Shampoo and Conditioning

British illusionist, Derren Brown, has made a career out of his obsession with subliminal messaging. In the video below he displays a stunning example of how easily we can be influenced. I don’t want to spoil the video for you so I will let you see for yourself. It is amazing…

Now that you have watched the video; I have one word for you, “Islamophobia”. For years we have been conditioned into believing that attacks on Al Qaeda, Baathists, and the Taliban are heavily influenced by our prejudice against Islamic people. We are continually taught that terrorists attack us because of our prejudices.

It was no accident that the Obama Administration bizarrely obsessed over a false narrative regarding the Benghazi attacks on a US “diplomatic compound” in that city. Against a mountain of evidence the Administration continued to insist that the attacks were the result of a fabricated protest against a video that made fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

The YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”, was made by an Egyptian-American. It led to violent protests in Cairo that later spread around the world. Even though the Pentagon, the State Department, CIA, FBI and the President of Libya disagreed, the Obama Administration continued to mislead the American people.

In order to promote this absurd view point Obama stated;

…What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

NATURAL PROTESTS?! If there had been similar protests against the “Piss Christ” there is no way Obama would have described them as “natural”. (The Piss Christ was a federally funded artwork that shows a crucifix with Jesus Christ immersed in a glass of the artist’s urine.) Obama is conditioned to embrace the belligerent anger of Muslims and ignore or condemn any similar Christian sentiment (you know, the ones who “cling to guns and religion”).

On September 16th, 2012 Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf confirmed on the CBS show ‘Face the Nation’ that the Benghazi attack was a planned operation and it was organized months before the video protests.  He stated;

It was planned definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who … entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their… arrival.”

Yet Susan Rice continued the Obama Administration’s lie on the same show.  She declared;

…based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.”

Libyan President El-Magariaf was a Sunni Muslim, but still felt no need to attack American Islamophobia and link it to this attack. Like most Americans he clearly understood that the attack was an organized operation that had nothing to do with the Cairo protests, while the Obama Administration continued to push a false narrative.

Missing in Action

In view of Obama’s preoccupation with Islamophobia, it was no surprise that he was not interested in one of the largest political rallies in French history. On Sunday, January 11th 3.7 million people and over 40 world leaders marched in Paris and other French cities to condemn recent terrorist attacks on a French newspaper and a kosher supermarket.

Despite the large scale attendance of Muslims and Muslim religious leaders, Obama had little interest in promoting moderate Islam on this occasion. Instead he stayed home and watched football.

The White House claimed that since planning for the event had begun only 36 hours before, there wasn’t enough time to organize security for the President. However, over 40 presidents and prime ministers (including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) attended the event. Are we to believe that the Secret Service could not match the security services of 40 other countries, including Israel?

This bald-faced lie is completely in character for the Obama Administration. To understand what really happened take a good look at one of the targets of the terrorist attack, Charlie Hedbo magazine.

God Damn the 1st Amendment

In 2006 Charlie Hedbo republished the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons that had previously ignited deadly riots around the world. The magazine’s right to free speech was upheld by a French court when the editor was acquitted of the crime of “abusing a group on the grounds of their religion”.

This sort of free speech does not fit President Obama’s vision of the “future”. Around the time he was falsely blaming the Benghazi attack on an imaginary protest, Obama pushed his cherished talking point on the UN General Assembly.  He infamously proclaimed:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

In the space of one minute he placed Americans who exercise their freedom of speech on the same level of 1) the terrorists who kill Coptic Christians in Egypt and 2) the dictator of Syria, who slaughters his own people with crude chemical weapons. Obama said:

1) “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.”
2) “In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people.”

I’m sorry. My future shouldn’t be threatened because I don’t believe that Mohammed was a prophet. It is my right not to believe and my right to express my right not to believe. I am not an “obstructionist”.  I am exercising my right to free speech.

