I am sure a few of my regular readers will disagree with me on this post. But nevertheless, I have to say some things about Libya and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.
Before we discuss Obama's usual inept handling of another foreign crisis, there are some inconsistencies we must think about... long before before we draw any intelligent conclusions. As in any case, there are things we know and things we don't. Let's start by looking at what we know.
We know that Obama likes dictators (at least the Latin American versions).
He loves Hugo Chavez. We all know Chavez fits the socialist model that the President was educated to believe in. We all know that Bro. Hugo is the modern-day replacement for Fidel Castro's failed leadership in Latin America, for failing to implement the true communist paradigm in Latin America.
We know that he loved former President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras. You may remember him as the man who tried to illegally modify the Honduran constitution, so he could run for another term... for the purpose of implementing a Chavez style economic and political system. When the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya and his underhanded plan of action, both Obama and Chavez did everything they possibly could to subvert the rule of law in that country.
What we do not know is why Obama is not supporting dictators a half a world away in the Middle East.
He did not support Mubarek of Egypt during its recent popular uprising and by all appearances now, he is not supporting Libya's Muammar Gaddaffi in favor of another "so-called" populist uprising.
It's hard to make sense of this approach until we realize that Obama clearly has no consistent values or core principles. Then only thing consistent with Obama is, he will do what is best for Obama, and those who will help him. We do know that those who support Obama's Presidency the most are the people who have in years past advocated for revolution. Bill and Bernice Ayers are two names that prominently stick out, as well as many others.The people I speak of are those who follow the Alinsky model. They never want a crisis to go to waste and if there is no crisis, they can create one.
I firmly believe that at the time of Obama's election, there were unseen forces overblowing the economic crisis at the time, for the specific purpose of getting the man elected. Not that everything was hunky dory mind you, it was a downturn that was bound to happen and not be denied. But these forces used a complicit media (who merely wanted to see history made in the form of electing a black man as president) and all other means within their reach to drive the frenzy of what was then described as a looming depression never before seen. They made a bad situation even worse.
But to be fair about it, this goal and objective was set by forces much larger than Obama. I say this because as we see today, Obama is an extremely ineffective leader at almost every level. Instead of focusing on important things like the Japanese crisis, the Middle East, and important domestic issues, he plays golf, he fills out brackets, and he tours Latin America to create diversions from his incompetence as a leader.
In short, he doesn.t know how to manage a Burger King, much less a country. He is only a prop and a poor one, at that.
But back to Libya, and let me be blunt.
Obama and Soros Inc. want instability in the Middle East for the purpose of replacing the U.S. Dollar as the primary oil trading currency. Soros makes his money by getting currencies devalued, so it stands to reason that he may be hedging his bets on a new currency for the specific purpose of buying and selling oil. (Maybe if he is successful, we can call it the Soro. But I digress.)
So instability is their friend right now. Nothing can cause more willingness to change what has always been, except turmoil and fiercely uncertain conditions in such an important commodity. But as with every diabolical and contrived plot, there are strong possibilities of unintended consequences, which are not being thought about right now in the midst of this mess.
We are signing on to support the "so-called" pro-democracy forces in these nations where tyranny has reigned for so many years. But in the middle of this, we are failing to remember the Iranian Revolution.... whereby one form of tyranny was replaced with another.We are risking all of this for one man who had billions already, to stand the chance of making even more.
We are forgetting that groups that are supportive of al-Qaida (and the dangerous anti-freedom message of Muslim imperialism) is playing a huge role in these demonstrations. What makes us think that al Qaida will make a better form of government than the low-life tyrant we know as Gaddaffi?
Even more troubling is the liberal school of thought, that opportunistically used the Iraq War as political fodder against the GOP and George W. Bush, Now that Obama is President, they are magically supportive of a regime change in Libya and openly for these Sharia Law loving rebels taking control of the oil supply, in the Middle East. And Obama falls directly into this category. He and his Leftist friends questioned the use of military force to effect a regime change in a sovereign nation back then, But now it's okay.
In Iraq, we have spent much time in country and we sacrificed many American lives to see that these groups did not take control of Iraq. How is it that we can be assured this will not happen with no ground troops in Libya?
So to my friends who regularly read this sleepy little blog, I must ask you to think about some things in the closing of this post.
These people have never been able to handle freedom in the past. They seem to need authoritarian leadership of some kind or another. They are not doing well under dictators, but how well will they fare under the tyranny of forces that subscribe to harsh medieval conditions? Will they allow for free elections? I doubt it. Will they allow freedom of speech? Nope. Will they use their oil producing capabilities as weapons? You know they will. And they will use whatever profits they can make, to destroy all those who are not willing to submit to Allah (starting with Israel).
How will it affect other Middle East nations? Will Saudi Arabia fall next with encouragement and military help from the civilized world? Polls show that Osama bin Laden could win an election there, if there were elections. Would that be worth ridding that nation of the monarch whose hand was kissed by President Obama?
