United States is supporting the recent MILITARY COUP in Egypt, when not long ago it condemned Honduras for a nonexistent COUP.

Vice President Omar Suleiman announced yesterday on Egypt state television that President Hosni Mubarak handed the power to the Military Supreme Council.

A Coup happens when State institutions are dissolved, Parliament is dissolved , the judiciary is dissolved, and a Military Junta seizes power. In Honduras there was NO military coup or civilian-military coup. We had an interim civilian administration, which produced an orderly transition to the new administration we have now. But we were unjustly condemned, and we are still being condemned.

CNN in Espanol is talking about a “revolution in Egypt.” Perhaps this way it sounds more romantic and acceptable, but at the end of the day: What is the difference between a revolution and a COUP? It is basically the same: a rupture of the constitutional order.

If it’s about popular support, the interim regime enjoyed a wide support in Honduras, both from the people and the State institutions.

We must keep an open mind, sometimes COUPS are necessary. There are good coups and bad coups. With a COUP D’ETAT against Adolf Hitler many lives could have been saved. This COUP in Egypt may be the beginning of a new era of freedom for the Egyptian people, that’s our hope, but in Honduras there was NO Coup d’Etat.

Dictator Hugo Chavez is supporting the MILITARY COUP in Egypt. Manuel Zelaya is also supporting the coup. Both are known for their failed attempts at COUPS in their countries. They are COUPSTERS that support MILITARY COUPS when it better suits them.

The day before his ouster, on Saturday June 27, 2009, Manuel Zelaya made reference to the French Revolution to justify his projected COUP, which would dissolve the other branches of government and extend his term in office illegally; but he could not achieve this because the State of Honduras, in a movement of self-defense, removed him from office.

Hugo Chavez in 1992, was responsible for a failed MILITARY COUP attempt that killed innocent people. And yet, the failed COUPSTER believes he has the moral right to condemn a coup that never existed in Honduras.

These are the ironies and contradictions of international politics.

In Globo TV, the journalist David Romero Ellner, who has served time in prison for raping his own daughter, said today that “the Virgin of Suyapa is GOLPISTA (coupster), they have made her GOLPISTA (coupster), for holding the title of Captain of the Armed Forces”.

Romero Ellner has been a major supporter of Manuel Zelaya, who sought to perpetuate in office through a manipulated opinion poll.

“If the Virgin of Suyapa was so miraculous as they say, she should have caused the temple to fall upon dictator Micheletti, when he paid a visit to her”, said the social communicator.

Today an early morning celebration was held at the Shrine of Suyapa in honor of the Virgin, attended by thousands of people.

February 3 marks the day dedicated to that image, to which many Honduran Catholics regard as the PATRON SAINT OF HONDURAS .

The worship of the little image of Suyapa began in the XVII century, and the military has claimed her as their captain decades before the supposed COUP D’ETAT.

President Porfirio Lobo

Lets check the achievements of the Porfirio Lobo Administration: Honduras managed to stabilize its economy after the consequences of the 2009 political crisis. It achieved recognition from many nations, after the erroneous perception of a COUP D’ETAT. This is a very important step.

The Lobo administration had a good start in 2011, boosting major development projects, such as Charter Cities, hydropower projects located by the Patuca river, and the Jicatuyo and Llanitos hydroelectric projects. He also inaugurated the Wind Energy Project of Cerro de Hula.

But the way the Lobo administration has been handling the political issues seems to be mistaking. After getting from Congress an amnesty decree for political crimes supposedly committed by both sides of the 2009 conflict, President Lobo has been stubborn in his intent to get for Mr. Manuel Zelaya an state of total impunity in all the charges levelled against him. This interference in the affairs of the judiciary makes him look bad among those in Honduras that wish for greater respect for the law. I am of the opinion that the main cause of the political crisis of 2009 was the open disrespect of Mr. Zelaya for the legal order, and President Lobo seems unable to apply that lesson to himself.

The stubbornness with which President Porfirio Lobo brings up the subject of re-election produces anxiety to a section of the population. It is believed in Honduras that Zelaya’s illegal attempts to allow re-election were the cause of his overthrown. One would think that an issue that causes so much tension would be abandoned, but that’s not what President Lobo thinks. So much for peace an reconciliation.

