Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Miami Captains Plan Massive Joint Rosary Rally on November 21

Human solutions are failing and America is in an alarming moral free fall:  The Fatima moment is here...

That's why dozens of rosary rally captains are planning to hold a massive joint rosary rally all together at noon on Saturday, November 21.  Each rally captain will bring his or her banner in English and in Spanish and stand along the road so the bumper to bumper car traffic can see the event. 

This will be one wonderful and spiritual event!  Don't miss it.

                       http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8378/40146477.jpg

Where: Bird Rd. ( SW 40 St. & 79 Ave )

When: Saturday Nov. 21 --- 12 Noon

For more information.

Call: Olivia 305-740-6436 - Cel. 305-308-3573

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massachusetts Man Fired for Telling Colleague that Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong

"If homosexual marriage does become legal in your state," warned Vidala, "you could be fired from your job as well, just for expressing your belief that you disagree with that lifestyle."

James Tillman

BOSTON, MA, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A deputy manager at a Brookstone retail store in Boston's Logan Airport says he was fired from his job for telling a visiting manager that he believed her homosexual behavior to be wrong.  Brookstone, however, has justified its action by referring to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex "marriage."

"It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong.  That's the reason that I was fired," Peter Vidala told MassResistance.org.

The incident leading to Vidala's termination began when a visiting manager told Vidala that she was getting married.  Vidala congratulated her and asked where he (her husband) was taking her for the honeymoon.  The other manager corrected him, saying "where is she taking me."

"I didn't say anything, I quickly changed the subject, and I kind of went on with the workday," Vidala said.  But the manager continued to repeatedly mention her female 'fiancée' throughout the day.

"It made me uncomfortable because I see that sort of behavior as immoral, personally," Vidala said.  And so when the manager mentioned her "marriage" for what Vidala says was "at least the fourth time," Vidala felt compelled to speak.

"Regarding homosexuality, I believe that that 's bad stuff," Vidala says he told the manager.  He says that he was going to continue by explaining that he would prefer her not to bring it up in the workplace, but she started laughing.

"Get over it.  HR buddy, keep your opinions to yourself," she said.  A few hours later Vidala was suspended; two days later Vidala received a termination letter, which accuses him of "harassment" and of "imposing" his beliefs upon others.

Vidala, however, perceives the situation differently.  He told Fox News that he felt the manager could discern his opinions and that he was "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship.

"She knew how I felt about homosexuality," Vidala said.  "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.'  But I really couldn't feel happy for her."

Perhaps more disturbingly, however, Vidala says that Brookstone's letter "cited the fact that so-called homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts.  And that's why this superior of mine talking about her fiancée wasn't considered harassing to Brookstone."

"If homosexual marriage does become legal in your state," he warned, "you could be fired from your job as well, just for expressing your belief that you disagree with that lifestyle."

Advocates of homosexual "marriage" have long denied that such legalization would injure those who believe homosexual behavior to be wrong.  Vidala's case, however, adds to a growing list of instances that seem to indicate the opposite. 

For instance, homosexual behavior is taught as normative in Massachussets schools. Parents Robb and Robin Wirthlin lost a case against the school after their 2nd-grade son was taught about homosexual behavior without their permission.

Even in states such as New Mexico, where same-sex "marriage" is not legal, a husband-and-wife photography company was successfully sued for refusing to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony.  Similarly, a Methodist association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property by refusing to allow a homosexual "couple" to use its pavilion for a civil union ceremony.

Vidala was also disturbed by a video Brookstone shows to all new employees to help illustrate its personnel policies.  According to Vidala, in it a man who describes himself as gay says that he was offended by overhearing another man say, "Well, gee, you know, I'd be uncomfortable if a homosexual hit on me."

Vidala continued: "You could have a so-called homosexual person hit on you [if you work for Brookstone], and you won't be able to say anything, because by expressing your belief that what they're doing is wrong, you're harassing them."

Monday, November 9, 2009

Cathedrals – heavens on earth

guardian.co.uk home

Why visit an art gallery when you can visit a cathedral instead? Jonathan Jones takes a tour of our forgotten masterpieces

gloucester cathedral

Glorious cloisters … Gloucester Cathedral. Photograph: David Mansell

There's a sculpture in Gloucester Cathedral of a youth falling through the air with his arms outstretched, as if he's trying to fly. A man with a curling beard reaches out, in a futile attempt to catch him. The sculpture is known as the Mason's Bracket, because the man wears the toolbelt of a mason. It's an odd little monument that juts out from the wall, with the falling boy carved, cubist style, into its underside. Stand beneath it and look up, and the boy seems to be falling from that great vaulted ceiling high above.

Gloucester was my final stop on a journey around Britain's cathedrals to experience their artistic marvels. For a second, standing under that boy, all the glories of the cathedral, its ornate patterns and its mighty walls of honey-tinted stone, faded away – and I was left with the image of a medieval building site, and a craftsman seeing his favourite pupil slip and fall to his death. For the Mason's Bracket is a memorial by the cathedral's builders to one of their own. What a unique piece of sculpture, I thought. Why had I never heard of it? The Mason's Bracket has all the makings of an iconic work. People just need to know it exists.

Please read the whole article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/nov/01/canterbury-gloucester-cathedral-medieval-art

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The third place, and why we need it

By Norman Fulkerson

The informal gathering place provides a way for
many Americans to survive their hectic daily lives.
Ladies have their tearooms, but many men have found
a solution also.

