Category Archives: Honduras

Related to Honduras

OTP report clears Honduras; attack by Axis of Evil continues

The Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court (yes, I know that you guys followed this blog from Sept 2009 to Feb 2010) has now released a report on preliminary examination activities in Honduras. In paragraph 61 it says that Porfirio Lobo “instituted a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación) to cover events between 28 June 2009 and 27 January 2010” (CVR is the abbreviation). Here’s the problem: The conflict did not start June 28th, 2009, and the CVR’s mandate does not start with the events June 28th, 2009. As I have reported on this blog, over and over again, the CVR was a condition in the Guaymuras dialogue introduced by interim president Micheletti, and approved by the deposed president Zelaya; it was to cover the events before, during, and after June 28th, 2009. This is important, because every serious legal analysis until date has concluded that it was not a coup d’état; that the label coup d’état is entirely political with no foundation in the legal facts.

The OTP report talks about a “crisis room” that was installed in the presidential palace on July 6th. In fact I proposed the installation of it to Micheletti, and I stayed in contact with it during his entire interim presidency. It was a way of finding out the other side of the story, since virtually all media reporting represented the spin from the chavizta propaganda machine in Venezuela (Telesur being the main source of video footage). The purpose of the crisis room was to counter this massive propaganda machine, but it was still a modest effort: Six persons, against a global network of interconnected media, from news services to satellite TV to state employed bloggers – with messaging controlled by the president and minister of information in a totalitarian dictatorship that wished to take control over Honduras: Venezuela.

The Honduras crisis 2009 was not a “coup d’état”. It was the legitimate defense by one nation against a non-military aggression by another nation, with the intent of annexation. We now know the true intentions of the aggressor nations thanks to an audio recording retrieved from the computer of a Cuban military in 2012. At the meeting they talk about Cuba Grande Socialista, which will start with annexing Venezuela and Nicaragua, and for that reason they have decided to murder Hugo Chávez (which they did in December 2012 and then tried to conceal), and replace him with Maduro who is docile and manageable. From their point of view it was necessary to murder Chávez since he wanted to create Gran Colombia Bolivariana instead of Cuba Grande Socialista, to annex Colombia and Ecuador rather than Nicaragua, and to make himself the leader rather than Fidel.

It’s easy to see why they want Venezuela, the petroleum wealth, but the reason for desiring Nicaragua is more interesting in relation to Honduras: They want an alternative to the Panama Canal, one that they control. In Nicaragua there is an old project, older than the Panama Canal, that still is kept alive: The ECO canal, via Lake Managua, Lake Nicaragua, and San Juan River. It’s main drawback is the aridity of the Lake Managua drainage basin, some years not providing enough water for the necessary sluices to the Pacific Ocean. Another drawback is the shallowness of the San Juan River. Economically it cannot compete with the Panama Canal, but that’s not the point: Cuba wants it for political reasons, if they are shut out from the Panama Canal. In 2012 they were not, so one must ask oneself what were they up to, since they expected to be shut out from the Panama Canal? After the seizure of Cuban military material on a North Korean freighter it does seem, though, as though they may become shut out now…

Over to Honduras. There is a project being promoted there called the “canal seco”, the “dry canal”. It consists of a harbor in each end and either a railroad or a motorway in between, and the purpose is exactly to provide an alternative to the Panama Canal. Who is interested in financing it? China, an ally of Cuba. Nicaragua and Honduras are the only two countries that can offer an alternative to the Panama Canal. Nicaragua is already a dictatorship, and Ortega might not be such an easy nut to crack as the weak Honduran democracy. The newly elected president in Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, has proved to be very amenable to corruption, and that is how the enemy gets his foot in. There are already thousands of Cuban agents in Honduras, disguised as medical personnel, but whose real purpose is psychological operations in preparation for a possible annexation such as the one just being carried out in Venezuela after the assassination of Chávez.

Returning to the OTP report, they conclude: “While there were victims of killings, torture, sexual violence, detentions of longer duration and/or in conditions of a severe nature, or serious injuries, the commission of these crimes did not seem to have occurred in an organized and regular pattern.” This is the same thing that I heard during the crisis from the above-mentioned situation room, or “war room” as we called it at the time since it was in effect an act of aggression against Honduras: There was an accidental shooting of a civilian, there was someone found dead after having been detained and released, there were cases of sexual violence, but none of it was neither ordered nor sanctioned from the top; they did what they could to stop it, since it put them in jeopardy (and the OTP report is proof of that; they have been investigated until now).

In paragraph 74 of the report the “crisis room” is mentioned:

“Although not necessary, given the findings on the lack of either a widespread or systematic attack, the Office also considered whether there was any evidence of a policy to attack opponents of the de facto regime. …the establishment of a “crisis room” designed to plan operations to repress the opposition could also be an indicator of a policy … However … As regards the “crisis room”, it is not clear that emanating from this coordination there was a policy designed to attack, on a widespread and systematic basis, the civilian population…”

Again, let me spell it out: It was my idea to create this situation room, I proposed it to Micheletti through intermediaries, and the purpose was to provide the truth about what was happening to the media, population, and the international community, since the world media were totally dominated by the enemy propaganda (from Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and other members of the Axis of Evil). Again, the situation room was devised to get the TRUTH out, and to the best of my knowledge all who worked there (six of them) were all communicators, none were involved with security issues. Of course they talked with the heads of security, that’s where they got their information from, but they did not direct security, they only reported the facts. For instance, it was through that channel that I found out how Telesur was staging “news” stories (the Telesur video has been taken down, I guess they didn’t like to get exposed so they reported it for copyright infringement).

The attack by the Axis of Evil against the sovereignty of Honduras continues, however. A week ago Manuel Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, was defeated in the presidential election. The interesting fact is, however, who financed her campaign: Venezuela and Cuba! Since a couple of years Cuba ceased to be the number one threat to Latin America, according to USA. It is now Russia. Russia is for all intents and purposes a Nazi regime, a criminal enterprise, and Cuba is, too; there is no significant difference between the Nazi and the communist ideology as clearly described by this documentary from Latvia (a nation that has suffered both Nazism and Russian communism): The Soviet Story. It’s a very upsetting film, especially the recent events since they show that the Empire of Evil still exists – and it wants to build a navy base in Venezuela, where it already has a significant military presence. Honduras is not out of the woods, and the “canal seco” is surely of high strategic value to the axis of evil.

