Media Matters for America

June 26, 2007

[Editor's Note: Listen to this little gem from Pat "The-Mayan-Killer" Robertson: "Well, a couple of years ago I made a comment or two about Mr. Chavez. Nobody even knew who Hugo Chavez was. They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page..." According to the New York Times, Robertson is "just a garden-variety crackpot with friends in high places." But the problem extends beyond his friends in high places. He also just so happens to have a television program that is seen daily in "95 percent of the television markets across the United States... by approximately one million viewers." Moreover, Robertson has a bunch of high-powered buddies who've not only joined him in calling for the Venezuelan president's assassination but have done so on major U.S. television networks. To top it all off, Robertson has a history of working hand in glove with U.S. administrations to assist "the worst murderers and torturers in Central and Latin America." In a sane world, Pat Robertson would be a social pariah. In America, however, he thumps bibles, bashes commies, gets himself a television program, makes millions upon millions, becomes a kingmaker in the Republican Party, and helps murder a couple hundred thousand Guatemalan Indians to boot. Welcome to the land of opportunity. And we wonder why Venezuelans prepare to defend themselves.]

On the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, while apparently commenting on prior remarks he made in which he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, host Pat Robertson said that "now we've begun to see the kind of person he is and more and more people are saying to me, 'I think you were right.'" He also said that "[n]obody even knew who Hugo Chavez was" when Robertson first made his call for assassination: "They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page."

As Media Matters for America documented, Robertson first called for the assassination of Chavez on the August 22, 2005, broadcast of The 700 Club. He said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." He added, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Two days later, Robertson falsely claimed that he never called for the assassination of Chavez, saying that his remarks were "misinterpreted." Robertson subsequently issued a press release in which he stated, "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement." Robertson reiterated his call for Chavez's assassination on the February 2, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, as Media Matters has also documented.

From the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: Well, a couple of years ago I made a comment or two about Mr. Chavez. Nobody even knew who Hugo Chavez was. They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page, and now we've begun to see the kind of person he is, and more and more people are saying to me, "I think you were right." Now he's talking about war with America. I knew this was going to happen. Before long, he's going to get atomic bombs. He's going to have missiles. He spent three billion, count them, three billion dollars acquiring arms from the Soviet Union, and you ask yourself, "What does a peaceful country at the head of South America, what do they need with three billion dollars' worth of arms?" We're not going to fight them. Are they going to take over Colombia? What's their next target? Are they trying to be the next Cuba? He is a very dangerous man. They call him "El Loco," and it's a well-deserved name...

(click here to view video)

Comment: The "Editor's Note" above is from Latin America News Review.

Originally from Latin America News Review on June 30, 2007, 7:38pm


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.