Living it the Best way I possibly can...

Vivir bien, vivir mal

2011-01-15T12:34:00.003-06:00

Érase una vez una gran nación de África Occidental, donde sus líderes eran ampliamente conocidos por engañar al pueblo con artimañas y falsas promesas, sumiendo a los ciudadanos en una vil miseria. Hsibwana era muy rica pero empobrecida, ya que solamente ciertas tribus disfrutaban de las riquezas de su territorio.

Un día llegó a gobernar la tribu Perigmont-Nedal que aseguraba tener todas las respuestas a los problemas que acechaban a la nación. La tribu había elaborado un mapa perfecto a seguir para poder hacer que la nación prosperara. A los líderes Jhan Orasmus Hadid y Phineas Lotusk Shariah se les ocurrió que la mejor forma para que el país mejorara y que hubiera igualdad entre todos sus habitantes, era darle la oportunidad a éstos para que se pronunciaran y opinaran sobre lo que quisieran. Estos líderes hacían alarde de sus conocimientos y estudios en tierras lejanas, donde aprendieron que este plan era muy bueno para Hsibwana. El pueblo confió en ellos. Ya no solo la tribu iba gobernar y decidir el rumbo de la nación, sino que los ciudadanos podían invalidar las decisiones de sus gobernantes y proponer nuevas leyes para dirigir mejor la nación.

La idea era muy noble y justa. ¿Por qué debe estar el pueblo callado, cuando sus jefes están saqueando el país? ¡Claro que el pueblo debe tener voz! Cuando la idea de Hadid y Lotusk cobró vida, empezaron los ciudadanos a verter sus opiniones y preferencias, a través de propuestas de ley y desaprobaciones de leyes anteriores. El Consejo Legislativo era el encargado de recibir, revisar y analizar lo que proponían los ciudadanos. Todo marchaba bien.

Con el tiempo, era tan fuerte la carga de trabajo, que el consejo tuvo que contratar más personal. El consejo pasaba muy ajetreado discutiendo las propuestas ciudadanas, que dejó a un lado sus funciones legislativas ordinarias; tuvo que aumentar su presupuesto porque no se daba abasto con tantas propuestas del pueblo. En pocas palabras, el Consejo Legislativo dejó de legislar y se convirtió en un ente receptor de ideas y proyectos, teniendo que analizar y discutir hasta las más ilógicas propuestas (las cuales eran la mayoría). La burocracia aumentó, y con ella la pérdida de tiempo y dinero. El ciclo vicioso era imparable.

Pasó casi un decenio y el Estado de Hsibwana, a pesar de sus riquezas naturales y un pueblo muy bondadoso, continuaba sumido en la pobreza. El magno proyecto de la tribu Perigmont-Nedal no había dado los frutos esperados. Cualquier propuesta de ley para beneficiar a la población era posteriormente truncada por la contrapropuesta de un sector rebelde de Hsibwana. Era un vaivén político-social.

El Estado se volvió aun más ingobernable de lo que ya era, producto del plan de ilimitada participación ciudadana, que lastimosamente no ayudó a fortalecer el Estado de Derecho. El poder punitivo y actor del Estado se había debilitado. Cualquier decisión del Presidente Lotusk era inmediatamente desbaratada por la desaprobación de un sector del pueblo que se creía afectado.

Las elecciones gubernativas ya no tenían sentido, porque cualquier tribu que gobernara tenía que someterse a lo que el pueblo decidiera, punto por punto. El pueblo hsibwaní producía menos y menos cada día, ya que dedicaba su tiempo a discusiones y consultas infructíferas. Había paralizaciones laborales por doquier. Las arcas del Estado estaban en la bancarrota, por consagrarse más a escuchar opiniones que a actuar y producir. No había oportunidad para la toma de decisiones gubernativas. La producción agrícola, ganadera y manufacturera había decaído a causa de la inoperancia estatal, que conllevaba a inoperancia social y empresarial. De tanta decepción con la tribu Perigmont-Nedal, esta tuvo que ceder el poder a otra tribu.

Fue en ese entonces que el pueblo se dio cuenta que no era tan importante que se le consultara por todo, ya que la función del Estado es decidir y actuar para el bien del pueblo. Era más importante elegir las personas correctas, quienes se encargarían de dirigir al Estado por un buen camino, basándose en la honestidad, el trabajo tesonero y el temor a Dios.

Obama ♥s Honduras

2009-09-18T20:10:00.008-06:00

I was enraged when I first heard Hugo Llorens, US Ambassador to Honduras, condemn the removal of Manuel Zelaya from power, and recognize him as the one and only legitimate President of Honduras. Llorens, I thought, wasn’t well informed about the legal and constitutional process for removing a president from office and the need for sending Zelaya away to avoid bloodshed in the country. In point of fact, Llorens and the US government knew very well about the imminent threat of Zelaya’s expulsion.

Now, after almost three glorious months of the constitutional presidential succession, I understand why the United States appears to be viciously antagonistic with Honduras and its new government, but warmheartedly friendly with Hugo Chávez and his cronies: to avoid a war and to set a precedent in the Western Hemisphere.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are cunning. They prefer to appease the radical Latin American leftists, while aggravating a small nation like Honduras, than to confront Chávez, by smiling at Zelaya’s legitimate extradition. Obama is playing chess, not checkers. Very few people realize this, which is why there’s discomfort at the US government’s measures against Honduras.

What would happen if Obama stood his ground, followed American democratic principles, and supported freedom and the rule of law in Honduras? Well, Hugo and his Latin American Idiots would radicalize and escalate their hatred towards the Evil Empire. The polarization of the political climate would worsen and Honduras would probably be visited by Venezuelan war ships, with missiles pointed towards Tegucigalpa, and several battalions preparing to enter Honduran territory for the overthrow of President Roberto Micheletti. How would the US react to such a threat in its backyard? It would naturally defend its Central American buddy and launch an offensive against Venezuela -- with or without UN approval.

In such a serious scenario, a full-scale war would commence, pitting the US and Honduras against Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and maybe Russia. Surely, under President G.W. Bush’s administration, this would’ve become the likely scenario.

By suspending services for new non-immigrant/non-emergency visas, halting the flow of non-humanitarian aid and revoking the visas of many Honduran government officials (and many more sanctions to come), the US is exercising its muscle against Honduras, but in the soft-politics realm.

Thankfully, by doing so, Chávez remains calm -- yet alert. He knows that the low-intensity warfare he has crafted in Honduras might destabilize the Micheletti government. Swarms of people, allegedly following Zelaya, march through the streets of Tegucigalpa every day, wreaking havoc, graffitiing anti-“coup” messages and using the few remaining pro-Zelaya news media (about 2-3) to slander the names of those who oppose them.

The internal politics in Honduras is tense, particularly in Tegucigalpa. Outside of the capital, people tend to carry out their business as usual, not being affected by what goes on between the so-called golpistas (“coup” supporters) and the Resistencia (Zelaya supporters).

The Resistencia is loud, but not strong. It is sustained primarily by monies received from the Venezuelan government, the FARC guerrilla, leftist NGOs and political parties from around the world, and many other radical organizations that feign to defend human rights, democracy, the rule of law, peace, love and a better world (?). The foreign media, too, has a leftist slant, making them favor the Resistencia.

Much to the detriment of Zelaya’s and Chávez’s plans to stop the Honduran elections, they’re coming up in November. These will take care of much of the social unrest in the country. Many nations have vowed not to recognize the outcome of the elections or the newly-elected president. How disgraceful. Nevertheless, time will take care of making these nations recant their vows.

The so-called golpistas --a misnomer for the majority of Hondurans-- stand firm in their convictions that Manuel Zelaya was a threat to Honduras’ republican and democratic system, and that this man’s ouster was necessary to prevent the expansion of socialism in our country.

The Obama administration understands what’s going in Honduras. It knows that Zelaya is a clown and potentially would hurt its interests if reinstated. Nonetheless, it prefers to “support” the return of Zelaya to power, than have Chávez prepare an attack on Honduran soil to do so.

It’s all about precedent, my friends. If the US lets Honduras get rid of a nasty leader, without being spanked for it, then the Latin American idiots would say, “Hey, if they booted out one of our guys, why can’t we do the same to one of theirs?!” If that were to happen, the Colombian and Peruvian presidents would be on Chávez’s sight. So, it’s better to impose pusillanimous sanctions on Honduras, in order to appease the radical left, than to sweep Zelaya’s ouster under the rug, maddening the Idiots -- and making them want to carry out a real coup d’état against any good Latin American president that opposes them.

I’m good. I’m happy. It might seem like the US government is against Honduras, but --alas for Chávez!-- it's covertly on our side. God and time will take care of this situation. Obama loves the rule of law, democracy, peace, order and justice. Yet, Honduras has embodied them almost to perfection.

Written by Inti Jordán Martínez Alemán, a Honduran citizen who loves freedom, peace and democracy
If you have a problem with what I write, call me or email me so I can give you my home address and come find me: +504-9790-9360 / intimaralem85@hotmail.com / FB-Twitter-AIM-MSN: intimaralem85

Justifying and legitimizing Zelaya’s ouster

2009-07-05T23:19:00.002-06:00

In the past week, dozens of politicians, lawyers, foreign-policy experts, university professors, researchers and otherwise “thinkers” have come out in the news media and academic journals to give their opinion on whether or not Manuel Zelaya was legally ousted as President of Honduras; whether or not his shipment to Costa Rica at the wee hours of the morning was a crime; whether or not Zelaya should be reinstated in power; whether or not the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations, as well as foreign governments, should recognize Honduras’ new government; and so forth. These demonstrations of knowledge consist on different views and approaches to Honduras’ political climate.

Moreover, I have yet to find at least one point of agreement between the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Hondurans, Honduran government institutions, Honduran non-governmental organizations, and the opinions of the vast majority of foreigners, foreign governments and international organizations.

I have a rule of thumb when two or more persons, institutions, governments or any type of actors have diametrically opposite views: 1) they’re either misinformed about each others’ views; 2) or there are irreconcilable political, economic or cultural beliefs and interests at stake between the actors. In the “Honduras vs. the World” or “Freedom vs. Tyranny” case, I believe that as much as there is misinformation, there also are interests at stake. Let’s tackle both of these circumstances.

1. Misinformation

No one expert writing or speaking about the Honduran’ political crisis has convinced me about any legal, political or constitutional aspect involving this case. However, the conglomerate of distinct views I’ve read or listened to has enriched my knowledge of the kind of legal aspects being debated. There are plenty of legal dispositions in Honduran law and Constitution, as well as in juridical doctrine and in jurisprudence, but I will focus on the most prevailing dispositions applicable to this case.

The Constitution of Honduras is clear about the faculties and limits of Executive powers. A specific limit set upon the Executive is one non-renewable four-year term. This applies for the President as well as the three Presidential Designates (equivalent to a Vice President). Article 239 is clear in that anyone who violates this disposition or proposes its reform, as well as those who directly or indirectly support the violation or reform, will immediately be stripped of their powers and removed from office, and will remain unable to opt for a government position for the next 10 years. There is no need for judicial or legislative action for the enforcement of this article’s charge. Article 4 of the same constitution establishes that whoever infringes the alternation of presidential terms commits treason to the Republic of Honduras.