Obama has allies in his fight against the defamation of the prophet of Islam. In Pakistan a Christian mother of five, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death for “defiling the name of the Prophet Mohammed”.

It is interesting to note that the charges were brought against her by Pakistanis who were discriminating against her faith. Bibi’s fellow field workers refused to drink out of a bucket of water that she touched because she wasn’t Muslim. An argument ensued and now she is condemned to death. Several prominent politicians in Pakistan have been assassinated for speaking out on Bibi’s behalf (including the only Christian member of the Cabinet).

In Bangladesh a cartoonist, Arifur Rahman, was jailed for six months because he made an innocent, a-political joke naming a cat “Mohammed”. Under pressure from Islamists Bangladesh has also persecuted bloggers for insulting Mohammed. Writer, Asif Mohiuddin, was murdered last week for defending them. This has become a regular pattern in that country.

When an Egyptian social studies teacher, Demiana Emad, said that the former Coptic Christian Pope Shenuda III was a better man than Mohammed she was jailed for six months and forced to pay a heavy fine.

We can go down the list such as; Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, UAE, Yemen, etc… but you get the idea. The most relevant case is the death sentence for seven Egyptian Christians for their roles in the movie “Innocence of Muslims”.

As his allies in Egypt were busy building a death penalty case, Obama was trying to persuade Google and YouTube to pull down the video. Although he failed, the video was later taken down for reasons that had nothing to do with insulting the Prophet.

The funny thing about some Americans is that they really do treasure the freedom of speech. It’s not just words…

The Future of Those Who Slander the USA

When a bully is looking for an excuse he will always find another one.  So if we surrender our freedom of speech Islamic terrorism will still continue. The conspiracy theories that fuel the hatred of Islamists are not even the sole domain of just Islamists. Westerners themselves are often the first to blame western imperialism.  We give them the reasons to justify their holy war against us.

On the other hand, I refuse to censor 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy nuts no matter how much they offend me.  I also reserve the right to criticize them in return.

In protests we have turned a blind eye towards those who urge soldiers to assassinate their officers.

Anti-war activists protested at Walter Reed Medical Center, where injured soldiers were recovering from their wounds. They carried signs such as, “Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton” and “Maimed for Lies”.

However, there is no way in the world that I would demand that they be censored.  I will condemn their hateful propaganda until my last breath, but I am proud that my country tolerates such foolishness so that we can protect EVERYONE who expresses unpopular opinions.

Almost everyone “condemns” the violence of Islamists, but we often hear the caveat that cartoonists and amateur movie makers should behave themselves. So if a sacrilegious artwork such as the Piss Christ can be federally funded, how can anyone who approves of that object to publishing privately funded artwork such as the Mohammed cartoons? (Or is government approved blasphemy OK? Just kidding comrades)

The Elephant in the Room

Thanks to “Islamophobia” and our self-loathing bias we are blind to what is really happening in the world.  We know very little outside of anti-American talking points. The only reason we are familiar with the opposing point of view is because we are very familiar with the talking points that form the criticisms of them.

As an example, Gwen Ifill conducted a PBS interview of an author who traveled to the Islamic State to report on what is happening there. It was almost amusing to watch her confusion over the fact that the author was not beheaded when he traveled to ISIS territory.

It stands to reason that if you are a journalist covering international events you would understand the motivations of the subjects of your interview. Even before I pressed play to watch the video I knew the answer to Ifill’s lack of understanding.

The author that Ifill interviewed is a German named “Jürgen Todenhöfer”. Without any research I immediately realized that he was an anti-war activist. How is it possible that she can’t figure this out?

Todenhöfer was proud to criticize the ICC indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militias destroyed 400 villages, displaced 2.5 million people and instigated a genocide that cost 400,000 lives (and countless rapes).

In an open letter to the ICC prosecutor, Todenhöfer argued that if President Bush or Prime Minister Blair has not been indicted by the court then they should not indict the Sudanese President. So HELLO Gwen Ifill, it’s obvious why the Islamic State let this man into their territory without beheading him.

