Sympathy for El Diablo

So the ailing Cuban Dictator, Fidel Castro, states; “My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, or even less to obstruct the path of younger people, but to share experiences and ideas whose modest worth comes from the exceptional era in which I lived.”

The truth is that this tyrant has clung to power for almost 50 years. Since 1959 he has ruled Cuba as his personal gulag while executing or jailing his political opposition. Suddenly Castro expects the world to believe him when he declares that he wouldn’t selfishly cling to power. Even a casual observer would have to note that this statement is only the result of his deteriorating health and his desire for the continued oppression of his country after his death. However, Castro is not a political figure that is viewed critically in our media or among our political elites.

Latin America’s most hated dictator was Chilean General Augusto Pinochet. He is well known for the repression of civil liberties, murder and torture that was committed by his junta in the seventies. His regime is believed to have murdered about 3,000 people and no sane person could praise the dictator’s morality. On the other hand, Fidel Castro has murdered about 14,000. So Castro’s regime has been much more repressive than Pinochet’s and the Cuban dictator has not given up power to make room for democratic reform like Pinochet did.

Yet many prominent Americans openly admire this Communist dictator. Take these quotes for example…

“Cuba’s Elvis!” (Dan Rather.) “Castro is the most honest and courageous politician I’ve ever met! Viva Fidel!” (Jesse Jackson.) “If you believe in freedom, justice and equality, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!” (Harry Belafonte.) “Castro is a genius and Cuba is a Paradise!” (Jack Nicholson) “The greatest hero of the century!” (Norman Mailer) “One helluva guy!” (Ted Turner.)

Barbara Walters is one of many American journalists who have expressed admiration for both Castro and his protégé, Hugo Chavez, the most authoritarian rulers in this hemisphere. Over the last century the Americas were rife with dictatorships. Today all of the rightwing dictatorships are gone and have been replaced by republics with a much more democratic representation of the people. Castro’s leftwing junta is the only dictatorship left and Venezuela teeters at the brink thanks to their despotic leader, Hugo Chavez.

Despite this, Walters is infamous for stating, “For Castro, freedom begins with education”.

Why do prominent journalists act as such willing dupes for totalitarians?




In this picture Barbara Walters meets with Chavez cronies in their Caracas stronghold, giving them a treasure trove of publicity. Jose Gregorio Cedeno, in the red cap, is president of a Chavez-controlled community council. The woman in blue, Doris Seren, is a teacher and member of the council. Such teachers are important to the “Revolution”, which emphasizes a complete revision of history to reflect the Socialist viewpoint that almost all conflict throughout history was the result of class struggle. It reminds me of the Castro statement… Walters would have been closer to the truth if she changed just one word…

“For Castro, freedom begins with RE-education”.

In any case, the picture was taken as a part of a staged political propaganda tour that was orchestrated by Chavez in exchange for an interview that was to occur shortly thereafter. The tour and the interview were eagerly promoted in the Chavez controlled media. One advertisement stated, “We invite all Venezuelans to watch the interview of the year. The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ‘Comandante’ Hugo Chavez Frias, leader of the XXI Century Socialism, in an exclusive interview with the journalist Barbara Walters, star anchorwoman of the main US network ABC news”.

While Walters felt obligated to address a few of the many negative characteristics that define Chavez, she clearly has a great deal of affection for the Venezuelan strongman. In her interview she never challenges him over the abuses of power that have made Chavez an object of concern for the Venezuelan people. The closest she comes is by asking this pampered question, “Venezuela elected you to a second term. They would have to amend the constitution for you to run for a third term. You want them to do that?”

These are not the words of an educated woman who would at least be vaguely aware of how Chavez has already changed his country’s Constitution for personal gain, packed the courts with his cronies and labored so hard to get these “reforms” passed that he declared the following warning to those who would vote against the Constitutional changes that he proposed… “He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor.” Why is it that Conservatives are almost always exclusively labeled as divisive and suffering from an “Us Against Them” mentality when their leftwing opponents are so unapologetic in such sentiments?