So, technically speaking, the moment in which Manuel Zelaya publically proposed a constituent assembly or the derogation of our 1982 Constitution, he immediately quit being the President of Honduras. If I remember correctly, he announced this plan in late December 2008. However, Zelaya’s official plans for calling a constituent assembly and the eventual derogation of our Constitution were set on stone when the State publication of Honduras, La Gaceta, published Executive Decree 20-2009 on June 25, 2009. In this decree, the Executive ordered a nationwide opinion survey, to be conducted on June 28 of that year, which enquired the following: “Are you in favor that in the 2009 general elections are fourth ballot box be installed, in which the population can decide to call for a constituent assembly? Yes – No”

As you can see, with this public demonstration planning to abolish our Constitution, President Zelaya was officially declaring that he did not care about what article 239 said and, following Hugo Chávez’s lead, wanted to continue in power. Thus, his condition as President of Honduras had ceased.

The Honduran Constitution does not contain a chapter that can be used as a manual to remove or impeach a president. Nonetheless, article 239 is clear about the moment in which a president is immediately stripped from his or her executive powers. So, by the time that Zelaya was drop-kicked from Honduran territory on June 28, he was a regular citizen with no presidential powers. Let it be known that Congress, that very day, voted unanimously to remove Zelaya from power, formalizing his cessation as President. At the same time, they voted to install Roberto Micheletti as president, following the constitutional line of succession. For this reason, Micheletti’s government is constitutional, legal and legitimate, and should be recognized by the international community.

The Honduran Constitution and law codes, following universal principles, establish several other precepts:

Everyone is subject to the law and no person is above it;
No government official has more power than the one invested upon him or her by the law;
Any act carried out illegally by a government official is null and implies civil, penal and administrative responsibility for this person;

What is so difficult to understand about these precepts? Manuel Zelaya and his satraps never understood what they meant or couldn’t care less about them.

You could say that asking the voting population whether or not they want a binding referendum to call for a constituent assembly is not a big deal. What if our Constitution really stinks and should be replaced by a new one? Well there isn’t a clear-cut process for doing this. However, there are some legal (albeit untried) means to work this out, yet Zelaya did not do this. He was lazy and wanted to impose a new Constitution at any cost.

First of all, it was Zelaya and his government officials who spearheaded this movement in favor of calling a non-binding referendum or survey (Jun. 28, 2009) that would lead to a binding referendum (Nov. 29, 2009) which would decide to call for a constituent assembly. Zelaya’s government justified its plan based on the Law for Civil Participation. This law is clear in that citizens may request government its action in all sorts of circumstances and situations. However, it does not give faculties to the government to request citizens to request its action upon a specific situation, like Zelaya’s government intended to do. If anything, it would be citizens themselves, organized nationwide, who would have to request the government to install a fourth ballot box which would decide the call for a constituent assembly. Zelaya did things incorrectly–making his government a judge in its own cause–since he wanted to carry out a “survey” (with the effects of a non-binding referendum), and it would be his own government who would supervise and announce its results. Zelaya did not want the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to have anything to do with his survey, which is why this tribunal decided to call the survey illegitimate.

Moreover, Zelaya refused to follow the Law for Plebiscites and Referenda, which was recently approved by Congress so that Zelaya’s government did not have an excuse for using an alternate route for a survey. This new law isn’t the best thing in the world, but it surely would have put some checks on the Executive’s survey, which Zelaya did not want.

All things considered, there are still several questions unanswered: Why wasn’t Zelaya simply arrested and taken to court to be tried for his 18 alleged crimes? Were his rights violated when he was taken from his home at the wee hours in the morning and flown to Costa Rica against his will? Who ordered Zelaya’s removal from Honduran territory?

Honduran Coronel Bayardo Inestroza, legal advisor to the Honduran Armed Forces, stated in an interview to ElFaro.net and El Nuevo Herald, that he was behind the legal decisions for executing Zelaya’s arrest and search warrants. According to him, the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras extended these warrants, to be executed by the Armed Forces and not the National Police, since this was a constitutional matter. However, the Armed Forces, instead of taking Zelaya to court, decided to fly him to Costa Rica, apparently without the Court’s consent.

The two biggest crimes here are the fact that the arrest and search warrants were not executed at legal hours. The Honduran Constitution says there cannot be home searches between sunset and sunrise; the Honduran Penal Procedures Code is more specific: no home searches between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. The other crime is taking Zelaya out of the country, against his will, instead of taking him to court to be tried.

Coronel Bayardo Inestroza stated that, in order to justify the Armed Forces’ actions –which were illegal but legitimate–, he relied on a criminal defense called necessity. Remembering my legal instruction from Prof. Jair López, I decided to review my textbook from Criminal Law class, which is widely used in private and public universities in Honduras. This book’s author, Prof. Suazo Lagos, explains very clearly on what necessity consists. The 10^th edition of Lecciones de Derecho Penal I, quoting universal doctrine by von Liszt, Maurach, Díaz Palos, Mezger and others, on the subject matter, states that there are two types of state of necessity. The first kind is justifying necessity, while the other is exculpating necessity.

In both cases, a greater harm is prevented from happening by causing a harm of lesser juridical value. Justifying necessity occurs when there is a conflict between juridically-protected goods of unequal value (e.g., human life vs. physical property), while exculpating necessity pertains to a conflict between juridically-protected goods of equivalent value (e.g., human life vs. human life–regardless of how many lives are at stake). In our case, the Honduran Army can shield its actions by using the justifying necessity defense.

What are the two juridically-protected goods in our case? The first one is the lives and physical integrity of Hondurans (greater value) and the second one is Manuel Zelaya’s human rights (lesser value). As I see it, there is a conflict between 1) the very probable chaos and shedding of blood if Zelaya was kept in Honduran territory; 2) and the violation of Zelaya’s human rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and so on.

First off, keeping Zelaya in Honduras would have made his supporters protest and violently claim his liberation. Just as experienced today, while Zelaya’s supporters awaited his return, hoards of them were causing great mischief at Tegucigalpa’s airport, making the Army and National Police use violence to fight the protestors’ violence.

The harm to human lives and physical integrity of Hondurans is of greater juridical value than the forced ouster of Zelaya from Honduran territory. Yes, Zelaya’s human rights were violated last Sunday, but that is preferable over the injury and death of tens, hundreds or thousands of Hondurans who would probably use violence to fight for the liberation of Zelaya, disregarding any type of official accusation and judgment by Honduran authorities. Also, as explained elsewhere, Manuel Zelaya is not the most law-abiding citizen; his anarchist tendencies are visible–having him in Honduran territory while being tried would have probably caused an extremely violent national convulsion.

What made the Armed Forces think Zelaya’s supporters were going to use violence that might lead to bodily harm and even deaths? I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that they were right in their estimate of Zelaya’s supporters’ fixation for violence. This past week, pro-Zelaya mobs have used excessive violence to destroy private property and attack military and police officers. These officers, in order to defend themselves, have counterattacked, causing harm to the mob members.

Additionally, today’s pro-Zelaya demonstrations in Tegucigalpa’s Toncontín airport, have led to the use of violence from the military and the police. Protestors, instead of peacefully waiting for the arrival of Zelaya, decided to break into the airport and attack the military and police, which reacted by defending themselves and causing harm to many of these protestors.

Going back to the legal considerations of this case, Manuel Zelaya’s human rights (e.g., liberty) were violated in order for the human rights of countless persons to be preserved (e.g., life). A lesser harm was caused in order to prevent a greater harm. The military’s actions were not legal, but definitely were legitimate and justified. I guess this is a case in which justice prevails over the law.

I am very certain that a regular citizen like me is no threat to the stability, social peace and order of Honduras, which is why I am not afraid of the military knocking on my door tomorrow at 5 AM to ship me to Costa Rica against my will. Zelaya, on the other hand, was surely a threat to Honduras; the military, to my opinion, did the right thing by preventing a greater harm from coming about.

Day-to-day cases apply necessity as a criminal defense. Take a poor mother who finds herself and her five children starving to death. She may be exempted from a criminal conviction after stealing two-$4 loaves of bread from a grocery store. You need not view it as “poor people should be allowed to steal,” but rather as “the lives and health of 6 human beings is more valuable than two-$4 loaves of bread.” In a case like this, a good defendant could definitely win a case invoking necessity as a criminal defense.

Applying this simple example to Zelaya’s violent usher from the country, I would say that the mother is the military; her children are the lives of Hondurans who would have risked their lives for Zelaya’s liberation, had he been kept in our territory for trial; the loaves of bread are Zelaya’s rights; the grocery store owner would be Manuel Zelaya himself. Military officials can surely be prosecuted by the Attorney General of Honduras, but this prosecution might not prosper in court, since the military officials might invoke necessity as a criminal defense–and rightly so.

The information provided above makes me confident that what the military did to preserve order in Honduran territory was legitimate and justified, even though Zelaya’s human rights were violated. There was never a coup, since the constitutional order was never ruptured by the military (they never took over power) and all branches of government remained intact. President Micheletti’s interim government is legitimate and should be recognized by everyone worldwide.

2. Irreconcilable ideologies and interests

Besides being ill informed, actors disagree over matters when there are irreconcilable ideologies or interests at stake. The so-called international community and the international news media, to my belief, are now fairly informed about what is going in Honduras, including the reasons for removing Zelaya from power, the legal basis for taking Zelaya out of Honduran territory and so on. I believe, nonetheless, foreign nations (especially from the Americas), international organizations (e.g., UN, OAS) and the foreign news media are ideologically opposed to what most Hondurans want. Basically, as it is well known, these actors tend to be of liberal, leftist tendencies, who oppose any actions that go against their beliefs and interests.

Let’s analyze the irreconcilable ideologies and interests at stake between foreign actors and the Honduran population. I will focus on the interests, since, unlike ideologies, they are more tangible and describable without falling into oversimplification.

The three types of actors and their interests, as I see them, are as follow:

a. Foreign governments, especially from the Americas: Their main interest is not allowing a domino effect take place in the Latin American region. If the Honduran political situation is left unattended, with no action or reprimand, governments in this part of the world might face citizen uproar in their respective countries, following Honduras’ lead. Governments of all kinds (very democratic or not) want stability and always steer away from losing legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens. The domino effect I talk about is of lesser concern to non-Latin American countries, but they still care about stability in the governments of the Americas, for all sorts of reasons.

Nations like Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay, El Salvador and Ecuador all have leftist presidents. Some are more radical than others, but they all remain highly socialistically-minded, one way or another. Having a country like Honduras revolt against the “Caracas Consensus” or the “Havana Consensus” might definitely harm leftist governments; their populations, if unsatisfied with their governments, would find a precedent for shooing away a leftist president who has not accomplished what he or she has promised–especially if he or she consistently violates the law.

