Early Americans on Foreign Wars: Quotes

America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own," said John Quincy Adams in his oration of July 4, 1821.

When Greek patriots sought America's assistance, Daniel Webster took up their cause but was admonished by John Randolph. Intervention would breach every "bulwark and barrier of the Constitution."

"Let us say to those 7 million of Greeks: We defended ourselves when we were but 3 million, against a power in comparison to which the Turk is but as a lamb. Go and do thou likewise."

When Hungarian hero Louis Kossuth came to request a U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean to keep the czar's warships at bay, when Hungary sought to break free of the Habsburg Empire, Webster backed him.

But Henry Clay and John Calhoun stood against it.

"Far better is it for ourselves," said Clay, "for Hungary and for the cause of liberty that, adhering to our wise, pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore as a light to all nations than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe."

Rob Bell: Love Wins

 I liked this book. Bell has taken a concern he has about the views of some Christians and churches concerning heaven and hell, what they suggest about the nature of God, and ended up with a position quite close to C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce, which is the only book he mentions in his bibliography at the end.

He thinks the teaching of far too many churches suggests that a small number of people make it to heaven and the rest of humanity will be punished in hell. I can identify with that. When I lived in Broadview, Illinois, I worked with youth in the church. I was still playing tennis then. I was on my way to a match, walking past many homes in the six block walk. The thought occurred to me, as a 22 year old, that if what I heard in the Wesleyan Church, of which I was a member at the time, most of these people were going to hell. Personally, I did not see how that could be, if God was also the loving God that we also preached. I relate this incident only to say that I can identify with Rob Bell in his question concerning Christian teaching. I suspect that most people in pulpit and pew can identify.

His struggle with the teaching of some churches in this regard might have been alleviated had he gone to the best teaching of the church concerning matters related to heaven and hell. Among the easier debating approaches is to take the worst presentation of an opposing position and critique it. Yet, I have found helpful, especially if I am engaging in polemics or debate, to take the best presentation of an opposing position. Bell refers to some personal examples and to some web sites that emphasized both the love of God and the damnation of many people in hell. Although this may deal with popular culture, I would have liked to see him interact with the best as well, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Reformed and Lutheran Confessions, even John Wesley's sermons. At its best, the church has found ways of being quite generous when it comes to who is "in" and "out," as Bell puts it. The church has been quite generous, for example, to the people who never had a Christian witness, who were born before Jesus came, and who were in cultures that simply did not have a Christian witness. In our time, we have become quite aware, as Bell points out, that we have to reflect upon the Jesus that people reject. It may be such a distorted image of Jesus that it no longer bears resemblance to what the Bible or the church has taught. 

Bell is quite right to suggest that our eschatology needs to determine how we live today. Heaven is not so much somewhere else, but here, even as hell is not simply somewhere else, but what people make here. He is an interesting twist when he responds to the question of what we will do in heaven for eternity. What do you love doing here? It will continue in eternity. 

He has a chapter that may surprise some Christians, although I would assume it does not surprise clergy. He discusses that some Christians have taught the universal reconciliation of the world with God. He points to Origen, of course, but other authors as well. His point is that for some Christians, they cannot imagine an eternity in which God will not get what God intended in creation. 

He has a chapter that presents in a powerful way the reconciling work of the cross and another on the divinity of Jesus. In these two chapters, it becomes quite obvious that his audience is those who have rejected a distorted view of the teachings of the church. He is inviting such people to reconsider these two difficult teachings of the church. He also has a meaningful and powerful interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son. I have preached and taught it often, but have not heard this one. 

Yet, Bell ends with the notion that you will get what you want. For me, this has become critical in our reflections on the notion of hell. God respects human choices, now and forever. At one level, we might wonder how anyone could say no to the full manifestation of the love of God to which the Bible seems to point. Yet, we see it every day, as human beings pursue their own will and path, and reject the light and love they have received. In this, Bell is quite close to the vision that C. S. Lewis portrayed in The Great Divorce. Yes, it may well be that God loves each one enough that God will allow that person to get what he or she wants. If it is the loneliness and godforsaken quality of life, then, God will love you enough to let that happen. From one perspective, it is acknowledging failure, as Bell points out. From another perspective, even the person who rejects God forever is a testimony to the love and grace of God. 