We Are Useful Tools

Todenhöfer seems like a really nice guy, like a friendly grandpa... But very friendly with terrorists and dictators and a complete tool. The problem is that he knows this. That is why he reiterates over and over that he criticizes the Islamic State. I’m sure he does, but he didn’t make too many criticisms during the interview.

Regardless, the Islamic State doesn’t care when Todenhöfer criticizes their brutality or their dictatorial nature. They actually want him to report those things. They rule through terror so they don’t want the message to go out that they are reasonable and accommodating liberals.

Most of all they want Todenhöfer and other likeminded Westerners to continue their propaganda. He has no sense of history outside of anti-Americanism. Only a pronounced bias can lead to this claim by Todenhöfer;

If you send your troops, even your best troops, I think they would have little chance to fight in a guerilla war in a big city. Because an American soldier, even your best soldiers the Marines or Special Forces, they want to come home, they want to survive. But these people want to die. They want to win and they are ready to die.”

He conveniently forgets the tenacity that US troops have shown over the years. This is nothing new to our soldiers.  In the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II the Japanese commander, General Kuribayashi, issued an order forbidding his troops to commit suicidal Banzai charges because they always failed against US firepower. The Banzai charge was replaced by kamikazes, but the US still defeated the Japanese Empire.

During the Battle of the Surge US Marines also used superior firepower against a suicidal enemy with success. Al Qaeda suffered a great defeat. Todenhöfer knows this, but he feels that he needs to propagandize against the US to help prevent us from being what he considers to be warlike and foolish.  The Islamic State counted on that when they issued him a guarantee of protection.

That is why they offered Todenhöfer the opportunity to try on a suicide belt. During another interview with CNN he blurted out that, “…these belts are very small, very easy to wear… I wore one… it’s a horrible feeling…”

In the video you can see that Todenhöfer realized he shouldn’t have admitted that on camera. He becomes visibly uncomfortable and looks down away from the camera as he grasps for words. Thankfully for him it is CNN and the interviewer bails him out by changing the subject. Soft interviews are a given when you have the right talking points.

In actuality the Islamic State doesn’t really need Todenhöfer.  There is enough anti-American propaganda in the Western world. However, he posed no threat for them and they felt they could use him anyway.

As long as we tell the world that Americans are racist warmongers and that is why we invade other countries, they will never believe anything we say (other than when we say bad things about ourselves). When Obama suffers from the Karzai Dilemma and tells the UN that the US is racist, the Muslim world will not believe him when he claims to be bombing the Middle East for humanitarian reasons.

To them it’s no different than a bank robber who rats on his accomplices. And just imagine if the leader of the gang tries to blame the other robbers. Who is going to believe him?

The cognitive dissonance will only be overlooked by those who claim to be American patriots, but are conditioned to believe that America’s foreign policy has always been primarily motivated by bigotry and greed.

Iran Offers Conditions for U.S. Surrender

To chants of “Death to America” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed President Obama’s recent overtures to his country.

In between heaping praise on Iranian culture and expressing verses of poetic love that, “the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations” – Obama emphasized that, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

It was instantly declared to be a master stroke of diplomacy that would diplomatically isolate the Iranian Mullahs. Instead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the occasion to rally his base and denounce Obama as a liar. The Ayatollah challenged the Obama Administration to back up his flowery words with acts of appeasement when he stated, “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged.”

However, other news that could have diplomatically isolated Iran went unmentioned during Obama’s message. Iranian blogger, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison on the same day as Obama’s rainbow-colored speech. Mirsayafi was jailed for allegedly insulting Iran’s leadership and he died amid claims that the Iranian government was at fault for his death. Bloggers are routinely harassed and jailed in Iran.