It is obvious to me that the aforementioned leftist governments are interested in keeping “order” in Honduras, so that their socialist-imperialist plan, following Chávez and Fidel Castro, does not fall through. By doing this, with the help of the OAS and the UN, they defy and disrespect Honduras’ self-determination and sovereignty. Don’t they know that the maximum authority in a nation-state is the Sovereign (the people or the will of the people)?

b. International organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States: Their positions are very similar to that of governments in Latin America. After all, international organizations are the amalgamation of nation-states, fighting for their national interest–and, to some extent, a common goal. Sometimes this interest coincides amongst them, like in the case of condemning Honduras for drop-kicking an absurdly leftist president like Manuel Zelaya.

Within these organizations, there are also many interests at stake. For example, in the case of the OAS, its Secretary General, José Miguel Insulza, officially ends his term in 2010. He is able to reelect himself and undoubtedly should seek the support of as many OAS nations as possible. A great bloc to cater to and to easily please is the leftist bloc of Latin America. As previously mentioned, this bloc, led by Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and the Cuban Castro brothers, would not be happy–and would be politically harmed–if a small country like Honduras resisted being part of their consensus. Why, then, would Insulza be interested in displeasing this leftist bloc if his reelection hinged from its approval?

If Insulza is acting professionally and does not seek to please the leftist bloc, another reason explaining his fervent displeasure with Honduras’ self-determination to keep Zelaya away, is the fact that he himself believes that a leftist Latin America is more just and preferable for citizens. This, too, is plausible and not mutually exclusive with his selfish plans for reelection, as stated above. After all, in Chile, his home country, Insulza has been part of leftist political groups.

The United Nations, like the OAS, wants to pursue a more stable Latin America–at any cost. Little do they know or fully comprehend that by forcing Honduras to install Zelaya back in power they are wreaking greater havoc within our country.

There are less than five months left until Honduras has its general elections. International organizations should not be condemning Honduras for removing a president who very few wanted for violating the Constitution, abusing his presidential power and wanting to make Honduras a socialistic nation that would threaten liberty, democracy and social peace. Hugo Chávez’s socialism, which Zelaya admired and wanted for Honduras, endangers freedom, prosperity and development. Today, Venezuela is a witness of this peril.

c. Foreign news media: There is not much to analyze here. News media worldwide have leftist tendencies. You might wonder why I insist that leftists of all kinds and from all denominations (the Caracas Consensus, the OAS, etc.) are oppressing the Honduran population. Well, it’s because they, in fact, are creating superior chaos within our nation by putting forth their agenda over the will of the Honduran people.

It is no surprise to anyone that news companies (which are more commercially minded than anything else) like CNN, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, ABC News, BBC News and so on, are of liberal/leftist tendencies. In other words, their editorial positions tend to be left of center, which makes these companies consciously biased against most right-wing agendas. Honduras’ agenda of removing Zelaya from office was not a right-wing agenda, per se, but it definitely looked like one.

As Hondurans, we determined our will and acted accordingly. Sure, there are plenty of Zelaya sympathizers, but what the world does not know is that a vast majority of them were directly “bought” by the Zelaya regime, using narco/petrodollars from Venezuela. After Zelaya’s ouster, his disciples fear that their illegal source of income has gone forever–and this is what most Hondurans want. Our new government, led by President Roberto Micheletti, isn’t any better than Zelaya’s in terms of corruption levels and good intentions for the people. However, I am more certain that Micheletti will hand over his interim power to our November-elected President–something that was not too guaranteed under Zelaya’s rule.

The news media, of course, want to sell and make money. There’s nothing wrong with that, but, to who’s expense? It is easier for them to side with Zelaya and the leftist bloc of Latin America, since siding with Honduras and its interim government does not promise much news coverage–other than the tens of thousands of Hondurans who have rallied in favor of our new government and protested against Zelaya.

It’s easier for the news media to sell the image of Honduras as “the savage country that violently ousted its president since the upper class felt threatened by his plans,” than portraying Honduras as “the little country that preferred social peace and freedom, than having a president who pursued illiberal plans for the country.” Selling the image of Honduras as a retrograde nation that uses violence is more profitable for the news media, than portraying Honduras as an encouragement for respect for democracy, due process, the rule of law, social peace, sovereignty and freedom.

Worldwide, news companies have succeeded their goal of making money, but at the expense of 7.5 million Hondurans who all we want is to live in peace. They have also succeeded in misinforming the world and the international organizations about what really happened in Honduras on June 28, 2009. Very few news centers have reported somewhat fairly and properly; among them are The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Fox News. American right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage have firmly defended Honduras’ desire for peace and freedom, even if it involved the ouster of a president, who, after all, wanted to turn this nation into a socialist one.

I can go on and on about why the world is opposing Honduras’ self-determination and sovereignty. However, I think this exposition has presented a quick overview of legal, political and economic aspects that are at stake.

In no way should Zelaya’s removal from power be considered a coup d’état, since our constitutional order was never harmed. If anything, it was Manuel Zelaya who threatened this order and planned to do away with our Constitution–which in no way is a legal document that represents a hindrance for a president who respects the rule of law. Nevertheless, Zelaya does not fit such description.

Written by Inti Jordán Martínez Alemán, a Honduran citizen who loves freedom, peace and democracy

If you have a problem with what I write, call me or email me so I can give you my home address and come find me:

+504-9790-9360 / intimaralem85@hotmail.com / FB-Twitter-AIM-MSN: intimaralem85

Why Manuel Zelaya deserved to be removed from power in Honduras

2009-06-29T21:19:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, Sunday June 28, 2009, will be marked for the rest of our lives as the day in which socialism received its biggest slap on the face in recent years. Honduran President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, a moderate-turned-into-radical leftist, who admires Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, was removed from power. The world saw this as a coup d’état but really wasn’t. The Armed Forces, obeying an order from the judiciary, came to Zelaya’s home early in the morning, snatched him from his bed, drove him to a military air base and flew him on his presidential jet to San José, Costa Rica, where he was left – still in his PJs. All against his will.

Why such an extreme measure to legally remove a President? In this article, I’ll talk about the reasons for removing Zelaya from power, which are divided in the following categories: 1) His support or leniency for all sorts of crimes and criminals; 2) His repeated violation and disregard for the rule of law, due process and judicial orders; 3) His intentions of making Honduras a socialist country, disrespecting democracy and freedom. In a future piece I’ll discuss the legal procedures for removing a president like Zelaya.

1) Zelaya the crime lover

Manuel Zelaya, from the Liberal Party, came to power in 2006, after winning the elections with a slim margin. His campaign was reportedly funded by Honduran drug lords, who are his friends, relatives and friends of his relatives. There hasn’t been an official investigation on this matter, but this is well known in political circles.

Unsurprisingly, Zelaya was a softy when handling drug lords, drug traffickers, kidnappers, assassins, extortionists, and the like. Even though he enlarged the size of the National Police, this was not enough to fight these criminals. For a while, he publicly insulted the judiciary branch, claiming that judges released criminals after they were captured by the police and taken to court hearings. Yes, judges do release real criminals if there isn’t enough proof to send them to prison. Who’s supposed to investigate crimes and present proof against criminals? The National Direction of Criminal Investigation, which is part of the Office of Security, which in turn reports directly to the executive. President Zelaya could not and would not cleanse the Office of Security from the pile of criminals that infiltrated it. There are serious reports and even criminal court judgments against police agents and officers for being part or leading bands of drug distribution, extortionists, hit men, kidnappers, car thieves and so on. These are very lucrative businesses that Zelaya and his secretaries of State knew about; instead of fighting them, Zelaya decided to cooperate with them, benefit from them and otherwise let them flourish, at the expense of 7.5 million Hondurans, who suffered immensely from the abuses of these criminals.

President Zelaya constantly claimed that he did what he could to fight crime, but reality reflected the contrary. During his incumbency, violent deaths and kidnappings skyrocketed, making Honduras one of the dangerous countries in the Western Hemisphere. Congress emphatically demanded for Zelaya to do something about the terrible situation that had the police force and the general citizenry on their knees. President Zelaya preferred to ride his horse on every town parade he was invited to, traveled to 70 countries around the world, flew on a jetfighter just for kicks, stopped Tegucigalpa’s traffic just to make way for his motorcade, and many other luxuries (and abuses) that only compare to what brutal African tyrants enjoy. Yes, all of this at the expense and frustration of millions of Hondurans, who cannot afford hiring a bodyguard for protection from the hoards of criminals that infest our country.

As of recent, an increasing number of small aircraft have been landing or crashing in Honduran territory. These planes carry the Venezuelan flag and are chockfull of kilos of cocaine. Most loads are not confiscated by the authorities; when they are, they’re actually redistributed into the drug market, expanding the business circle to police officers and other public officials. Weekly, one or two of these aircrafts are detected but rarely are the culprits captured. President Zelaya, knowing all this, prefers to keep silent, since he well knows he shouldn’t fight the drug lords, who are his friends.

2) Zelaya the anarchist

I have yet to find a legal disposition or judicial order that President Zelaya obeyed out of respect for due process, the rule of law and order. Anytime he did obey the law was to benefit from it unfairly, enrich his family or his cronies, or to make a political move that would make him win the favor of his followers. The government of Manuel Zelaya will be recorded in Honduran history as the most corrupt, disorganized and mischievous government.

Let’s not forget that Zelaya only has a high school education. He was enrolled in the Honduran state university for five years, only passing 11 of classes and never graduating; his cumulative average was 34.6%.

Zelaya’s father was heavily involved in the massacre of over a dozen clergy and civilians in 1975, thirty-four years before President Zelaya broke into the Honduran Air Force base in Tegucigalpa, this past Friday, to claim the 15,000 survey boxes that had already been declared illicit material by a court.

Manuel Zelaya cannot be blamed for the atrocities of his father or any of his relatives, but you can definitely see a trend in his anarchist lifestyle. He has never had an authority over him, nor does he care what others think of his carefree style that damages our nation so much. Zelaya has enjoyed a free-spirit lifestyle, to the point of being a negligent parent and an aloof husband. In fact, his adulterous ways are well known in the capital’s social circles. We can see that same adulterous style in the way he handled his government – if you want to call it that.

For the past two years, Manuel Zelaya’s approval rates have been in the 30s. He always expressed the unimportance of these results, since he knew that el pueblo loved him – he felt in the town parades, he said.

Instead of wisely directing the business of the public administration, Zelaya would rather go on a trip to the Honduran jungle (“La Mosquitia”) and spend the weekend there, televising every move he made, every inanity that came out of his mouth and every song he played on his guitar. The other 7.5 million Hondurans, annoyed at their president, wondered when this circus would be over. But, alas, Zelaya surprised the Honduran republic, by going to the Hog Keys (Cayos Cochinos), in our Caribbean, to show his citizens and the world his abilities as a scuba diver.

Private hospitals have been happy with Zelaya’s presidency, particularly because he was a frequent patient in the “detox” center, where he would get cleansed from all the cocaine he snorted. Yes, I said it, one of the taboos of Honduran society: Manuel Zelaya is a drug addict. His close friends can tell you the countless times he visited the hospital or was taken to a secluded place until his drug fever would be over. Of course, the Honduran media never reported on this, nor was there a serious investigation on it. However, why do you think Zelaya recently proposed in public that illegal drugs should be legalized? Later, he claimed he never said such thing and that he meant something else.

