Evo Morales is the democratically elected president of Bolivia. He's very popular there with the indigenous people. He's one of them. He's an Indian. He ran on a platform of undoing the worst of the racist, imperialist, White European and American excesses via his Movement Towards Socialism (MAS). He ran on giving the Bolivians control of their own resources to share the wealth of those material resources and to reform landownership. The rich hate him.
George W. Bush and his administration have worked hard to overthrow Evo. It hasn't worked. Evo threw the U.S. ambassador, Philip Goldberg, out of Bolivia. Then he threw the DEA (U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency) out of Bolivia. The DEA had been acting as a front for the CIA and DIA. Both Goldberg and the DEA had been working hand-in-glove with fascist landowners of European descent to ruin Morales's plan to raise the living standard of the indigenous peoples. Bush has retaliated by taking away Bolivian trade deals by claiming Morales isn't living up to anti-cocaine deals. Morales is anti-cocaine. He's not anti-coca plant or leaf.
Morales won a huge majority in a popular free-and-fair election he called after the trouble started. He put down the rebellion of the ultra-rich secessionists. He's semi-nationalized the hydrocarbons industry. He's also gained the backing of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). That last aspect is huge. South America said no to the U.S. attempted coup and breakup of Bolivia.
...in January 2008, the embassy was caught giving aid to a special intelligence unit of the Bolivian police force. The embassy rationalized its assistance by saying, "The U.S. government has a long history of helping the National Police of Bolivia in diverse programs." U.S.-Bolivian relations were next roiled in February, when it was revealed that Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar had been pressured by an embassy official to keep tabs on Venezuelans and Cubans in the country (Burbach, U.S. Maneuvers to Carve up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote, http://globalalternatives.org/node/86). This violated the founding statutes of the Peace Corps, which prohibit any intelligence activities by volunteers.
On Sept. 11, in the department of Pando, a paramilitary militia with machine guns attacked pro-Morales Indians near the capital of El Cobija, resulting in at least 13 deaths. In a separate action, three policemen were kidnapped. The next day Morales declared a state of siege in Pando and dispatched the army to move on Cobija in order to retake its airport, which had been occupied by right-wing bands. Army units were also sent to guard the natural gas oleoducts, one of which had been seized by the autonomy movement, cutting the flow of gas to neighboring Brazil and Argentina.
Source: November 18, 2008
How Bush Tried to Bring Down Evo Morales
Orchestrating a Civic Coup in Bolivia
By ROGER BURBACH
So, what will Barack Obama do?
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)