The amendments to the article 5 of the Constitution, allowing for the people the possibility to be consulted on the issue of re-election makes many people nervous. Some people wonders if President Lobo is following the steps of Zelaya, who in his eagerness to promote the “fourth ballot box” was forcefully removed from office.

Porfirio Lobo says the Honduran people gave him a clear mandate at the ballot boxes, to fight for peace and reconciliation. But President Lobo has a strange idea of what reconciliation means. He believes, apparently, that reconciliation involves passing over the legal system and the separation of branches, in his attempt to favor the side of Zelaya. Lobo believes he can appease the groups that support Zelaya, but the reactions of these groups, both nationally and internationally, show the opposite. This complacency with the inflexible Zelayistas makes him look weak in the eyes of many Hondurans.

More worrisome is the fact that he has given the National Agrarian Institute in the hands of the Zelayista Cesar Ham, who apparently has used his position to aggravate the agrarian conflict in the Bajo Aguan instead of solving it. But President Lobo refuses to dismiss this minister, because of his distorted idea of the “national reconciliation” concept, that he identifies as a distribution of government positions.

President Lobo is also criticized for creating the new Secretariat of Human Rights in times of economic crisis, when the State can not afford to create more bureaucracy. But President Lobo did it, because he believes this new ministry will appease the human right agencies which have echoed the slanders against Honduras in this issue.

An action much criticized by the public opinion was the removal of Mr. Federico Alvarez’ citizenship. Mr. Alvarez is a naturalized Honduran of Costa Rican origin, who was notable for his criticism against the Lobo Administration in La Tribuna newspaper. Public opinion has interpreted this action as an attack against freedom of expression. The government argues that Mr. Federico Alvarez didn’t have his documentation of naturalization in order.

Despite his clear preference in favor of those who sympathize with former President Zelaya, and his denigration of those who oppose him, President Porfirio Lobo likes to define himself as a moderate politician, far from the extremes of Left and Right. But the truth is that, despite coming from a historically conservative party like the National Party, President Lobo has a clear leftist tendency, which leaves the old guard of the National Party somewhat perplexed.

Hopefully in 2011, President Lobo will focus on development projects for the country, relegating the Zelaya issue. Too much has been done to appease Honduras’ enemies.

A short list of leading female entrepreneurs in Honduras.

Elizabeth “Lizzy” Flores. Representative of Honduras in the United Nations Organization (UN) and successful entrepreneur.

Aline Flores. Chairwoman of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries of Tegucigalpa and Vice Chairwoman of Corporacion Flores.

Juliette Handal. Pharmaceutical entrepreneur and Coordinator of the Patriotic Coalition.

Jackelyne Flefil. CEO of the Cell Phone Company, Tigo.

Adda Molina. Digicel’s Marketing Manager.

Ana María Kafaty. TV Programme Planning Manager of Televicentro and visionary entrepreneur.

Sandra Gianinni. First Vice Chairwoman of Corporate Banking of Ficohsa Financial Group.

Josefina Perez. Sales and Marketing Officer of Emisoras Unidas.

Mey-Lang Hung. Corporate Affairs Officer of Walmart of Mexico and Central America in Honduras.

Maria Selman. CEO of Banco del País.

Vilma Morales. Chairwoman of the National Commission for Banking and Insurance. She was also the first Chairwoman of the Supreme Court.

Claudia Discua. Corporate Image Manager of Ficohsa Financial Group.

Successful women in Fashion Business.

Nelly Raudales. CEO of chain hair salon Esther, the largest one in the capital city.

Jacqueline D’Vicente.CEO of Jacqueline’s Boutique, in Choluteca.

Gladys Cuestas. Fashion Designer, President of Couture Mod ‘Art

Marcia Lagos. CEO of Boutique Da’lila and Da’lila Accessories.

Source: Revista Cheque. January 2011. Issue # 170.

Honduran national emblem

Many Hondurans believe that Honduras’ Independence Day is on September 15, 1821. In fact, September 15th is a Honduran national holiday, and this date is at the foot of the national emblem surrounded by the Legend: Republic of Honduras, Free, Sovereign and Independent.

However, this is not correct.

Honduras did not come to life as an independent country, but as State that was part of the Central American Federation.

Another group of more informed Hondurans would tell us that September 15, 1821 is the date on which Central America proclaimed its independence from Spain, but this is also mistaken.