Ironically, the blogger was held in Evin Prison, which is the same prison that Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, is being held. Of course Obama also neglected to mention her in his mating call to the Iranian Mullahs.

Saberi is a brave reporter who defied the Iranian regime when it took away her press credentials in an attempt to silence her. After she was arrested her family didn’t know what happened to her until 10 days later when she finally was able to make a phone call to them. The arrest of Saberi came as the regime began another series of crackdowns on university students. Such oppression may be connected with the upcoming Presidential elections in June.

Saberi’s father publicly stated that, “We told her to hang on, and not give in. The whole world is with her.” Evidently, Obama is not with the whole world on this point. She is an obstacle to his diplomatic overtures.



The Master of Disaster

The Obama Administration is just stumbling around like a chicken without a head. When the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, addressed pseudo-economist Jim Cramer’s critical stance towards the White House’s economic policy he stated, “I think you can go back and look at any number of statements (Jim Cramer) made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too”.

Robert Gibbs has a valid point. During the 2008 Presidential Election Cramer was enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign.

On June 22nd of 2008 Jim Cramer appeared on NBC’s, “The Chris Matthews Show”. During that time the show was stumping for Obama’s presidential campaign and so this episode was a veritable Obama-lovefest. During the show Cramer heaped praise on Obama’s economic plans and the following exchange was recorded;

“MATTHEWS: So the Election Day is over, the morning after election, if Obama wins, does the stock market go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Even though capital gains go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Absolutely. We’re sick of it.

MATTHEWS: Whoa, what a--this is news we’ve made here. Jim Cramer says the market will resound positively to an election by--of Barack Obama.”

Interesting enough, on the day of Obama’s inauguration, the Dow fell in the most dramatic freefall of any other inauguration day in history. Then on March 5th stocks fell to their lowest level in 12 years.

Even as late as December of 2008 Cramer raved about the “Obama Factor”. His ridiculous pro-Obama rants are now quite embarrassing. He boasted that, “When Obama speaks, the market buys, it doesn’t just listen, so listen to Cramer to know where to spend the money!”

The euphoria of the Obama personality cult led to the election of a woefully inexperienced and radically leftwing president. Diplomacy was often held up to be Obama’s strength, but after a comedy of errors the president has been revealed to be too overwhelmed to conduct routine diplomatic affairs.

When British Prime Minster Gordon Brown came for a state visit the Obama Administration neglected to offer a customary press conference and formal dinner as our closest ally is accustomed to. The Administration’s reaction was indignant to the outrage of Britons. A State Department official who was involved in planning Brown’s visit angrily responded that, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment”.

The thoughtlessness of the Obama Administration seeped into every aspect of poor PM Brown’s visit (it’s a good thing that Great Britain really needs us, my apologies to our friends there). As many bloggers are aware, it is customary on such occasions for leaders to offer each other presents that show good will towards each other. Brown gave Obama a pen crafted from the wood of the 19th Century anti-slave trade ship (which is the sister ship of the vessel that the wood of the president’s Oval Office desk is made of).

Yet Obama gave his counterpart a set of 25 DVD movies, which turned out to be nothing but the first 25 of the American Film Institute’s list of the top-100 American movies. As if that isn’t thoughtless enough… when Brown went home and settled down to watch one of the movies, he discovered that the DVDs were formatted for North American DVD players and cannot be played on DVD players sold in Europe. A message stating, “Wrong Region”, appeared when Brown tried to play them.

Does it get any worse? Incredibly it does… Britons were outraged that two days after snubbing Prime Minister Brown, Obama lavishly hosted former IRA terrorist, Martin McGuinness. British blogger Archbishop Cranmer complained:

“Gordon brown entered the White House through a side entrance and was granted a half-hour chat with the President followed by a working lunch. There was no press conference and the British delegation was limited in numbers.