When Zelaya did not like a law or decree passed by Congress, he hid it and put its approval in suspense for months, if not years. Around 70 laws or decrees have suffered this treatment by Zelaya, causing grave damage to our country, which is in need for implementing laws that make it bigger and better.

This year, in order to pressure Congress to support his views, President Zelaya decided to withhold the 2009 budget, which was supposed to be presented to Congress since late 2008. Honduran law says that when this happens, the budget from the previous year will be used. Zelaya was strangulating the public administration, Congress and the Judiciary by not presenting this year’s budget for approval. He wanted public officials to support his plans for a new Constitution via a constituent assembly. Thankfully, Congress did not budge and preferred to remove him from the presidency for his threats and abuse of power.

President Zelaya, as we all have witnessed, has demonstrated to disrespect the institutions established by our legal system. He constantly disobeyed court orders and was minimally interested in what the other two branches of power had to say.

His family and his family’s close buddies drove around the country in motorcades and were protected by bodyguards. Even distant relatives and their friends enjoyed the blessings that the State provided with the funds of public taxes.

After a couple of months in power, Zelaya demonstrated to be a president that no one wanted. Even though he’s only been in power three and a half years, it surely feels he has been president forever.

Is this the type of president average citizens want for their country? I highly doubt it, which is why over 70% of Hondurans approve of Zelaya’s removal from power.

3) Zelaya the socialist

Manuel Zelaya, since the beginning of his presidency, has showed his passion for the masses, the poor people and the destitute. He has started many programs to help the poor, but, in fact, hasn’t carried through. The thousands of posts opened to supposedly aid the needy have been filled by his political activists who don’t always show up for work, unless it’s pay day. These are the same activists who are out in the streets today, protesting for Zelaya’s return to power. Of course, they don’t really care about democracy or the rule of law or the people they’re supposed to be helping out through their posts: They are deeply afraid of losing that pay check from the social program or aid institution that was supposedly created to help those in need.

The mountains of corruption, cronyism, nepotism and despotism of Zelaya’s government can only be compared to that of stereotypical African nations. His government had all the characteristics of an administration that was leading our country to a level of complete failure. The progress made in the past 20-some years, in matters of due process, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, and legality, has been trampled upon by the Zelaya administration. If you visit any public office, you’ll find out no one is really interested in working or helping you out in any way. Public officials of the Zelaya administration have not earned their jobs and are very confident that while their leader is in power, they will not lose their jobs.

Yes, things could be worse, I know. We were going to get there, if Zelaya stayed in power. For the past two years, President Zelaya has strengthened his ties with Venezuela, Cuba and other socialist and radically left-wing nations. He has been very bold about his admiration for these countries, hinting that Honduras should learn from them. Under these types of regimes, there is corruption, cronyism, nepotism and despotism galore. Honduras’ doors opened to socialism last year when Zelaya pushed an oil-and-money assistance program provided by Venezuela, called Petrocaribe, expecting nothing back from Honduras (and so Zelaya told us). Most people thought this was a good thing because gas prices would come down, we would get assistance money for social programs and Chávez’s intentions were merely philanthropic. After much debate, Congress was bought out by Venezuela’s petro/narcodollars, and Petrocaribe got a green light. None of the promises came true, except for the money that many congress representatives got for voting in favor of it.

Later in 2008, Zelaya and his cronies tried to convince Congress to approve Honduras’ adherence to the socialist Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (ALBA), which supposedly is a social-aid alliance funded mainly by Chávez’s Venezuela; all of its members are blatantly leftist. The Honduran Congress was skeptical of this deal, but, after many talks and money transfers, the adherence to the ALBA passed. From here on, Honduran citizens noticed a clear turn to the left of President Zelaya.

Early this year, Zelaya started promoting his so-called Cuarta Urna (fourth ballot box), representing the fourth ballot box that would be included in this year’s general elections. So, what would this ballot box decide? Well, its purpose was to know whether or not Honduran citizens wanted to call for a constituent assembly that would abolish our current Constitution. There is nothing glaringly wrong with our Constitution, but Zelaya did not like the fact that presidential terms only lasted four years and that there was not chance for a reelection. Zelaya started heavily and viciously campaigning for this ballot box to be included in the November elections. But, before then, he also wanted a non-binding survey (not a referendum or plebiscite) asking the population whether or not they actually wanted the fourth ballot box in November. “Wow, what an honest and transparent president he was,” you might say. Much to our surprise, he wanted to revamp the Constitution in order to stay in power and make Honduras a socialist nation, following the trend of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.

The point of the so-called non-binding survey was to have a backup and an anchor to prove Congress and the world that Zelaya’s plans for a new Constitution were demanded by the majority of Honduras. Naturally, as he did in the 2005 elections and recently confirmed it, Zelaya would rig the “votes” and conclusively have the support of an overwhelming majority of Hondurans. The Attorney General, seeing Zelaya’s unconstitutional and dangerous plans, filed a suit in court so that the survey would be stopped. The judge’s provisional but firm judgment declared the June 28^th survey as illegal. Any type of consultation or survey that plans to abolish the Constitution would be illegal. Anyone who supported this survey would be tried in court for countless crimes. The Armed Forces received a court order to not support Zelaya’s survey and to incinerate any type of material destined for the survey. It wasn’t until last week that the Armed Forces received a final order from the court, telling them it’s their constitutional duty to preserve the Constitution.

After Zelaya found out that the Armed Forces were not going to support him in his “survey”, he decided to fire the head of the Joints Chief of Staff, five-star General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez. Immediately, Congress named a commission to prepare a report on the grievances done by Zelaya, which would disable him to continue as president of Honduras. The following day, Friday, Vásquez Velásquez was reinstated by the Supreme Court of Justice, since Zelaya hadn’t followed the proper methods to fire the general nor were there legal reasons to fire him. Vásquez Velásquez only wanted to preserve the Constitution and that was a crime in Zelaya’s eyes.

On Friday, June 26, President Zelaya, along with a thousand of his paid activists, took a road trip to the Honduras Air Force base in Tegucigalpa, where the survey’s material was being stored, after arriving from Venezuela. Disobeying a court order, Zelaya decided to take the survey material to another place, where he could be sure it would not be sacked or incinerated. The reason the 15,000 survey boxes were handed over to him without much resistance was to avoid violence from the mob that accompanied Zelaya.

Saturday was a calm day for Zelaya and was destined to illegally distribute the survey material throughout Honduras. That evening, in the company of diplomats and foreign-aid program representatives, President Zelaya communicated to his citizens that Sunday would be a glorious day in which everyone should go out and vote, without fear, regarding what a court and the Attorney General had said.

Sunday morning, what everyone in Honduras had been waiting for: around 5:30 a.m., President Zelaya is snatched from his home and flown against his will to Costa Rica; he is later removed from power as President and a new President is legally and formally named.

As you can see, President Zelaya’s ouster was a bomb waiting to explode. As Honduran citizens, we were tired of his mediocrity, abuse of power, insults to other branches of government, and excessive spending in personal enjoyments and illegal acts. We were suffering from his lack of governance. We are happy he is gone. We could’ve well waited until January 27, 2010, when his term was officially over, but, after expressing his desire to abolish the Constitution and stay in power, he had to be removed immediately.

If you think Zelaya is a good guy who should be reinstated in power, why don’t you adopt him in your country and let him run it? We surely wouldn’t mind, but I’m sure you would.

Next: the legal analysis of how Manuel Zelaya was removed from power. This was not a coup d’état, as the international media have been reporting, thus misinforming the international community, who now supports Zelaya, the martyr, and thinks our new government is de facto and illegitimate. They’re wrong.

Written by Inti Jordán Martínez Alemán, a Honduran citizen who loves freedom, peace and democracy

If you have a problem with what I write, call me or email me so I can give you my home address and come find me:

+504-9790-9360 / intimaralem85@hotmail.com

Zelaya's plans for Honduras will fall to the ground

2009-06-28T01:33:00.004-06:00

If things keep going the way they are going, Honduras will not have an illegitimate fourth ballot box in the upcoming November general elections, Manuel Zelaya won’t be our president next year, a new president will take over in January, there won’t be a constituent assembly (for now), and our current Constitution will remain unscathed. The effects of these outcomes will set up a “domino effect” over Latin America. Many currently Chávez-influenced nations will revolt against their leftist governments; whether they’re successful or not depends on the way they organize themselves and plan their “attacks”. Latin American nations on their way to a leftist revolution (e.g., El Salvador) will take a halt and possibly rework their future by seeking a more moderate political stance. As I see it, we are the turning point for the rest of Latin American nations. Yes, it all depends on how the Honduran political crisis turns out. I foresee a strong slap on the extreme left’s face.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, however, still has 5 months to buy the votes of two thirds of Congress. From today until the end of November, when the official general elections take place, Zelaya will be promoting his constituent assembly, trying to convince Congress representatives (who already have and will continue receiving cash offers) of the need for a more fair Constitution that makes Honduras a just society – whatever that means. Zelaya will take advantage of the votes and the requests of Honduran citizens who support his plans for a new Constitution that will extend his presidential term and power – just like Chávez, 10 years ago. After June 28, 2009, thousands and hundreds of thousands of Honduras will have “voted” to support Zelaya’s anti-democratic ideas. Of course, we all know the “survey” of that day has already been declared null and illegal by the judiciary. Even if this wasn’t the case, we all know the “survey” is illegitimate and will be rigged, making Zelaya have the number of subjects he needs to stay in power. Nonetheless, Zelaya believes he’s a messenger from God, who, in turn, wants “the people” (el pueblo) to express their opinion regarding a new Constitution for Honduras. It’s “the people” who will back Zelaya and his ideals – and so he thinks.

President Zelaya also needs to get the Armed Forces on his side, as well as the Attorney General and the judiciary branch. Five-star General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been very clear in his support for the current Constitution, reminding President Zelaya that he will not obey any of his orders if they’re unconstitutional, neither will the Armed Forces. However, Vásquez Velásquez might sway to Zelaya’s side if he is offered a good chunk of the goodies of what the president and his cronies are getting from Chávez. Yes, I’m saying Vásquez Velásquez can fall into corruption’s trap. Let’s not forget that he has supported Zelaya since the beginning of his term and has allowed Zelaya and his satraps (especially Arístides Mejía) commit several crimes; in those cases, Vásquez Velásquez has benefitted from the booty, which is why his wealth has grown exponentially in the past 3 years. This support for Zelaya allowed Vásquez Velásquez to be confirmed in his position –the highest military position in the nation, after the President– last year. I’m not saying the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will fall in Zelaya’s hands, but he could – he is the weakest link right now.

The other two links, like I’ve already said, are the Attorney General and the judiciary branch. These two are quite firm and adamant in their legal (and political, of course – former President Carlos Flores Facussé is behind them) position against Zelaya’s imbecilities. For now, it is not necessary for me to expound on them and the implications of their roles.