The famous “Declaration of Independence” of September 15, 1821 doesn’t even establish the Independence of Central America, but postpones the decision on this issue, delegating it to a Congress that that would meet in March 1822. That Congress never met.

In fact, the Bill of Independence of September 15, 1821 was just an aristocratic maneuver made to prevent an Independence with revolutionary scopes. The Bill of September 15th sought to maintain the colonial regime, with the same authorities that now wouldn’t be accountable before Spain.

Independence was only taken into consideration by the local elite of Spanish descent as measure of last resort to “prevent the terrible consequences that would follow in case the people itself proclaims it” as says the same declaration drafted -but not signed— by Jose Cecilio del Valle, considered as a national hero in Honduras.

This exposes the falsity of the claim found in the Honduran national anthem, the lyrics of which were written by Augusto C. Coello. A stanza of said anthem compares what happened on 15 September 1821 with the French Revolution.

The truth is that September 15, 1821 is not a glorious date of national liberation, but a date on which the expectations of the Patriots were betrayed and democracy was trampled, because the aristocracy immediately maneuvered to attach Central America to Iturbide’s Mexican Empire, in order to maintain their privileges threatened by a democratic and republican revolution. This annexation was declared on January 5, 1822.

The annexation bill to Mexico was drafted —and this time signed— by Jose Cecilio del Valle, which is held as a great hero in Honduras. And yet it was under the influence of Valle on the Mexican Congress that Central America won its independence from Mexico, Independence that was proclaimed officially on July 1, 1823 by the Central American Constituent Assembly.

The Constituent Assembly decided that the system of government of Central America would be republican and federal, granting autonomy to each of the five States that comprised it: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

Under this Constitution Manuel Jose Arce was elected as Central America’s first president on March 5, 1824, and on 16 September, 1824 Dionisio de Herrera was elected as the first Chief of State of Honduras.

But the Central American Federation was unable to consolidate under the strong opposition of conservatives, who wanted to preserve the oppressive system of privileges of the Spanish Colonization.

Upon Gen. Francisco Morazan fell the task of fighting against the anti-democratic reaction, which found a strong ally in Catholic obscurantism, but the proportion of forces didn’t favored him, and Morazan had to pay with his life the audacity to dream with the Great Central American Motherland. Morazan was executed by firing squad on September 15, 1842 in Costa Rica.

With the death of Morazan the conservative reaction triumphed, and the dream of a Central American Federation was truncated. But Honduras had already been declared independent of the Central American Federation on October 26, 1838. This date was of no glory to Honduras, it was a historical setback that sunk the Honduran government in a strong anti-Morazanic reaction in the hands of president Francisco Ferrera.

The democratic and republican ideal just begun timidly on 1876 in Honduras in the so called “Liberal Reform”, led by president Marco Aurelio Soto and his minister and advisor Ramon Rosa.

Then followed fifty years of fratricidal wars, ending in the 16-year dictatorship of Tiburcio Carias Andino. Carias ruled from 1933 to 1949.

Carias finally manages to put an end to civil wars and insurgent movements, with the downside of a high social cost, for the brutal repression that was unleashed against the enemies of the regime.

Carias administration’s repression achieved the consolidation of the Honduran State, but this consolidation was accompanied by subordination of the interests of Honduras to the U.S banana companies. The influence of the United States never allowed the Honduran State to be truly independent.

Gradually the Honduran people have been conquering more and more spaces of democratic freedom, but the cancer of internal corruption and the dependence on foreign aid is still an affront to the national dignity.

Honduras Independence, therefore, is not an epic event that happened in the past, as taught in Honduran formal education, but it is something that Honduras has been achieving with difficulty, and it’s still a project to be carried out.

If you want to know more about Honduran and Central American history you can order the book Understanding Central America: Global Forces, Rebellion, and Change on Amazon.

Source for this article: “Evolución histórica de Honduras”, by Longino Becerra. Baktun Editorial.

Paul Romer is an economist at Stanford University known for his contributions to the economic theory of growth. After writing several articles in the late 80’s, Paul Romer left academic research to pursue his own business, and now he focuses his energies on promoting his Charter Cities project.

After a trip to the United States, President Lobo and Congress President, Juan Hernandez, went back to Honduras, very excited, supporting the Romer’s ideas. And no wonder. This is a golden opportunity for Honduras development.

