Now, Hugo Chavez is a much better leader than is George W. Bush. Bush isn't even a close second. He isn't even a second. He's bringing up the bottom while Hugo Chavez is rapidly learning in office how to lead without abusing people.
I'm not saying that Chavez is following all of the commandments of Jesus Christ mind you. I am saying though that he's much closer to doing that than George W. Bush and Bush's supporters.
If the Bush/neocon/neolibs would back off, Hugo would be able to put everything into helping the poor. Of course that's exactly what Bush, the neocons, and the neolibs don't want: To help the poor (except for a little show here and there).
Hugo really cares about the poor though. That's why the fascist propagandists rail against him.
Sunday June 8, 02:06 PM
CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez on Saturday revoked a law he decreed last month creating four spy agencies and a Cuban-style national informants' network, saying the measure contained errors.
"I started listening to criticism (of the law) and in the end, I think there are some mistakes there, I have no problem acknowledging it. So I decided this morning to correct that law," Chavez said at a function of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela.
Chavez specifically cited problems with the regulation requiring cooperation from any person or business, whether domestic or foreign, with intelligence services.
"This is a mistake and not a small one," Chavez allowed, saying: "I cannot force (someone) when an intelligence unit asks for cooperation, to become an informant, and then if they refuse we put them in jail."
For Chavez, "the law was not bad but it has some elements that the adversary uses to generate fear," and "the battle is political, not legal.
"We have defeated all the conspiracies of the Venezuelan oligarchy and the US Empire with the greatest respect for human rights and that is how it will continue to be," the Venezuelan president said.
"We shall continue to defeat them in a framework that is democratic, humanist and socialist," Chavez added.
"I guarantee the country there will be no abuse against anyone, and no one will be forced to say anything more than what the person wants to say," Chavez said. "The law will be reformed listening to criticism and contributions, and we will be very careful in the final version."
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)