Another unofficial mega-institution that has a lot of power in Honduras, but has yet to grow in full strength and organization, is the so-called civil society. Five or ten years ago, this term was very rare and few people used it or understood it. After over a decade of having NGOs, non-profits and other civil associations register and work (most of them ineffectively, though) to benefit the neediest in Honduras, a new version of these civil associations has emerged: the intellectual organizations. The members of these organizations do not get dirty or get face-to-face with the poor, but their intellectual and consulting work has done a lot to help our country grow and develop. Many of these intellectual organizations receive foreign-government funds which aid in advising the Honduran government in subjects such as education, healthcare, political organizing, foreign debt, fiscal responsibility, free-enterprise promotion, land management, and the like. So, this mega-institution called civil society has multiple and huge tentacles that can influence Zelaya’s plans. Thus far, the vast majority of civil-society organizations oppose Zelaya’s plans to draft a new Constitution, but let’s keep our eyes peeled and not let them fall in his trap – like some have.

Other unusually powerful interest groups in Honduras are government-employed elementary-, middle- and high-school teachers, and transportation companies for lower-middle and lower class (especially taxi cooperatives and businesses, believe it or not). Teachers have received direct orders from the Secretary of Education to support Zelaya’s ambitions. The latter have received gas subsidies and other bonuses to keep them happy, making them love Zelaya. In Tegucigalpa, taxi drivers virtually unanimously support Zelaya. Outside of the capital, however, transportation businesses are split on their political positions. These two important interest groups can play a key role in defining what will happen in Honduras in the next five months.

Finally, we also have the power of the diplomatic representatives of foreign nations in Honduras. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Embassy plays the strongest role in trying to convince the Honduran authorities of their need to maintain peace and democracy. Zelaya, however, believes that U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens and the diplomatic community in Honduras are on his side. He forgets they’re diplomats and their goal is not to get in a fight with their host nation, but to seek the best interest of their sending nation, which rarely translates into supporting a coup d’état – as much as it is needed. In the next five months, the diplomatic community will be trying to find a common point between Zelaya and the rest of nation’s leaders. It will try to reconcile the extreme left with the rest, but alone won’t be too successful.

To recap, let’s not lose sight of the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (be it Vásquez Velásquez or whomever) and let’s not forget about the importance of the civil society in supporting democracy and peace. Public-school teachers and transportation companies will also wield some power over Zelaya and his despicable plans – let’s try to win them over to our side! The diplomatic community is a complement to our battle against the extreme left; it needs the other sectors’ help to change the course of Honduras. These will be the decisive actors of the Zelaya vs. Honduras battle of the next couple of months. Other actors will remain in their current positions and will be responsible for completely winning the decisive actors to their side.

At the end, after a hard-fought battle, much sweat and many tears, I foresee we will be facing a Zelaya-free Honduras, replete with renewed and genuine zeal for democracy and freedom (after all, we will be very close to losing them). We will learn the lessons and benefits of active political participation to prevent “satans” to enter the political arena. The rest of Latin American nations will see Hondurans’ will power to trump leftist propaganda and doom, making them follow our lead. The next five months will be the most nerve-wrecking and tiring times of our lives. It’s going to be very difficult, but ultimately rewarding – rest assured. Lest we lose track of our goal, unite against Manuel Zelaya, his demons and their demonic plans!

8:17 am: I was so positive... I expected so much from Mel and his power.

Thank God this came earlier!!

How the int'l news media portray Honduras

2009-06-27T12:38:00.011-06:00

For the past few days, the little that the international news media have covered the current Honduran political crisis, has gotten a distorted version of what's really going on here. Not only are news editors (and, thus, foreign readers) fooled about our reality, but members and authorities in the OAS and the UN --as well as in the White House-- have "learned" about our political conditions in a myopic way. Honduran Permanent Rep. to the OAS, Ambassador Carlos Sosa Cuello, has rested his case in the assembly, making the other State representatives believe his official side of the story. Sadly, he represents the government of Honduras, which is currently being questioned by about 80% of the Honduran population. Of course, the other 20% seems to be composed of warm-hearted, nation-loving Hondurans, who all they want is a new Constitution to make the poor richer, and the rich poorer in order to have a more fair and equitable society. Yes, it's the Socialism of the 21st century, which is alive and well --and of which I have warned in previous writings elsewhere. If Zelaya appears to you as a martyr, a democrat and a freedom lover, that means he did a good job as a PR wizard -- but, alas, professional news reporters got tricked!

It's frustrating to see that the international community believes the vicious lies of the Honduran government, considering that its top leader, President Zelaya, is a staunch supporter of drug trafficking, drug consumption, money laundering, kidnappings, assassinations, extortions and many other crimes that plague our frail society. It's because of Zelaya's lifestyle and governing style that Congress wants --and should!-- impeach him. However, thanks to the intervention and warnings of the noble and well-informed international community (Obama's gov't not excluded), Congress has been cautious about impeaching this imbecile of president we have. The OAS, the UN and many foreign gov'ts have reaffirmed Zelaya their support for democracy and that his plans to "consult" the Honduran nation about making this country a socialist one (disguised in a diff. language) is legitimate and they will stand behind him all the way. Little do they know what they're doing! In fact, Zelaya is the least democratic citizen in this country. Why, then, should the international community be supporting?! It's absurd.

Contrary to what many believe abroad, our president, Manuel Zelaya, is following the exact footsteps of Hugo Chávez. Today, Venezuela is polluted by socialist/communist laws, institutions and programs that threaten and strangulate free commerce, free speech, free politics and free anything...

Last night on CNN en Español, Zelaya lied through his teeth, telling news anchor Glenda Umaña, and millions of TV watchers, that he has noble plans for Honduras, that our nation is calm and at peace with his plans, and that he has no intentions of continuing in power after Jan. 2010, when his presidential term officially ends. He also fibbed about not wanting to follow Cuba's and Venezuela's footsteps. Nonetheless, everything Zelaya has done in the past 2-3 years has emulated Castro and Chávez. So, what guarantees the Honduran nation that in 4, 8 or 10 years we will not be lamenting the putrid ideas and plans of Zelaya? Absolutely nothing, zero, cero, zilch.

One last message to foreign readers: Do not think that what Zelaya is doing to our country is different from what occurred to Venezuela 10 years ago. Our nation will come done completely if we let this foul and repressive president do his thing. Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him?

I'm ready to pack by bags.

Here are some of the few pieces that have covered the Honduran political crisis correctly:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124607117649864407.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/27/president-defiant-as-crisis-looms/
http://www.speroforum.com/a/19733/The-People-of-Honduras-v-President-Zelaya

Me opongo a la “cuarta urna”, por eso la apoyo

2009-05-07T11:59:00.003-06:00

Sería un completo desencanto si el Presidente Zelaya se saliera con la suya al convocar una asamblea constituyente que crearía una constitución apegada a los ideales de Castro y Chávez. Nuestro líder no ha dicho que la propuesta nueva constitución vaya seguir lineaciones de estos dos individuos, pero lo más probable es que así sea. El flirteo de Zelaya con el izquierdismo desfasado de Latinoamérica deja entrever, con poco lugar a dudas, que el espíritu de la constitución de “Mel” será cuasi-comunista, rasgando los derechos a la libre empresa e industria, la propiedad privada, la libre locomoción, la expresión de pensamientos, la administración de justicia basada en el debido proceso y otros que deben formar parte de la Honduras democrática y próspera que todos queremos.

Inicialmente, me pareció entristecedor y frustrante el apoyo que Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa, candidato presidencial del Partido Nacional de Honduras, le dio a la denominada “cuarta urna”, que legitimaría la asamblea constituyente. Después de tanto enojo y confusión, se me ocurrió que más bien este apoyo es bueno y fructífero para quienes amamos nuestra actual Constitución y que creemos que el Presidente Zelaya simplemente quiere alinear aun más a Honduras con los izquierdosos de América Latina, empobreciéndonos mucho más.

“Pepe” no es tan papo. Él sabe que al apoyar la constituyente, estaría quitándole fuerza campeadora e imagen populista a nuestro queridísimo presidente. Al hacer esto, muchos más líderes políticos presentarían sus propuestas para convocar una constituyente, rebajando de categoría publicitaria al presidente y sus delincuentes secuaces. Aunque no hayan muchas propuestas ganadoras, los planes de “Mel” de ser el abanderado de la “democracia”, la consulta popular y la reforma constitucional, se vendrían abajo; con las obvias discrepancias que pudiese tener con la propuesta constituyente de “Pepe”, basta para frustrar los planes de “Mel”. En otras palabras, es posible que la temida “cuarta urna” se autodestruya. Ya veremos…

Hipotéticamente hablando, si se concretase la convocatoria a una asamblea constituyente, veremos que seremos más los que apoyaremos una constitución pro capital, libre empresa, paz social y respeto a las leyes --que es lo que el Partido Nacional apoyaría, en todo caso--, que aquellos ignorantes que prefieren una república socialista, con una justicia social inalcanzable y con desorden legal conveniente. Es más atractiva una república hondureña en la cual cada ciudadano y ciudadana es responsable de la fuente de ingreso para su hogar, de sus actividades ante la sociedad y de lo que hace con su vida, que una república en que el Estado limita las fuentes de ingreso, es complaciente con los que violan la ley y arbitrariamente sanciona a quien le convenga.

No es tan mala la idea de “Pepe” de apoyar al Presidente Zelaya en su denominada “cuarta urna”. Dice Lobo Sosa que está de acuerdo con ella, con tal que no se proponga el continuismo presidencial de Zelaya. De acuerdo, pero, sea como sea, esta aparente alianza es muy estratégica. Pero primero regulemos el plebiscito y el referéndum.

Les recomiendo a los políticos, empresarios y ciudadanos en general que se relajen y tranquilamente observen como esta novela de nuestra democracia será concluida para bien de todos. O bien, no pasa nada con la absurda “cuarta urna” o creamos una constitución igual o mejor que la actual, basada en pragmatismo y no idealismo. Ya veremos…

--
intimaralem85.blogspot.com

La muerte de un presidente

2009-03-26T23:07:00.002-06:00

El temor de todos los ciudadanos es salir a la calle, por ser asaltado o por morir en manos de un delincuente. En los últimos tres años, el exceso de un liderazgo inmaduro, insensato e idiota ha llevado a nuestra linda Honduras por un camino tortuoso y la ha hecho sufrir cambios difícilmente enmendables. El presidente José Manuel Zelaya Rosales (“Mel”) no sabe cómo hacer las cosas bien y no sabe lo que hace en temas de seguridad nacional. Ha querido hacerle creer a la ciudadanía que con el notable incremento de agentes de policía en las calles nuestra seguridad pública mejoraría. La verdad es que por el pobre y breve entrenamiento dado a estos novatos agentes, se ha creado una debilidad institucional, ya que estos policías son fácilmente persuasibles y corruptibles por las fuerzas malévolas internadas en toda la Secretaría de Seguridad y por los delincuentes profesionales afuera de ella, ya sean capos de carteles de droga o funcionarios públicos (que, en ciertos casos, tienden a ser lo mismo).

La Constitución de nuestra república pena la discusión, la planificación y la ejecución de un asesinato en contra de un alto funcionario público, como el Presidente de Honduras. Sin embargo, a muchos se nos ha ocurrido tal macabra idea. Es fácil pensar tal caso, considerando la miseria integral que aqueja a nuestra nación.

El presidente Zelaya sabe que su vida no está en tanto peligro como si en realidad estuviera haciendo su labor en la rama de la seguridad. “Mel” sabe que al flirtear con los narcotraficantes nacionales e internacionales, al ser complaciente con los sicarios, secuestradores y extorsionadores, y al ignorar el peligro que representan las maras en Honduras, está resguardándose, previniendo así un atentado criminal en su contra. Por el contrario, si le declarara la guerra al narcotráfico (el cual conoce muy bien, al igual que sus familiares y amistades), o si ejerciera su poder sobre los más peligrosos delincuentes (los cuales muchos están en contubernio con sus más cercanos colaboradores), o si comandara una política criminal preventiva de las maras, crearía un fuertísimo batallón de enemigos, que sin lugar a dudas lo hubiesen liquidado prontísimo.

Claro, “Mel” sabe muy bien en qué terreno se encuentra. No le conviene pelearse con quienes le pueden hacer daño. Es mejor, piensa él, fingir demencia y, ¡aún mejor!, ser amigable con los más viles criminales en nuestro territorio. Todo a expensas del sufrimiento de los ciudadanos y las ciudadanas que lo único que quieren es trabajar y ser felices junto a sus seres queridos. Pero, no, a “Mel” no le parece buena idea enemistarse con quien debe enemistarse -- ni por el bienestar de los habitantes de Honduras. Él tranquilamente sabe que quienes podrían encargar su muerte o matarlo personalmente están de su lado y él del lado de ellos. ¿O estará equivocado?

--
intimaralem85.blogspot.com

Mi enemistad con el Estado de Honduras

2009-03-22T20:22:00.003-06:00

Todos lo hemos hecho más de alguna vez. Cuando en un grupo de amigos se menciona el nombre de alguien más que consideramos importante o de interés, y si hemos tenido algún tipo de contacto –por ínfimo que sea– tendemos a jactarnos diciendo “¡Ah, sí, es amigo mío!!”. A la persona en referencia seguramente solo le hemos dicho “hola” una vez y ya la consideramos amistad nuestra, sin que él o ella sepa ni nuestro nombre. De la misma manera que hay personas que no saben que los consideramos como “amigos”, así hay personas que nos consideran sus enemigos pero sin nosotros darnos cuenta de tales sentimientos.

Una persona (jurídica) que supuestamente es nuestro amigo, pero en realidad es nuestro enemigo acérrimo, es el Estado de Honduras. Según nuestra Constitución, esta persona es liderada por un jefe. Existe otros actores-líderes culpables del coma en que se encuentra nuestro Estado: funcionarios públicos en cargos de elección popular y funcionarios electos por el susodicho Honorable Congreso Nacional. Bajo estos tres tipos de líderes se encuentran prácticamente todos los servidores públicos que devengan sueldos provenientes de los impuestos que pagamos los ciudadanos todos los días, todos los años. Nuestra enemiga, en realidad, es esa masa de servidores públicos que hacen todo menos asistir a quienes les acudimos.

En un despacho de justicia, el juez o magistrado, junto a los auxiliares, se encargan –por omisión o comisión– de hacerles la vida imposible a los litigantes, y, por ende, a los ciudadanos que imploramos de su asistencia. Generalmente, en un juicio hay dos partes actoras y el juez. Los conflictos de hecho y de derecho entre el demandado y demandante deben ser juzgados por el juez. Hasta ahí vamos bien. Pero cuando este juez y los auxiliares son ineptos y haraganes, ellos mismos se tornan parte en el juicio, obstaculizándole que prosiga, al emitir resoluciones mal fundamentadas y al hacer actuaciones que desmeritan sus cargos. De esta forma, nos encontramos en juicios en que quienes nos deben ayudar son nuestros enemigos; se vuelve en una batalla de todos contra todos.

Lo mismo ocurre en casi todas las oficinas administrativas del Estado, ya sea la SOPTRAVI, el INA, Marina Mercante o la ENEE. Una de las cabecillas de la pandilla de instituciones enemigas de Honduras es el Ministerio Público. Con solo el hecho de que menos del 2% de las denuncias interpuestas llegan a sentencia judicial, nos dice que la impunidad reina en más de un 98%. ¡Qué bendición! Para mí, mejor que cierren esta institución y le coloquen el candado más grande de Larach y Cía. en sus puertas – o que “le pongan” una bomba para poder empezar de cero. Si a usted lo han asaltado o ha sido víctima de algún crimen, mejor entiérrese vivo antes de ver a la DNIC investigar su caso: solo alrededor del 14% de las denuncias son investigadas. ¡Qué dicha!

Con tantos pandilleros de saco y corbata, de Land Cruiser Prado y Range Rover, en nuestra república, no es difícil generalizar y clasificar como pícaros a aquellos que sí quieren hacer lo correcto y trabajar arduamente por el bien de nuestro país. Tanto empleado público comiendo durante horas laborables; bellas oficinistas maquillándose o hablando por teléfono celular; tantos fiscales y jueces en seminarios y viajes cuando deberían de estar trabajando: ¡disimulen por lo menos, no sean desvergonzados! A los jefes de éstos no les importa lo que ocurre en sus instituciones porque no les costó llegar a sus puestos: han llegado ahí por política, amistad y/o negocios; prefieren estar gestionando a ver qué “consiguen” de las instituciones en que laboran, en lugar de pelearse con sus subalternos por imponer el orden y trabajar como deberían.

Gracias, servidores públicos, por no ser serviciales, corteses y eficientes en lo que se les asigna. Con tantos de ustedes, señores pandilleros oficiales, me doy cuenta que el Estado de Honduras, al cual representan, es mi enemigo número uno. Y yo que quería ser su amigo.

--
intimaralem85.blogspot.com

Finding the truth behind government actions

2009-03-22T20:10:00.004-06:00

"It is no easy task to gain some understanding of human affairs. In some respects, the task is harder than in the natural sciences. Mother Nature doesn't provide the answers on a silver platter, but at least she does not go out of her way to set up barriers to understanding. In human affairs, such barriers are the norm. It is necessary to dismantle the structures of deception erected by doctrinal systems, which adopt a range of devices that flow very naturally from the ways in which power is concentrated."
-Noam Chomsky in Failed States

La Junta Inquisidora

2009-01-06T21:20:00.002-06:00

La Junta Inquisidora

La Junta Nominadora para la elección de candidatos a magistrados a la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Honduras abiertamente ha sobrepasado sus funciones y violado normas constitucionales inalienables. Se llevó a cabo una verdadera inquisición: se juzgaron personas sin haber tribunal; se crearon “penas” anteriormente inexistentes; derechos y garantías constitucionales se consideraron delitos; se conculcó el derecho a la defensa; se imputaron cargos y dictaron “sentencias” sin haber pruebas indubitables.

Pensé que los residuos de la Inquisición habían desaparecido pero aparentemente todavía tenemos ejemplos vivientes. En materia penal, por ejemplo, el sistema inquisitorio ha sido reemplazado por un sistema acusatorio o adversarial. La Junta Nominadora, a pesar de ser un órgano especial o auxiliar del Estado, no es un tribunal de justicia y no tiene más atribuciones que aquellas que la Constitución de la República y su ley orgánica le confieren. El artículo 2 de ésta ley es claro y dice que la Junta Nominadora “tiene como función única, la preparación de una nómina conformada al menos por cuarenta y cinco (45) candidatos que reúnan los requisitos y no se encuentren comprendidos en las inhabilidades establecidas en la Constitución de la República y la presente Ley…”. Por tanto, los demás requisitos o inhabilidades, impuestas por una normativa interna hechiza de la Junta, que contravengan la Constitución son nulas y acarrean responsabilidad.

Suena bonito e ideal buscar candidatos a magistrados que sean independientes, idóneos (¿cómo se determina eso?!) y probos, pero, como todos sabemos, en nuestro país todo tiende a manipularse de una forma u otra. Por tanto, es mejor que la Junta Nominadora lleve a cabo selecciones públicas y transparentes, antes de tomar cualquier tipo de decisión o eliminación, en lugar de “borrar” individuos del listado de candidatos sin causa constitucionalmente justificada. Las audiencias públicas actuales solo son una pantalla de transparencia: no demuestran competencia de los seleccionados.

Muchos “herejes” (Galileos y Juanas de Arco), que han sido excluidos de los 98 “benditos” sometidos a audiencias públicas por la Junta “Inquisidora”, se han dado cuenta extraoficialmente (ya que la Junta no ha sido transparente en sus justificaciones de exclusión) que no fueron bendecidos por tal Junta Dominadora (sic) por razones como: haber sido precandidatos o candidatos políticos, ser empleados de una dependencia del Estado, ser amigos o conocidos de altos funcionarios públicos, ser reconocido por su carácter determinante e independiente, entre otros. Una lectura sencilla de la Constitución refleja que es un derecho ciudadano participar activamente en la política del país (art. 37) y que cualquier inhibición o limitación de este derecho es punible (art. 45). Sería un infortunio tener politiqueros como magistrados, pero, en este caso, están pagando justos por pecadores.

Al Congreso Nacional, dentro de sus atribuciones constitucionales (art. 205 n.20), puede aprobar o improbar la conducta administrativa de entes estatales, incluyendo órganos auxiliares del Estado. La Junta Nominadora, por su incompetencia y abuso de autoridad, debe ser improbada por su conducta administrativa. El Congreso puede y debe exigirle a la Junta Nominadora que, siguiendo parámetros constitucionales, le presente un listado de al menos 45 candidatos, ya sean 50, 100 ó 200 de ellos.

Inti J. Martínez Alemán

--
intimaralem85.blogspot.com

The Real Great Divide

2007-04-19T21:10:00.000-06:00

-Fair Treatment to all college employees -

-Inti Martínez

Dr. Chris Stewart’s article, “The Great Divide,” published in The Houghton Star and in the Milieu, addressed some misconceptions that Christians have about glorifying God through their professions. I could not have addressed this theme any better. Stewart hit the spot.

It’s very peculiar how Houghton College seems to embrace Stewart’s thesis—that whatever one does as a profession, as long as it does not blatantly contravene God’s commandments and biblical principles, brings glory to God; there are no “better” professions in the kingdom of God—but in the praxis The Great Divide permeates this institution to the point of grossing out (almost) anyone who knows about it. A Christian liberal arts institution playing favorites on who is more important, who can keep the job and who can be easily discarded, whose projects and ideas will put into practice, and who cannot even open his or her mouth to comment on something…classy.

In my four years as a student-worker in the Maintenance Department, learning about the financial, administrative and (obviously) physical inner workings of this college, I have been convinced that if you are a regular staff member, your voice, if not “requested” by The Rich and The Powerful (and they are), is of little importance to the dynamics of this institution. No bachelor’s degree, no master’s degree, no doctoral degree, plain and simple, equals no voice and no vote in this college. If you are not part of the elite you are threatened to receive last-minute pay cuts, you can be relocated with ease, your position maybe eliminated in the blink of an eye, or, simply put, you can be fired. (Exception to this rule: you can have a doctoral degree and you can be loved by your students, but if you defy the ideological status quo and put freedom-from-ignorance into practice, you are a heinous criminal and you will be fired.)

I understand that Houghton College, as an academic institution, needs to operate as a business: there need to be some restructuring and staff cuts once in a while. I also understand that the job of professors requires continuity, and that professors are hard to replace. Now, thinking outside the faculty-staff divide (which is huge…just ask any staff member), within the staff world there are those who have a superiority complex, fed by administrators who are thankful for these individuals’ monetary contributions to the college, their logistical and ideological support (a.k.a. ass-kissers), their alleged service to Christian higher education (even though year after year they have miserably failed, for example, to meet department goals, to bring progress to our college, or to finish an institutional project—interestingly enough, anywhere else, these people would be fired), or their personal and family connections with those in power. These Holier-than-Thou staffers (sometimes treated as administrators) strongly believe that “How Great Thou Art” was composed for them. They are dangerous people for our college, but they are The Untouchables (and, no, it’s not because they are so low in chaste system—these are supposed to be the maintenance and custodial workers).

The Untouchables are treated with lengthy trips, multiple farewell parties (but they actually never leave or retire), classrooms and scholarships after their names, special awards, and so on and so forth. This is not supposed to be questioned by anyone since, like I said before, they financially support the college, give much-needed support to others more powerful than them, or are related to someone in power. The 2005 review by the Middle States Commission noted the clique-ish behavior in this institution, just so you know.

This Great Divide is real and needs to be addressed. Threatening the welfare of some staffers’ families, but not others, by unjustifiably eliminating some positions or reducing working hours, needs to stop. We are under a new college administration and the elitist mindset and institutional structure needs to be addressed properly. Our new president is very committed to open communication and fairness, but as long as she inadvertently surrounds herself by The Untouchables this task will be near to impossible to accomplish. With a new administration there is also the threat of carrying out misguided institutional policy due to ill advice and ignorance. Learning about how this institution works requires consulting with “the untouchables” (yes, the regular staffers)—not only their bosses—who really know what’s going on in this place and who really run this place. Informing regular staffers that “there will be major changes” and that they “should be prepared,” but not actually wanting to know more about their lives and other activities, is outright unjust and insulting. Try that with a non-staffer or one of The Untouchables….

After I graduate this May I will continue loving and supporting Houghton College because I have had great experiences here. The Facilities workers (Maintenance and Custodial) are the best human resources and assets this college has—followed by the Tech Services crew—but they are the ones who are treated the worst on campus. I can tell you story after story of how Facilities workers and other staffers get crap from many (not all) non-staffers and The Untouchables, but time and space do not allow so. One maintenance employee recently told me that when he was working in the brand new third floor of the library, a professor said, “I can’t believe they let people like you up here!” And Houghton College sometimes wonders why surrounding towns outright despise us….

Pretty much all staffers are rich in joy, wisdom and Christian spirit, but in some sectors of this institution this is simply unthinkable. These workers can receive a good-bye letter with not much difficulty. Try that with a non-staffer or one of The Untouchables….

Eradicating The Great Divide in Houghton College needs large doses of love, wisdom, grace and creativity. I challenge our new administration to treat all Houghton College employees fairly and equitably, to uproot all power-and-influence groups, to defy the economics-dominated molds, and to value more—much more!—the work and opinion of all regular staffers. All this should be done, not because it’s good PR, but because this is how we fulfill the two Greatest Commandments uttered by Jesus Christ: love God and love your neighbor.

Moreover, and lastly, the concept and practice of community in Houghton College is outright bizarre. Ask an average staffer if she feels part of the Houghton Community or if she knows what the liberal arts are or in what way she is helping form scholar-servants. When the college president addresses the Community, are students ever invited? In my four years here I cannot recall one time in which students were informed about staff changes (outside of what I’ve written in the Star, which has been pure personal initiative and investigation, and a desire to strengthen the Community, if there is really such thing). Ask maintenance workers if they feel loved and cared by their brothers and sisters in Christ who have doctoral degrees. Try it…

Pirates and Emperors

2006-09-17T09:09:00.000-06:00

The following clip does a great job at explaining the current world affairs, with the US as the hegemon. Enjoy!

Lebanon solidarity letter

2006-08-09T11:45:00.000-06:00

Lebanon solidarity letter:

The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has left the country numb, smoldering and angry. The massacre in Qana and the loss of life is not simply "disproportionate." It is, according to existing international laws, a war crime.

The deliberate and systematic destruction of Lebanon's social infrastructure by the Israeli air force was also a war crime, designed to reduce that country to the status of an Israeli-US protectorate.

The attempt has backfired, as people all over the world watch aghast. In Lebanon itself, 87 percent of the population now support Hezbollah's resistance, including 80 percent of Christian and Druze and 89 percent of Sunni Muslims, while 8 percent believe the US supports Lebanon.

But these actions will not be tried by any court set up by the "international community" since the United States and its allies that commit or are complicit in these appalling crimes will not permit it.

It has now become clear that the assault on Lebanon to wipe out Hezbollah had been prepared long before. Israel's crimes had been given a green light by the United States and its ever-loyal British ally, despite the overwhelming opposition to Blair in his own country.

The short peace that Lebanon enjoyed has come to an end, and a paralyzed country is forced to remember a past it had hoped to forget. The state terror inflicted on Lebanon is being repeated in the Gaza ghetto, while the "international community" stands by and watches in silence. Meanwhile the rest of Palestine is annexed and dismantled with the direct participation of the United States and the tacit approval of its allies.

We offer our solidarity and support to the victims of this brutality and to those who mount a resistance against it. For our part, we will use all the means at our disposal to expose the complicity of our governments in these crimes. There will be no peace in the Middle East while the occupations of Palestine and Iraq and the temporarily "paused" bombings of Lebanon continue.

Tariq Ali
Mona Abaza
Matthew Abraham
Gilbert Achcar
Etel Adnan
Aziz el-Azmeh
Nadia Baghdadi
John Berger
Timothy Andres Brennan
Michaelle Browers
Noam Chomsky
Alexander Cockburn
Dan Connell
Mahmoud Darwish
Richard Falk
Eduardo Galeano
Irene Gendzier
Charles Glass
Yassin al Haj Saleh
Emilie Jacir
Assaf Kfoury
Elias Khouri
Yitzhak Laor
Ken Loach
Jennifer Loewenstein
Karma Nabulsi
John Pilger
Harold Pinter
Richard Powers
Tanya Reinhart
Eric Rouleau
Arundhati Roy
Sandra Shattuck
William Thelin
Gore Vidal
Howard Zinn
Stephen Zunes

[Source: http://www.chomsky.info/whatsnew.htm]

Intellectuals respond to Israel-Lebanon conflict

2006-07-26T08:46:00.000-06:00

A letter from Chomsky and others on the recent events in the Middle East (July 19, 2006):

"The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner - and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis - there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.

"That this 'kidnapping' was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources - most particularly that of water - by the Israeli Defence (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land alloted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.

"Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?

"Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.

"This has to be said loud and clear for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognised for what it is and resisted."

Tariq Ali
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Eduardo Galeano
Naomi Klein
Harold Pinter
Arundhati Roy
Jose Saramago
Giuliana Sgrena
Howard Zinn

[Source: www.chomsky.info]

What "War on Terror"?

2006-04-02T20:10:00.000-06:00

What War on Terror?
- Inti Martínez--4/2/2006

For the past three years, the world has learned about an ongoing war pitting US and its allies against “the terrorists”. This war was ignited in response to the 9/11 attacks; it started off by legitimately attacking Afghanistan’s Taliban regime for supporting Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda, which is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The war later spread to Iraq for three main reasons: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and needed to disarm, Saddam had links with terrorist organizations that threatened world peace (i.e., al-Qaeda), and Saddam carried out human rights violations and needed to stop.

The first reason for invading Iraq has been categorically dismissed, since WMD have, yet, not been found. In fact, according to leading intelligence officers like Paul Pillar and Tyler Drumheller (among others), the Bush administration already had plans to invade and occupy Iraq--even though the intelligence that was presented by the CIA and DIA did not show any WMD or WMD programs occuring Iraq. Paul Pillar, in his "Foreign Affairs" journal article, points out that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence that was presented to them, in order to demonstrate to Congress and the UN General Assembly that Saddam Hussein had WMD and WMD programs.

The second reason to attack Iraq is preposterous, no actual links with Al-Qaeda have ever been proved (in fact, bin Laden despised and distrusted Hussein for not being a real Islamic leader). Al-Qaeda and Hussein's Baathist regime were ideologically opposed to each other.

Iraq was, and still is, the weakest country of the region--militarily speaking; everyone in the Middle East knew it--they hated Saddam Hussein, but no one feared him, since he was no threat to anyone.

The latter reason for invading Iraq is also objectionable since, during the 1980s, the US supported the Hussein regime, while it carried out its most horrendous human rights violations--which he is being tried for today. Also, there were innumerable other places that were carrying out comparable, or even worse, human rights violations (e.g., Sudan, Nepal, Honduras). Why Iraq, then? I prefer not to discuss the answer to this question because, thanks to the Patriot Act, I may end up in Guantánamo Bay for contradicting the official White House statement for the Iraq invasion (this is a "semi-hyperbole", but you get the idea); instead I want to focus on the larger picture.
The White House has officially labeled this the “War on Terror.” Other names like “War on Terrorism,” “Global War on Terror” and “the Long War” are also used to label the US-led plan to eradicate international terrorism by dismembering terrorist groups and stopping state-sponsored terrorism. All this sounds praiseworthy to me. But, what exactly is terrorism? This word is defined in countless ways—even among US governmental entities and documents like the National Security Strategy (2002 and 2006), National Counterterrorism Center, Pentagon, USA Patriot Act (2001 and 2006), and United States Code—and it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate terrorism from aggression, retaliation, and legitimate resistance. For practical purposes, I will craft and implement a definition that covers nearly all of the official definitions for this term: “Terrorism is the calculated use of violent acts by individuals, groups or state actors to intimidate, coerce, or influence a civilian population or established government on political, religious, or ideological grounds.”
If we use this definition of “terrorism” consistently throughout several cases—regardless of the perpetrators—we find that the 9/11 attacks, the 2004 and 2005 bombings in Madrid and London (respectively), the ongoing attacks between Palestine and Israel in the Holy Land, Shining Path’s bombings in Perú, the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941, were all acts of terrorism. These attacks may or may not have occurred under an official war, but the definition of terrorism covers them all. The US government has officially stated that it carries out counterterrorism and low-intensity warfare—but, if you compare their definitions to that of “terrorism,” they are impressively similar.
Furthermore, the “War on Terror” is not a new thing under US policy; it is a recycled term from Ronald Reagan’s administration. (Many of the members of President Bush’s cabinet, speech writing staff and advisory group were once members of the Reagan administration.) The “War on Terror” was declared early in Reagan’s first presidential term, and directed to a particularly dangerous form of terror: state-sponsored international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached southern Africa and Southeast Asia. Then-President Reagan declared several national emergencies, because the dangerous country of Nicaragua posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States of America, and was only two days away from marching into Texas and attacking the USA.
An interesting fact that you may or may not know is that in 1986 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) condemned the US for its “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua—which, in lay terms, amounts to international terrorism—and demanded massive reparations. This judgment was backed by virtually unanimous UN Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. Reparations were not made, but military escalation against Nicaragua was put into effect. The US was spared from being condemned for “aggression” (which is what really happened, and military manuals consider it worse than “terrorism”) because, in 1946, the US accepted to be under ICJ jurisdiction on the condition that it would be exempted from being condemned for “aggression.”
Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the US government directly and indirectly supported murderous coup d’états, oppressive regimes, and unscrupulous dictators in
Indonesia, the Philippines, Romania, Zaire, Haiti, Argentina, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on and on. The US government also harbors terrorists—who were once backed by the US military and on the CIA payroll—at home (e.g., Emmanuel Constant, Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles—just to name a few). The US terrorist record is extensive and appalling.

So, if a leftist terrorist cell or a state government with a terrorist record or al-Qaeda decided to fight a war against terror, in an entirely consistent fashion, wouldn’t that be self-destructive? Wouldn't these harmful individuals, cells and governments be attacking themselves?

Moreover, even if every single one of present-day terrorists is killed, captured and tried in court, or sent to an obscure prison somewhere in the world, many more terrorists would rise up out of anger for these killings or captures—and to defend their ideology, religion, and/or people-group. Take the example of Iraq; right before the 2003 invasion, there were practically no terrorist or violent attacks happening in the country. The atrocious levels of violence in today’s near-to-civil-war Iraq originated from neighboring terrorists coming into the country and blowing up buildings, sniping at Coalition troops, foreign contractors, security officers, etc.—and influencing Iraqi citizens to do the same. So, the scant amount of terrorist attacks in Iraq before the 2003 invasion eventually turned into insurmountable violence, making Iraq the quagmire that it is today (2,500+ Coalition troops killed and 37,000 Iraqi deaths—not to mention thousands of them wounded and disabled for life). The interesting thing is that these terrorist attacks make most people outside of Iraq (i.e., the West) think that this “war” is justified and necessary in order to fight and eliminate “the terrorists.” Without a clear target and an effective strategy to fight “the terrorists,” this “War on Terror” will not be over for a while.
There are three direct ways in which the US and its allies can reduce terrorism in this world. First, they should stop inciting it. Terrorist cells like al-Qaeda thrive whenever Muslims are killed and when there is turmoil caused by foreign forces in Muslim territory. Second, they should stop participating in and funding terrorism. Remember that the CIA supported al-Qaeda through the 1980s as they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Colombia receives, by far, the largest amount of military aid from the US in this hemisphere and it’s where the largest amount of human rights violations and terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere occur (the correlation between US military aid and human rights violations in the world is surprisingly strong). Over 200,000 lives would have been spared in Central America if the US government wouldn’t have funded and trained military and paramilitary groups to fight “the commies” from the 1950s to the 1990s. These groups organized themselves as death squads, and up to this day there are thousands of people “missing.” Third, the US and its allies should be more efficient in using their military intelligence to find and capture terrorists. It is aggravating and frustrating to see Coalition troops being killed by insurgents in Iraq, but attacking back with disregard for civilian lives is intolerable. If there is an actual threat, a target, it should be systematically dismembered without hurting civilians and carrying out shameful acts of human degradation like those in Abu Ghraib.
I am a staunch supporter of reducing terrorism in the world to near-inexistent levels (“terrorism” can’t be completely eliminated), but calling it the “War on Terror” is inappropriate, since it is applying double standards, it is hypocritical and counterproductive. Next time you read or hear such a term…chuckle.

This is Adam Carman's original article. Thankfully, it was edited before print.

2006-02-24T20:57:00.000-06:00

Latin American Dictator Owns Houghton Gas Station: Students Organize Protest
Guest Article by Adam Carman.

Should American college students, already strapped for cash, pay what little money they have to a gas company solely owned by a government hostile to the United States? Some of us say, no. To this end, in the following weeks, a petition will be circulating to the owners of Houghton’s only gas station to change their supplier from Citgo to Mobil, a reverse to a change they made in the past. The reason for this petition is, on the surface, a political one. Citgo is owned, solely not in part, by the government of Venezeula, whose dictator-like president, Hugo Chavez, has declared open enmity for the United States, vowing to be President Bush’s “worst nightmare.” I recognize that hyperbole is a big part of these dictators’ lives—remember Saddam Hussein—but is it fair to ask Americans, however they may personally think of President Bush, to support a left-wing thug determined to make trouble for their country? I urge everyone who reads this to look for the petition at dinners in the upcoming weeks leading up to the Break. The petition will be respectful, and will simply request the change on the basis of who the owner of Citgo is; if the owners of the gas station do not see fit to meet the request, we will take it to the next stage, meaning a boycott and public protest of the gas station. Houghton only has one gas station so we already have been denied a choice, unless we want to spend gas money to drive further, and it is unfair to have to choose between spending gas money and supporting a third world enemy. But beyond this there is an economic concern. As I drove through Allegheny and the surrounding counties the last couple weeks, I noticed a pattern. Citgo gas was routinely ten to twelve cents more expensive than all its competitors. When the Houghton gas station has one of their “gas sales” you can get a pretty good idea of what other gas stations are charging regularly, particularly Mobil. So not only are college students supporting the extremist Venezuelan government but they are paying more money for gas. If you’re anything like me, you have little money to spare yet even the money you spend driving to Fillmore or Nunda is saving you money at the pump. Of course this is an argument for the other side, who insist that as filthy Westerners we ought to pay more for the same (or inferior in the case of Fair Trade coffee) kinds of goods to assuage our consciences about being powerful and “rich.” This is not at all fair and I don’t see in the end how we are helping the “noble savages” of the Third World by encouraging them to sell us high-priced, under-quality material. Consciences are tricky things and you can’t depend on them forever. Sooner or later, people are going to wake up and say, “Why in the world are we paying so much money for this stuff?” And they’re going to stop. And the Third World peasants will be in deep trouble again. As for gas companies, I see no reason to continue to support the existence of a Citgo as the only gas station in this college town. It’s more expensive than any other, and it is supporting a very questionable cause. Taken together, I believe this is good cause for a change. I urge my fellow students to sign the petition and to demand a change. Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans, and the enemy of our country should be our enemy as well.

This is our rebuttal to Adam's article above.

2006-02-20T21:25:00.000-06:00

CITGO ROCKS!

Adam Carman’s accusations and rants against Citgo, Venezuela, and Hugo Chávez in his recent (National Enquirer-styled) Star article are more damaging than constructive—and more false than true. His accusations are baseless. Do not believe his hokum. Don’t sign their hogwash petition!

· Hugo Chávez has not declared enmity towards the American people (more details below); yet he is a very strong critic of the US government operations and foreign policy—not the same thing.
· Hugo Chávez has never said he would be Bush’s “worst nightmare.” Adam, you got your presidents mixed up.
· Chávez is a democratically-elected president. He has won elections and referenda with irrefutable majorities—certified by American and other international organizations.
· The US government, too, has been hostile against the Venezuelan government by covertly backing a coup in 2002, among many other things.
· Pat Robertson, a famous American evangelist and influential leader, called for Chávez’s assassination (though he later apologized).
· US senators sent a letter to 10 major oil companies asking them to donate a portion of their recent record profits (remember Fall 2005 gas prices?) to go to the poor. The only response came from Citgo. So what did they donate? Read below…
· On Jan. 12, 2006, the state of Maine and the Venezuelan government signed a contract through Citgo to provide 8 million gallons of heating oil at a 40% discount to low-income residents and Native Americans.
· A statewide heating assistance program in Massachusetts began, through Citgo, Nov. 22, 2005; and a similar program in the Bronx started Dec. 6. Many more have started throughout the Northeast—a total of 25 million gallons of heating oil. (Any New Yorkers or New Englanders reading this?!) PA and DE are also on the list!
· Chávez, through Citgo, responded more quickly than FEMA and pledged US$1 million in oil, food, and material for Katrina victims. Chávez also offered two mobile hospital units, and 120 rescue and first aid experts.
· Chávez’s vast social programs in Venezuela provide healthcare, education and housing, and promote land reform, nutrition, rural development, and indigenous rights.

If we are going to pick on somebody, let’s pick on Mobil…
· ExxonMobil, which owns Mobil, has a remarkably worse reputation than Citgo over many issues (e.g., environment, human rights, price gouging). Check their record…
· Mobil has repeatedly lobbied against researching for renewable energy sources and is the only oil company member of Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobby.
· It’s been nearly 17 years since the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil along the Alaska coast in one of the country’s worst environmental disasters, and a jury’s $5 billion judgment against the company is still tied up in the courts. The company only wants to pay $25 million.
· On January 30, 2006 ExxonMobil reported $36 billion profits on $371 billion sales during 2005—42% more than in 2004—more than any other oil company has ever earned during a single year. (The company’s record profits came at a time when working families across America struggled with ever-increasing gas and home heating costs.)
· Oil companies like Valero (a big one) reaped 4.7 cents per dollar in profit last year. Citgo earned just 1.3 cents per dollar.
· Places in the Middle East and other Muslim fundamentalist-influenced countries, where Mobil gets most of its oil, indoctrinate citizens to hate America and everything it entails. There’s no religious freedom, no democracy, women are treated like property. At least Venezuela is a democracy. So, we ask, where do you want your money to go?

· Prices at our Citgo are comparable to prices at other gas stations. “Students' calculations show that money spent driving to Fillmore or Nunda is reimbursed by savings at the pump”—ridiculous.
· The mini-mart has competition. That competition makes its money off selling beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
· The mini-mart was started by the Willard J. Houghton Foundation. The foundation is non-profit, dedicated to developing the Houghton College Campus and community. The mini-mart and Citgo are a service to our campus and community, without which everybody would have to travel to other towns to get gas.
· The same distributor of gasoline for the mini-mart also distributes Sunoco gas elsewhere, including Belfast. Chávez does not control the distribution channels or the pricing of gas. No retail seller in their right mind would pay more for gas to make some form of political statement. They all want to pay the least. Venezuela does not own the distributors or the retailers. Venezuela only owns Citgo’s name.
· Carman gave no indication of respectfully discussing the proposed “public protest and boycott” with the gas station managers. As a community-focused campus, don't we have the obligation to communicate such dramatic intentions with those whom our protest will affect? Shouldn't we be concerned for the economic well-being of those whose livelihoods depend on us?
· Finally, Carman’s Star article (which was originally twice as long and blatantly less sensible—you can ask Adam Carman for a copy) is a combination of research failure, and opinions presented as fact. Certainly, as an academic institution, we should strive to have intellectual debate about matters of this gravity, rather than seeking to motivate a student body by utilizing deplorable means.

To sign or not to sign, you decide.

--Endorsed by the Houghton Coalition for Truth, Evangelicals for Social Action, Jeff Spear, and Ted Murphy

Please submit any questions or comments to Chelsea.Kinsman@houghton.edu

Nota Bene: All of our sources are of reputable nature, public dominion, and common sense.

--Approved by the Office of Student Life--

Houghton Weather- Always Cold

2004-10-05T19:06:00.000-06:00