Mostly Walters glowingly refers to Presidente Chavez as “dignified”, “warm” and suffering from “misconceptions” in the U.S. She took the approach of tough love and was sure to stroke the strongman’s ego by complimenting his character and asking biased questions like, “You are not married now. Are you -- Do you want to marry, or are you married to the revolution?” The interview with an eligible bachelor like Chavez obviously sparked Walters’ romantic notions about the “Revolution”.

After wrapping up the interview on 20/20 she expressed her true feelings in a statement that could have been written by a Commissar working at the PRAVDA news desk…

“…when you meet him, when you see him in the navy blue suit and not the red shirt that he’s in, um, he’s passionate about his dislike for George Bush. He does like this country and he’s passionate about his feelings about America. And he feels that with a new President, that we can be friends. He cares very much about poverty. He’s a Socialist. What he’s trying to do for all of Latin America, you know, they’ve been trying to do it for years, is to eliminate poverty. But this is not the crazy man that we have heard.”

Since Walters is so open in her admiration for Chavez it’s no surprise that she reacted sympathetically when the Venezuelan despot lost his recent bid to be president-for-life. As a comparison I find it just a wee bit ironic that she said the following about President Bush;

“He is the president, he is not a king.”

So while Walters glosses over major infractions against the freedoms of Venezuelans by Hugo Chavez (who has also consolidated a massive amount of political power into his presidency and political party) she accuses President Bush of being an autocrat simply because she was annoyed at the security in the capital of the United States, Washington D.C. Right across the water from the Pentagon which was attacked on 9/11.

We need a truly objective media, not this.

Defender of the Fifth Republic – Part 2

Anniversary Party with Hugo Chavez

In England and the United States many prominent figures have praised Hugo Chavez for the great strides that he has made for democracy in Venezuela. They have even pointed out that he was victorious in elections that they claim were more legitimate than that of U.S. President George W. Bush.

So let’s savor some choice quotes that pay homage to this highly regarded democracy in Venezuela…

1. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, wrote a heartfelt plea to support Chavez. It was originally published in the Guardian, a British newspaper that many of my readers are familiar with;

“Not a Difficult Choice at All.
Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy.”

“For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. It therefore deserves the unequivocal support of not only every supporter of social progress, but every genuine believer in democracy in the world.

…Sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. Britain fought with Stalin against Hitler. But with Chavez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.

George Bush’s refusal to respect the choices of the Venezuelan people shows that his administration has no real interest in promoting democracy at all.”

2. In an open letter published on August 12, 2004 (several days before Chavez faced a very important recall vote) prominent Americans including Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Jesse Jackson wrote the following…

“Dear President Chavez,

We are writing to express our solidarity during this important moment in Venezuela’s history. It is our hope and expectation that, on August 15, you will once again win an electoral mandate from the Venezuelan people to be their president…

…We are committed to doing what we can, as U.S. citizens, to heal those relationships and encourage Congress and the White House to see Venezuela not only as a model democracy but also as a model of how a country’s oil wealth can be used to benefit all of its people.”

Weeks before this letter was released there was a similar letter produced by a group of 69 intellectuals, artists, politicians and Nobel laureates from around the world. It was entitled, “If We Were Venezuelan, on August 15th, 2004, We Would Vote for Hugo Chavez.” They wrote an inspiring piece and I’d like to share some of its highlights with you;

“…we wish to denounce the disinformation campaign that is being orchestrated by the major media and that attempts to characterize as a tyrant, a President who has consistently respected the rule of law and the country’s Constitution…

…We are certain that, on August 15th, the Venezuelan people will celebrate a new victory that will allow them to continue building a freer and fairer society; the country that Simon Bolivar dreamt of.”

3. In January of 2006 a delegation of Americans including singer Harry Belafonte, actor Danny Glover, Princeton scholar Cornel West and several others visited Venezuela to show their support for Chavez. Harry Belafonte led the way by heaping praises on the dictator and bashing President Bush.

