal Christian Church. July 14, 2009.
- Technorati Tags: alternative news, Americans, amnesty, anti-Castro, arms embargo, assassinated, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Battalion 3-16, Benjamin Dangl, Bennett Ratcliff, Bill Clinton, Bill Van Auken, Bloque Popular & the National Resistance Front, Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, capitalist fascism, Captain Billy Joya, cement workers union, Central America, CIA agent, CIA-backed coup, civil liberties, Clinton, Clinton advisors, Contras, Costa Rica, coup, coup plotters, Cuba, Cuban, DC-8, death squads, democracy, Democrat, Democratic Leadership Council, dictator, dirty wars, Eva Golinger, fascism, Fernando Joya Amendola, foreign journalists, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Ginger Thompson, Good Neighbor Policy, Hezbollah, Hillary Clinton, Honduras, hostages, House Foreign Relations Committee, Huffington Post, Hugo Chavez, Iran, Iran-Contra Affair, Israel, James Carville, journalists deported, Lanny Davis, Latin America, Latin American Business Council, Lebanon, lobbyists, Luis Posada Carriles, mass arrests, money, Monthly Review, MRZine, murdered, National Guard, National Resistance Front, neoliberalism, New York Times, Nicaragua, Obama, Orlando Bosch, Oscar Arias, Otto Reich, peaceful demonstrators, political, political consultants, precedent, Ramon Garcia, reactionaries, Reagan, Reagan administration, Real Liberal Christian Church, reign of terror, Roger Bados, Ronald Reagan, selfish, Special Counsel, Stanley Greenberg, Telesur, terrorist, the poor, Tom Hayden, Tom Usher, tortured, truth, Truth Out, U.S. Congress, U.S. government, U.S. intervention, union leaders, Venezuelan, venezuelanalysis.com, Washington, weapons deals, World Socialist Web Site, Yale Law School, 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.