Years ago, I had the chance to visit Italy. I loved my
stay there and had an amusing experience in the airport
the day of my departure. While standing in line to check
my bags, an employee announced that our flight would
be delayed. The next man in line went ballistic and
vented his anger on the lady who was checking us in.

“This is terrible,” he said. “I’ll miss my appointment.” He
went into great detail about how all of this was really of
earth shattering importance.

The Italian lady stood calmly and listened, with a
sympathetic look and a pensive gaze.  She could just as
easily have been watching a popular Italian opera as listening
to an American complaining about the tragedy
of a delayed flight.  He eventually finished his operatic
dramatization of the disaster of his altered travel
plans.  She looked at him with her droopy eyes and
serene face, and all she had to say was, “Compared to
life, its not that bad.”

This was a memorable experience for me since it
gave me a brief glimpse of two opposing philosophies!

On one side of the counter was the stereotypical “time
is money” philosophy, which cannot tolerate an
unplanned moment, while on the other side was a “joy
of life” philosophy that welcomes the spontaneous
moments that enrich life.

Such situations are a chance to take a deserved
break for some, but for our businessman it was a source
of anger and frustration. His world is one of travel planners
and nifty computer programs to schedule his every
minute. His life is a succession of airports, taxis, hotel
rooms, business lunches or quick burgers at McDonalds,
then quickly off again to some other destination to
close yet another deal.

Fortuitous circumstances that allow a moment of
relaxation are considered vile intruders in his world of
production. An outsider witnessing such a scene
might think that America is simply one big machine,
with man playing the part of cogs in a massive industrial
wheel.

Those who think this way have missed a growing trend.

With the cigar boom of the mid 90’s, smoke-rooms
for men sprouted up in almost every major city in the
country. And since my first trip to Italy I began to
notice how these rooms are a haven for men who long
for more than time management.

Riding the crest of this new wave was Denver’s elegant
Brown Palace Hotel. They simply took what was
formerly a small bar servicing their Atrium Lounge,
added a wall in 1996, and transformed it into a cigar
bar named after Winston Churchill. In its first year of
operation, “the Churchill Bar did $1 million worth of
business, a 500 percent increase over the previous year.

There are between 3,000 and 4,000 people on the bar’s
mailing list, which continues to grow.” What is the
attraction? The reason is simple: “Cigars force you to
stop and do something that is pleasurable for at least
one part of your day,” said one regular of the bar.

Americans avidly search for such informal “third
places” that will provide them with the elements necessary
for a relaxing conversation.

Ray Oldenburg in his book The Great Good Place
says that “Great civilizations, like great cities, share a
common feature. Evolving within them and crucial to
their growth and refinement are distinctive informal public gathering places.”

Most men need an occasional break from work and home. What is often missing is that unique third place where they can get together with other men to enjoy a simple yet satisfying pleasure
of life: conversation.

Women may have their Victorian tearoom escapes
to enjoy a nice chat, but now many American men
have also found an escape. Providing us with yet
another Only in America paradox. In a nation that promoted
the “time-is-money philosophy,” you also find a
good number of men who appreciate fine tobacco and
the relaxation their third place provides.

Such third places are common in Europe. It is difficult
to imagine an Irishman without a pub close by to
enjoy a pint of Guinness and discuss politics. French
cafes supply the necessary ambiance for speaking
openly about philosophical currents of the day, and
the beer halls of Germany are the breeding ground for
new ideas.

Similar places also exist in America, however, and
their role in society is becoming more important. And
Mr. Oldenburg’s blueprint of the third place provides
necessary elements to see that such locations provide
the same benefits for Americans that Europeans enjoy
in their pubs, coffee houses, and beer halls.

Almost every town in America has its local diner,
which is not just a place to get an inexpensive breakfast
and hot cup of coffee — good portions of conviviality
are served up as well.

The corner barbershop is a frequent stop for retired men who want someone to talk to, and the public squares of many cities provide more than a park bench in the shade to rest on
a hot day.

The common denominator among all of these
places is the note of surprise. Who will show up today?
Those that do are always welcome since frequenters of
the third place are people with loads of personality and
lots to say. So the ordinary stop at the barber, the diner,
or the park bench becomes an experience that enriches
life like few things can.

The regular, the newcomer and the bore

According to Oldenburg there are many distinct characteristics
that make up a third place. The third place is comfortable, a home away from home. It is a place that has its regulars, but also the occasional newcomer who adds a fresh element to the ambience. “What attracts the regular visitor to the third place,” says Oldenburg, “are the fellow customers.”

Informal meeting places are “upbeat because those who enjoy them ration the time they spend there.” Besides the “regulars”
and the “newcomers,” he also describes another type: the bore.

He is the one who has “long since lost that edge that makes people interesting, an edge that is honed by confrontation with life outside.” While the regular and the newcomer leave “before the magic fades,” the bore has a tendency to hang on forever,
milking the moment for all its worth.

The reason informal meeting places are upbeat is simple: It is a place where the pretensions of work and the responsibilities of home can be put aside. It provides us with the situation and surroundings in which we can be ourselves and explore our ideas and dreams in a neutral environment with non-threatening
participants.

Smoke-rooms are perhaps the best examples of the
“third place” for men that I found. Born over 300 years
ago in London, the gentleman’s club or smoke-room
was an essential element in the social life of men,
described by one astute observer as “mausoleums of
masculine inactivity.”3

“Where the problemsof the world are solved”

It was an overcast day as I walked down the cobblestone
walkway of what I later learned is the gentleman’s
quarter or arcade. It is the oldest part of
Nashville, a place where men of the past gathered to do
business. This area of town is home to the Arcade
Smoke-room, where men of the present remember the
past. The closely laid cobblestones seem analogous to
the close friendships that are formed, strengthened,
and solidified in the Arcade. Housed in the oldest
building in town, it is a popular gathering place for
Nashville men.

My visit to the Arcade proved to be an experience.
Tennessee by nature are a very hospitable people,
and as I entered the shop I immediately felt at home
due to the kind treatment of the owner, Wilson Frazier.
Do you get a lot of customers here, I asked. “Yes,
sir,” he said, pointing to a couch pushed up against the
wall, “the problems of the world are solved right there.”
With such a small sitting area, I figured there couldn’t
be more than a handful at any given time.

When I returned during lunchtime to see who it was that solved the world’s problems, I found a constant flow of men coming and going.

The Arcade Smoke-room was the classic example of a third place as defined by Oldenburg, “where individuals may come and go as they please and in which none are required to play host and in which all feel at home and comfortable.”

Patrick Owen is a regular of the Arcade and the owner of his own smoke-room up the street. He works for the Department of Human Services in downtown Nashville and does Civil War reenacting as a hobby.

“Why do men come to these smoke-rooms?” I
asked him.

“Men need the company of other men,” he said,
“time to recapture camaraderie. Smoke-rooms give
them the opportunity to discuss traditional things.”
Men need a place to relax with other men and pound
out those perplexing questions that have been ruminating
in their head during the day.

The segregation of sexes “accounts for the origins of the third place,” says Oldenburg, “and remains the basis for much of the
appeal and benefits this institution has to offer.” Men
sometimes need to be with other men, as ladies often
need to be with other ladies.

Patrick is an archetypal example of a civil war reenactor.
When he first greets you there is the characteristic bow of the head, and the gentlemanly usage of the title sir. He doesn’t just barge into a conversation but is the champion of a smooth entrance and gentle transition. His mannerisms were thus more
civilized, like someone of the nineteenth century. He
was polite, chivalrous, a joy to be around. “The
smoke-rooms of today are like the campfires during
the time of the Civil War, where men would gather to
converse,” he said.

“We have always needed this type of thing,” he continued.
“The Greeks had their agora — an ancient
marketplace of Greece; the Romans had the Forum —
the public square where laws were read; early Americans
had taverns and coffee houses.”

Suddenly I found myself engaged in an elevated
conversation surrounded by a pensive group of men;
some puffing on cigars, others drawing from elegantly
shaped pipes. Waiting my turn to speak I was amused
by the sign hanging on the wall overhead. “A pipe gives
a wise man time to think, and a fool something to put
in his mouth.”

“Do angels have free will?”
This experience in conversational cuisine is by no
means restricted to Nashville’s Arcade. While visiting
Rae’s Tobacco Shop in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, one
day I unexpectedly found myself drawn into a theological
debate with one of the regulars, David Ravegum,
on the existence of angels and whether or not they
have free wills. With the help of a friend I was able to
explain that they do. Upon leaving David looked at me
and said, “You have piqued my interest. I am going to
go home and read up on the angels.” The next time I
visited Rae’s, David recognized me and affirmed, “You
are right, angels do have free will.”

The men who frequent the Tobacco Chandler in
Hanover, Pennsylvania, enjoy conversations more
along the sociological line. “What is happening with

the youth of today? Why don’t they have respect for
elders?” One such conversation was so interesting that
Mike Evans, the owner, suggested that we invite some
of the area youth to participate. Instead of just playing
billiards on Mike’s table, he felt they could also benefit
from the simple pleasure of an elevated conversation.

The Humidour in Timonium, Maryland, provides a
dignified ambience for its customers, with leather
armchairs, rich wood paneling, a splendid air freshener,
and large crystal ashtrays. Don Curtis of the National
Investors Company is one of the regulars.

Don is a master conversationalist with whom it is easy to talk
and who has a lot to say. His concerns are more of a
political nature and when I first met him he wasted no
time in venting his anger over the myriad scandals surrounding
the Clinton administration, especially the
moral ones. “If we are not careful,” he said, “We could
end up like the Roman Empire, rotting from within. If
that happens we won’t need an outside invader, we will
simply give up.”

Back in Nashville...
Before leaving the Arcade, Wilson Frazier was kind
enough to show me the upstairs of the shop. As we
reached the top of the stairs, a dimly lit sitting area
caught my eye. Two comfortable armchairs faced each
other with a table between them. Arranged on the
table was a chessboard ready for play. Outside the window
was a birds-eye view of the cobblestone arcade
below. The back room had a conference table where
some men go to escape the agitation of the workplace.
“It gives them the opportunity,” Mr. Frazier said, “to get
away from their offices, secretaries, and noisy phones.”

The smoke-rooms of America are a strong indicator
that some men are becoming increasingly dissatisfied
with the rat race and desire a solution to the rush
of every day life. The cigar boom provided the excuse,
the smoke-room the place — a third place “where the
problems of the world are solved.”

The Grandeur of the King Dignifies the Cook

by Plinio Correa de Oliveira

Consider the aerial view of Windsor Castle shown in the upper picture. The first impression one has is of a setting for a fairy tale — the immensity of the edifice, the marvelous variety of its parts, the delicacy and strength affirmed in all of them, everything suggests that one is in the presence of something that goes far beyond daily reality.