“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution”

So while Belafonte portrayed Bush as a tyrant, he also lashed out against the US media for portraying Chavez as a dictator. Instead he insisted that Venezuela is a democracy and that the Venezuelans are “optimistic about their future”.

4. It seems that Caracas is a prime port of call for many Americans who are seeking out the bold leadership of President Chavez. Activist, Cindy Sheehan, who has been the most vocal critic of the Bush Administration over the last couple of years, embarked on an all expenses paid excursion to the 6th Annual World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. She took the opportunity to promote Chavez’s fear mongering that the US is ready to destroy the Venezuelan democracy and invade the country.

“I have talked to many citizens of Venezuela who are understandably nervous about a US invasion and they know that it is not about the idea that President Chavez is a “dictator”, which he is not, he is a democratically elected leader who is very popular in his country. The people of Venezuela are very savvy and they know that if the US invades their country that it won’t be because we are spreading “freedom and democracy” to them. They know they already have it.”

---

As these intellectual powerhouses have spent the last couple of years defending the democracy of Presidente Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been steadily sliding into a dictatorship in the model of Nazi Germany … another democratically elected government that used the rule of law to install a totalitarian dictatorship.

I apologize for using the dreaded Hitler comparison, but it is very appropriate.

First, because Bush is continually compared to the Nazi dictator.

Second, because the parallels between Chavez and Hitler are uncanny.

The Quest for Power

As many have pointed out, Chavez and Hitler both attempted a coup d’etat before using democratic means to seize power. When the supporters of Chavez decry the 2002 coup against the Venezuelan “democracy” I have to laugh. If Chavez didn’t receive a pardon he would have been in jail instead of being sworn in as president on February 2nd, 1999. While Hitler used his time in jail to write Mein Kampf, Chavez used his time behind bars to plot a second failed coup.

Although Hitler ruled by decree through an Enabling Act when he first came to power, Chavez actually has him beat by implementing an Enabling Act twice (I love how Chavez frequently one-ups Hitler). Over a week ago Venezuelan legislators voted unanimously to grant Chavez initial approval to rule by decree for a year and a half. As if marking the 74th anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany, January 30th 2007, the latest Venezuelan Enabling Act will be formally approved.

Actually a second vote will be held tomorrow, but it is expected to easily pass because the Venezuelan National Assembly is completely controlled by Chavez loyalists. The opposition holds no seats in the Assembly due to a boycott that marred the parliamentary election of 2005. Only Chavez’s party, The Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) and its allies are represented. I should point out that this may not last for very long.

To celebrate last month’s reelection victory Chavez announced his intention to unite all political parties allied to the MVR into one consolidated party. This will effectively turn Venezuela into a One Party State. Chavez was really serious about forcing his subordinate parties to consolidate. He addressed the fact that some parties may oppose submitting to his will so he put his foot down saying, “I don’t have time to bury myself in a debate … they are entirely free to pursue their course. Obviously, they will leave the government.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The quote is taken from The Socialist Voice, a Marxist website that is fanatically pro-Chavez. When Chavez proclaims that he will allow no debate on this issue and forbids any political party that is not under his control to share power in Venezuela’s government, they are actually pleased.

Now this behavior by Chavez is nothing new. Upon assuming his office in 1999 he has embarked on a ruthless campaign to remake the Venezuelan government so that it primarily serves his ambitions. He added a dozen loyal justices to the Supreme Court and fired hundreds of lower-court judges so that he could replace them with more of his cronies.

To add insult to injury, he has now added three additional years to his presidency. He rewrote the constitution to add one year per term and he has been elected to two terms for a total of two additional years. After passing the constitution he was “reelected”. Since he was originally elected in December of 1998 and he was “reelected” according to the new constitution in 2000, he was able to squeeze a free year out of the deal. I pointed this out before, but it is worth repeating... Can you imagine if President Bush extended his term of office by three additional years? Furthermore, Chavez has announced that he plans to change the constitution again in order to allow him to run for reelection in 2012.

Freedom of Speech

Some of the most serious criticisms of Chavez don’t relate to the vast amount of power that he is accumulating, but to the disturbing violations of civil rights that he is presiding over. Under Chavez a number of new legislative restrictions on the freedom of speech have been adopted into law.