I began by saying that I liked this book. Frankly, I appreciate anyone who is at least trying to take difficult teachings of the church and re-frame them, whether for Christians, for the person who may be on their out the doors of the church because of what it teaches, or for the person who might reconsider the church and their relationship to Christ. 

Palestinian attack March 2011

Here is a note that offer without comment, since it speaks for itself. It comes from Michael Medved.


On Friday night shortly after 10 PM, just hours after the commencement of the Jewish Sabbath, two knife-wielding intruders broke into the modest one story home of the Fogel family, murdering the mother and father in their bed along with their three month old baby girl. They then stormed one of the children’s rooms, slashing to death two boys, ages three and eleven. Two other sleeping children – aged two and eight – managed to survive when the terrorists fled the scene before they entered the other bedroom. The oldest child, a twelve year old daughter, also escaped death because of her participation in a Sabbath program of her religious youth group. When she returned to her home, she discovered the mutilated and bloody bodies of her parents, her two brothers and her infant sister. Tracks from the scene of the crime led directly to the nearby Palestinian village of Awarta. Later, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed credit for the killings (though ultimately retracting that claim) and crowds in Gaza took to the streets in celebration, receiving sweets from the Hamas authorities to honor the vile deed.

Sadly, as Jeff Jacoby points out, there is a mindset that sees a massacre of Jews and concludes that Jews must in some way have provoked it. It is the mindset behind the narrative that continually blames Israel for the enmity of its neighbors, and makes it Israel's responsibility to end their violence.

But the truth is simpler, and bleaker. Human goodness is not hard-wired. It takes sustained effort and healthy values to produce good people; in the absence of those values, cruelty and intolerance are far more likely to flourish.

For years the Palestinian Authority has demonized Israelis and Jews as enemies to be destroyed, vermin to be loathed, and infidels to be terrorized with Allah's blessing. Children who grow up under Palestinian rule are inundated on all sides -- in school, in the mosques, on radio and TV, even in summer camps and popular music -- with messages that glorify bloodshed, promote hatred, and lionize "martyrdom."

None of this is news. The toxic incitement that pervades Palestinian culture has been massively documented. What children are taught in the classrooms of Ramallah, Nablus, and Gaza City, Hillary Clinton said in 2007, is "to see martyrdom and armed struggle and the murder of innocent people as ideals to strive for. . . . This propaganda is dangerous." Indeed, it is lethal.

Rep. Peter King Hearing on Radical Islam 2

“When we look at the problem of radicalization, the excuses will never run out,” Dr. Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy said. “It seems to me that Americans are sitting around doing nothing to combat extremists.” Dr. Jasser said this at the March 10, 2011 hearings by Rep. Peter King. There is another article I invite you to read:

http://townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/2011/03/11/meet_a_true_muslim_patriot

Jasser stressed the need to combat radicalism, saying the issue is a moral one that Muslims must take on and fix. He added that violence is the last step in radicalization and that American Muslims are failing to address, observe and report those they see taking steps toward radicalization in a productive, proactive way that provides solutions moving forward. Jasser compared radicalism in Islam to a cancer, and said if American Muslims are going to fix the problem, they have to be able to talk about it openly and attack it from all angles. When asked about his view on CAIR, Jasser said the organization promotes a victim mentality rather than a corporative attitude within the American Muslim community. 

“We have a problem internally,” Jasser said. “We must awaken the silent Muslim majority.”

Melvin Bledsoe, father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the man convicted of killing U.S. Army Private William Long and wounding Private Quinton Ezeagwula outside of a military recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas after going through the radicalization process, had a similar message to Jasser.

Bledsoe gave a detailed description of his son’s decline into radical-Islam, adding that political correctness will not stop radical extremists from countries like Yemen and terrorist organizations from recruiting vulnerable young men in America.

“This hearing today is extremely important,” Bledsoe said. “I sincerely hope this committee can address the issue in a productive way.”

Some critics have already brought forth predictable historical analogies. I would point out that historical events are, by their nature, unique and unrepeatable. Drawing analogies with such events to the present setting is a risky business. 

1) Holding hearings into Islamic "radicalization" is not an exercise in "McCarthyism," as widely and deeply misunderstood. I would invite you to read M. Stanton Evans' 2007 investigative masterpiece "Blacklisted by History." We toss around the word "McCarthyism" with little understanding of it actually was. I am no apologist for him or his approach. However, as historians, both liberal conservative, examine the Soviet archives, it is quite clear that Soviet Communism had its supporters in various branches of the federal government in the 1950's. The proper analogy, it seems to me, is that there is, clearly, a path toward radicalization of a Muslim that it would do well for Americans of all type, but especially Muslims, to become aware. 

2) Holding hearings into Islamic "radicalization" is not akin to Japanese internment during World War II -- another widely and deeply misunderstood phenomenon.

Diana West points out that evidence of extensive Tokyo-directed espionage networks within the Japanese community on the West Coast was largely shoved aside, evidence revealed to FDR and his senior advisers through the MAGIC project, the top-secret decryption of some 5,000 Japanese diplomatic cables. Again, the proper analogy was that in a time of war, FDR acted upon evidence, and not racism. Again, I do not defend what FDR did in isolating Japanese Americans, as does Michelle Malkin in her book In Defense of Internment. I think there were other ways of dealing with the evidence. However, to accuse him of acting upon racism is, in my view, contrary to the evidence. 

My point is that in both historical analogies, what we need to learn on the positive side is that there are enemies to America within our borders and that we need to be vigilant. The negative lesson to learn is that government always runs the risk of over-reaching, so to speak. Thus, we as citizens also need to be vigilant to be sure that does not happen. Yet, we do not help our case by closing our eyes to the quite real issue to which Dr. Jasser points us: there is a process of radicalization of which we need to be aware and stop.

Rep. Peter King Hearing on Radical Islam

Rep. Peter King is holding March 10 hearings before his Committee on Homeland Security entitled "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response." About 1000 protesters against these hearings showed up at Times Square. Some protesters called it a witch-hunt. National Council of Churches chief Michael Kinnamon joined other clergy of the political Left at the rally. Kinnamon warned that Americans are “in danger of succumbing to a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way that bigotry scarred those who came before us.”  He then referred to European conquest of the Americas, slavery, and the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans. It has become part of the myth developed by the Left that Muslims in America are the new oppressed minority. “No matter what Rep. King may say, his hearings convey the implicit message that Muslims aren’t part of ‘us’—and to this sort of bigotry, all citizens of conscience must say NO!” He then said, “On behalf of the fifty million members of our churches, I declare as loudly as possible that whenever Muslims are threatened or demeaned, so are we—because ‘Today we are Muslims, too!’” Actually, the membership is 35 million, but who is counting. 


The term "witch hunt" is used to disparage people who believe there are terrorists and potential terrorists hiding among us. We know there are no witches, so the implication is that there are no terrorists living within the American Muslim community. Events dating back long before September 11, 2001 prove there are.


Cal Thomas (March 10, 2011) identifies several of the witnesses. It includes Abdirizak Bihi and Melvin Bledsoe, whom one can do an Internet search for why they are witnesses. Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat and one of two Muslim members of Congress, is a scheduled witness, as is Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican. Ellison will no doubt warn us against stereotyping all Muslims because of the actions of "a few." But what if those "few" (and it doesn't take many to kill, as we have seen) are hiding among peaceful Muslims? Although not yet called, he identifies some other interesting witnesses Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Bernard Lewis. 


In these hearings, and in dealing with the radicalization problem in general, do we fully understand that radical Muslims believe their religion allows them to lie to "infidels" and to advance their cause of creating a world Islamic caliphate? Shouldn't that make us wary of their testimony?


Is any investigation of radical Islam acceptable to those on the religious Left?  Kinnamon says the King investigation should be expanded to all extremism. Must there be the ongoing pretense that “extreme” American Methodists or Lutherans are just as likely to host terror cells?  Further, can I not assume that most American Muslims want violent radicalism exposed and expunged from among them?


Thomas points out that one of the quite real issues will be that if there are specific findings, will the government take adequate steps to protect Americans from further Islamist attacks. Alternatively, will fear of the accusation of of Islamophobia keep this administration from acting, even if the hearings expose legitimate concerns? 

American Involvement in Libya? March 2011

The United States Senate unanimously passed a resolution supporting consideration of a no-fly zone over Libya, condemning the "gross and systematic violations of human rights" in the country.

I guess I dare to question a unanimous Senate resolution today. With Pat Buchanan, in his March 8, 2011, I think we need to think through this carefully. The obvious reason is that we are already fighting two wars in the area with highly questionable results. Do we want to add a third?

What would be the purpose of a no-fly zone? Supporters say that it would stop him from using his air force to attack to civilians, but he also has tanks. Pat points out that to establish a secure no-fly zone would require the bombing of radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites, and airfields. It would require destroying the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for US pilots. He points out that all of this would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us. He then asks: where do we get the legal and moral right to do this? Congress has not declared war. Obama has no authority to attack Libya. Beyond that, neither the UN Securing Council nor NATO has taken this step.

One can understand the desire to "help" oppressed people. However, America has been down this road before. A no-fly zone could be the beginning of yet another long-term American involvement in a Muslim nation. I stress that American involvement in such nations has had dubious results thus far. America needs to be quite careful, I think, as it ponders any military action. The situation in Libya seems to have led a solid majority of the political class to be on the side of a no-fly zone. Yet, I think Pat has identified some quite cogent reasons for pulling back and taking careful look before we leap.

Against Jim Wallis March 2011

The vision of Isaiah 1:17 was to "Learn to do well: seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." The vision of Jesus, as stated in Matthew 25, was that whatever you do the least of these, you do it to me. Does this mean that you never cut programs whose stated goal is for the “poor?” Does it mean that we cannot roll back such spending to what it was a couple of years ago without putting up with the charge that we are immoral? 

I raise these questions because, honestly, that seems to be the view of Jim Wallis, who thinks of the federal budget as a moral document. The primary moral test, of course, how it addresses the needs of the poor and vulnerable. In an advertisement campaign, Wallis and Sojourners makes it clear:  While government debt is a serious problem, the ad implores lawmakers not to balance the budget by cutting the "sound investments that a just nation must protect." Among the "investments" Sojourners mentions are school lunch programs, tax credits for the working poor, and international aid for fighting pandemics.

Wallis says, "These priorities that they're offering are not just wrong or unfair, they're unbiblical." I have serious problems with this. Let me see if I can sort it out for myself, as well as any potential reader.

For one thing, it must be wonderful to be so certain that what Wallis wants God wants. Such thinking used to be on the religious right, but now, it also dominates the religious Left. In political reasoning, I find this approach very much like pulling the “God” card. If your argument, yell loud, and claim that God agrees with you. I am among those who are not quite as confident as Wallis appears to be that my religious faith translates readily into a partisan political agenda. Wallis has a found a rather small box in which God can live. The box has the label, “Leftist Political God.”

For another thing, does Wallis really believe that no one advocating budget cuts he opposes can have serious ethical grounds for doing do? For example, within the United Methodist Church, paragraph 163 of the Social Principles states that the church recognizes the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies that provide for the economic life of individuals and corporate entities and that ensure full employment and adequate incomes with a minimum of inflation. Well, I fully agree with this principle. Think of how differently the deficit situation would be today if employment was around 95% rather than 91%, or if those who have stopped looking actually found something due to a growing economy. I would contend that the approach of the past Congress and the President of leading this nation into one trillion dollars of debt every year for as long as far as we can see is a direct contradiction of this principle. It has also led a deepening of the recession, which always hurts the lower economic classes first and more. I would agree that such policies are unethical and irresponsible. Even if we make the assumption that the present generation will escape negative consequences of this nation going bankrupt, which is becoming increasingly doubtful, the idea that we are willing to place this burden upon future generations is an unethical and irresponsible act.

Here is one way to look at the debate concerning reducing federal spending for this year. Today, we have a projected $1.65 trillion deficit. The Republican Party has proposed reductions totaling $61 billion, a mere drop in the bucket of red ink our nation is piling up literally by the minute. Today, multiple $2 billion bites at the apple are woefully insufficient for the times we live in. Yet, according to Politico, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “are considering pushing forward a series of short-term continuing resolutions with targeted spending cuts that would be difficult for Democrats to oppose.” Such cuts are hardly profiles in courage. Yet, if we read Wallis, we would think these politicians are immoral, rather than those who defend the present level spending. Senator Reid released an alternative that offered only a token $6 billion in cuts. Is Wallis ready to say that since Reid has fewer cuts, it is closer to Jesus?

To look ahead to the 2012 budget, shortly, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will release the Republican budget for fiscal year 2012. It is vital this is a bold budget and political conservatives must fight for boldness in the appropriations battles that will follow. Yet, for Wallis, it will be about the notion that Jesus will be on the side of keeping current levels of spending rather than reducing the weight of debt upon present and future generations.

For a third thing, Wallis assumes that Jesus would tell Congress to do anything at all. Yes, the followers of Jesus, as well as those who still live under the old covenant, are emphatically commanded to help the poor, to comfort the afflicted, and to love the stranger. However, those obligations are personal, not political. It requires a considerable leap of both faith and logic to read the Bible as mandating elaborate government assistance programs, to be funded by a vast apparatus of compulsory taxation. To put it sarcastically, Jesus did not say that the way to enter Heaven is to dole out money extracted from your neighbors' pockets.

In a democratic society, the point is to offer reasonable arguments in the midst of tough choices. We need to be discussing how a country grows wealth, which I would contend favors limited government, low taxes, less regulation of business activity, and valuing the contribution of the producers and investors of this nation. In relation to the specific issues Wallis raises in his ad, no, Jesus will not tell any person in Congress what to cut. I hate to have to say this again, only this time to the religious Left, but God is neither Democrat nor Republican. I would like us to carry on our political debates with that assumption.

If Jim Wallis is the pattern for Christian involvement in political discourse, my own hopes for reasonable political dialogue in society generally and within the Christian community in particular, will be largely dashed. 

Wisconsin Demonstrations March 2011

An Article by Walter Williams (March 4, 2011) begins by stressing that he values freedom of association, and non-association, even in ways that are not always popular and often deemed despicable. He supports a person's right to be a member or not be a member of a labor union. From his view, the only controversy regarding unions is what should they be permitted and not permitted to do. Even the United Methodist Church, which supports collective bargaining rights in paragraph 163B, says that this right includes mutual responsibility "to bargain in good faith within the framework of the public interest." In the current debate in Wisconsin and in many other states, there is a quite real difference concerning the public interest. 

Among the difficulties in this discussion is the charge of union busting, attacking public employees, and waging a war on "working people." For me, another is comparing Governor Scott Walker to Mubarak or Hitler, but that is a matter of rhetoric that, I think, strengthens the resolve of the tiny few and is not persuasive to the many who are wrestling with these matters to a place where they are sincerely concerned with the public interest. The religious Left author Diana Butler bass, writing in the Huffington Post, has offered its view that Scott Walker is an evangelical Christian, and therefore has no filters for doing the right thing here. Of course, the United Methodist Bishop, the Episcopal Bishop, the Presbyterian Presbytery, and the state head of the United Church of Christ, unite against Scott Walker as well. In taking this position, these religious leaders paint themselves as defending the weak (workers) against the strong (government). As I will show in just a moment, they are actually protecting the strong (unions) against the weak (tax payers). The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milwaukee had a more nuanced approach.

“It does not follow…that every claim made by workers or their representatives is valid. Every union, like every other economic actor, is called to work for the common good, to make sacrifices when required, and to adjust to new economic realities.  However, it is equally a mistake to marginalize or dismiss unions as impediments to economic growth.”  He asked “lawmakers carefully [to] consider the implications of [the Governor’s] proposal and evaluate it in terms of its impact on the common good.  We also appeal to everyone –lawmakers, citizens, workers, and labor unions – to move beyond divisive words and actions and work together, so that Wisconsin can recover in a humane way from the current fiscal crisis.”

Even the president thought he should weigh in, suggesting that there may be an "assault on unions." He did so, somewhat hypocritically, I think, for federal employees have no such "right." Are federal employees oppressed because of this? Hardly. Federal worker compensation, including wages and benefits, averages $123,000 -- more than double the private-sector average of $61,000. Further, we cannot forget that only about half the states are unions allowed to negotiate labor contracts for most public workers. Other states limit bargaining rights to specific government employees. I should say that the state in which I now live, Indiana, does not allow public employees to bargain collectively. If Wisconsin were to go the way of Indiana, as well as Texas and North Carolina, its public employees would do just fine. 

I stress, again, that the issue is not over the freedom of "workers" to "associate," as the US Constitution guarantees as a right to all Americans. The difference arises over what Public employees, people whose salary and benefits come from tax payer dollars, have the power to do. 

Arnold Zander, the Wisconsin union organizer who became the first president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, wrote in 1940 that AFSCME saw "less value in the use of contracts and agreements in public service than . . . in private employment." Instead of collective bargaining, he explained, "our local unions find promotion and adoption of civil service legislation . . . the more effective way" to serve the interests of government employees. As late as the 1950s, AFSCME considered collective bargaining in the public sector desirable but not essential, and viewed strong civil service laws as the best protection for government workers. As I read it, the primary place civil employees needed protection was from a change in the political party in power, which could then be used to dismiss employees in non-political offices. To put it bluntly, civil service rules are of far greater importance to the public employee for protection from "management" than are wages and benefits. 

A legitimate debate in this country is how much power the government grants to the unions in terms of collective bargaining. There is plenty of room for disagreement here. 

According to the Department of Labor, most union members today work for state, local and federal government. While union membership has dwindled to just 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce, among public employees it has grown to more than 36 percent.  As such, they represent a powerful political force in elections. If you are a candidate for governor, mayor or city councilman, you surely want the votes and campaign contributions from public employee unions. In the view of Williams, that is no problem. The problem arises after you win office and sit down to bargain over the pay and working conditions with unions who voted for you.

Given the relationship between politicians and public employee unions, we should not be surprised that public employee wages and benefits often average 45 percent higher than their counterparts in the private sector. Often they receive pension and health care benefits making little or no contribution.

How is it that public employee unions have such a leg up on their private-sector brethren? The answer is not rocket science. Employers in the private sector have a bottom line. If they overcompensate their employees, company profits will sink. The company might even face bankruptcy.

With public employees, politicians quickly learned that some job security and expansion of benefits, in exchange for lower salary, were winners politically. However, only in the short term. Eventually, the generous retirement and health care benefits would have to be paid out, and future generations of politicians would have to figure out how to pay for them. We are that future generation. Undoubtedly, we still struggle through with how to do so. I would like to think that we can do so in a civil way, although politicians running away from their responsibility to vote and demonstrators taking over capitol buildings are not good signs. 

Evo Morales, President of Bolivian since 2006

A friend of mine is in Bolivia and was excited to see and be close to Evo Morales, the President of the country. It led me to find out a little about him.

I discovered that his political party is Movement for Socialism. The party is involved in much of the social unrest in Latin America. He is part of another group that supports the growing of coca, from which cocaine is made and sent to the USA. This group resists any effort to work with the USA to eradicate this plant from the area. He has stated quite clearly that the worst of enemy of humanity is US capitalism. He views the possibility of creating an "axis of good" (Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba) opposed to an axis of evil (which comprises the United States). He agrees with some Americans that the Free Trade Agreement is a bad thing, claiming that it is an extension of colonialism, while the opponents within the USA view it as a way to export jobs to other countries. Of course, he thinks the northern hemisphere owes reparations to the southern hemisphere.

Upon being elected President, he declared the ambassador of the USA to Bolivia as a non-person legally. The USA responded by expelling the Bolivian ambassador. His relationships in the rest of South America center around his agreement with other Leftist heads of state. He is attracted to business and economic relations with Russia, Iran, and Libya.

Some persons who were Leftist allies oppose the corruption they see in his government and the efforts toward nationalization.

I still do not know much about him, but you can tell much about a person by whom they choose as enemies and whom they choose as friends. He has made his choice, and based on that, I will make my choice regarding him. No, I would not go all soft in the knees over him. Instead, I would wish for and pray for his removal from his office.