Mr. McGuinness will walk in through the front door of the White House and be given the full red carpet treatment. It is a de facto State Visit with full retinue and a joint press conference. There shall be two hours of talks and a lavish gala reception at which Mr. McGuinness shall be a guest of honour, seated on the top table.”

And this came after a rare spat of violence in Northern Ireland in which a policeman and two soldiers were murdered in separate incidents.

But don’t forget our illustrious Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her recent diplomatic blunders…

As if it wasn’t enough to botch her first official visit as Secretary of State to the European Parliament by mispronouncing her counterparts’ names, insulting European sensibilities by saying that American Democracy is older than Europe’s and mocking multiparty democracy... She followed up this embarrassing episode with an “enlightened” visit to Russia.

Complete incompetence was the order of the day when Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift meant to symbolize Obama’s diplomatic overtures to the Russian government. She gave him a button that she believed stated “reset” in Russian and expressed her hopes that we could “reset” our relationship with Russia. As she handed Lavrov the gift she said, “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” He replied that it was incorrect and the button actually stated “overcharged”. So how hard did they work to get one word wrong?

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

I think that it is fair to end this post with the full video footage of our Teleprompter President’s fantasy message to Iran…



The video starts off with Obama saying, “Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world. This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with family and friends”…

One thing is for certain… Roxana Saberi, an American citizen, could not spend Nowruz with her family and friends because she was locked up in an Iranian prison while her president flirted with her captors.

Year Round Patriotism

I hope that everyone had a fantastic Independence Day. It would have been nice to have more time off from work to celebrate, but I have to take what I can get... So Happy 231st Birthday America!!!

Patriotism in the U.S.A.

A burning hatred for the Republican Party is a common theme that unites all of the many varieties of leftwing radicalism. Since the Republican Party emphasizes patriotism as one of its most coveted ideals, patriotism is quite often derided by the Left as “blind obedience”.

So when the Fourth of July comes around it is always time for some doublespeak about how patriotic the Left claims to be. In some cases they don’t even bother with such false pretenses and they openly find it distasteful to have to endure the popular expression of patriotism.

Such animosity leads to some wildly inaccurate evaluations of what American patriotism means. Take the Million Workers Rally speech by Dahlia Wasfi. She asserts that patriotism is “a thin veil for racism”. Only an outdated ideology of ignorance could say such a thing in the 21st Century. Ms. Wasfi even admits how uninformed her circle of close associates are by stating that, “Prior to August 2, 1990, when Saddam Hussein moved forces into Kuwait, few of my friends had ever even heard of the country Iraq.”



Fans of Where’s Waldo were disappointed with the release of “Where’s Waldo, the Million Workers Rally Edition”.

The salt on the wound is how these people pretend to support our troops. Wasfi goes on to say, “So should we support the troops? Yes, in the only way we can. Bring them home. Stop them from blowing up children. Stop them from shooting fleeing families. Stop them from murdering demonstrators practicing their freedom to assemble. Stop them from giving up their own lives in the name of Israel, oil, and powerbroker profit.”

Now if U.S. troops really practiced this scale of genocide why would anyone want to support them? Wasfi leaves no question that she believes these accusations so she is clearly lying when she says that she supports the troops. This style of Orwellian propaganda is not unique to isolated extremists like her. Rosie O’Donnell, the popular television host, recently became engaged in a controversy regarding a statement in which she argued that the U.S. is a state sponsor of terrorism.

“I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?”

To defend herself from the fallout that resulted Rosie claimed to “support our troops”, but at the same time she continued to accuse them of committing those 655,000 murders and insisted that our “enemy are innocent civilians”.

Rosie didn’t just pull that number out of the air, she got it from the Lancet Study. This report has the dubious distinction of being released the October before every major national election since 2004. It is the Left’s favorite reference source because its numbers are drastically exaggerated more than any other organization that compiles casualty statistics of Iraqi civilians. That includes, the Iraqi Body Count (IBC), the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health (the Brookings Institution relies on statistics from IBC and the UN). One thing that all of these organizations have in common is that their statistics compile the number of deaths from suicide bombings, criminal activity and sectarian violence from militias. So in other words, these are the statistics of murders committed by America’s enemies in Iraq. They get away with blaming these deaths on America because as an occupying power we are responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people, much like our government is responsible for the welfare of its own citizens.

It’s a rather shaky justification; but to say that every Iraqi civilian who lost their life in a car bombing by Al Qaeda, every Iraqi civilian victimized in a murder of passion and every Iraqi civilian executed by a sectarian militia … were all killed by the U.S. is 100% wrong. That’s like saying that the U.S. killed every American that lost their lives on September 11th.

…And here the circle is complete because Rosie also claims that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. She consistently blames the U.S. for terrorism and excuses the terrorists who commit those acts, a required character flaw for all leftwing activists. In her own words she said, “Don’t fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers.” What could inspire such illogical ramblings? President Bush, V.P. Cheney and many of our troops in Iraq are parents too. Why doesn’t she make excuses for them?

Just because Rosie insists that she supports the troops and gets offended when her friends don’t believe her doesn’t mean that she really supports them. Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels once stated, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it will be accepted as truth”. Rosie is familiar with the techniques of executing this theory.




Last year a small group of self-righteous Leftists gathered together for the 2nd Annual Old Time American Flag Burn in Santa Cruz. I don’t know if they’ve held one this year because I haven’t heard a peep about it. I did a quick Google check to no avail.

So this group got together in order to “share” their personal beliefs about flag burning and oh yeah… burn some flags. I wonder about the emotional maturity of those that relish such activities. It is just a spiteful act with no real substance behind it, BUT “I Still Support the Resistance” (that’s for all you Rosie fans out there!).

Seriously, I am 100% against any legislation to ban the burning of American flags. As a matter of fact when I was a young punker in the eighties I burned some flags to protest because back then it was actually illegal. We won the battle, but some day you have to grow up. There’s nothing more pathetic than a former 60s radical that still goes around burning flags while claiming that his or her rights are being taken away. Especially when the best he or she can say is that President Bush is maneuvering to steal those rights and hasn’t actually taken any away yet. So basically it’s a game of fortune telling what could happen, but hasn’t despite six and a half years of alarmist predictions.




If you want to burn a flag go ahead, its no skin off my back. However, there are people that are offended by it and I think many leftwing activists are committing such acts just to hurt those who view the flag as a sacred object. That means that flag burning can be an act of hatred. It certainly is for Islamists in the Middle East who condone acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. I wouldn’t want to replicate the actions of people like that. Yet protestors have that freedom.




In this day and age the only acts of treason that the state finds worthy of suppressing are those in which dissidents attempt to take up arms against our country, directly assist those who commit violence or commit acts of vandalism. During WWI things were different. Anarchist activist Emma Goldman spent two years in jail just for giving public speeches against the draft. After she was released she was deported back to her native Russia. Jump to 2003 and a much-changed United States is the host to massive protest rallies against the liberation of Iraq. Meanwhile Saddam’s regime tolerates no dissent, but imports Western protestors to serve as human shields.

And guess what? I say this is good. We have a healthy democracy in the middle of a war. So how can protestors bellyache about their lack of freedom? If they want to know what real oppression is like they should take a look at Germany during WWII. The White Rose, a student protest group, peacefully opposed the Nazi regime’s war effort and six of their members were beheaded in 1943 for their activism. The crime which they were executed for was the distribution of leaflets.

That is real oppression, not the fantasies of a protest movement that thinks the opposition to Islamist and Baathist fascism is unjust. If you name all of the countries of the world that have tolerated massive protest movements and activism from prominent citizens during wartime you will only be able to compile a list of Western democratic countries. Looking back since WWI the United States has only become more liberal. Even if you don’t go back that far and look back to more recent events like the Vietnam War you will still find that our country has liberally progressed by great strides.




This Fourth of July we had good reason to celebrate the greatness of our country. We must remember that it is up to us, the citizens of this noble nation, to counter the lies of our political opponents. Communists and Anarchists have the freedom to speak out and even get rich from their activism. We actually pay them to insult us with their accusations of an oppressive government. Osama Bin Laden may take this as a sign of weakness, but he is wrong. He underestimates the strength of a democratic government that is not afraid of its own citizens. The supporters of our country may have had difficulty countering the message of our totalitarian opponents, but we should not be counted out yet.

We know that our soldiers fight not just with guns. They oppose the brutality of our enemy with humanitarian aid projects. Our country is not the bloodthirsty bogeyman that our enemies are. Time and the truth will show us to be right.




Our political opponents have no faith in our country. They harbor totalitarian attitudes that make them think that if their will is not fully embraced by the entire country then something is wrong with it. I leave you with the parting words of Cindy Sheehan, an activist that never appreciated our values and gave comfort to totalitarian regimes by visiting Cuba and Venezuela. From there she denounced our country’s human rights, but never spoke out against the massive attacks on civil liberties by her host countries.

“Good-bye America…you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.”

I love this country, but I am not so arrogant that I demand that the will of the majority must match my beliefs 100%, nor do I demand that our country must do exactly as I say before I give it my love. I believe in the greatness of our people and because of that I feel in my heart that we will prevail in this current conflict. Iraq will be free!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The bottom line is that it is easier to destroy than it is to create...

Weekend Protests in San Diego

This weekend marked the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. Leftwing protesters were particularly angry at the lack of progress in their efforts to hand over that country to the Baathist Party and Al Qaeda. In downtown San Diego they held a rally with hundreds of protesters and only about a dozen Protest Warriors came to oppose them. We didn’t know it at the time, but in Washington DC our Gathering of Eagles counter-protest was faring much better than we were doing here in San Diego. The moonbats seriously miscalculated by holding their protest at the Veterans Memorial in DC. Thousands of patriots were inspired to protect the monument from being hijacked by these protesters, the majority of whom smear our veterans that have served in Iraq.

We would have been encouraged to know about what was happening in DC, but it didn’t matter because our spirits were really high due to our sense of humor and the inspiration that comes from the ignorance of many of our opponents. We had a small contingent of Marines that joined us and it is ironic that after serving multiple tours in Iraq they now found themselves under attack by American insurgents. Yet they seemed to love the attention. We wound up being the last people to leave the rally site just so we could hang out and socialize for awhile. It was great fun.

The only differences between last year and this year’s protest is that the rally was held in a new location and there were fewer protesters this time around. Otherwise, it was the same old thing. As a matter of fact this demonstration seemed to be stuck in 2004. For some reason they set up a voter registration booth and handed out John Kerry for President bumper stickers. Perhaps they thought that it was better than being stuck in the sixties.




As always the protest was a great opportunity to recruit new members for the International Socialist Organization and make some money selling trashy books. “Peace” protesters have become adept at showcasing “antiwar” veterans and their relatives in order to hide the fact that it is leftwing radicals who really drive the movement.




In spite of the fact that the keffiyeh scarf is an icon of Palestinian terrorism, it has become the most favored fashion accessory for those protesting against “terrorism” by the U.S. government. I was a bit disappointed that this year there was no booth set up exclusively to sell terrorist scarves like there was last time.

At least there was plenty of beautifully packaged Communist propaganda for our consumption. If you need books on Marxist ideology, fragging U.S. soldiers or stories of rabble rousers looking to cash in on their activism - it was all for sale here at the ISO booth. Those Communists sure are aggressive entrepreneurs. (If you don’t know what fragging is, its the act of a soldier killing one of his fellow soldiers on the battlefield. That’s how some “peace” activists believe we should support our troops. )




For those of you who really like the truth and I mean really, really like the truth - you will be glad to know that the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth were on hand to expose the government’s lies about those attacks. There are millions of conspirators that are keeping silent in order to protect President Bush and this plot seems to get more and more insidious as 9/11 fades into memory. The 911 Truth Movement was actually inspired by the research of Dr. Albert Hofmann, the creator of LSD.




In 1943 he conducted research on himself to test the drug’s hallucinogenic properties. He stated;

“Everything in the room spun around, and the familiar objects and pieces of furniture assumed grotesque, threatening forms. They were in continuous motion, animated, as if driven by an inner restlessness.

The lady next door, whom I scarcely recognized, brought me milk in the course of the evening and I drank more than two liters. She was no longer Mrs. R., but rather a malevolent, insidious witch with a colored mask. Even worse than the demonic transformations of the outer world, were the alterations that I perceived in myself, in my inner being. Every exertion of my will, every attempt to put an end to the disintegration of the outer world and the dissolution of my ego, seemed to be wasted effort.

A demon had invaded me, had taken possession of my body, mind, and soul. I jumped up and screamed, trying to free myself from him, but then sank down again and lay helpless on the sofa.”

Hofmann’s LSD experience is recreated every time someone visits a display booth set up by the Truthers at an “anti-war” protest. Such mass hysteria is well suited for the “peace” movement. On their website there is a quote from an anonymous 9/11 Truth member that really sums things up, “The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth.” …After .25 mg of lysergic acid diethylamide tartrate it’s no small wonder why this activist can’t grasp the truth.

As you can imagine there were quite a few speakers at the event who bashed the U.S. at every opportunity. In comparison the Baathists and Al Qaeda were barely mentioned and you could have forgotten that they even existed.

In addition to the speakers there were entertainers as well and I was amused by a particularly energetic duo that performed some rap poetry in the vein of Gil Scott Heron or the Last Poets. They dished out some hardcore paranoia at a pace that was too rapid for me to jot down on paper. My attempt to keep up with their tourettes session led me to regret not bringing a voice recorder and finally give up transcribing their words.




I only caught pieces of what was said, but if I transcribe all of it into one poem it makes about as much sense as their fully composed pieces…

Revolution is the solution.
Revolution is the solution.
For this fucked up system

We are stuck in the barrios
They feed us chemicals to our brains

We are the seeds of resistance
AmeriKKKa, AmeriKKKa

A common theme at this event was that our liberties are being stolen and our government is led by a fascist dictatorship. When I challenged a protester who expressed these views he just walked away. The man couldn’t be bothered to describe how the Bush Administration is taking away our rights.

Typically, a repressive regime bans the freedom of expression that ironically these protesters have been exercising.

A fascist dictatorship allows no other political parties except for its own. However, in November of 2006 the Democratic Party won a majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. There weren’t any notable accusations of a stolen election because conservatives are all grown up now.

Speaking of which, I have some pictures of Protest Warriors that were present at the protest to counter the Leftwing/Islamist propaganda machine.



Eric was the glue that kept us focused.



Once again Bob took the long drive from Temecula to pitch in.



Ryan enjoyed going solo behind enemy lines.



Osama bin Laden campaigned for his favorite candidate. You can see where some moonbat protesters tore the sign.

---

The presence of Protest Warriors is always guaranteed to provoke the peaceniks so there was plenty of arguing and debating.



Surrounded by protesters our Marines stood strong.



Gloria Davidson from Veterans for Peace doesn’t like it when other veterans don’t hate President Bush and the Iraqi reconstruction the way she claims they do.



A long, drawn out debate that ended in a handshake.



A leftwing activist finally finds the guts to confront Osama bin Laden.



After a hard day of fighting the power a Socialist protester shows off some butt crack and retires for the evening.

Stay tuned for the next part of this weekend’s protest coverage. I will be posting a Freedom Now exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein. You haven’t heard the last of that genocidal dictator…

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.