The essential idea of Romer’s charter city model is simple. Development is not based on technology itself, nor knowledge, but on good rules expressed in laws and customs that allow to channel the creative energy of people. The cause of the underdevelopment of countries like Honduras is bad laws that do not encourage the necessary investment to boost the country.

So the obvious solution is to change laws, to change the rules of the game, and everything else will follow.

However, it’s not so simple. Profound changes generate enormous resistance from vested interests and popular demands.

Romer’s solution is to create a city from scratch in an uninhabited area, and to provide it of good standards from the beginning, good laws that encourage investment and creativity. This way authoritarian temptations are avoided, the government need not impose anything by force, and no one will be forced to go to a charter city.

Romer likes to put the example of the electricity problem of Guinea, where young people have to study under the street lights at night, because they don’t have electricity in their homes. This is because poor government policies, a rule that sets such a low price for electricity that makes the company loose money for each additional unit sold, so there is no incentive to connect more users. When the president of Guinea tried to change this situation, he had to retreat under the pressure from businesses and consumers accustomed to payinv low fees. In contrast, mobile phone companies do not have this restriction, so there are young people without electricity in their homes who do have cell phones.

The solution to this dilemma is to give more options to people and leaders, and the Charter City is the model that allows us to give more options to both. Instead of attacking head-on the resistance to change, we simply evade it.

A lot of people worry that the charter cities will be handing territory to foreign powers or private investors, however, such is not necessary in the model proposed by Romer. Following the example of the city of Shenzhen in China, Honduras itself could put the new rules for the Charter City, even when others put the money. However, having a strong country or a company sponsoring us can bring more credibility to the project, a credibility that the country may not have by itself.

The issue of national sovereignty is very sensitive, and must be handled with care, remembering that the ultimate goal of the State is the human person as stated by the doctrine of Christian Humanism touted by president Lobo. We must not close our minds against a project that could benefit thousands of compatriots in the name of a misunderstood patriotism. The true patriots seek to benefit their country, and this is certainly a unique opportunity to raise the quality of life of many Hondurans.

Some people want the Charter City to apply the same laws as the rest of the territory, to preserve legality and not sully the national sovereignty. But this makes no sense. The purpose of the charter cities is to provide better rules, regulations or laws than those already being applied in the rest of the country. If the rules of the game are not changed there will be no way to attract massive foreign investment and boost national development. If Honduran laws and government system were the best there would be no need to create charter cities.

The conception of the Honduran government of Charter Cities is explained here.

By: Jesus Aguilar Paz

These three islands correspond to the Honduran Archipelago, which is in the Bay Islands province, formerly known as Guanajos.

The names of these three islands, according to legend, are not of indigenous or Spanish origin, but of English one. (Although Guanajos is indeed of indigenous origin). This is explained by the encroachment made by England in time of the wars of Spain. We know so well that some nations owe their greatness to these Americas, which through Spain, sent their cold hard cash through the purchase of goods the Mother Country did not produce, due to the lack of foresight of her rulers and also due to detestable piracy.

But we are investigating the origin of the mentioned names, so lets proceed.

The first pirates who seized the main island, after removing the colonial guards, were welcomed by some animals worthy of these usurpers, by rodents: rats. Impressed by this event the pirates exclaimed: Rat-land!, whence came the name of Roatan.

Of course, they soon did not fit on this island, and according to the piratical custom of that nation, of occupying the entire land, they soon headed North for the following small island. There appeared again to welcome them several flocks of rats, so the hardened adventurers, frightened, cried: More-rats!, so the island was christened with this name, i.e., Morat.

Not satisfied, as we have stated, said Adventurers wanted to occupy more land, so the Englishmen pirates went to take the next island, which was Barbareta.

Here the previous rule did not fail, and the pirates’ congeners, the rodents, came out ready to receive them, but in huge quantity. The pirates, who were once painted so justly by his own countryman, dean Jonathan Swift, in his Gulliver’s Travels, amazed by such plague, cried out: Barbar-rats!, i.e., lot of rats, which was the name of said island: Barbareta.

Tired of seeing so many mice, these pirates discontinued their usurper raid, but not because their dominant megalomania was cured, as evidenced by history, for they needed to be removed from the islands by cannon shots, according to Mariscal Matias de Galvez.

As it is widely known, they felt the urge to take again these islands indisputably owned by Honduras, but this last time General Guardiola was the one who pulled them out … by hat blows!