The first outrage was the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Groups that promote Human Rights and the Freedom of Press have harshly criticized this law, especially Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The measure was justified to protect minors, but was written so broadly that advocates of freedom of speech say that it is really geared towards stifling dissent. One of its articles states that, “Any program or news containing moderate violence - such as the fall of the Twin Towers in New York or a street confrontation between police and political demonstrators - is banned from 5:00am until 11:00pm”.

In the aftermath of massive amounts of public unrest this was a very effective tool for keeping the coverage of opposition rallies off the air. The fact that Venezuelans are not allowed to have access to such information is a blatant act of censorship. It is also incredibly unfair to compare the protests for democracy to the world’s most horrific act of terrorism in our history. Socialists may be the most incompetent economists, but their grasp of propaganda surpasses even the Nazis and as a result perverts the core of their institutions.

In 2005 The Inter-American Press Association (Socidad Interamericana de Prensa) related how badly the situation had become;

“Every day violence against journalists and media outlets that are critical of the government increases, threatening them with the possibility of being taken over or disappearing. The International Association of Broadcasting reported that on September 14 the National Telecommunications Committee (CONATEL) opened administrative proceedings against seven private television stations, including Globovision for alleged failure to use assigned frequencies. On September 20, the same proceeding was brought against 22 private radio stations for alleged infractions or offenses against the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television.

This situation is aggravated by the fact that President Chavez has granted himself all power by putting the National Assembly, the judiciary and the electoral system under his supervision. In this way, he was able to impose laws and regulations that allow him to attack those who dare to dissent.

Given this situation it would be utopian to believe that press freedom exists.”

According to the CPJ the law also stipulates that television and radio stations which broadcast programs that “promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order” may be suspended for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infraction within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. As a result news networks curtailed their coverage of civil unrest in fear of violating this vaguely-worded law.

On the heels of the Law of Social Responsibility there were more media content laws that were passed a month later. Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post outlined some of the more disturbing articles. He stated that it was a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects - not only in public but also in private:

Article 147: “Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.” That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who “disrespect” the president or his functionaries in private; “the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly.”

Article 444 says that comments that “expose another person to contempt or public hatred” can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who “causes public panic or anxiety” with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.

In response to criticism from international human rights groups the Chavez-controlled Supreme Court upheld such legislation by saying that, “The recommendations of international organizations, particularly those of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights … are not binding … Freedom of speech is not an absolute right of human beings”. In reality this is true because hate speech is not always protected, but it is an ominous choice of words. The Chavez regime has repeatedly used such language to trample legitimate speech.

These measures have strengthened the ability of the regime to leverage the country’s legal system in its attempt to silence its opposition. There are currently more than 200 political prisoners in Venezuela. According to The Freedom House, out of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere Venezuela now ranks 34th out of 35 countries in press freedom. Only Cuba, Chavez’s closest ally, is ranked as more repressive. The hostility to free speech stems from the fact that most news agencies are opposed to the regime. Chavez Supporters claim that this is evidence that Venezuela is a healthy democracy. The truth is that these news agencies are the legacy of Latin America’s most long-lived democracy, which has been led by civilians without interruption since 1958 (a rarity in Latin America).

Radio Caracas Television (RCT) was formed in 1953 as the nation’s third television network. Since the station gave positive coverage to a strike against Chavez in 2003, the President has declared that he will shut them down when their license is up for renewal. Chavez contemptuously stated, “It runs out in March. So it’s better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you’re going to do in March.” Since Chavez has inherited a democratic press he has done everything he can to silence it. In addition to the legislation mentioned above, his supporters have used the Chavez-controlled judiciary to persecute journalists that are only doing their job. Journalists that criticize the regime have also been killed, abused and had their property attacked.

Below is an incomplete list of Journalists that have faced legal action in response to their criticism of the regime and its allies. Each name contains a link to an article that describes the repression that they are facing. Since the attacks on journalists have been so extensive, I do not have the space to address each one of them. Please visit the linked sites for more information. I regret not including a list of those that have been killed or assaulted, but I had to limit myself because I feared that I would never be able to finish this post otherwise. However, the links below do include quite a bit of information on the violence that these reporters have also had to face.

Julio Balza

Napoleon Bravo

Leopoldo Castillo

Marta Colomina

Ben Ami Fihman

Carlos Gibson

Ivan Martinez

Faitha Marina Nahmens

Marianella Salazar

Pablo Aure Sanchez

Jose Angel Ocanto

Ibeyse Pacheco

Patricia Poleo

Alberto Federico Ravell

Pablo Lopez Ulacio

Mireya Zurita

---

Big Brother

George Orwell’s novel 1984 is famous for the slogan, “Big Brother is Watching You”. In Venezuela the Tascon and Maisantas Lists have made it a reality. The Tascon List was originally compiled by a pro-Chavez politician, Luis Tascon. On his website he published a full database of all those Venezuelans who signed the recall petition against Chavez in 2004. A threat was issued by President Chavez claiming that, “Whoever signs against Chavez, will have their names recorded for history”. Public dissemination of this blacklist resulted in widespread discrimination against those listed. Some lost their government jobs, or were denied government services and/or were denied access to employment. It took a year, but widespread criticism led to the removal of the list from Tascon’s website and a full repudiation of it.

However, since that time the Tascon List has been expanded into the Maisantas List. Maria Uzcategui, Director of International Affairs for Ciudadania Activa, relates that the new list contains records of the country’s 12 million voters. It is used at street corner checkpoints to screen those wishing to enter public buildings. Those classified on the list as a “radical” face retaliation like the loss of their jobs, denial of credit, access to education, passports, fair trials and health care. The list can be purchased from street vendors in Caracas for ten dollars.

Influence for Oil

Here in the United States politicians from the Democratic Party have benefited from sweetheart oil deals given to their constituents by the dictator. In return Chavez has found words of praise from prominent Massachusetts Democrats like Senator Chris Dodd, Congressman Bill Delahunt and former Congressman Joe Kennedy II. While they have mildly denounced a few of Chavez’s more outrageous publicity stunts, all of those involved in the dictator’s “oil for influence scheme” have defended him in one way or another.

Chavez has been throwing around his country’s oil wealth to purchase influence all over the globe. He has destroyed his country’s democracy and seeks to undermine our own as well. Subsidizing oil deliveries to the poor is a noble pursuit, but it comes at too high of a cost. If our leaders are serious about subsidizing oil for the poor they should do so out of their own pockets or from the coffers of our government. Reliance on a dictator that seeks influence in our country is not a good idea.

One Democratic politician has tripped all over himself to seek out bribes for his supporters. Congressman Jose Serrano drank straight from the tap of the Chavez oil machine, without any apologies for the dictator’s inflammatory behavior. On one of Chavez’s trips to the UN Serrano sought out his hero to offer his services as a tour guide to his district in the Bronx. Chavez was delighted for the propaganda coup that it would offer him. When the time came to give the tour Serrano set up display booths for local activist groups to greet the dictator. To pay his debt Chavez had an aide take down as much information as possible about Serrano’s pet projects so that the Venezuelan embassy could make donations to them.

In Defense of A Dictator

A common theme among Democrats when defending their ties to El Presidente is to say that Chavez is democratically elected. Senator Dodd expressed such sentiments in a letter to the Washington Post. He wrote, “There is no question in my mind that many of Mr. Chavez’s actions have been provocative. But the reality is that he was democratically elected - a fact The Post seems to ignore… I believe that the institutions of democracy must be nurtured and encouraged, regardless of who is in office”.

If this kind of twisted logic seems familiar to you, then perhaps you recall those Leftists that triumphantly defended the terrorist group Hamas when they were victorious in last year’s Palestinian elections. We have now had some time to reflect upon their influence on their peoples’ experiment with democracy, but that’s another story.

Being elected, even in the fairest election possible, does not guarantee the winner a blanket of immunity. No sane person ever said that democracy is perfect. It is only as healthy as the people who participate in it. Besides, an attack on a democratically elected politician is not the same as an attack on democracy itself. To suggest otherwise is intellectually misleading.

In the period between the two World Wars, if critics of Adolph Hitler’s democratically elected government felt that they should refrain from criticizing the regime out of respect for democracy - they would have been badly mistaken. The opposite was true, if they really cared about democracy they would have spoken out against the corruption of such a noble institution. I am grateful for the warnings that were issued by brave people like William Shirer, Ernest Hemingway, Tom Hopkinson and Freda Kirchwey. If only more people listened to them before it was too late.

Besides apologizing for the authoritarian abuses by Chavez there is one other trait that self-professed progressives like Mayor Ken Livingstone, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Congressman Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan all share in common. They unanimously condemn the struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. If they have misled us about democracy in Venezuela, are they misleading us in Iraq as well? This is a question to ponder on the anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany and the formal approval of Venezuela’s Second Enabling Act.

Defender of the Fifth Republic

Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Shoot at the Opposition

Sometimes false or misleading statements can jump out of a webpage like pop-up figures in a Winnie the Pooh book. Common Dreams, a “Progressive” news site, specializes in those kinds of gross distortions that are an endless source of amusement to me. I’m not saying that they are talented writers. It’s just that they exaggerate and contort reality so far beyond recognition that it can easily drive any intelligent person into a belly ache full of laughter.

Yesterday’s webpage at Common Dreams contains an article that brings together two extremely rich comic book characters.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone

– and –

Venezuela’s Presidente, Hugo Chavez.

In these days of pretentiously false propaganda figures who can ask for anything more? Basically the article is an open letter from Livingstone praising the Venezuelan pseudo-dictator. Titled, “Not a Difficult Choice At All - Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy”.

I get a kick out of how Livingstone hysterically portrays Chavez as the champion of democracy!

Ohhhh where to begin? The list of anti-democratic actions by Chavez is long and the prospect of documenting them is very intimidating. I just don’t have the time to go through A to Z. Let’s just skip over the basics.

Upon assuming power Chavez fired hundreds of judges. His critics have accused him of replacing them with loyal judges who have served as his henchmen, while Chavez counters with the valid point that the justice system was in urgent need of reform. However, over the course of time the facts favor the view that Chavez is packing the courts for his own political gain.

In 2004 Chavez pushed through legislation to expand the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices. This allowed him to obtain a majority of Chavez supporters on the court. When the head of Human Rights Watch Americas division, Jose Miguel Vivanco, spoke out against this maneuver he was briefly detained by the Venezuelan government who condemned him of, “open and unpardonable meddling in the internal affairs of our country” and threatened to make him a “persona non grata” in Venezuela. Can you imagine if the Bush Administration performed a similar action against a human rights activist? The anti-American bias in the world’s press and public opinion becomes painfully obvious when reflecting upon this question. Not to mention the fact that it was hard enough to replace two Supreme Court judges, Bush couldn’t possibly dream of adding 12 more additional judges.

The plight of Venezuelan Judge Miguel Angel Luna is particularly illuminating. In February 2004 two truck drivers were dragged in front of him, but were not charged with any crime. The prosecutors demanded that they be jailed because they had been parked near an anti-government demonstration. Instead Judge Luna set the two men free and three days later he was fired by the president of the Supreme Court without any explanation. Upon a written appeal Luna was reinstated, only to be fired again when upholding the right of a Chavez opponent to appoint two new lawyers to represent himself.

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks. Upon assuming the Presidency, Chavez quickly consolidated his power by conducting referendums in order to completely redraft the country’s constitution in his favor. Using the state funded media; his allies were able to campaign for the Constitutional Assembly and won 120 of the 131 assembly seats.

The assembly then gave itself absolute power by setting up a judicial emergency committee with the ability to remove judges without consulting any other branch of government. When they finally got to work on the constitution they extended Chavez’s term of office by a year. Again, can you imagine the uproar if President Bush had his term of office extended?

A key provision of the new constitution allowed Chavez to centralize a vast amount of power under his control. The document set up a one-chamber legislative body that gives him the ability to dissolve congress as he wishes and to remove congressional review of military appointments.


Chavez’s new super powers allowed him to pass the infamous Enabling Act of 2000, giving him the strength that even Superman would be jealous of. For a year Chavez ruled by decree as a king or dictator would. He was invested with the authority to pass any mandate into law without approval from the National Assembly. The champion of democracy donned a suit of magical armor and bullets just bounced right off of him. He needed that magic to combat the extreme displeasure of the Venezuelan opposition.

Actually I am exaggerating, there was no magic involved. It was a three-step process.

1. Seize enormous power
2. Enrich your cronies and bribe the poor
3. Attack the freedom of speech

Chavez has many leftwing supporters in the western world. A particularly amusing website called VHeadline.com caught my eye because of its similar tone to Common Dreams. It is based in the US but dedicated to praising the Venezuelan revolution and glorifying Chavez. In an outlandish anti-Bush rant, columnist Mary MacElveen compared our President to the rise of Adolph Hitler (she saw it in a movie,... I'm serious).

MacElveen actually lowers the bar for political commentary (if that is even possible). She compares the persecution of German reporter Fritz Gerlich to Bush’s objection to the leak of the National Security Agency story by the NY Times. Gerlich was a reporter that dedicated himself to exposing how dangerous Hitler was. When Hitler seized power he imprisoned Gerlich in Dachau, the German concentration camp. About a year later Gerlich was murdered and his bloodied glasses were callously sent to his wife as proof of his death. So how could MacElveen compare Gerlich to the NY Times? The only thing that the reporters at the Times have to worry about is whether or not their press passes can get them into the Bronx Zoo free of charge.

If you recall the website she writes for is called VHeadline and they publish pro-Chavez articles like;

Chavez does not take crap from the USA. You want to play hardball, go ahead!

US State Department looking for a fight in which it might get a black eye!

Treating Venezuela as if it were the enemy does not make any sense at all

So when I began reading MacElveen’s article comparing Hitler to Bush I thought my eyes were deceiving me. Just read this quote;

“…One has only to look at the Patriot Act to know this to be true.

When Hitler came to power, he pushed for an Enabling Act which, as I have stated before, is strikingly similar and during his reign of terror he also pressured the press.”

In complete disbelief of what I was reading, I had to re-read this paragraph. After reading it a second time I thought that maybe a hacker defaced her article. I couldn’t believe that anyone could be so ignorant, she is really describing her beloved Presidente Chavez! After all, he passed his own Enabling Act to seize more power. Did she forget that he abused his office to extend his term of office, rewriting the constitution and packing the courts with his cronies?! What was this woman thinking when she wrote this article?

She goes on to describe how Gerlich witnessed the Munich Beer Hall Putsch in which Hitler attempted a coup to seize control of the Bavarian government. Did she forget that Chavez also attempted a coup against his government? Is she mad? The similarity between the two is undeniable. They both rose to national prominence as a result of their attempts to seize power by force and they both changed their strategy to take control of their governments through legal means after the failures of their coups. I guess this is to be expected from someone who bases their historical research on a made for TV movie (“Hitler: The Rise of Evil”). While Fritz Gerlich risked his life to confront Hitler’s fascist lust for power, Mary MacElveen risks her reputation to compare Bush to such nonsense. How can she be blind to the fact that her hero, Hugo Chavez, represents everything that she accuses Bush of?

The Left rallies around Chavez because they are superficial and sheep-like. They love a strong anti-American leader who can hit each and every leftwing political talking point. Chavez’s totalitarian outrages are lost in the cheer of his political rhetoric.

Getting back to the Common Dreams article, Ken Livingstone concludes by saying, “Today Venezuela is being “opposed” largely on the basis of lies...It is the duty of all people who support progress, justice and democracy to stand with Venezuela.” I would agree with his statement if he changed one word, delete opposed and replace it with “supported” and you have yourself a truthful sentence.