EVEN IF THEIR MOUTHS SAY OTHERWISE, BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE SO FAR BACKING THE HONDURAN COUP
"A senior U.S. official said Friday the Obama administration continues to stress to Mr. Zelaya its opposition to him trying to return. The official said Washington fears another attempt by Mr. Zelaya could reignite political tensions while undercutting efforts to find a negotiated settlement. 'Zelaya is well aware of our position," the official said.'"
Such statements are very disturbing, especially combined with the fact that the administration has not issued a single warning to the coup government, which has already shot and killed peaceful demonstrators, that such human rights abuses are unacceptable.
In fact, there has not been a single statement from the Obama administration since President Zelaya was overthrown on June 28, condemning the violations of human rights and civil liberties committed by the coup government. These violations include shootings and beatings; arrests, intimidation and deportation of journalists; and the closing of independent radio and TV stations. ....
President Zelaya is, as President Obama has pointed out, the legitimate president of Honduras. He is also a Honduran citizen, and has the right to return to his country. The United States government should be defending democracy in Honduras, and the civil and human rights of its citizens - not trying to make it look as though those who defend these rights are doing something wrong.
The Obama administration's position puts it outside the consensus of the hemisphere and the world, which has called - through the OAS and the UN General Assembly — for the "immediate and unconditional" reinstatement of President Zelaya. The repeated refusals of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when asked by the press, to say that the United States government also seeks Zelaya's reinstatement have further muddied the waters about where the administration stands. Such ambiguity feeds the resolve of the dictatorship to try and run out the clock on President Zelaya's remaining months in office.
The United States has trained and funded the Honduran army; the generals who led the coup were trained at the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia; the Obama administration by its own admission was in discussions with the Honduran military up to the day before the coup. All of this places greater responsibility on the administration to help reverse this coup. Yet the administration has refused to take even modest steps such as freezing the bank accounts of the perpetrators, despite appeals from the legitimate government of Honduras and from civil society. ....
(Source: "Over 55 Organizations and Scholars Call on Obama Administration to Warn Honduran Regime Against Further Violence," Common Dreams. July 20, 2009.)
Obama and Clinton have taken the same garbage position as has the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga. See my posts:
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)