You know the U.S. CIA and DIA, etc., are helping the racist fascists too. Divide and conquer. Why don't you bullies leave them alone? Stop being mindless thugs for the evil-maniacal greedy plutocrats.
Published 02 June 2008
Agitation, violence and illegal ballots on autonomy. Hugh O'Shaughnessy on disgraceful tactics aimed at intimidating and undermining a democratically elected president
Bolivia's right-wing extremists who have been doing their best to rip their own country apart for the past two years rather than accept the rule of their constitutionally elected President Evo Morales finally have showed themselves in their true colours.
These are various violent shades of an apartheid green mixed with several unappealing tones of Ku Klux Klan off-white. For the extremists, the democratically chosen Morales labours under the crushing disadvantage of being a member of the indigenous majority. To have a head of state like that who seeks greater fairness for the indigenes, they say, will never do.
On 24 May in the run-up to this Sunday's unofficial vote on "autonomy" rigged up by the Bolivian Klansmen in the departments of Beni and Pando they went into action in the city of Sucre. There an aggressive horde of university students and unelected conservative city notables came together to prevent their president visiting the city. He was to come to inaugurate a new step forward in the agrarian reform programme which most voters in this agriculturally stunted country want.
In their unelected grandeur, financed by the ample royalties that the government of the department of Santa Cruz gets for its oil and natural gas and spreads round its political satellites, they stationed thugs in the stadium where President Morales was to speak and aborted his visit. Then they turned their attention on the government supporters who were awaiting him.
Mainly poor peasants, they had gathered to welcome the president and greet his moves towards agrarian reform in a country where there is land for all but where much of it is concentrated in the hands of the few. A number of indigenous people who were to have received the President were seized by the mob, forcibly undressed, marched to the central plaza and made to kneel and shout anti-government slogans and to burn their ponchos, the flag of the MAS party and the wiphala, the flag favoured by indigenous peoples up and down the Andes. They were kicked, hit and racially abused.
The right-wing mayor of Sucre, AidÃ©e Nava, looked on and applauded. Others present were the university chancellor and leaders of the conservative white opposition. Some will recall the word Kristallnacht and remember how the ruling party in Germany treated people it did not like in the years before the Second World War in cities such as Nuremberg and Munich.
In other examples of violence, Deputy CÃ©sar Navarro and Senator Ana Rosa VelÃ¡zquez were ambushed by a violent mob as they passed through Sucre airport on their way to their constituency in PotosÃ.
At Riberalta in the department of Pando the minister of the presidency Juan RamÃ³n Quintana was also attacked. The attack coincided with a visit to Riberalta by the Santa Cruz leaders Branko Marinkovich and RubÃ©n Costas who are the paymasters of the anti-government campaign.
First reports on the privately owned television stations about the voting on Sunday 1 June suggested that a big majority favoured "autonomy" from Morales and the government in La Paz. There was widespread abstention during the voting on Sunday which the government has understandably branded illegal.
Government supporters showed their anger at what they saw as an exercise in electoral farce and voting was suspended in many places. Much violence was reported from supporters of the right and one government supporter is reported to have been killed. The police, many of whom answer to the local authorities rather than to the national government, seemed to have done nothing on Sunday, just as they did nothing in Sucre last month.
Later this month the right wing leaders in the department of Tarija will do their own exercise in vote-rigging on "autonomy" which, according to the TV, they will win.
But those familiar with how the businessmen skew the media in Latin America – and how the television moguls in Venezuela in particular poisoned the wells of information to the public at the time of the putsch against President ChÃ¡vez which they supported in 2002 - will be cautious about their reports of results from Bolivia. Dirty deeds are being perpetrated in that country and it is not the government which is perpetrating them.
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)