PS. The Truth Commission was also my idea, so I know very well that the purpose was to cover the before as well as during and after June 28th, 2009. And let me add, I did give advice to Micheletti, but I did so protected by Free Speech – by writing it on this blog – and never accepting any payment for it.

Mel Zelaya calls 70% of Hondurans “coupsters”

Sunday’s presidential election was more than a regular presidential election in Honduras. Since deposed president Manuel “Mel” Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, was running for election, it was for all intents and purposes a referendum on his deposing on June 28th, 2009. So how did it go? In a three way race, she apparently came in second. In a press conference today, Manuel Zelaya – according to reports in social media – called all those who does not agree with his party “golpistas”, ‘coupsters’. That is over 70% of the voting population of the country.

"I am the coupster" - Manuel Zelaya calls over 70% of the population coupsters, golpistas.

The rejection of Xiomara Castro de Zelaya at the polls appears to have a lot to do with the recent collapse of the Venezuelan socialist regime. As a response to a mass demonstration across the country against the illegitimate president (Maduro is Colombian) on November 9, Maduro instigated plundering of shops all over the country, a process that is still continuing (timeline video). Given that Xiomara Castro openly displayed the Cuban flag (over the Venezuelan; see photo below), and that the Venezuelans openly reject the “Cuban invasion” (see second photo below), her credibility got seriously tarnished. The claims that voting for her would not mean opening the door for Castro-communism in Honduras were just not credible for the majority of the population. Especially when that very dictatorship, with known imperial ambitions, effectively was paying her entire campaign.

Campaign rally for Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, together with her ex-president of husband. Note the Cuban flag over the Venezuelan flag, symbolizing that in her opinion Venezuela is a part of Cuba.

While the flag in the following photo was burning the crowd was chanting “¡Fuera, fuera fuera!” (literally ‘out’ but in English we would say ‘Cubans Go Home!’).

Burning of the Cuban flag in Merida, Venezuela, on Nov 9th, 2013.

¿Quien paga la campaña de Xiomara Castro de Zelaya?

Este domingo 24 habrá elecciones presidenciales en Honduras. Un candidata que puede ganar según las encuestas es la esposa de Manuel Zelaya, Xiomara Castro. Han creado un partido para los Zelaya, “Libre”. Este partido parece tener mucho dinero, mucho más recursos que los demás. ¿Pero de adonde viene?

Me informa un fuente con enlaces a PDVSA, la compañía estatal de petróleo en Venezuela, que Manuel Zelaya tiene un puesto en Petrocaribe (una organización de PDVSA para vender petróleo a países en el Caribe y America Central) que le da un porcentaje de cada barril vendido a America Central. Por cierto, en marzo del 2010 yo escribí sobre el hecho que “Mel” había sido nombrado a un puesto en Petrocaribe, pero el hecho que recibe porcentaje de estas ventas es algo nuevo para mi. Eso explica mucho. Explica hasta por qué el presidente de Panamá, Martinelli, parece flojo en la oposición a la amenaza izquierdista en las Américas. Recuerda que el presidente de facto de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, solo es un títere de Raúl Castro de Cuba. El que realmente controla las cosas es otro, probablemente el comandante cubano Ramiro Valdés. O sea, quien realmente paga la campaña de Xiomara de Castro es la dictadura castro-comunista, usando dinero robado del pueblo de Venezuela.

Ramiro Valdés y Hugo Chávez.

Golpe de Estado en Honduras

Hoy es un jueves negro para Honduras, porque se está conflagrando un golpe de Estado en su plenitud, se está perpetrando el delito de traición a la patria, abuso de autoridad y usurpación de funciones.” Así dijo ayer la magistrada Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, en la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Honduras.

En diciembre, el Congreso Nacional de Honduras votó de destituir a los 4 magistrados en la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sin embargo, el congreso no tiene el poder de hacer eso según la constitución. Por eso el país se encuentra en un crisis constitucional.

Latinamerikas skenvalsdiktaturer

Demokratin i Latinamerika är hotad, men Honduras och Paraguay inger hopp. Dessa två länder har visat att det går att stoppa den process av erosion av demokratin som först implementerades i Venezuela 1999. Bakom denna djävulska plan står Castros Kuba. Då de hade misslyckats med att erövra Venezuela i en militär invasion på 60-talet, och misslyckats med gerillakriget, och misslyckats med en kupp i samband med kravaller 1989, och misslyckats med Chávez militärkupp 1992, och sedan en till militärkupp 1992, så försökte Castro med strategi nummer 5: Att ta makten i ett demokratiskt val år 1998.

När det väl var gjort så började Chávez (vilken är Castros quisling) att sätta planerna i verket för att sitta kvar på livstid. Idén var naturligtvis inte ny, Hitler hade gjort på samma sätt. På 1930-talet var inte demokratin på mode på samma sätt, så detaljerna måste göras på ett annat sätt. Det anses nu som väsentligt att hålla regelbundna val, och detta utnyttjas av dessa nya diktaturer, vilka kan kallas “skenvalsdiktaturer“.

Det ironiska är att varje gång ett skenval hålls, och resultatet bekräftas av någon internationell organisation som fått blå dunster i ögonen (typ The Carter Center som svor på att den grovt förfuskade folkomröstningen 2004 hade gått rätt till), så stärks diktatorns ställning. En skenvalsdiktator som Chávez har därför mycket större politisk makt att plundra och härja, en en sedvanlig militärkuppsdiktator.

Kanske undrar du varför oppositionen med en druckens envishet hävdar att det visst inte förekommer valfusk. Svaret är att i de enskilda experternas riskanalys framstår det som bättre att tiga än att tala om ämnet: Ifall oppositionen mot förmodan tillåts vinna (vilket de inte har någon som helst anledning tro, efter att militärchefen klart sagt ifrån att det kommer han aldrig att acceptera), så tjänar de inget på det, eftersom deras uppdrag slutar på valdagen. Men om regimen vinner, och de har anklagat den för valfusk, så måste de gå i landsflykt. Bättre då att tiga. Detta är inte mina slutsatser utan de kommer från en vetenskaplig studie gjord av Beatriz Magaloni på Stanford University, “The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule” (American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 54, No. 3, July 2010, Pp. 751–765).

Ännu har inte världen kommit på ett motmedel mot dessa skenvalsdiktatorer. Faktiskt, världen utanför Latinamerika verkar inte ens medveten om att problemet finns. Men i Honduras och Paraguay står man mitt i en kamp för demokratins överlevnad – och ser med en blandning av fasa och misstro hur Europa verkar svälja propagandan från ondskans axelmakter: Venezuela, Kuba, Iran, Ryssland, Kina, Syrien, och Libyen tills nyligen. Liksom Nazi-Tysklands ondska spred sig till andra länder i Europa där liknande regimer också etablerades, har Kuba via Venezuela lyckats sprida sitt ondskans imperium också till Nicaragua, Ecuador och Bolivia, medan presidenten i Argentina och flera andra länder har köpts för pengar.

På 1930-talet fanns NF, Nationernas Förbund, och det slutade fungera då allt fler regimer kom under kontroll av kriminella regimer som inte längre representerade folkets intressen. Samma sak händer nu. FN:s generalförsamling, liksom kommissionen för mänskliga rättigheter, har förvandlats till verkningslösa organ, på grund av att de kriminella axelmakterna har kunnat köpa sig så många lojaliteter. Vad som står på spel till syvende och sidst är inget mindre än världsfreden.

Hur illa det står till framgår om vi tittar på världens reaktion då två små länder har försökt stoppa denna urholkning av demokratin. Den 28 juni 2009 avsattes presidenten i Honduras sedan han försökt starta en process för att underminera demokratin, på samma sätt som fd militärkuppmakare Hugo Chávez har gjort i Venezuela, Evo Morales i Bolivia, och Rafael Correa i Ecuador. Omvärlden kallade det en militärkupp, trots att Högsta Domstolen hade utfärdat en häktningsorder för presidenten på begäran av riksåklagaren, på laga grund efter att presidenten brutit mot en direkt order från domstolen. Och trots att riksdagen med stor majoritet röstade för att avsätta presidenten, ett beslut som landets högsta domstol accepterade som ett faktum dagen efter, med stöd av landets grundlag.

År 2012 avsattes presidenten i Paraguay genom en förtroendeomröstning i riksdagen, både underhuset och överhuset, i enlighet med det landets grundlag, vilken tillåter riksdagen att avsätta en president som inte längre har dess förtroende. Detta är precis i linje med ordningen för dagen i Europa, där regeringschefer avsätts titt som tätt i förtroendeomröstningar. Det är just så det skall vara i en parlamentarisk demokrati. Men något verkar hända i huvudet på folk när latinamerikaner beter sig demokratiskt korrekt; då blir det plötsligt en “statskupp“.

Grundproblemet i Latinamerika är att så gott som alla länder på kontinenten har kopierat USAs grundlag i så motto att de har ett folkvalt ämbete (med titel president) som på samma gång utför rollerna av regeringschef och statschef, samtidigt som de har en folkvald riksdag som stiftar lagarna. Denna ordning leder till problem: Det blir väldigt lätt att införa diktatur, vilket som bekant har skett vid otaliga tillfällen i kontinentens blott 200-åriga historia sedan befrielsen från kolonialmakterna. Länderna kämpar med att försöka hitta en formel för att förhindra att det sker igen.

I Honduras grundlag finns en paragraf som säger att presidenten förverkat sitt ämbete om han så mycket som säger att han önskar sitta kvar efter mandatperiodens utgång, och ger alla och ingen institution befogenhet att agera om så sker. Anledningen till att ingen institution fått den befogenheten är för att förhindra att den institutionen används för att legitimera en statskupp. Därför gavs alla den befogenheten, och år 2009 tog alla institutioner sitt ansvar. Alla statens institutioner ställde sig mot presidenten, inklusive presidentämbetets egen juridiska avdelning! Ändå kallade omvärlden det för en statskupp. Misslyckandet ligger inte i Honduras, utan i omvärlden.

I Paraguay gav grundlagen riksdagen rätt att avsätta presidenten av politiska skäl. De har alltså infört en form av parlamentarism. Detta borde naturligtvis applåderas av vänner av demokratin, som ett stort steg framåt. Varför görs inte det? Därför att demokratins dödgrävare i Latinamerika – Chávez i Venezuela, Correa i Ecuador, Morales i Bolivia, Ortega i Nicaragua, Kirchner i Argentina, och givetvis Castro på Kuba – kallar det en statskupp, och omvärlden är alltför blåögd och naiv för att förstå, att om en diktator kallar en demokrati för “diktatur”, så är det nog precis tvärtom.

Hittills har väst undvikit att tala om Chávez, för att inte ge honom legitimitet som “anti-västs ledare”. Det är hög tid att ändra strategi nu, och istället aktivt kritisera Chávez regim som varande en brutal auktoritär diktatur, vars viktigaste taktiska vapen är att regelbundet hålla skenval för att därigenom – varje gång omvärlden accepterar valresultatet – öka sin politiska makt. Den nya strategin måste vara att på alla sätt exponera hur falska dessa val är: Den totala bristen på likhet i tillgång till media, censuren av media, konfiskation av tillgångar för att förhindra oppositionen från att ha tillgång till kapital för valkampanjen, skenrättegångar, politiska fångar, politiska mord, öppna hot uttalade av presidenten, en total brist på insyn i den helt elektroniska valprocessen, en röstlängd som är så förfuskad att ett barn kan se att den är förfalskad, stängningen av vallokalen i Miami där en halv miljon venezolaner bor (de måste nu rösta i New Orleans 140 mil bort; arbetet med logistiken att förflytta dem är i full gång). Det har bevisats vetenskapligt att Chávez har stulit val förr, 2004, genom att justera röstsiffrorna elektroniskt (men Carter-centret upptäckte inte fusket utan godkände resultatet, och bortsåg också helt från de många och mycket grova brott mot demokratiska principer som regimen begick för att försöka förhindra att omröstningen ens kom till stånd).

Det är dags att media säger rakt ut det vår regering redan vet: Chávez är en diktator. DN verkar inte ha förstått det. Heller inte att morden på journalister i Honduras och andra länder i knarktraden beror på knarktraden och inte något annat.

Truth Report in Honduras misses the Big Picture

The CVR report [since that site went dead I have uploaded the report here: CVR report] from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Honduras (Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación) was released July 7, 2011. Their most serious error is in the apparent omission of the Trotskyist Cold War aspect, which has led them to draw erroneous conclusions.

Although the report was released July 7, it is not until today that I have had a chance to read it, since I have been on a well-deserved vacation. So far I have read Chapter 6, “the events of June 28, 2009.” As regards the documental evidence there is nothing new, but the testimonies at the end are new – and interesting – to me, since they reveal just how incompetent the persons pushing for the Constitutional Assembly really are. Take Cesar Ham, who said “Miércoles antes de la cadena nacional y entonces Kike que no hallaba cómo explicar, que no, que mirá, me decía, que no sé qué, que esto, vamos a la consulta o vamos a la consulta le digo” (“Wednesday before the national address and Kike who didn’t find how to explain, that look, he said to me, that this, and that; are we having the poll or having the poll, I asked him”). There is nothing more revealing for who has something on his feet and who hasn’t, than their own declarations in this report. But the real dynamite comes in the omissions in the following chapter.

In Chapter 7 they enter into the territory of analysis of the legality of the events. Although I have only read part of the text, I have already discovered that they have made a serious error of judgment. By failing to take into account the international nature of the conflict, treating it as an internal Honduran affair, they have landed on the completely wrong foot. To exemplify, they consider it wrong by the Honduran Attorney General and Supreme Court to accuse Manuel Zelaya of treason, and that the Honduran Constitution defines treason in way too wide terms. However, nowhere in Chapter 6 did I see any reference to the well-established fact that Zelaya was a quisling for Hugo Chávez, and that Chávez – a president in a foreign nation – was bankrolling not just Zelaya’s efforts to hold the illegal referendum, but also the “civil society organizations” who were pushing Zelaya to go ahead against his own expressed doubts that it was politically possible.

There has been ample denouncements ever since before June 28 that Chávez was behind this, but in Chapter 6 this is only mentioned very casually, by referring to a joint TV appearance of Zelaya and Chávez. Nowhere is it mentioned that the Honduran society was very well aware of the unconstitutional, yes unconstitutional, Constituting Constitutional Assembly that Hugo Chávez had arranged in Venezuela shortly after being elected president in 1999, thus effectively carrying out a self-coup, an autogolpe; and that Chávez had proceeded to bankroll other president’s election campaigns in other Latin American countries, and their unconstitutional Constituting Constitutional Assemblies (e.g., Ecuador, Bolivia).

They knew in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula that the international community, lead by OAS and Insulza, would be most accommodating in welcoming such a coup d’état also in Honduras. They knew that Insulza effectively is a golpista apologist, and that OAS is a threat to democracy, especially after allowing Cuba back in without easing up one inch on their communist dictatorship.

They knew that nobody was going to save democracy if they didn’t do it. It was not a political battle in a country in peace. It was a state of Cold War, exactly the kind of cold war that Adolf Hitler referred to when he coined that term. The play by Hugo Chávez, himself a quisling of Fidel Castro, was as taken from the playbook of the Führer: Take over a foreign sovereign nation without using military force, simply by intimidation, bribes, and lies. But after having used the strategy successfully in a handful of Latin American countries, the Hondurans had taken note that many tracks led into the lion’s lair, but none led out.

Thus it is with sadness that I am forced to conclude that CVR, a commission that I myself promoted in the San José talks, have failed to cast the net large enough to capture the real truth about what happened in Honduras. They have steered clear of the most important issue: The threat that Trotskyist Communism poses to Latin America, and thus to the rest of the world through their methods. These methods include infiltration (taking power in democracies under false flag and then converting them to communist dictatorships), terrorism, and drug violence (spreading chaos and havoc in democracies to make them ripe to fall for their manchurian candidates).

Trotsky clearly promoted lies and crimes in order to take power in all major nations first, and then to introduce communism with all that it entails in the form of getting rid of private ownership. Hugo Chávez is a confessed follower of Trotsky, whose vision is the ultimate tyranny, with absolute world-wide concentration of power. The failure of making this connection by CVR is absolutely devastating for the usefulness of the report’s conclusion in a political context, although in its factual findings it is still relevant and valuable in a narrow context, and for that I congratulate the commission.

Published 2011-07-15 19:34, last edited 2011-07-16 07:52

Truth Report on Honduras

Harvard law professor Noah Feldman has, together with co-authors, written a report to the Honduran Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR from its Spanish name) regarding the constitutionality of the events before, during, and after June 28, 2009, when the president of the republic, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, was removed from office and flown to Costa Rica. Following this blog’s tradition of archiving a copy of all important documents related to that event, the report is duplicated here: Reporte a la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación de Honduras: Asuntos constitucionales (English version). It is with a special interest that I read this report, since I proposed a truth commission back in July 2009, and Micheletti’s negotiators brought it up in their counter-offer.

After reading the executive summary I find the report to contain exactly what I had expected. First, that a lot of people kept their silence and didn’t reveal what they knew (the fact that CVR requested a meeting with me, whose only involvement has been writing this blog after the fact, amply illustrates that they have grasped at straws for getting to the truth). They have not been able to determine if the secret arrest warrant was issued the day it was dated, or afterwards in a CYA effort. This means that the report does not add any new facts, which is a pity. As for the legal analysis it is as could be expected, given that no new facts came out. Finally, since this is a legal and not a political study, they wisely refrain from evaluating what it means in political terms – something that I don’t have to refrain from here.

They identify three risks to modern democracy, not just in Honduras but generally, all exemplified from Honduras 2009. They are first that the executive office-holder abuses power and usurps powers from the other branches of government (it is clear that they see “modern democracy” as synonymous to “presidential republics”, because this is obviously something that cannot reasonably happen in a parliamentarian democracy). The second is that of an unconstitutional transfer of power, e.g. by military intervention. The third is the lack of clarity as regards the roles that the different institutional actors should assume in a crisis, due to poorly defined constitutions and laws. The report is structured along these three lines of analysis.

Zelaya made an “autogolpe”

In the executive summary they clearly state that president Mel Zelaya violated direct court orders before being deposed, and that the Supreme Court had a constitutional and legal method of deposing him. Having said this, they seem careful not to say that the president was obligated to obey the Supreme Court. In any constitutional democracy it is self-evident that the president is obligated to obey the Supreme Court, so by not stressing that point they are in fact implying that there is something wrong with the constitution of the Republic of Honduras – i.e., that it may give the president a position equivalent to an elected king with a one term limit. This is what I mean with them sticking to the legal and refraining from opinions on the political. Put in plain English: Anyone who is defending Zelaya’s actions and claiming that he should have been restored to power is implying that Honduras is not a constitutional democracy, since if it is a constitutional democracy, then Zelaya de facto made a coup d’état, an “autogolpe”. That is the political conclusion that the legal scholars refrain from expressing, but which can be read between the lines.

When it comes to the act of Congress to depose Zelaya, they stick to their task and discuss only the constitutionality or not thereof. Their conclusion is that Congress most likely did not have that authority, although the Constitution is vague and fails to clearly indicate which institution has what authority in this situation. Therefore it becomes necessary to make a political evaluation of intent, given the basic premise that Honduras is a constitutional democratic republic. At least in the executive resumé they do not consider the fact that Congress is the highest representative of the people between elections, given that Honduras is a representative democracy. In a constitutional crisis where the executive has violated the Constitution and failed to obey the Supreme Court, and there is a lack of clarity in the Constitution and laws of how to proceed, the one and only institution that can act independently is the Congress, since they “are” the people between elections, and all power emanates from the people.

Although the authors do not make this point, they imply it in the recommendation section. An important idea with the commission was to make recommendations of how to avoid a repetition of such a crisis, by strengthening the legal framework of the country. They recommend that the Supreme Court gets a clearer role as arbitrator between the different branches of government, and a stronger position visa-vi the executive. They further suggest that Congress should get an express role in the removal of the President.

It is interesting to note this, since the interim presidency all the time claimed that it already was that way. Here is a philosophical question: Does the relative power have to be set by laws, or can it be set by precedent? In the case of USA it was set by precedent, in 1803 (see “From strengthening institutions to a coup: Explaining the ouster of President Zelaya as an outcome of a game of institutional emergence“). All that it takes for this to become precedent is that it is accepted. To first say “no we don’t accept it because the law is not explicit” and then say “we should change the law so it explicitly becomes that way” is hypocritical. As long as the law is not explicitly forbidding it, it can be established by precedent, as was the case in Honduras 2009.

What will CVR say?

Their report is due any day. They ought to include the political analysis to the legal study. In this blog post I have indicated how I think their analysis should go. But the question is if they have the balls to challenge the entire global community, who called this a coup d’état. Do they dare? Can their careers survive it? That’s the question.

Some quotes

Reading the main text of the analysis, the report appears even more in line with the thinking of the supporters of the interim presidency. Could it be that the executive summary is adopted for political reasons to agree more with the official opinion of OAS and others? If so it is a shame. A truth commission should not look over its shoulder, but be the standard-bearer for independent analysis. In my humble opinion their conclusions are precisely what I have concluded since the very first posts on this blog. But now it is official.

About Zelaya

Concluimos que la utilización del Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas para el propósito previsto en estos decretos fue ilegal bajo las leyes de Honduras.” (We conclude that the use of the National Institute of Statistics for the purpose of these decrees [holding a referendum] was illegal under the laws of Honduras.)
Adicionalmente el Acuerdo 027-2009 violaba la normativa constitucional y legal relacionada a la utilización de la Fuerzas Armadas.” (Additionally the agreement 027-2009 violated the constitutional and legal norms for the use of the armed forces.)
También concluimos que los Decretos Ejecutivos y el Acuerdo llamando a la “consulta” o “encuesta” probablemente no fueron conforme a derecho.” (We also conclude that the executive decrees and agreement calling for the referendum or poll probably were not in agreement with the law.)
Estos artículos parecerían prohibir una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente bajo el orden constitucional actual.” (These [constitutional] articles would seem to forbid a national constitutional assembly under the present constitution.)
Nosotros concluimos que el Presidente Zelaya Rosales ilegalmente incumplió con las órdenes judiciales del Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo.” (We conclude that president Zelaya Rosales illegally disobeyed the judicial orders from the contentious-administrative court.)

About Congress

Al menos algunos de los cargos contra Zelaya Rosales parecen estar bien fundamentados.” (At least some of the accusations against Zelaya Rosales appear to be well founded.) [They exemplify with abuse of authority for disobeying a court order.]
Nuestro análisis aquí concluye que el intento legislativo de destituir a Zelaya Rosales de su cargo probablemente violó la Constitución.” (Our analysis here concludes that the legislative intent to depose Zelaya Rosales probably violated the Constitution.)
Por lo tanto el nombramiento [de Roberto Micheletti Bain] siguió lo establecido en la sucesión constitucional especificad en el artículo 242.” (Therefore the appointment [of Roberto Micheletti Bain] followed the constitutional succession order established in article 242.)

About the Armed Forces

Por lo tanto, los comandantes de las Fuerzas Armadas observaron la ley cuando rehusaron a asistir con la Cuarta Urna.” (Therefore, the commanders of the armed forces were following the law when they refused to assist with holding the [referendum].)
Las Fuerzas Armadas violaron el artículo 102 de la Constitución cuando expatriaron a Zelaya Rosales.” (The armed forces violated article 102 of the constitution when they expatriated Zelaya Rosales.)
También dejamos nota que los oficiales militares fueron exonerados de su acusación penal en enero de 2010. No expresamos ninguna opinión con relación a este caso penal. Nuestro caso está limitado a la discusión de la legalidad de las acciones. La pregunta sobre si los oficiales militares son responsables criminalmente por la expatriación de Zelaya Rosales es distinta a la pregunta de si la expatriación fue legal.” (We also take note that the military officers were exonerated from their criminal accusations in January of 2010. We are not expressing any opinion in relation to this criminal case. Our task is limited to discussing the legality of the actions. The question of whether the military officers are criminally responsible for the expatriation of Zelaya Rosales is a different question from that of whether the expatriation was legal.)

My Comments

After reading the analysis of the constitutionality of the events, it appears to be the conclusion of the authors that president Zelaya Rosales was clearly acting outside the Constitution and the laws, as were the military when they expatriated him, but that the Congress was balancing near the margin of the Constitution (“probably violated”). Note again that this analysis is strictly based on the constitutional legality, and does not include neither a political analysis, nor a criminal analysis.

For a political analysis one has to evaluate the alternatives, and consider what they would likely have led to – in this case, and as a precedent. Failure to stop Manuel Zelaya Rosales would have led to the executive being above the law. He had amply demonstrated that he was not going to accept any order from anyone. There was no other tool at the disposal of Congress and the Courts than the use of force. The report finds that the Supreme Court had the legal right and due cause for having Zelaya arrested, and that the arrest order to the military was constitutional.

The point where the constitutional order was broken (after it was broken by Zelaya) was when the military expatriated him. It left the Congress and the Supreme Court with a very difficult situation to handle, in which both the president, and those charged with arresting the president, were acting unconstitutionally. It was a fundamentally political crisis, not legal, at that point. Consider the alternative to allow Zelaya back as president. He would surely not have agreed to return without having all his adversaries arrested first. The legal case against him would have been dead. The expatriation of him put the entire establishment before a fait accomplis: the military had figuratively burned the ships. From their perspective this was desirable, since they had openly defied him, refused to obey his orders. They knew that if he remained president their careers would be over. They had a personal interest in making sure that there was no chance for Zelaya to survive the crisis in office.

Personally I would not be surprised if they got tacit support from different individuals, within and even outside the country. It is no secret that Zelaya is allied with one of the greatest threats to peace in the Western Hemisphere: Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. It is furthermore no secret that Chávez Frías has conspired to overthrow a number of democracies using the same unconstitutional method as Zelaya Rosales attempted in Honduras (starting with Venezuela in 1999). In none of the other cases has the democratic checks and balances managed to defend the constitutional order. Although one would have preferred that Honduras’s military officers had stuck to the legal route of actions, one must therefore have a certain sympathy for their reasoning that “attack is the best defense”. There is no guarantee that the law would have prevailed if they had followed it.

Whatever one thinks about the military’s actions they did not assume power, and the actions of Congress are defensible under the circumstances as a precedent for a case not contemplated under the Constitution. That is the bottom line that emerges from a political analysis of this legal report, and that makes it perfectly clear that the deposal of Zelaya Rosales was not a coup d’état. (While the authors of this report have not been able to determine if the secret arrest orders were issued the days they are dated, or created when they were made public in order to cover up a military coup, I am assuming that they were for real, for 3 reasons: First, because they had legal backing and it would be illogical to use extra-legal methods when one has legal methods at ones disposal. Second and third, because I have it from two different sources, who don’t know each other, that they knew about the secret arrest order already June 25 or 26; both are family members of people involved in the events. Of course they could be lying, but what sense would that make when they had the law on their side? Therefore I consider it far fetched to believe that it was a military coup that they were trying to cover up.)

Summing up

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report is published, the last chapter of the events of June 28, 2009, will be written. That marks the end of the political events, the final step in the implementation of the Guaymuras-dialogue agreement, the San José-Tegucigalpa Accord. It has been implemented meticulously by first interim president Micheletti, then president Lobo, even though ex-president Zelaya backed away from it when he realized that Congress would not vote him back as president.

What remains is to learn from this event. Honduras has already amended its constitution as regards popular referendum, but as this report points out in its recommendation section, also the new wording is insufficiently clear. The recommendations in this report should be taken very seriously by the Congress in Tegucigalpa, both those regarding crisis solution, regarding the removal of a high office-holder especially the president, those regarding changing the constitution, and those regarding popular referendum. All of those parts were involved in the crisis of 2009, and all of them are important to protect the democracy against the kind of attacks launched by Hugo Chávez and his Cuban allies; their goal is to take over all countries in Latin America, installing Quisling regimes that are beholden to “Socialism of the 21st Century” (i.e., communism).

The strategy of Castro and Chávez is to win democratic elections with the financial backing of the Venezuelan state (oil revenues), and then once in office call for a national constitutional assembly to rewrite the constitution, creating a structure that will enable their Quisling to stay in power indefinitely. Only when the power is secured will they complete the transformation to communism, as they appear to follow Trotsky’s strategy of spreading their power first before consolidating communism. (In fact, in 2007 Chávez himself confessed to being a Trotskyist!)

Honduras was the first major set-back in their plan. The attacks continue unabated, and the war is not yet won. Millions of dollars are still being spent to try to bribe their way in. It is a dangerous and volatile situation, and the more the world punished Honduras economically after the alleged “coup”, the more they pushed Honduras into Castro’s and Chávez’s fold. The wise thing to do now, when this legal report is out, is to acknowledge that Manuel Zelaya Rosales was in clear violation of the Constitution, that he had to be arrested and removed from office to preserve constitutional democracy, and that while a clear error of judgment was made in expatriating him it, it does not change the equation: Zelaya could not be left in office. We have to separate the two issues, the expatriation and the removal from office. We can condemn one while applauding the other. It was, frankly, stupid to expatriate Zelaya Rosales, but the action of Congress can be defended as attempting to find a way out of an impossible situation not contemplated by the Constitution, setting a precedent that can well be codified in a constitutional amendment now, following the recommendations of this report.

Published 13:37 June 9, last updated 07:59 June 10.

The Danger to World Peace

The other day Honduras was readmitted into OAS, after deposed president Manuel Zelaya returned to his homeland on May 28th. The only detail left to be taken care of from the crisis of 2009 is the presentation of the report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, CVR. So is all well now? Hardly.

Hugo Chávez, the guy in Caracas who thinks the Devil is around because he can smell sulfur, not realizing that the stench surely comes from himself, is spending a huge amount of capital and efforts on undermining Honduras’ democracy. He has not given up by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, he is getting active assistance from the diplomats of the present U.S. administration. Whether that is due to stupidity or worse I cannot tell. What I can prognosticate, however, is that American security is heading straight towards Hell – and that includes North American as well as Latin American security.

It is fascinating to see how similar the development now is to that in Europe in the 1920’s and 1930’s. In both the economic and the political spheres. The Great Recession has now turned out to be a double-dip recession, just like the Great Depression was. It was not the first dip that made the late 1929 and early 30’s so horrible, it was the fact that when the recovery was supposed to set in a new, much worse recession hit, fueled I’m sure by bad economic policies, like those that the Republicans want to introduce in U.S.A. today. Austerity measures now will guarantee that this develops into “Great Depression 2.0”.

On the political front the similarity is equally scary. Now as then there is a profound polarization, and the middle is all but absent. There are no grown-ups in the room. The debate belongs to ideologues on both extremes, all of whom seem to believe more in the map than in the reality. Furthermore, just like the 1930’s saw a communist regime in Spain, which with its irresponsible ideological actions was destroying the economy of that country, so does the 2010’s see a communist regime in Venezuela, which with its irresponsible ideological actions is destroying the economy of South Americas arguably richest country (being a major oil producer). We know what happened in Spain; a half-failed military coup led to a cruel civil war in the lead-up to WWII; a battle between communists and fascists.

The Cold War ended around 1990 – or did it? The Bolsheviks are violent, they do not recognize ethical rules and moral restrictions. They consider that the goals justify the means, so in the first Russian Revolution of 1905 they went from house to house and murdered people with whose opinions they did not agree. My grandfather’s family was on their list, but he narrowly survived. In 1917 they succeeded in their revolutionary quest, and started eliminating opponents on a grand scale; first Lenin, then Stalin. Stalin’s strategy was to consolidate the revolution in the Soviet Union first, while Trotsky preferred to first spread it to the rest of the world. Trotsky had to flee the country, and ended up in Mexico where he was murdered by Stalin years later. Nevertheless, he was active in Latin America for a while before being eliminated.

It should come as no surprise, thus, that the Latin American communists apparently are following Trotsky’s strategy, not Stalin’s. Fidel Castro has for half a century worked underground to spread communism in Latin America. One of the earliest targets was Venezuela, for her wealth no doubt. At first they tried military intervention with guerillas. When that failed they tried to infiltrate the military and use that Trojan horse to incapacitate the security forces at the time of popular protests in 1989, against then president Carlos Andres Perez (CAP). They also deployed snipers, armed by Castro, to shoot at the military. The bloodbath became known as the “caracazo”, and Hugo Chávez never fails to blame the slaughter on CAP, even though he was in on the whole plan and knows that the architect was Fidel Castro.

When that also failed, the next attempt was to have Hugo Chávez carry out a military coup in 1992, against CAP. Also that failed, and Chávez went to jail. Unfortunately, he was let free after 2 years and allowed to run for president in 1998, an election that he won – presumably with the help of significant funding from Venezuela’s enemies, a modus operandi that Chávez himself has deployed repeatedly once in power, spending billions on propping up Manchurian candidates in countries like Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Argentina. This is the Trotsky plan in full swing: Spread communism to the whole world, by getting access to the resources of a rich state such as Venezuela, and using those resources to subvert democracy in other countries, using the democratic method to gain power, only to immediately dismantle democracy thereafter so that they cement their hold on power.

So is the Cold War over? Yes in the sense that Stalin’s strategy failed. But No in the sense that communism has not been defeated, because Trotsky’s strategy – which survived in Havana, Cuba – has not yet been defeated.

Honduras won a battle against Trotskyism

However, they only won a battle. The war is still going on, and no country has come to the assistance of Honduras. In fact, some of those that ought to have helped Honduras have instead assisted the aggressor, the Trotskyist Republic of Venezuela (Chávez’s name, the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”, is a misnomer since Bolivar was not a communist).

It is imperative to understand what the weapons are of the Trotskyist approach. Apart from using astronomical amounts of money (stolen from the Venezuelan people) to bribe politicians abroad, and to buy positive publicity, they simultaneously sow mayhem and chaos by actively working to help criminal activities in the target countries. This means facilitating for cocaine smugglers, by not interfering, by providing safe haven, and even by providing military weapons (such as the Swedish anti-tank weapon AT-4). Cuba and Venezuela are criminal enterprises, no less. They are mafia states. They should not be accepted in civilized company, or as we say in Sweden, “in rooms with furniture”.

The worst about this dire development is that there appears to be no awareness among groups that are able to do something about it. Within Honduras there is ample awareness, but the Trotskyists have managed to make the rest of the world isolate Honduras and close their ears to their arguments, thus rendering their warnings unable to reach those who need to hear it. Within Venezuela there is also awareness, but they, too, are being attacked and marginalized with the help of false imprisonment (case in point: Alejandro Peña Esclusa), scare tactics, violence, or propaganda campaigns. Sure, there are people that know what is going on, such as former Venezuelan Ambassador to the UN, Diego Arria, but for some reason media seem to dismiss them. Could it be money? Could it be threats? I don’t know, but we cannot allow ourselves to be scared.

When journalists are murdered their colleagues get the message. “If you write about what he or she wrote about, you die.” So they don’t write about it, they don’t even report what it was that he or she wrote about, because if they do they sign their own death sentence. Communists have long used this method. My own grandfather used to travel around Sweden and tell the truth of what he had witnessed during a visit to the Soviet Union, at the height of the killing of farmers in Ukraine. First they tried to poison him in Moscow, then they made at least 3 attempts on his life in Sweden. Eventually he had to keep silent for the sake of his wife and children. So, argumentum ad bacculum does work. That is how the communists win their arguments. Do you want to live in such a world? And do you really want to fight another war against communism? If you don’t, then don’t yield to those bastards. Stand up for freedom Now, before it is too late. Especially You, president Obama. Especially You. The world economy can’t afford a Republican president after the next election, but if you treat Chávez the way Chamberlain treated Hitler, we surely will have one.

Wikileaked cable reveals USA ignorant

The USAmerican ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, wrote a cable on June 19, 9 days before the president of the country, Manuel Zelaya, was arrested by the military on orders of the Supreme Court, reports Le Monde. There had been rumors of a military coup, but on that morning he had breakfast with the head of the military General Romeo Vazquez Velasquez, and the head of the army, General Miguel Garcia Padgett, who both assured him that the military would not depose the president to install a junta. They said it was just a rumor circulated behind closed doors to put pressure on the politicians. The ambassador also reported that they would not act without the knowledge of the US, and concluded that the military “do not have the least intention to attack the legitimate government” (reverse translated from French).

When the president was arrested by the military at dawn on June 28, Llorens – one might guess from his cable communication – did not know that the Supreme Court had issued an arrest warrant for the president. Based on this previous communication, one may therefore suspect that the ambassador felt betrayed, thinking that they had done a coup d’État nine days after promising that they would not do it, not knowing or understanding that in spite of it appearing to be a coup, it was not a coup.

However, there is a problem with this interpretation: A persistent rumor that Llorens knew about the arrest order in advance. From the cables it appears he did not.

There is one way in which these different facts can be reconciled. The generals did not, in Llorens’s words as translated by Le Monde, say that they necessarily would inform him personally. Just his country. There is a US air base in Honduras, and Marines train there. Given the close contacts it is beyond likely that at least some of them would have known. Thus, the generals did not lie to the ambassador.

Furthermore, the military of Honduras never attacked “the legitimate government”, the legitimate government being the Congress and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they did not “attack” the president, they arrested him on orders of the Supreme Court (and then they set him free abroad rather than hold him). So the generals kept their word quite literally on that point, too.

What should be of concern, though, is the ambassador’s words that Zelaya is not an ideologue, thinking that USA can manipulate him. That is either ignorant, or misleading. Zelaya was bought by South American interests, most likely Hugo Chávez, already in his election campaign. This bribery continued with the so-called ALBA “loans”, in a process that in most every country would have made the president guilty of high treason. Furthermore, he said explicitly that he obeyed Chávez second only to God (“Después de Dios, ¡Chávez!”). If Llorens was ignorant about this, it is not good. If he is protecting Zelaya (or someone else), it is even less good.

Having seen now what Chávez did once his democratic cover was blown, introducing a full-blown dictatorship by similar methods as Hitler once did, I don’t think anybody can argue that the defense of democracy in Honduras was too rash, too determined. It was appropriate. Unfortunately Venezuela is in a different position, the judiciary already having been completely compromised, and the legislative as well, so a repeat is not possible. The best hope for Venezuela is a popular uprising and that the security forces remain passive while the people throw out the dictator quite literally.

Honduras’ president Lobo licks dictator’s boot

President Pepe Lobo is figuratively licking the boot of his country’s main enemies, and not just in words, but by trying to execute a self-coup, an autogolpe, by overstepping the separation of powers in the most perverse way. He is trying to illegally replace the Supreme Court.

The president of Honduras, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo Sosa, was elected in November 2009, after the previous elected president Manuel Zelaya had been deposed on June 28 for ignoring a binding verdict from the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ). Powerful friends of Zelaya, who have an extraordinary influence over the global public opinion, made sure that his legal deposal got labeled a military coup in the minds of all who didn’t look under the surface. As a result Honduras interim president Micheletti was not recognized by any country. President Lobo has been recognized by perhaps a 100 countries by now, but not by a number of countries in Latin America, and they block the readmission to OAS. It is to achieve that readmission that Lobo now is taking actions that cannot be described as anything but boot-licking.

The countries that don’t recognize Honduras are the ALBA countries, the allies of Chavez’ Venezuela, and Castro’s Cuba. The friend of Zelaya that I mentioned is non other than Hugo Chavez. He used his ministry of propaganda, which has an international satellite TV channel at its disposal in the form of TeleSUR, to create the global image of the event. They stage events and have “news actors” in the form of paid demonstrators who create scenes for the cameras, while at the same time other staffers, pretending to be demonstrators as well, use force to keep the other media from covering what they are doing. They go as far as firing firearms, and whether by accident or on purpose it seems that it was they who killed the 19-year old outside Tegucigalpa’s airport on July 5th, 2009. Their version of events is spread by many blogs that appear to represent grassroots in many countries, but which in reality most likely are all coordinated if not controlled from Havana, Cuba.

Against this media super-power Honduras has not much more than a handful of bloggers.

Maybe you think I wrote Cuba by mistake instead of Venezuela above. No, it was no mistake. You see, Hugo Chavez turns out to be surrounded by only Cubans, led by non other than Comandante Ramiro Valdez, who fought with Castro in the Cuban Revolution. With Chavez admiring Fidel Castro, he is effectively just a capataz, a farm foreman, for Castro. It is a fitting description also because Cuba is poor and Venezuela is the “farm” that feeds Cuba. Not at least with oil.

Castro is also using his capataz Chavez to buy other countries in Latin America, by including them in the ALBA group (the “Bolivarian Revolution” alliance): Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and some minor islands. Honduras joined under Zelaya but left again under Micheletti.

When Lobo took office his very first act was to allow Zelaya to leave the country, in spite of there being pending court cases against him for very severe corruption. The ALBA countries refuse to recognize Lobo as president if he doesn’t remove those charges against Zelaya. Having constitutional separation of powers, neither the president nor the national Congress (CN) can interfere with the judiciary; nevertheless, they are trying as hard as they can. The word now is that they will vote in CN to fire the attorney general and all the justices of the CSJ – even though that, too, would appear to be unconstitutional.

In essence, Lobo is licking the boot of his country’s enemies by trying to please those dictators while violating the oath he took to obey the Constitution. The word treason comes to mind.

What will this lead to? Assume that they take the vote and it passes. The decision could of course be challenged in court, by those that are supposedly fired. At that point Lobo, who acts as the capataz of Honduras for Castro, could say that the CSJ is attacking the CN, even though it is the other way around. Who wins in the court of public opinion is a question of who has the most effective propaganda at his disposal. But who wins on the ground in Honduras is a question of whose orders the military chose to obey; the president’s, or those of the Supreme Court? Assuming that the president disobeys the court. But if he does, then he may be deposed legally the same way that Zelaya was.

What Castro, Chavez, Zelaya, and Lobo are counting on is that if it fails the first time it will succeed the second.

Honduras must braze itself. The attack directed from Havana, Cuba, aimed at introducing maffia-style narco-communism all over the Americas continues. Honduras has won one battle but the war rages on. So what to do?

Attack is the best defense, they say. Instead of waiting for the wolf to attack again, seek him out and fight him where he lives. In other words, cooperate with the democratic opposition in the countries from where the wolf is attacking. Cuba is where the brain is, but what matters most is the money. Venezuela is the source of the money.

Chavez’ has just made himself dictator by a Hitler-style coup. The vast majority are hostile to the Cuban model, yet that is what is being implemented by Chavez. The repression of the opposition has started, but most dissidents are still not jailed. However, with the new censorship laws it is just a matter of time until free speech has been so suppressed that Cuban-style conditions take over, and effective opposition becomes impossible. The optimal time for a revolution against Chavez’ dictatorship is just now.

Such an anti-Communist revolution in Venezuela would benefit all countries that are being threatened by the narco-communist plans that are being financed with the oil income that is being stolen from the people of Venezuela. This is why Hondurans would be wise to go online and help their brothers and sisters in Venezuela to spread the truth about their country internationally. It is essential as a balance to the regime propaganda. It would also give the judiciary in Honduras, and the military, and the opposition parliamentarians, fortitude in resisting the pressure from the dictator’s boot on their necks.