This edifice, this fantastic set of edifices, is at one and the same time the symbol and treasure chest of an institution: the British royalty. In this symbol, like so many others of traditional England, the appearances do not as yet bear the mark of Protestantism, liberalism, or socialism. What is expressed in these granite forms is still the medieval and Catholic concept of the divine origin of public power, the true majesty that should surround any political regime, and the paternal mark that should characterize it.

Paternal mark, we say. This castle does not aim to show mass, but talent. It was made not to intimidate, but to enchant.

The subject who contemplates it does not tremble at its sight; he does not feel like fleeing, but like entering.

                                                         *   *   *

The relations between the great ones and the small ones are influenced by this ambience. The nobility of the lord is transmitted to his servant. Thus the immense kitchen of Windsor, which is very authentically a kitchen, is indisputably a high, noble, and worthy kitchen of a castle, one that communicates something of the royal dignity itself to the humble, servile activity of the cook and gives it a splendor that is, as it were, regal.

This is because in Christian civilization the grandeur of the lord does not humiliate the servant — but elevates him.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Sweetness and Beauty of Life in Social Relationships

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Old magazines are often very charming. This is true even when what comes down to us are only loose undated pages that give us glimpses of the remote past.

A Paris journal of the last century, L 'Illustration, carried an article, “Customs of the Café Valois,” written by A. de Belloy, whose memory has been whisked away by time.

What is the date of these pages? The article gives us only the most vague elements as to the answer. It is safe to place them somewhere in the 1860's. In any case they have the merit of evoking certain values of the social conduct of old. Values that increasingly disappeared as large cities came into being in the last century, and of which, not even vestiges have remained among the general public of today's Babels of concrete, steel and asphalt.

They were precious values that endowed social relationships with human warmth and that stemmed from the fact that the civilization of yesteryear was centered more around the goods of the soul than those of the body, while later, materialism increasingly shaped customs and institutions.

Here we will quote extensively from the aforementioned article to stimulate reaction against this decay. One that makes so many noble characters suffer and painfully stifles so many healthy initiatives.

After evoking the picturesque ambience of the Parisian cafés of the second quarter of the nineteenth century, some of which were centers of a refined social life while others displayed a rich ideological effervescence, the writer laments that they were replaced by new cafes of banal, unstylish luxury and an atmosphere of an establishment whose customers thought only of eating and drinking and whose proprietors only thought of making money.

As a counterpoise to this materialized environment, this article evokes the picturesque customs of the old cafés and the deeply affable and trusting relationships that frequently developed among them.

What took place between the Chevalier de Lautrec and the owner of the Café Valois during the French Revolution faithfully illustrates the sweetness of life that the café ambience once had.

It should be noted that one of the effects of the French Revolution, that devoured aristocratic blood and Catholicity, was to impoverish many of those noble families that survived the Terror.

However, in spite of the ravages of one of the most violent revolutions in history, the values of Christian generosity and nobility of soul did not vanish. The following words of Monsieur de Belloy describe one such case.

Farewell, O good old days! Farewell, O affable visage of the proprietor and smiling and respectful reception of the waiters! Farewell, O solemn entries of the Café Valois' dignified customs, which people were curious to see. Such was the case with the Knight Commander Odoard de La Fere's arrival.

At exactly noon, the canon of the Palais-Royal heralded his arrival. He would appear on the threshold and pause for a moment to sweep the salon with an affable and self-assured gaze as someone eager to practice a longtime custom.

His right hand pressing firmly on the white and blue porcelain handle of his cane, he threw his old faded brown cape over his shoulder with a swing of his left hand. No one ever snickered at this, since not even the most elegant mantle with golden fleur-de-lys embroidery was ever thrown back with a more distinguished movement.

In 1789 the former steward of the Prince of Conti ran the Café Valois; it was rather devoid of political color and local flavor at that time.

Among the frequenters of the place, standing out by his noble manners, stately demeanor and wooden leg, was the Chevalier de Lautrec. He was from the second line of that family, an old brigadier of the king’s army, a Knight of Malta, of Saint Louis, of Saint Maurice and of Saint Lazare.

The Chevalier de Lautrec was a middle-aged man who lived a modest, though very dignified life on his small pension. Though he rarely appeared in society, he could be seen most often at the Palais Royal and the Café Valois. He was a very cultured mind and an assiduous reader of all the newspapers.

Deprived of his pension overnight, it was never known what the Chevalier de Lautrec lived on at a time when it was so difficult to live, and so easy to die. But here we have something that sheds at least a dim light on this mystery.

One morning after finishing a very modest breakfast in the Café Valois, as was his custom, the Chevalier de Lautrec rose from his table, chatted with all naturalness with the proprietress, who stood behind a counter, bid good-day to the master of the café with a slight gesture of the eyes, and walked out majestically saying nothing about the bill.

This scene was repeated the next day, and the next, and on every day for weeks, months and years without the owner of the establishment ever receiving an explanation from the Chevalier or even thinking to ask him for one.

A few days after the first of these singular exits, as the Chevalier directed his gaze to the good proprietor's son, he said to the father in an unpresuming tone of voice.

“Well, here is a cavalier that will learn very little now that the schools are closed. You should send him to my house everyday between one and four o'clock in the afternoon. I shall teach him elementary mathematics and English, which I speak passably.”

“No doubt this would be useful to him if he is to replace you some day; and besides, I really don’t have anything to occupy my time, so these lessons would help to entertain me.”

“Milord, you are really very good, a thousand times good," answered the innkeeper. "What you propose would be an invaluable favor to us, especially in these times. But, we would not dare encumber you to the point of...”

“But it would rather be doing me a service, I tell you!” the Chevalier interjected.

