I added another comment over on http://rebelreports.com/post/133319827, which when I added my first two comments, I hadn't noticed that the blog is Jeremy Scahill's, who very nearly single-handedly brought down the infamous Blackwater. Well, Blackwater changed leadership and its name and lost a few legal battles, but it's still around. Jeremy though is still watching them like a hawk and rightly so.
Anyway, the post over there and the comment replies have proven very helpful to me in deciding where to take my at least initial stand as explained below.
Without knowing all the details, I must say that if you have characterized things correctly here, and I have no reason at this point to conclude otherwise, it would appear that the survey was surely not illegal.
As for the general being fired for insubordination, if the President has that power and is the final arbiter, then the court had no business reinstating the general.
My other questions above, no doubt, will take more work to answer.
On other matters raised in this thread, it is my understanding that Zelaya would not even have been president at the time any 4th ballot box or question would have been put to the whole people. It is clear that the military powers and those behind them feared the people choosing a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution. In other words, they feared the consent of the majority of the governed. The arguments in this thread that Zelaya was illegally seeking a new constitution are erroneous on their face. He was seeking a new constitution, but that is not illegal under natural or divine law. The only people who would block it are those who fear power in the hands of the people. Yes, the people can become a mob; however, they do so usually in the face of other lawlessness and where truth is suppressed. The ignorant become an unruly law or are those who are driven to extremes by the already lawless.
In my view at this point, unless new evidence comes to light, the military and the courts acted illegally.
Zelaya was not seeking a second term under the current constitution. That's clear.
I wrote this comment before seeing "Participatory's " comment above, which is well-reasoned given the current mundane law in Honduras.
Is Zelaya of the mind to create a brutal, totalitarian, dictatorship on the order of Joseph Stalin; or is he more of a mind to simply keep Honduras from being a pawn of greedy foreign influences and investors. That's putting it charitably.
There is a class struggle going on. The poor in Honduras are not asking for everything for free. I'm sure of that. They are ready, able, and willing to work to feed, house, clothe, and care for each other if not interfered with. The upper class is wrong to look down on them as inferiors, etc. Not all do that, but too many of them do. It's a universal truth across the planet. I don't need to visit Honduras to know this is the case there. I've read statements of some of the rich from there. Also, I remember the death-squad era. It's well documented too.
Neoliberal economics is still very much a threat to the whole hemisphere and planet frankly. We don't need the Washington Consensus.
I'm watching what Barack Obama does. So far, I'm still severely dis-impressed. I don't want war over this or for the people to suffer under some economic-sanctions regime, but the whole world needs to behave as if the military and courts there have zero authority. Any aid needs to go directly to the people completely by-passing the military and courts until further notice.
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)