Brussels (dpa) - Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa believes that Latin America still faces the challenge of building "true democracy," but he admitted that the United States is no longer the region's "Satan."

"What we have are formal democracies, fragile like plasticine," Correa, 44, said in an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa. "It is true that we have been holding elections for 20 years, but having a democracy is something quite different."

An economist who met his wife, Anne Malherbe, in Belgium during his postgraduate studies there, Correa was on a private visit to Brussels.

"Look at what happened in our countries a few years ago: you could say any awful thing you wanted to win the election, and the following day you did exactly the opposite, and people were stuck with that person for four years," he said.

In January, the populist Correa became Ecuador's eighth president in 10 years, with a reform programme that includes a constituent assembly to thoroughly reshape the oil-rich country's institutions.

He belongs to a generation of left-wing politicians who have risen to power in Latin America in recent years, along with Evo Morales in Bolivia and the firebrand Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or the less controversial Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Nestor Kirchner in Argentina.

Correa sees himself and other leaders in the region as representatives of the "new, Latin American-style socialism."

"We are part of that current denominated 21st-century socialism," he said. "We agree with traditional socialism on the supremacy of labour over capital, for example."

Correa lamented that over the last two decades, Latin America has suffered "a total subjugation of lives, people and human labour to the need to accumulate capital."

He complained about changes that made labour markets more flexible for the sake of growth, while workers suffered lower wages and a loss of stability.

In opposition to such changes, Correa emphasized socialist traditions such as "the importance of collective action" to overcome what he called "the myth - closer to religion than to science - that individualism is the engine of society."

By Fernando Heller

July 18, 2007

(click here to view entire report)

Originally from Latin America News Review on July 19, 2007, 9:37am


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.