Taken from the book “Canasta Folklórica Hondureña”, by Eduardo Sandoval. JES Ediciones.

Everyone has heard of the crisis in Honduras since 2009 June 28, the day President Zelaya was expelled from the country. But the world did not know the origin of the crisis caused by Zelaya’s attempt to impose a National Constituent Assembly in order to draft a new political constitution which would have allow him to stay in office. In order to justify the change of constitution he called an election tainted by legal flaws.

June 28 was the day the consultation would take place, and the military intelligence received information of Zelaya’s dire intentions, his plan to dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court in the same day.

The Supreme Court issued the arrest warrant and the military executed part of that warrant, but the surprise was that instead of sending him to the competent judicial authority they led him by force to Costa Rica.

This was enough for the so-called “international community” to vigorously denounce a coup d’Etat in Honduras, and a military takeover of power.

Even when the legal basis for the expulsion of Zelaya was explained, as well as the state of necessity forced by the need to save lives and protect the constitutional order, the international opinion stubbornly described what happened as a coup d’Etat.

But in a real coup Congress and Supreme Court are dissolved and the military rules by means of decree-laws. That is not what happened in Honduras, instead a civilian government from the same political party of Zelaya seized the management of the Honduran State, ending the electoral process that had begun in 2008 under the tutelage of Zelaya’s administration.

The constitutional order was not broken in June 28, 2009, but there was a substitution of the executive branch, and even some of Zelaya’s ministers continued in office in the Micheletti administration. The State does not depend on this or that person to survive, any officer may be replaced with the State order remaining intact.

The way to replace a president is set in the Constitution, and that was the procedure followed to invest Roberto Micheletti as head of the executive branch, because as president of Congress he was the next in the chain of command to replace the ousted ruler, having resigned the vice-president Elvin Santos.

When the international public opinion knew that in Honduras there was not a military regime, but a civilian rule based on the same constitution, it was already too late. The sense of pride and prestige of world leaders prevented them from acknowledging publicly that they had been wrong. Also the fear of presidents of being overthrown prevented them from recognizing the legal presidential substitution.

An international media campaign against Honduras, headed by Hugo Chávez, defamed by every means this little country, accusing the Micheletti administration of savage human rights violations. Meanwhile Zelaya toured Latin America discrediting the country of his birth.

And as the interim regime was not scheduled to last long, its main mission being to safeguard elections that would give rise to a new administration, no country wanted to risk its prestige by recognizing an interim administration accused of being coupster and human rights violator.

But the elections were held successfully on November 29, with an orderly transition of command, which allowed Honduras to obtain recognition from many countries, with the exception of those countries allied with Hugo Chavez.

These elections have eased social tensions caused by the overthrown of Zelaya, but the threat against Honduras is not over yet.

The Lobo Administration

Honduras’s enemies, internal and external, are scheming to see how to take control of this little country, and the Porfirio Lobo’s administration seeks to appease these enemies by granting their requests and offering them positions in the government.

President Lobo mocks those who supported Micheletti, saying: “these blanquitos (Whiteys) didn’t even vote for me.” (Lobo disparagingly calls ‘Whiteys’ those who supported Micheletti, in reference to the protests in which they walked wearing white clothes at the heights of the political crisis). Thus President Lobo mocks those who defend the current Constitution, accusing them of being of the “far right”, offending the national dignity, dignity that was raised very high by the Micheletti administration, who strongly opposed the blatant foreign interventionism in the Honduras’ internal affairs.

President Porfirio Lobo wanted to give the appearance of neutrality in his political campaign, not leaning toward any of the warring factions represented by Zelaya and Micheletti, but just before the elections he tacitly expressed some sympathy for Zelaya.

And as soon as Lobo sweared to “respect and enforce the Constitution and its laws” in his inauguration, he violated his promise providing a safe passage to Zelaya, thereby protecting a fugitive from justice. Lobo then referred to Manuel Zelaya as ‘President Zelaya’, saying: “It’s not acceptable to have a president locked in an embassy.” Zelaya took refuge in what used to be the Brazilian embassy, and the right thing to do was to ask him for a formal request of political asylum in the country of his choice if he wanted to exit the country without being arrested. Referring repeatedly to Zelaya as ‘President’, and later in Spain, saying that what happened in Honduras was a ‘coup’, Lobo has put into question his own legitimacy as President.

Now Manuel Zelaya is in Santo Domingo, always conspiring against Honduras’ interests, and even against the interests of Lobo, who asked nothig in return for his liberation. And to this day Zelaya has shown not one ounce of public gratitude for being set free by Lobo.

Besides granting amnesty for political crimes in favor of Zelaya and his followers, using the mechanical majority of members of the officialist party at Congress, President Lobo has put pressure on the Supreme Court to restore some Zelayista judges dismissed for political proselytizing, and has even spoken repeatedly of his readiness to conduct a referendum to allow the call for a National Constituent Assembly, an action that was the reason for Zelaya’s removal.

Mr. Lobo has appointed a troublemaker Zelayista —Cesar Ham- as the head of the National Agrarian Institute (INA), who has only worsened a problem of invasion of cultivated land belonging to businessman Miguel Facussé. By promoting legal uncertainty in the rural land the Lobo administration discourages urgently needed investment.

President Lobo has gone so far as to offer himself to personally bring back Zelaya to the country, watching over him to prevent his arrest.

Lobo’s latest blunder was to denounce a conspiracy to overthrow him, without offering any evidence of such a complaint, but he soon decided to take vacations in South Africa to see the Soccer World Cup, showing he is not serious in his report of the alleged threat of a new coup. The fact that these statements damage the country’s investment climate does not seem to be a concern for the irresponsible Lobo in the slightest.

And on top of this irresponsibility, Porfirio Lobo left abandoned the public administration, and it was not known for certain whose vice-president was appointed as temporal substitute for Lobo.

President Lobo made his unexpected statements about new coup threats when some reporters asked him about his alleged intentions to remove the president of the Supreme Court from office. This clearly seems to be a diversionary maneuver by Lobo.

With his actions and words President Lobo is made to look, as every day goes by, more and more like the deposed Zelaya. Many of thouse who supported Micheletti also voted for Lobo, only to be disappointed by his unworthy conduct serving as president, since even though Porfirio Lobo has done everything possible to appease his Zelayista enemies, they continue in their denigration of him. Porfirio Lobo sells cheap the country, he gives everything in exchange for nothing.

If those who voted for Lobo were trying to cast away the influence of Zelaya —given that Zelaya stil regards himself as a Liberal Party member, while Lobo has belonged to the rightist National Party— they are now disappointed by the attitudes of Lobo.

Thus a climate of uncertainty persists in the country. The Lobo administration has no clear direction and apparently the ghost of Zelaya is still haunting us.

In Honduras, as in other countries, Mother’s Day is celebrated the second Sunday of May. This is a very popular celebration that takes place in all types of organizations: schools, churches, unions, trusts, etc.

Companies seeking to market their products through this special day reminds us weeks in advance the value of mothers, and they invite us to celebrate her with gifts. In schools children make crafts to give to their mothers, where they are also taught the Honduran Hymn to Mothers.

The Hymn to Mothers, whose lyrics are by Augusto C. Coello, and music by Rafael Coello Ramos, is sung in schools, colleges, churches, and other groups that come together to celebrate mothers on their day.

Mother’s Day is much more popular than Father’s Day, for the love of mother has no comparison. While there are irresponsible fathers who leave women after pregnancy, single mothers engage in any kind of sacrifices for the welfare of their children. That is why Mother’s Day is celebrated with great joy and gratitude.

In Honduras, Mother’s Day was officialy declared in 1927.

Honduras’ name was given by Vicente Yanez Pinzon and Juan Diaz de Solis in 1508, it most likely originated in the castilianization of Huntulha, and it refers to the watery coast and not to the deep sea. The territory was also called Higueras, Guaymuras and Cabo de Honduras.

Honduras Official Name

Although “Honduras” was named after [Central American] Independence in 1821, the official name was given and formalized on May 8, 1862 by the House of Representatives, in the city of Santa Rosa de Copan. In this respect, the Decree No. 3 indicates that “the House of Representatives, considering its authority and duty to institute the name the nation will bear, proceeding in line with the political status that belongs to it, attending the principles unfolded in the charter, has seen fit to decree and decrees: Article No. 1: The name of all towns that form the State, including its adjacent islands, will henceforth be the Republic of Honduras.”

Taken from “Honduras Geográfica”, an El Heraldo newspaper supplement. First Edition.