Despite the fact that his eyes were so full of authority, he said this with no firmness at all, but the worthy proprietor was indeed perceptive to appreciate this contrast, and he came close to thrusting his son into the Chevalier's arms.

“Milord,” said the innkeeper, “you are much too generous to us. My son is yours, as well as my whole house, today, tomorrow and always.”

For many years thereafter the boy studied English and mathematics at the house of the impoverished noble.

On the 7th of December, 1817, at eleven o'clock in the morning, that is, exactly 26 years to the day and to the hour after this conversation, the now elderly Chevalier de Lautrec entered into the Café Valois as was his custom. The former owner had died 5 years earlier and was succeeded by his son.

After he had dined with a good appetite the Chevalier, for the first time in 26 years, candidly asked for the check while he paged with all naturality through the Drapeau Blanc (the Monarchist Daily).

Without batting an eyelash, the proprietor exchanged a few words with his young wife. Ten minutes later the Chevalier received a bill in the amount of 16,980 francs for 8,490 dinners at two francs each.

The old nobleman glanced at the total, opened his wallet, took out enough bills for the sum and handed them to the waiter along with the check, telling him to keep the change, which was exactly 520 francs. He rose up from the table, doubtless feeling much lighter, though his expression betrayed nothing of it.

He then went over to the counter according to his old habit and conversed with the young mistress of the establishment for a few moments before slowly directing his steps towards the door. Then, with a napkin draped over his arm, the proprietor respectfully stepped aside to allow him to pass by, the old Chevalier gravely took his hand and warmly pressed it between his own.

The silent scene we have just described did not go unnoticed by the Marquis de Rivarol, who was coming in just then after having set his watch to the famous clock of the Palais Royal.

At the time of the Restoration, the Chevalier de Lautrec inherited a small share of the estate of one of his brothers who had died in Coblentz shortly before. Even though it was an appreciable sum, most of it was consumed settling hefty bills that were long overdue.

But thanks to the recovery of his pension, he was able to end his days with financial ease and always faithful to the Café Valois for whose advancement he contributed to as we shall explain.
We have seen that the proprietor of that hospitable establishment was a creditor like few are found in any epoch.

Few cases as beautiful as the one we have related dignified the life of that good man, with no great harm to his finances. This businessman of ancient stock did not treat everyone indiscriminately. He possessed a clear perception and sensibility of heart.

With the Chevalier de Lautrec's payment, the proprietor recovered most of what was owed him, and as to the interest on that debt, which he had never contemplated charging, he was generously compensated by the lessons from such a proficient teacher of English, mathematics and, above all, good sentiments.

Furthermore, owing to this noble relationship, the Café Valois won distinguished and selected patrons. It acquired an even greater original character, which was a considerable advantage and almost vital need for such an establishment at that time.
Indeed, the Marquis de Rivarol was not a man who would miss such a good opportunity to be indiscreet for charity's sake. Since he had many relations among the monarchists of that time, as he would also among those of the future, it became easy for him to serve the interests of his favorite café by making this and other anecdotes well known.

Thanks to him, the owner of the establishment became something of a curiosity and was sought out to the point of aggravation. This was compounded by the fact that although the innkeeper's political convictions were as vague as they were moderate, his qualities were ascribed to his perceived political fervor, but in reality they lay in innate kindness and paternal tradition.

In any case, this was very advantageous to him, for while the Calé Lemblin became the meeting place of the officers of the Empire, now retired or in the reserves, and of some republicans and liberals not belonging to the army, the voltigeurs of Louis XV and the young members of the Guards Corps chose the Cafe Valois.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Honduras: A Battle for the Christian Soul of Latin America

The following analysis was written by the Association of the Founders in Brazil, an organization of disciples and followers of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and his school of thought and action. In light of recent developments, we feel the following commentary to be especially timely.

A reading and analysis of the news over the last weeks clearly shows growing tensions in Latin America, where there is a great political-ideological battle of crucial importance for the future of all of countries in the area, particularly Brazil.
Paradoxically, it is in little Honduras where this historic battle is raging most virulently at present.

The clandestine return to Honduras of deposed president Manuel Zelaya – an initiative led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – and the subsequent transformation of the Brazilian Embassy into the general headquarters of Zelaya and a group of his closest followers, increased tensions to an incredible degree and caused Brazil to cross an extremely dangerous threshold in international relations.

In an unheard-of gesture totally opposed to the country’s diplomatic traditions, Brazilian diplomats decided to intervene directly in Honduras – violating Honduran sovereignty and disrespecting its institutions and international laws in an unmistakable act of subservience to Chavez’s expansionism.
Facing the gravity of the present situation and inspired with Christian patriotism, the Association of the Founders addresses the public regarding the direction of Brazil’s foreign policy, which is causing growing perplexity and anxiety in countless Brazilians. In so doing, we draw inspiration from the longstanding and consistent action and principles that inspired the eminent and intrepid Catholic thinker and leader, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.

Manuel Zelaya

I – Fabricating a “Coup d’état” Ghost
There are moments when the international scene is overtaken by some political or religious event which, like a sudden gale, overthrows everything.
Public opinion becomes enveloped in an emotional climate in which well-pondered reflection and balanced judgments are impaired but are nevertheless communicated as undeniable realities.
Honduras, a small country in Central America to which public attention is not habitually turned, has become the epicenter of one of those phenomena. The excuse was the political events that led to the deposition of then president Manuel Zelaya on June 28 of this year.
Torrential news analyses and abundant political reactions lacking impartiality and objectivity insisted that an arbitrary action of political barbarism had been perpetrated against a president legitimately and calmly carrying out the mandate for which he was elected; some even spoke of a return to the "dark times" of military coups d’état.
Led by members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), certain Latin American politicians, speaking on behalf of a democracy that many of them deny by their actions, urged a vehement condemnation of the "coup" in Honduras. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva himself joined the chorus condemning the so-called coup.
However, authoritative voices around the world began to point out the true nature of the events in that country. In fact, what had been happening in Honduras was a creeping coup against the institutions of its Constitution led by none other than Manuel Zelaya with the intimate cooperation of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
II – The Truth About Honduras: Zelaya Attacks the Constitution and Challenges the Country’s Institutions
In January 2006, Manuel Zelaya assumed the presidency of Honduras, after winning the election as a member of the conservative-leaning Liberal Party.
Conditioned by an acute crisis in public finances, a fruit of corruption and high oil prices, he began to draw closer to the Venezuelan leader.
Attracted at first by the tempting conditions for buying oil and later by an invitation to join ALBA – which the country did in August 2008 after a sharp dispute in the National Congress -- Zelaya reneged on his election platform, announced he was a leftist anti-imperialist, and manifested growing approval of Hugo Chavez’s ongoing maneuvers to destabilize several Latin American countries.
Politically worn out and the object of serious accusations of corruption and connections to drug traffic, Zelaya launched the idea of a plebiscite in March 2009 to reform the Constitution and perpetuate himself in power according to the Chavez book of tricks already successful in Bolivia and Ecuador.
The Honduran Constitution has immutable clauses which include obligatory rotation in the presidency. Breaking that clause is a "crime of treason against the country." The Constitution also requires immediate cessation of the public mandate (including the presidency) of anyone who proposes or supports a reform of the constitutional provision that prohibits a president from running for a second term.
Indifferent to such constitutional obstacles, President Zelaya issued a decree calling a referendum to establish a Constituent Assembly anyway.
At the end of May, the Court of Administrative Disputes, in a lawsuit filed by the prosecutor and the state attorney general, suspended all practical effects of that decree, deeming it unconstitutional.
The government itself, admitting the illegality of said decree, decided to present a new, slightly modified version, yet riddled with the same defects.
The Superior Electoral Court declared the referendum planned by the executive branch illegal, as well as all preparations for it, particularly for usurping the prerogatives of other branches, which is a felony according to the Honduran Constitution.
At that point, President Manuel Zelaya announced his intention not to respect the decisions of the Judiciary and asked Hugo Chavez to help him organize the referendum. Materials to hold the referendum were brought in from Venezuela.
Zelaya tried one last maneuver by ordering the military to support the referendum, which had been declared illegal. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces refused and was summarily dismissed.
On 26 June, the Attorney General asked the Supreme Court for an arrest warrant against Manuel Zelaya on charges of treason, conspiracy against the form of government, abuse of authority and usurpation of his function. The said court ordered the military to arrest Zelaya for those offenses.
On June 28, Zelaya was arrested and removed from the country. With only five dissenting votes, the Honduran National Congress had Roberto Micheletti sworn in as the new constitutional president of Honduras.
The appointment was consistent with the Honduran Constitution, as the vice president had resigned months earlier to become a candidate in the November elections.
Since an account, however brief, about the institutional crisis in Honduras would be inconvenient for Zelaya, Chavez and their “fellow travelers,” it was necessary to spread the simplistic and partisan idea that the military had carried out a "coup d'état.” Large media conglomerates obligingly spread the “party line.”
In fact, the maneuver calling Manuel Zelaya’s removal a "coup" that must be condemned contained an ideological ruse. By craftily omitting all attacks by Mr. Zelaya against the Honduran constitutional order while claiming to defend it, they also sought to favor the geopolitical strategy of Hugo Chavez and his “twenty-first century socialism.”
As the real facts began to emerge, it became clear that what happened in Honduras was a series of institutional acts to defend the rule of law; and thus the version of an arbitrary action by the military began to crumble.
It should be noted that, despite criticizing the political events, the U.S. State Department never described what happened in Honduras as a coup.
Later, a study by the U.S. Library of Congress - an advisory and non-political consultative organ – deemed the destitution of President Manuel Zelaya constitutional. The study objects only to the legality of his expulsion from the country.
The most relevant document on this point was perhaps the one issued by the Honduras Catholic Conference of Bishops.
In a statement read by Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez, the Honduran bishops claimed to have sought information from all relevant bodies of the state and civil society and concluded that the decisions that led to the deposition of President Manuel Zelaya were legal and that the state’s democratic institutions remain in full force. The bishops added that they were waiting for an explanation of the expulsion of the former president from the country.

Roberto Micheletti

III – Elections and Diplomatic Pressures
Since the deposition of Manuel Zelaya, the government of Roberto Micheletti became the object of countless diplomatic pressures which we will not describe here. However, it is fitting to emphasize the pro-Zelaya orchestration led by the Organization of American States (OAS), under the direction of the socialist, José Miguel Insulza.
Honduras was summarily expelled from the OAS only a few weeks after the latter unconditionally approved the return of the Castro dictatorship to the organization. This is in addition to the OAS’ startling silence regarding Zelaya’s power-encroaching maneuvers and Chávez's military threats to the country. The OAS was warned by the Honduran Bishops Conference that it should pay more attention to all the illegal things happening before June 28.
Because of its unabashed bias, the OAS became discredited to play any mediating role, which led the parties to hold direct talks under the auspices of the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias.
Manuel Zelaya, ignoring his own attacks on the Honduran institutions and his violations of the fundamental law of the country, remained adamant in his demand for a return to power without any conditions, which powerfully contributed to the failure of all attempts at negotiation.
As the diplomatic row stemmed, large demonstrations were held in the streets of Honduras, especially in Tegucigalpa. Hondurans of all walks of life showed the world their opposition to Hugo Chavez's intervention in their country’s affairs and their ideological refusal of “twenty-first century socialism.”
Facing the failure of negotiations and widespread opposition by the Honduran people to Zelaya’s maneuvers, the November elections in the country remained as the only peaceful solution. Several countries welcomed this solution and the U.S. Department of State did not rule it out.
Coup allegations would eventually crumble with the completion of those elections, scheduled before the deposition of Manuel Zelaya and kept on schedule by the government of Roberto Micheletti. That would consummate the defeat of Chavez’s political strategy in Honduras.
It was then that Brazilian diplomacy began to take the lead and openly defend the interests of the Bolivarian bloc by frustrating any solution that did not meet the interests of Chavez.

IV – A Radical Maneuver: Zelaya’s Clandestine Return
Social and political peace reigned in Honduras. Thus, it was urgent to disturb the political arena and prevent the elections from taking place.
A radical maneuver was needed to rekindle the crisis. Nothing could be more useful than Zelaya’s clandestine return to the country.
Everything indicates that Hugo Chavez actively participated in the logistics of Mr. Zelaya’s return to the country. Chavez himself admitted that he knew about everything and disclosed that it was “a covert operation.”
Chavez’s confession only reinforces the certainty that Zelaya is a political puppet serving the interests of the Venezuelan caudillo.
From the moment that Manuel Zelaya took “refuge” in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Brazil visibly began to participate in the Chavista enterprise.
It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that Zelaya’s showing up at the door of the Brazilian embassy was the result of chance, since his stay there and the active collaboration of the Brazilian government have served its interests. Note also the coincidence with the speech by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the U.N. General Assembly, during which he demanded an immediate return of Manuel Zelaya to office and condemned "coups d’état" such as the one in Honduras, while at the same time defending the Castro regime.
In a radio interview with a Honduran station, Zelaya said his plan to return to Honduras was prepared in consultation with Lula and [Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs] Celso Amorim. But even if he were lying, the confidence shown by Hugo Chavez in regard to Brazil is indicative of how the Venezuelan leader counts on Brazilian diplomacy to carry out his adventures and how the latter is complicit with his geo-political interests. It is understandable therefore that Manuel Zelaya has reaffirmed how essential Brazilian support is and reiterated his thanks to President Lula.
The fact is that Brazilian diplomacy, rather than demanding that Manuel Zelaya use discretion and refrain from any political demonstration, has allowed him to turn the Brazilian embassy into his own headquarters where he began to call for an uprising in Honduras and the overthrow of Micheletti. The possibility was even mentioned that Zelaya might install a parallel government there. The gravity of the situation is accentuated when one considers that several dozen Zelaya followers settled in the embassy with him, many of them with cloths hiding their faces while guarding the entrance to the building; it is not even certain that all of them are Hondurans.
Soon after Zelaya’s first harangues to his followers from the balcony of the embassy and in interviews given in the building, Zelaya supporters looted shops, destroyed property, burned tires and blocked roads; two lives were lost as a result of these disorders.
It is easy to understand why, in a statement released by the Foreign Ministry of Honduras, the government of President Lula was accused of meddling in that country’s internal affairs, and why Honduran Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez Contreras declared in an interview that “the government of President Lula has a serious international responsibility not only with the government of Honduras but also with the public and the stores looted by mobs instigated from within the mission of Brazil in Tegucigalpa” (“Chanceler de regime de facto acusa Brasil,” O Estado de S. Paulo, 9/26/2009).
In fact, Brazil, in an assault on the sovereignty of Honduras, has explicitly intervened in the country’s internal affairs in violation of international law, as noted by several experts. That attitude was reinforced by statements from President Lula that Zelaya has no deadline to leave the embassy and that "Brazil has nothing to talk about with these gentlemen who have usurped power."
The desire to frustrate any negotiated settlement that fails to meet the interests of Hugo Chavez, has surfaced in the emergency meeting of the OAS, in which Brazil has aligned itself with Venezuela, rejecting the proposals of American diplomats.
The situation remains serious. In fact, those who planned for Zelaya’s return were counting on tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of his followers taking to the streets to support him, as Madrid’s newspaper, ABC, noted. But once again, it clearly turned out that the left failed to muster popular support.

All that was left for Zelaya, always from within the Brazilian Embassy, was to call for a final offensive by social movements and to preach acts of civil disobedience, as he did. This at the very moment that a member who chairs the Commission on Security and Drug Trafficking denounced to the Congress of Honduras, based on intelligence reports by the military and police in Central American countries, a massive campaign to smuggle weapons from El Salvador into Honduras to carry out terrorist acts in the country (“Denuncian masivo tráfico de armas hacia Honduras,” El Heraldo, 9/29/2009).
Is Chavez -- with the possible assistance of Cuba, Nicaragua and other allies - preparing a bloodbath for Honduras? And in that case, will Brazil’s misguided diplomacy be ready to go ahead with this enterprise that can degenerate into violence and meet a tragic end?
Understandably, the U.S. ambassador to the OAS, Lewis Amsel, has described Zelaya’s clandestine return as "irresponsible" in addition to not serving "the interests of his people and of those who support a peaceful solution to the restoration of democratic order."
The whole situation created with the "protection" given to former President Manuel Zelaya at the Brazilian embassy is telltale of the fact that the diplomacy of the Lula government has decided to cross a very dangerous threshold and assume the leadership of the geopolitical and ideological strategy of the so-called Bolivarian axis. As Veja magazine aptly put it in an editorial, "supporting Zelaya does not mean defending democracy; it means supporting the Chavez dictatorship" (9/30/2009).

Hugo Chavez

V – Two Crumbling Myths
In the firmament of Latin-American diplomacy, two maxims emerged and became accepted almost as self-evident.
The first presented Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a histrionic, eccentric leader leading a revolution confused in its concepts and innocuous in practice. According to this version, the wild and crazy threats of Chavez were nothing but empty rhetoric.
The second maxim presented President Lula as a counterweight to Chavez’s radicality, prepared to contain his outbursts, as Lula is supposedly a moderate and pragmatic leftist leader and a reliable actor and necessary player in the resolution of local disputes.
So the left in Latin America is supposedly divided into two blocks, one of the radical left (led by Hugo Chavez) and a moderately leftist block (led by Lula).
The truth is that both maxims contributed to demobilize and weaken any resistance to the advancement of the left in Latin America.
Meanwhile, the two leaders were making substantial progress in their strategies, which were nothing but two sides of the same coin.
Anyone who focused more acutely on the diplomatic reality of the region would have realized that when Chavez’s disapproval rate rose or when he launched the boldest moves of his so-called Bolivarianism, President Lula and his diplomacy have consistently flocked to aid Chavez or members of his bloc.
Yet, mysteriously, many media and political analysts continued to repeat the two maxims, almost like a mantra.
Over the years, events have proved those versions wrong and, indeed, the two myths have now crumbled.
In fact, Lula never seriously tempered Chavez’s attitudes. And the proof is that the Venezuelan caudillo managed to pursue his radical program in Venezuela, where he openly implants a dictatorial socialist regime (which Lula has classified as an "excess of democracy") extending his influence or interference to several countries; openly giving cover to the FARC terrorist guerillas and making alliances, including military ones, with Russia, China, Libya, Algeria and Iran – a clearly anti-American axis.
In a recent analysis, the respected magazine The Economist warned that there is a method to Chavez’s madness: “His avowed calculation is that by helping to stir up trouble for America in many places simultaneously, he can bring about the collapse of ‘the empire.’ The regimes he is so assiduously cultivating are, by this account, the nucleus of a new world order.” And the magazine warns that the world should start to take his designs more seriously (“Friends in low places,” 9/15/2009).
President Manuel Zelaya’s clandestine return to Honduras and his reception at the Brazilian embassy fit right into the context pointed out by The Economist.
In an outburst, the Lula-Labor Party diplomacy revealed its true face, showing it is willing to play rough and to actively support Chavez and his "twenty-first century socialism," working to destabilize Latin America and increasingly undermine the influence of the United States in the region.
Conclusion
The Honduran crisis is highly revealing and is a serious warning sign. The government of President Lula, despite certain appearances, is not interested in solving it in accordance with Honduran institutions. Instead, they are willing to force the small Central American nation to surrender to Chavismo.

Zelaya and Lula

In its subservience to the designs of a left-wing ideology, Brazil’s diplomacy does not reflect the beating heart of Brazil as a whole, as public policies have long failed to take into account the conservative and Christian fibers of the nation’s people - one of the most prestigious and compelling components of the nation’s mentality.
The aggressiveness and radicalization that increasingly mark our diplomatic policies, in addition to possibly dragging Brazil to an undesirable position of belligerence, are averse to the mentality of average Brazilians.
What will our compatriots think when they see themselves involved in conflicts they never sought, only because the ideological fanaticism of some has led them to misadventures such as the present one?
What uneasiness, disconcertedness and hallucinatory sense of being sidetracked from the nation’s historic mission will Brazilians feel when they see the tactical capabilities of the country’s geographic configuration, the immense riches of her subsoil, her booming agriculture and dynamic industry being employed to spread an ideology alien to their longings and contrary to their Christian principles?
It is urgent for Manuel Zelaya to leave the Brazilian legation and stop using it as a headquarters from which he issues calls for a revolt that could lead to a fratricidal struggle among Hondurans. If our government continues to sponsor the Chavista adventure of Manuel Zelaya, it will be responsible for it to a large degree.
Honduras needs peace and respect for its sovereignty and not war cries coming from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.
More important than anything else, little Honduras, Brazil and all Latin America must be safe from the intrigues, threats, incursions, and a possible future dominance of “twenty-first century socialism.”
In our view, we need to form a broad front in Brazil - not so much based on party affiliation but on her real interests - which effectively opposes the excesses of a diplomatic policy that has long ignored our legitimate national interests replacing them with an imperialist ideology; an ideology that is trying to revive in our usually peaceful continent a wake of humiliation, confrontation, misery and pain that Marxist ideas have imposed on Russia, the countries of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea and Cuba, to mention just a few.
We close this statement by lifting our prayers to Our Lady Aparecida, Queen of Brazil, begging her not to allow alien ideologies to disturb peace in Latin America, turning Brazil into a focus of insecurity and disintegration.

São Paulo, October 3, 2009


Associação dos Fundadores

Adolpho Lindenberg
Caio Xavier da Silveira
Celso da Costa Carvalho Vidigal
Eduardo de Barros Brotero
Paulo Corrêa de Brito Filho
Plinio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira