Tag Archives: President Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez, convenient devil for a crumbling plutocratic empire

Venezuela's President Chavez speaks during a news conference in Caracas

Reuters photo

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaks at a news conference in Caracas on Monday. If a “devil” like “dictator” Chavez didn’t exist, the right-wing, pro-corporate Repugnican Tea Party traitors and the center-right, pro-corporate, sellout “Democrats” would have to make him up for their cheap political gain.

The Obama and Romney campaigns are arguing over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the corporately owned and controlled mass media report today.

President Barack Obama doesn’t appreciate “the threat” that Chavez is, claim the multi-millionaire Mormon Mittens and his supporters, including Florida’s Marco Rubio, who is only a tool for the pro-plutocratic, Cuba-first wingnuts of Florida whose allegiance is to trying to keep the Cold War alive, not to the welfare of the United States of America.

Team Romney is “scared” of Chavez, as evidenced by how Team Romney has exaggerated the threat that Chavez poses to the United States, the Obamanistas juvenilely have shot back.

Of course, regardless of which corporate bitch wins in November, Obama or Romney, the average American’s socioeconomic status won’t improve significantly, but probably will only continue to worsen.

Of course, neither the Coke Party nor the Pepsi Party wants to talk about that fact, so let’s talk about that Hugo Chavez!

Both Team Romney and Team Obama have Chavez all wrong. On purpose.

Chavez’s greatest “crime” is that he has refused to kiss U.S. corporate ass. He has nationalized his nation’s oil fields, which was dictator Saddam Hussein’s greatest “crime.” (No, the Vietraq War was not about “liberating” the Iraqis from their horrible dictator. It was about liberating the nation’s oil fields for Big Oil, and for the dying American empire to get a military foothold there in order to try to control more of the Middle East’s oil while the American empire continues to rot from within at home.)

Hugo Chavez isn’t a threat to your safety or to mine. He is the repeatedly democratically elected president of a nation who won’t just hand over his nation’s natural resources to Big Oil, the way a good Latin American leader should, so of course the right-wing traitors here in the U.S. have to call him a “dictator,” despite the fact that while George W. Bush was a true dictator, having stolen office despite having lost the 2000 presidential election, Chavez has won his elections fairly and squarely, with international observers saying as much.

Hugo Chavez is demonized by so many fucktarded Americans because he actually is doing his job: trying to achieve the best results for the most number of people in the nation over which he presides. (Contrary to widespread Amerifascist belief, Chavez’s job is not to do what’s best for the corporations and the plutocrats of the United States of America.)

President Hugo Chavez stands in stark contrast to the president of the United States of America, where income disparity is beyond insane and where the president does what’s best for the richest and mostly ignores the rest of us.

The comment of Obama’s that has stirred up the wingnuts is his comment to a Miami television station that “overall, my sense is that what Mr. Chavez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us.”

That statement strikes me as true, except, of course, for the fact that the pro-plutocratic, pro-corporate wingnuts define “national security” as the plutocrats’ and their corporations’ ability to continue to profit obscenely all over the globe. The plutocrats’ interests are our interests, and the plutocrats’ interests always are “national security” interests, the plutocrats want us to believe — meanwhile, the richest Americans get richer and the rest of us Americans get poorer, even though supposedly we all benefit when the plutocrats are doing well.

Team Obama, in defending itself from Team Mittens’ lie that the drone-loving, human-rights-hating Obama is soft on national security, has misrepresented Chavez’s influence within Latin America, however.

“People like Hugo Chavez want attention — and that’s exactly what Mitt Romney and his supporters gave him today. Governor Romney is only playing into the hands of Chavez by acting like he’s 10 feet tall,” an Obama spokesweasel proclaimed today.

Really? Hugo Chavez wanted to be made into a political football today by two presidential campaigns that have no intention whatsoever of actually improving most Americans’ lives?

“Hugo Chavez has become increasingly marginalized and his influence has waned. It’s baffling that Mitt Romney is so scared of a leader like Chavez whose power is fading,” the same Obama spokesweasel proclaimed today.

To many Latin Americans who have suffered under American oppression — usually with the U.S. government, including, of course, the CIA, propping up right-wing, actual dictatorships and destroying actually democratically elected left-wing leaders in order to benefit American corporations (as the Amerifascists want to do with Hugo Chavez) — Hugo Chavez is 10 feet tall, it seems to me, and as Latin America continues to democratize, nation by nation, in large part due to the example of Chavez’s bold presidency, to state that Chavez “has become increasingly marginalized and his influence has waned” and that his “power is fading” is demonstrably false.

(Of course, it hasn’t been all of Chavez’s doing. Ever since the Eye of Sauron, which sits atop the Pentagon, changed its gaze from the poor people of Latin America to the poor people of the Middle East a little more than a decade ago, the people of many formerly U.S.-oppressed Latin American nations have been able to make great strides. While George W. Bush’s CIA probably had a hand in the pathetic, failed coup attempt against Chavez by right-wing Venezuelan traitors in 2002, Chavez and other democratically elected Latin American leaders have benefitted greatly from the fact that the evil empire’s Death Star’s military resources have been tied up in the Middle East for more than a decade now.)

That Hugo Chavez is not a hero among the right-wing American oppressors and defenders of obscene income inequality around the globe and the pilfering of other nations’ natural resources for corporate profits is no fucking surprise, but Chavez has plenty of support at home, I’m sure.

“My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don’t always see,” El Presidente Obama also told the Miami television station, repeating the pro-plutocratic, right-wing lie that Hugo Chavez has not been democratically elected.

It’s the insanely hypocritical United States of America, of course, that has had rigged presidential elections — the crown jewel of which, of course, is George W. Bush having been coronated by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court even though his opponent had won not only the popular vote but had won the pivotal state of Florida as well — and for Barack Obama to talk about “having the Venezuelan people [having] a voice in their affairs” and “having fair and free elections” — when all that Team Obama’s e-mails fucking talk about is that Team Mittens is raising more millions, so give Team Obama some money now! — is a sick fucking joke.

We, the American people, don’t have a voice in our own affairs, and we haven’t for decades, since everyone in Washington, D.C., from the president on down, is bought by the highest bidder.

If we want such a voice, we’ll probably have to move to Venezuela or to another actually democratic nation in Latin America.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Only thing stopping a free Egypt is U.S.

Responses to my optimistic post of yesterday on the future of Egypt have been pessimistic.

It is true that real democracy is never assured. It is difficult to attain and perhaps even harder to maintain.

But American pessimism on Egypt’s future seems to stem from at least three things that have nothing to do with the abilities and talents and intelligence and resourcefulness of the Egyptian people.

One of these things is the belief, held even by so-called liberals, that other nations can do nothing without American aid, because Americans are superior and other peoples of the world are inferior. (Indeed, the vast majority of Americans need to be reminded that, in the words of anthropologist Wade Davis, “The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you. They are unique manifestations of the human spirit.”)

The “white man’s burden” began with the British empire, and this chauvinistic mentality was transplanted to the British colonies that became the United States of America.

A corollary of this phenomenon is that the U.S. government, through its military and its Central Intelligence Agency and other thuggish apparatuses, has a long history of making sure that real democracy never takes root in other nations whose leaders look out for the best interests of their nations’ peoples instead of for the best interests of the American capitalist system and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

The U.S. government and the U.S. ruling elites do their very best to cripple certain nations whose leaders refuse to submit to Washington — like Cuba — and then proclaim that these nations are struggling or failing not because of U.S. attempts to make them fail, because of their supposed inherent inferiority.

Leaders of other nations who actually look after their people’s best interests instead of the U.S. government’s and U.S. ruling elites’ best interests are called “dictators.” Like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (whom the CIA tried but failed to overthrow in 2002). Even though Chavez has been democratically elected repeatedly, with international observers (including Jimmy Carter) certifying that the elections were on the up and up, because of the center-right propaganda happily trumpeted by the “free” mass media owned and operated by corporations that allow only pro-corporate speech, most thoroughly corporately brainwashed Americans incorrectly go along with the label of Chavez as a “dictator.”

Actual dictators, on the other hand, like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has kept his grip on power for more than three decades, get a free fucking pass as long as they kiss U.S. ass, as Mubarak always has done.

The second source of the pessimistic belief of so many Americans that Egypt can’t get it together democratically stems, I believe, from the fact that Americans can’t get it together democratically, and therefore, they don’t want anyone else to. Call it democratic jealousy.

Americans just sat on their asses while two presidential elections in a row were stolen and bogus wars in the Middle East were launched in their name. Americans have just allowed corporations to render our democratic system meaningless, because decisions in Washington are made not by our elected officials, but by the highest bidders via our bribed elected officials. (And speaking of elections, way too many elections are won by the highest bidder.)

Speaking of our elected officials, “Whose side is Obama on anyway?” asks a piece on Salon.com today, noting:

The Egyptian people are fighting, not only to end the 30-year reign of dictator Mubarak, but for democracy. So far, our government has continued its de facto support for the Mubarak regime by paying lip service to the need for “reform” at the same time that it lauds Mubarak as an ally and source of “stability” in the Middle East.

President Obama and his spokespeople have carefully avoided the fundamental issue. The Egyptian people are not asking their government to reform itself. They are demanding an end to the entire autocratic and kleptocratic regime they have endured for even longer than Mubarak’s rule. They want democracy.

The answer to the question of whose side Obama is on is a fucking no-brainer: Obama is on the side of the Israel-first lobby, which wants Egypt to remain under the thumb of a U.S.-controlled dictator. Israel doesn’t want Egyptians to have self-determination, and because the Israel-first lobbyists’ hands are so far up the asses of the elected officials in Washington, what Israel wants it usually gets from its meat puppets in D.C.

Obama isn’t concerned about democracy in Egypt — or anywhere else. He’s concerned about his political survival (and his hollow slogans, which he very apparently views as his vehicle to continued political success [hey, they worked for him in November 2008!]).

Not that Egypt needs the spineless, slimy, slippery, ethics-free Obama and his regime of Clinton-era leftovers. What Egypt needs for democracy to take root there is for the United States of America to leave Egypt the fuck alone. Only without U.S. interference can true democracy take root anywhere. What’s been happening in Latin America for the past several years — because the gaze of the Eye of Sauron, which sits upon the White House, has been focused upon the Middle East instead of upon Latin America since late 2001 — is proof of that.

A third reason for pessimism over Egypt’s future, I surmise, is that the relatively few Americans who aren’t drunk on the jingoistic Kool-Aid know all too well how much their own government historically has prevented actual democracy from taking root elsewhere in the world, and they expect this pattern to be repeated in Egypt.

But this pessimism overlooks the fact that fortunately, the American empire is so weak from the military and economic overextension of the reign of the unelected Bush regime (um, yeah, there were actual consequences of the fact that Americans just allowed the Bush regime to steal the White House in late 2000) that its ability to quash democracy elsewhere now is limited.

But most Americans are drunk on the Kool-Aid, and they are so adverse to actual democracy taking root elsewhere on the planet that even while a new Egyptian leader already clearly has emerged in Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, these intoxicated Americans are wringing their hands, wailing, “But whooooo will lead Egypt?”

What the fuck?

ElBaradei appears to be the Egyptian people’s choice, but Americans are largely fucking ignoring that.

Is it that Americans don’t want the Egyptian people to choose their next leader? Are Americans that addicted to their governmental elites choosing the leaders of other nations, especially those in the Middle East, such as the current leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan?

That was a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway: Yes, they are. They’re that brainwashed, that ethnocentric. To most Americans, all that is important about Egypt is that Egypt continue to serve the wishes of the government in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. government’s pimp, the Israel-first lobby — the Egyptian people be damned.

My hope is that democracy takes root in an Egypt unmolested by the U.S. government and spreads elsewhere in the Middle East. The United States of America never could transplant true democracy to the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet because the USA only ever has its own greedy interests in mind.

My hope is that in my lifetime democracy spreads throughout the world, like a domino effect, to the extent that democracy is established in the United States of America before I die.

Perversely ironically, it seems to me that the United States of America will be the last domino to topple to the spread of actual democracy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I LOVE ya, Hugo, BUT…

Venezuelan police freed Guillermo Zuloaga, the head of opposition ...

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez looks up as he waits for Belarus' ...

AFP and Associated Press photos

The government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (pictured at bottom above) arrested and released Guillermo Zuloaga (pictured at top above), the head of Globovision, Venezuela’s equivalent of FOX, for violating the nation’s law against disseminating “false information through any medium” “that cause[s] public panic.” After the Venezuela  right wing’s treasonous coup attempt of 2002, such a law is understandable, but most Americans don’t know what happened in even their own nation in 2002, which already is ancient fucking history to them, so they don’t have the context for Chavez’s handling of his critics, who are prone to committing treasonous acts.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is in the news again, this time for his government’s having arrested Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of Globovision, which, from what I can tell, is Venezuela’s equivalent of FOX.

Zuloaga was released but was ordered by a judge not to leave the country while he is being investigated. The Associated Press reports that

The [Venezuelan] Attorney General’s Office said in a statement that prosecutors are investigating Zuloaga for allegedly violating a law prohibiting Venezuelans from spreading “false information through any medium,” including newspapers, radio, television, e-mails or leaflets, “that cause[s] public panic.”

Zuloaga, Globovision’s majority shareholder, could face a five-year prison sentence if convicted, the statement said.

Fuck. If we had such a law here in Obamaland, then the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-Quayle and Glenn Beck all would be behind bars. They routinely spread false information that causes public panic. Hell, doing so is their bread and fucking butter.

I mean, these traitors have turned health carelong considered to be a good thing — into a great evil in the eyes of their fucktarded followers. And they have done so to the point that Democratic lawmakers are being threatened. (Um, I don’t fucking believe any Repugnican claims that they also have been targeted, since not a single fucking Repugnican member of the U.S. House of Representatives has voted for health-care reform, not in the first vote of 219 or the second vote of 220.)

When unstable individuals are incited to threaten democratically elected members of a legislature, that is what you call treason. That is not free speech. That is subverting the will of the majority of the voters by disrupting the democratic process, and disrupting the democratic process is harming the nation — and again, there is a word for that, and again, that word is treason.

So when the likes of Sarah Palin-Quayle puts this on her Facebook page (and yes, “Saturday Night Live” had it right when they noted that a 14-year-old, not a presidential aspirant, has a fucking Facebook page)

— and Tweets about how her supporters should not “retreat” but should “RELOAD!” — that easily could incite violence that disrupts the democratic process, which makes her speech, in my book, not free but treasonous.

But arresting the she-Nazi for her incendiary speech that easily could incite one of her gun-nut supporters to go out and shoot one of the Democratic lawmakers whom she has targeted with gun crosshairs — well, I don’t know…

I can see the argument in arresting the likes of professional liars Palin-Quayle and Limbaugh and Beck, as I do see them as a threat to the welfare of the nation, including its democracy, but it’s baaad precedent for a government to be arresting its detractors, as virulently anti-democratic as they might be.

You don’t want to wait until they have succeeded in bringing civil war to the nation, but at the same time, arresting people for what their speech and/or actions might lead to but have not yet led to — that’s a mighty slippery slope. 

If you watch the documentary “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” about the failed right-wing coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002 (which the unelected, anti-democratic, right-wing Bush regime fully supported, of course), you will understand better where Hugo Chavez is coming from.

The anti-democratic right-wingers in Venezuela do want to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez, as, um, evidenced by the fact than in 2002 they tried to do so, tried to replace Chavez with a plutocrat whom the people did not elect, but the people of Venezuela rose up and they returned Chavez to power within days.

There is no other word for what the 2002 coup ringleaders did than treason. And I have little doubt that Zuloaga is a traitor, that he puts his and his fellow plutocrats’ interests far above the interests of the common Venezuelan, to the point that he gladly would override the will of the majority of the people of Venezuela to see his and his fellow plutocrats’ interests advanced at the expense of the common Venezuelan.

But a memo to President Chavez: The whole world is watching, Mr. President, and the whole world does not understand the political realities of Venezuela.

Don’t make scumbags like Zuloaga into martyrs.

Don’t give any semblance of credibility to the right-wingers’ false assertion that you are a “murderous” “dictator,” even though you repeatedly have been democratically elected and even though you had not one of the treasonous ringleaders of the 2002 coup attempt executed, although here in the United States execution is considered appropriate punishment for treason.

Don’t let the right wing harm your revolution — our revolution, the world’s revolution — by successfully painting you, in the eyes of the world, as one of the tyrants that they are.

There’s too much at stake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Fox ain’t news — and toes the line between dissent and treason

There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the obvious: That filthy-rich-wingnut-owned-and-operated Fox “News” — often called “Faux News” — isn’t news, but is right-wing, pro-corporate propaganda. The buzz stems from the White House’s announcement of the obvious that Fox ain’t news — and thus the White House’s exclusion of Fox from at least some White House news media coverage.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, my favorite political commentator, states that Fox isn’t news because Fox’s goal is to overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States of America.

While I don’t disagree with Maddow’s assertion that the Richie-Rich-owned Fox and its Sore Losermen supporters would have no problem whatsoever with the democratically elected President Barack Obama being overthrown — this is the same bunch that was perfectly OK with the blatantly stolen presidential election of 2000 and the subsequent coronation of usurper George W. Bush — to me, Fox isn’t news primarily because it fabricates the “news”: most visibly, it orchestrates right-wing “protest” events and then reports on them as though they’d happened organically.

That’s not journalism, which is the reportage of that which happens of its own accord (although, of course, the media do influence events, no doubt about it; just the presence of reporters and cameras changes a situation, as people act differently, of course, when the media are present).

You don’t see ABC or CBS or NBC or CNN organizing and promoting or otherwise supporting political events and then reporting on these events as though they were detached from these events. That, to me, is what sets Faux “News” aside from the others.

What I have yet to hear be discussed is how much Fox “News” is like the corporately owned and controlled right-wing media in Venezuela that played a large if not pivotal role in the illegal and failed attempt to overthrow the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in 2002. (In a nutshell, in April 2002, right-wing operatives in Venezuela — with the full blessing of the anti-democratic, right-wing BushCheneyCorp, of course — overthrew the democratically elected Chavez and replaced him with their own unelected, right-wing, pro-corporation, anti-people “president,” Pedro Carmona, and the leaders of the illegal and immoral coup also suspended the democratically elected national constitution and they dissolved the democratically established national governmental bodies. But in fewer than three days, the people of Venezuela stood up to the usurpers and they returned Chavez, the man whom they had elected, to power.)

This, I believe, Faux “News” and, in fact, the majority of those who comprise the right wing in the United States of America would love to do: forcibly remove the democratically elected president of the United States from power and install their own unelected president, a stupid rich white man, of course — you know, like George W. Bush redux.

I am not alone when I say that this will happen over my dead American body.

Want a repeat of the Civil War, wingnuts? Then try to illegally and immorally overthrow the democratically elected Obama White House. Please. Because we blue-staters showed you red-staters way too much mercy in the first Civil War, and a second one would give us blue-staters the chance to finish the job that we should have finished the first time around. 

Ahhh, that felt good.

Anyway, to continue:

The existence of Faux “News” does raise interesting considerations. While I am a firm believer in the First Amendment, I’m also a firm believer that although the Repugnicans and other assorted wingnuts stole the White House in 2000 and again in 2004, they must never be allowed to subvert democracy — the will of the majority of the American people — again.

What the majority of the people in a democracy decide — whether in Venezuela or in the United States of America — is sacrosanct, and anyone who attempts to subvert or who subverts the will of the majority of the people — such as by forcibly removing an elected leader primarily because he or she did not want that leader to be elected — is a traitor. Traitors, at the minimum, should be put in prison. 

Fox “News” has First Amendment rights, but those rights don’t include treason.

Once a “news” organization crosses the line from voicing dissent to fomenting treasonactual treason, such as the violent acts that all of these well-armed wingnutty militia groups easily could commit, not what the wingnuts like Ann Cunter call “treason” (which is only political dissent against right-wing lunacy) — then it’s time to shut that “news” organization down, because the uber-greed of the corporate few does not supercede the needs and the desires of the majority of the people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Thoughts on this Labor Day

A nationwide Gallup poll taken last month on the state of labor in the United States is dismal but not surprising.

When asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?”, 48 percent of the respondents said they approve, 45 percent said they disapprove, and 7 percent said they weren’t sure.

Only about one in five of the poll respondents reported having someone in their household who is a member of a labor union.

When asked whether they believe that in the future labor unions will become stronger, will become weaker, or will remain the same as they are today, 48 percent said weaker, 24 percent said stronger, 24 percent said the same, and 4 percent said they were unsure.

I’m a member of a union, albeit a weak one, so I guess that makes me one of the one in five Americans or so who are a member of a labor union. That number should be much higher.

I’m no expert on the history of labor unions, but it seems to me that labor unions took several hits over several decades.

From 1981 to 1989 were the Reagan years, and then from 1989 to 1993 were the George Bush I years — 12 years of anti-labor sentiment in the White House. Then from 1993 to 2001 were the Clinton years, and centrist Clinton was weak on supporting labor, to put it mildly. Then from 2001 to 2009 were eight more years of a Repugnican in the White House. So for almost 30 years, labor unions haven’t had a strong ally in the White House.

No wonder labor unions are on life support.

My main problem with the labor movement and labor unions is that their approach has been to beg for scraps from the rich.

Wrong approach.

The right approach is for the people to own the means of production — not to beg the rich who own the means of production for a few more crumbs.

Which, of course, makes me a communist or socialist.

Proud of it!

Speaking of anti-capitalism, the wingnuts are going to go even more ape shit shortly with the release of two anti-capitalist films.

First and foremost, of course, is Michael Moore’sCapitalism: A Love Story,” set for release on October 2. I’m so there on opening day.

In case you have been living in a cave with Osama bin Laden and don’t know Moore’s stance on capitalism, he says this about it: “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that’s good for all people, and that something is called democracy.”

I wholeheartedly concur. An economic system that is based upon greed can’t be good. To get filthy rich, you have to pay your employees much less than the fair value of their labor, and you have to charge your customers much more than the fair value of the good or service that you provide.

Whom would Jesus screw over? Funny how the wingnuts equate capitalism with Christianity when surely Jesus would have none of capitalism’s obvious evils.

Further, as Moore indicates, we no longer have democracy in the United States, because democracy is rule by the people. We have corporatocracy — rule by the corporations, which need to be contained. And democracy needs to be restored.

I also read today that Oliver Stone has made a film about Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, whom for eight years the unelected, mass-murdering Bush regime called a “dictator,” even though Chavez, unlike the Bush regime, never stole a single fucking election and never killed a bunch of innocent people.

Reuters reports that Stone’s new film about Chavez, titled “South of the Border,” is “a sympathetic portrait of the leader, casting him as a champion of the poor who has stood up to Washington.” (Reuters calls the film a “documentary,” not a “docudrama” or the like.)

It sounds like Stone’s is a much different picture of Chavez than the Bush regime’s propagandists relentlessly painted, so Stone’s film, should it get a wide audience in the United States, should generate an interesting reaction among the fucktards who think that the capitalists and the corporations wuv them so much.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

This is what DIPLOMACY is SUPPOSED to look like

President Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with Venezuela's ...

Associated Press photo

U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez before the opening session of the 5th Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on Friday. Former U.S. “President” George W. Bush, whose right-wing regime most likely was behind the failed 2002 right-wing coup attempt against the democratically elected Chavez, had refused to meet with Chavez, whom the unelected Bush and the members of his regime hypocritically falsely branded a “dictator.”

The wingnuts must be agog that President Barack Obama — gasp! — shook hands with socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at this weekend’s meeting of Latin American national leaders.

Chavez was hypocritically falsely branded by the members of the murderous, unelected Bush regime as a dictator,” yet while Chavez actually was elected democratically and fairly by the people of Venezuela — yes, the majority of the people of a nation can vote for socialism, as capitalism is not the only economic model, despite what you hear on Fox “News” — the members of the Bush regime, who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, never were fairly and democratically elected, but blatantly stole office.

Chavez’s big crime”? He consistently has refused to kiss U.S. ass and has stood up for the best interests of his people, which they elected him to do, instead of selling his people out to the corporations, like a good” little Latin American leader should” (and like the members of the Bush regime sold the American people out to corporate interests).

Chavez had good cause to villify the unelected, dictatorial George W. Bush and his regime: the anti-democratic Bush regime most likely was behind the illegal, anti-democratic, right-wing capitalist coup that in 2002 removed the democratically elected Chavez from power for no more than a few days before the historically oppressed Venezuelan people who had elected Chavez rose up against the treasonous ring-wing usurpers and returned Chavez to power.

The autocratic rule that the right-wing capitalist coup leaders had tried to impose on the people of Venezuela, stripping them of their democratic choices of Chavez and their nation’s new constitution, received the full blessing of the members of the unelected Bush regime, who love democracy only when the results of elections go their way (which they demonstrated amply in late 2000).

That little history lesson was necessary because all that Americans are supposed to “know” about Chavez (and the likes of the pro-plutocratic Fox News” gladly help them to know”) is that he is a murderous” dictator,” even though he repeatedly has been elected democratically and it has not been documented that he ever had a single political opponent executed.

The history lesson concluded, let me point out now that it is the job of President Obama to be his nation’s top diplomat.

That means things like shaking hands with other nations’ top leaders, and as one political news analysis pointed out, a handshake is just a handshake; a handshake indicates only a willingness to talk, a willingness to be diplomatic. Obama’s shaking hands with a national leader does not mean that Obama agrees with everything that that leader believes, and nor does a handshake signify Obama’s subservience to any other nation’s leader.

After eight long nightmarish years of the unelected Bush regime’s and its supporters’ idea of diplomacy” — which is as correct as are their Orwellian ideas of democracy” and freedom” and the like — too many of the American people need to be reminded of what diplomacy is supposed to look like. 

It looks like the news photo above.

Diplomacy is not refusing to even talk to other nations that won’t bend over and take orders from the United States like “good” nations should. That is the members’ of the Bush regime and the wingnuts’ idea of “diplomacy,” but George W. Bush was an ugly anomaly in the White House, a dark blight on American history; he radically deviated from the presidential norms, to which Barack Obama simply is returning.

P.S. I have to note that during their summit, Chavez gave Obama a copy of the book Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano (as pictured below).

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, right, hands President Barack ...

Associated Press photo

The paperback edition of the book, pictured below, which until very recently was quite obscure to American readers, as I type this sentence sits at No. 2 on amazon.com’s best-selling book list.

It would be fucking hilarious if the book supplants the wingnut book that has been at No. 1 on amazon.com for some time now, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, the stupid white male author of which I am sure is perfectly fine with the continued capitalist/corporate exploitation of Latin America, because to the wingnuts it’s “liberty” and “freedom” when the capitalist plutocrats exploit the masses and it’s “tyranny” when the masses actually fight back against their plutocratic overlords and gain true freedom and democracy.

  

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hugo Chavez: ‘Dictator for life’?

Updated Tuesday, February 17, 2009 (see below)

A photo released by the Venezuelan Presidential press office ...

AFP photo

Seeing red: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez celebrates his win at the polls yesterday that will allow him to seek re-election in 2012.

Socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez yesterday won a vote that by amending the nation’s constitution scraps term limits for all elected officials in Venezuela.

Anti-Chavistas are saying that Chavez wants to be a “dictator for life.” Some of Chavez’s detractors are recognizing the fact that dictators — like George W. Bush was not elected by a majority of the people in 2000 (and thus could not legitimately have won “re”-election in 2004) — by definition are not actually elected, but that Chavez has been democratically elected fairly and squarely by the long-oppressed and impoverished people of Venezuela time and again, and therefore they are saying, at least a little more correctly, that Chavez wants to be “president for life.”

But since Chavez won yesterday’s vote that scraps term limits, it seems to me that the majority of the Venezuelan people, at least for now, are OK with Chavez being “president for life,” if it comes to that.

That this obvious fact is being overlooked (mostly by the Western corporately owned and controlled media and those who are mind slaves to these media) demonstrates the long-standing problem for Venezuela: Western nations, especially the United States of America, have long ignored the wishes of the people of Venezuela and have seen Venezuela only for what they can get from Venezuela, most notably, of course, oil.

The majority of the people of Venezuela have shown, time and again at the voting booth — under international elections surveillance — that they want Chavez, who has redistributed Venezuela’s wealth from the plutocratic thieves who used to run the nation of Venezuela to the people of Venezuela, to whom the nation’s wealth belongs.

It’s those who think that Venezuela exists only for the benefit of the richer nations and who don’t give a flying fuck about the poverty that their excesses create for others who oppose Chavez, who does care above the poverty of his people, as a president of a nation is supposed to do.

On that note: The number of homeless people whom I see in my neighborhood has increased every single fucking year since I moved into my current apartment in Sacramento in 2001, which was George W. Bush’s first year in office, and I was amused to note that 65 historians recently ranked Abraham Lincoln as the United States’ best president and ranked George W. Bush at No. 36 out of 42 presidents. (I’m surprised that King George II ranked that highly…)

Fuck; I wish that Hugo Chavez were my president. Surely over the past several years I’d have seen a decrease, rather than an increase, in homelessness. And at least Chavez always has been fairly democratically elected and re-elected, whereas although George W. Bush blatantly stole office in late 2000, the members of the Bush regime — master right-wing propagandists — routinely insanely hypocritically referred to Chavez as a “dictator.”

Hugo Chavez has not committed any atrocities such as the Vietraq War, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians; the Abu Ghraib House of Horrors; or even a Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp.

He has been democratically elected over and over again by the majority of the Venezuelan people.

Yet he is the “dictator.”

No, Hugo Chavez’s only “crime” — aside from refusing to kiss U.S. ass, like a “good” Latin American leader “should” — is fighting the rich, whose riches come at the expense of the common Venezuelan.

It is the rich — and the dupes of the rich, such as those who consume the right-wing propaganda that is financed by the rich — who call the democratically elected Chavez a “dictator” while they support actual mass-murdering dictators, such as George W. Bush.

I hope that Chavez’s revolution one day comes to my nation.

Update (Tuesday, February 17, 2009): This interesting short news article from The Associated Press today speaks volumes:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration says the referendum that cleared the way for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election was democratic. It was rare praise for a U.S. antagonist after years of criticism from the Bush administration.

U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid noted “troubling reports of intimidation.” But he added [today] that “for the most part this was a process that was fully consistent with democratic process.”

Chavez captured more than 54 percent of the vote, according to preliminary tallies of 94 percent of results. The win allows him to run for a third term.

Asked whether that was a result the United States welcomes, Duguid said the issue “was a matter for the Venezuelan people [to decide].”

What a huge difference a change in White House administration from unelected Repugnican to duly elected Democrat makes, at least in terms of U.S. relations with Venezuela!

Just last month, according to the Bush-occupied White House, Hugo Chavez was a “dictator.”

Today, the White House, now in sane(r) hands that were actually fucking elected, acknowledges the reality that Chavez, who calls himself a democratic socialist, actually is democratic.

“Reports of intimidation” in Venezuela may be accurate or may be right-wing fabrications or a mixture of both. But even if they are accurate, you can’t fairly hold Chavez accountable for the actions of all of his supporters, many if not most of whom are quite passionate about maintaining the populist change that Chavez initiated in Venezuela after years of rule by aristocratic right-wing kleptocrats.

And it’s not like the United States, after the presidential election debacles of 2000 and 2004, is in the moral position to lecture any other nation about up-and-up elections in the first fucking place. The fact alone that in 2000 George W. Bush “won” the pivotal state of Florida while Florida’s chief elections officer, fellow Repugnican Katherine Harris, had sat on the state’s committee to elect Bush, and that in 2004 Bush “won” “re”-election by “winning” the pivotal state of Ohio while Ohio’s chief elections officer, fellow Repugnican Kenneth Blackwell, had sat on the state’s committee to “re”-elect Bush — fuck, if that doesn’t have “banana republic” written all over it, I don’t know what does.

But it’s never “election fraud” or “terrorism” when a stupid white man commits it.

But I digress…

Again, it’s nice to see the White House finally fucking acknowledge that the rule of Venezuela is actually up to the people of Venezuela and not up to the stupid white men (such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) who have been trying to run the entire fucking planet for their own benefit at the expense of the majority of the planet’s population — or up to the stupid rich white men’s millions of dumbfuck dupes who actually believe that these stupid rich white men have the common person’s interests at heart.

Still, just as pro-Israel  propaganda is so ubiquitous that the majority of Americans (who are blindly pro-Israel) don’t even realize that they’ve been brainwashed, anti-Chavez propaganda is so ubiquitous within the U.S. that even the members of the press, who are supposed to remain neutral, use such loaded terms as “a U.S. antagonist” to describe Chavez. (“Firebrand,” with its implications of insanity and/or anger-control problems, is another loaded term that I’ve seen the mainstream media use to describe Chavez.)

Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela. That is his role in the world. But, as is typical for an apparently American news writer, the writer can see Chavez only though the lens of U.S. interests, so Chavez becomes “a U.S. antagonist,” as though the only way to describe or define Chavez (or any other nation’s leader) would be as “pro-” or “anti-” U.S. (Wasn’t it George W. Bush who used to scoff imperialistically: “You are with us or you are against us”?)

We Americans have this blind, knee-jerk imperialist tendency to see other nations only in terms of whether they kiss our ass and do what we say or whether they actually — gasp! — stand up for their sovereignty, as Hugo Chavez has had the gall to do for his people and for which he has been falsely branded a “dictator.” (And plenty of Americans still believe the “dictator Chavez” lie, just as they still believe the other lie propagated by the treasonous Bush regime, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 — and thus, the Vietraq War.)

And then we fat, lazy and ignorant Americans scratch our heads and ask ourselves why they hate us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized