Hugo Chavez never ceases to amaze. Right after he very wisely reverses a decree to have neighbors spy on each other, he calls upon the FARC to give up.
He is absolutely correct that the FARC is being used as an excuse by the fascists to more than meddle in Latin American affairs. Chavez is right that the FARC should disband. They all should go into peaceful pursuits for the long-term sake of their region. By disbanding, they will do more to weaken the neocons' evil hands than any fighting they could ever do.
Hugo Chavez is really getting some sound advice. Let's hope he continues heeding. This just gives him great ground upon which to stand when questioning the U.S. as to exactly what it is that he is doing that they hate so much other than depriving them of what they covet that belongs to the people: Venezuela's oil and other natural resources?
Chavez ends support of Farc rebels
By Jeremy McDermott in Medellin
Last Updated: 10:29PM BST 09/06/2008
Hugo Chavez said he was ending his support for Colombia's Marxist guerillas, robbing them of their most public and powerful ally.
Farc rebels on patrol. Such displays of strength may be a thing of the past after their main ally, Hugo Chavez, withdrew his support
The Venezuelan president said the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia were "history", and called on them to release their hostages and end a decades-long war with the government.
"Enough of so much war, it is time to sit down and talk of peace," he said. "The guerrilla has passed into history.
"You in the Farc should know something: You have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us," he said, referring to the United States. "The day that peace arrives in Colombia, the empire will have no excuses."
He directly addressed the organisation's leader, Alfonso Cano, to tell him to release their hostages "in exchange for nothing".
The comments were a complete change of tack for Mr Chavez, who earlier this year asked the European Union to take the Farc off its list of terrorist organisations and recognise it as a legitimate guerrilla army.
The Colombian government, which accuses Mr Chavez of funding the Farc and giving it safe haven, welcomed the comments.
"He is a great defender and ally of the guerrillas, so it is very surprising," said Interior Minister Carlos Holguin. "But it's great, and I hope FARC hears him."
The Farc was formed as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party in the 1960s.
At present it has an estimated 9,000 fighters, and holds around 750 hostages.
Mr Chavez comments are just the latest in a series of setback that have the Farc reeling and put them in their most vulnerable position in 44 years of fighting.
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)