Most importantly of all let's think about one more thing. Knowing how ungrateful many people in the Arab world have been concerning the huge toll on American blood spilled to make Iraq free from a brutal dictator, do we really think Libyans will appreciate any effort the U.S. or its allies will put forth?
Personally, I think Gaddaffi is a thug, a creep, and a terrorist responsible for the killing of many of my countrymen. I think he deserves to be dropped into a pit full of hungry crocodiles. But I am not sure he is worth spilling any American blood over, especially when the Libyan people will very likely not appreciate any of it.
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
¡Viva Chile!
Truly a miracle.
May all involved with this rescue live a long and happy life. May they all know they were doing something spectacular and special.... in the midst of a sick and twisted existence many others must endure.
The courage and wisdom of that last man, the one who would not leave until all of his men were out, was highly commendable. A leader always makes sure his people have what they need, before they do things for themselves.
Thanks to Chile for showing the world how precious this journey called life really is and demonstrating how teamwork is the always the best course of action.
May all involved with this rescue live a long and happy life. May they all know they were doing something spectacular and special.... in the midst of a sick and twisted existence many others must endure.
The courage and wisdom of that last man, the one who would not leave until all of his men were out, was highly commendable. A leader always makes sure his people have what they need, before they do things for themselves.
Thanks to Chile for showing the world how precious this journey called life really is and demonstrating how teamwork is the always the best course of action.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Caudillo Causations Cause Crickets To Chirp
It doesn't take a lot of rational thought to know that Chavez is a socialist. And despite the occasional smokescreen name calling on his part, he and Obama are more in tune with each other than some are willing to admit. Both love it when their governments can absorb private enterprise into its corrupt government bureaucracy. In their minds, I am sure it has a certain political romance to it.
El Presidente (for life) has made no secret about his desire to squash political dissent along the way. He nationalizes foreign technology and capital, he shuts down media outlets that disagree with his vision and worldview, and he implements central planning. He devalues the currency, sets prices, and threatens to nationalize any company/business that raises their prices because of his idiotic policies.
A despot can only do things like this for so long before things begin to fall apart.
And now, the AP reports this one:
Obama is starting down the same path Chavez is traveling. Maybe not as fast, but his objectives are similar.
Only Hugo has been on the road longer.
Even though Leftist leadership (and the incompetence that naturally comes with it) is the direct cause of negative outcomes across the board, Obama and his thugocrats are still hard at work seeking to advance more faulty policies. The outcomes they produce are the kind that can sink a way of life and standard of living. Any time a leader bases his/her policies on fallacious ideologies, we can expect more suffering and more poverty on a larger scale, except for the ruling class.
But Latin America is full of uneducated masses who are not able to see and understand that Left Wing philosophy is the root cause of many calamities that befall their societies. They are people who are very easy to deceive, because of always having the "gringos" up north to blame. As long as they can be made to believe that the USA is the bad guy, it will be said many more times without challenge.
And if that isn't enough, we have millionaire Hollywood idiots who help the caudillos and their delusional ideations.... by openly saying great things about them.
People like Sean Penn and Michael Moore idolize cold-blooded killers like Castro and Che. Yet, they fail to see that Cuba is one of the most poverty-ridden nations in the entire world. They are enamored with Latin American dictators who destroy the opportunities and means by which people can better themselves. And yet, they excuse the rapid and steady decline that is now made manifest in Venezuela.
The entertainment world's lofty souls are not smart enough to realize that it is their livelihoods which are at stake at this point in time....not mine.
Right now there is an element named La Raza that is seeking to take over much of what is now the western United States and turn it back over to Mexico. This means if they had their way, Hollywood would be paying taxes to the District Fédéral, not Columbia. It's called reconquista or reconquest, and it's nothing new.
Take a look at this speech by a man who said to be a guy named, Ron Gochez. Who he is not that important, he's nobody with very little on the ball. But take a listen to the heroes he mentions:
Elected officials like Rep. Andre Carson say that Tea Partiers are dangerous subversives, they are terrorists and cannot be trusted. But I have yet to hear him or anyone on his political train show much concern for speeches like this.
Saying "those who disagree with the present government could cause someone unstable to snap" seems to be fashionable among Hollywood elitists. Just ask Lance Baxter. But speech just like you heard in this video should be what these guys are really concerned with, and they better do it before it is too late.
Penn, Moore, Baxter, Baldwin, Belafonte, and others who entertain the fantasy of a Simón Bolívar in their lifetime, are living in California. It is they and many good decent people who must think about the possibilities of this guy's dream becoming a reality.
And what do we hear from the White House on things like this? Nothing. They appointed a Supreme Court Justice with ties to this man's group.
El Presidente (for life) has made no secret about his desire to squash political dissent along the way. He nationalizes foreign technology and capital, he shuts down media outlets that disagree with his vision and worldview, and he implements central planning. He devalues the currency, sets prices, and threatens to nationalize any company/business that raises their prices because of his idiotic policies.
A despot can only do things like this for so long before things begin to fall apart.
And now, the AP reports this one:
Venezuela's annual inflation rate has surpassed 30 percent after consumer prices surged in April.
The Central Bank and National Statistics Institute on Friday reported a 5.2 percent increase in consumer prices during April, driving up the annual rate to 30.4 percent.
President Hugo Chavez's government has been struggling against the highest inflation rate in Latin America and a weakening economy in general.
Obama is starting down the same path Chavez is traveling. Maybe not as fast, but his objectives are similar.
Only Hugo has been on the road longer.
Even though Leftist leadership (and the incompetence that naturally comes with it) is the direct cause of negative outcomes across the board, Obama and his thugocrats are still hard at work seeking to advance more faulty policies. The outcomes they produce are the kind that can sink a way of life and standard of living. Any time a leader bases his/her policies on fallacious ideologies, we can expect more suffering and more poverty on a larger scale, except for the ruling class.
But Latin America is full of uneducated masses who are not able to see and understand that Left Wing philosophy is the root cause of many calamities that befall their societies. They are people who are very easy to deceive, because of always having the "gringos" up north to blame. As long as they can be made to believe that the USA is the bad guy, it will be said many more times without challenge.
And if that isn't enough, we have millionaire Hollywood idiots who help the caudillos and their delusional ideations.... by openly saying great things about them.
People like Sean Penn and Michael Moore idolize cold-blooded killers like Castro and Che. Yet, they fail to see that Cuba is one of the most poverty-ridden nations in the entire world. They are enamored with Latin American dictators who destroy the opportunities and means by which people can better themselves. And yet, they excuse the rapid and steady decline that is now made manifest in Venezuela.
The entertainment world's lofty souls are not smart enough to realize that it is their livelihoods which are at stake at this point in time....not mine.
Right now there is an element named La Raza that is seeking to take over much of what is now the western United States and turn it back over to Mexico. This means if they had their way, Hollywood would be paying taxes to the District Fédéral, not Columbia. It's called reconquista or reconquest, and it's nothing new.
Take a look at this speech by a man who said to be a guy named, Ron Gochez. Who he is not that important, he's nobody with very little on the ball. But take a listen to the heroes he mentions:
Elected officials like Rep. Andre Carson say that Tea Partiers are dangerous subversives, they are terrorists and cannot be trusted. But I have yet to hear him or anyone on his political train show much concern for speeches like this.
Saying "those who disagree with the present government could cause someone unstable to snap" seems to be fashionable among Hollywood elitists. Just ask Lance Baxter. But speech just like you heard in this video should be what these guys are really concerned with, and they better do it before it is too late.
Penn, Moore, Baxter, Baldwin, Belafonte, and others who entertain the fantasy of a Simón Bolívar in their lifetime, are living in California. It is they and many good decent people who must think about the possibilities of this guy's dream becoming a reality.
And what do we hear from the White House on things like this? Nothing. They appointed a Supreme Court Justice with ties to this man's group.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Oliver Stone - Brain Of Stone
Reuters has posted a story explaining that Oliver Stone's new film on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a bit slanted. Not that we expect much of a balanced presentation from Mr. Stone, but it is what it is and from his perspective, he thinks the U.S. demonizes the South American leader.
We can safely assume that Stone is referring to the previous administration, because the present one has appeared to be more receptive, at least in public. But the reality of the situation must escape Mr. Stone, as he clearly demonstrates a total lack of the critical thinking skills necessary to form an intelligent opinion.
For instance, I doubt Ollie has even done an internet news search using the words "Obama criticizes Chavez". If he had, this is what would have popped up. Dropping the word "criticizes" yields a different result. In the latter search, we see that the demonizing isn't coming from Obama. Note some of the the stories that pop up:
Chavez: Obama Ignores Real Issues Facing Blacks
Chavez Likens Obama's Stench To Bush's
Chavez: Obama "A Poor Ignoramus"
So, it's anyone's guess why this Administration doesn't make any effort to defend against the demonizing rhetoric from Chavez. But for whatever reason, it just isn't happening.
Therefore, we must assume that the Stone position is solely based on the opinions of Bush, Cheney, and those "evil" right-wingers who desperately seek to vilify those they do not understand. But if we are astute enough to keep out political senses honed, we can take note of another article, from the same Reuters agency that tells us of Stone's view.
I would ask Mr. Stone a question, if I had the opportunity. But I don't have the platform that others have and I doubt he'd really be man enough to answer, anyway. So I will pose it to my loyal readers:
How is it demonizing Hugo Chavez by merely criticizing his government, for shutting down voices of opposition?
One of the things that Stone has never taken into consideration is something that may be beyond his ability to comprehend: Freedom to voice opposition to any government is an essential component of a healthy democratic republic.
If this nation had a leader like Chavez in the White House when Stone made his movie about Bush, it would have never seen the light of day and there is a good chance that he would have been in jail now (or at least under house arrest). Not only that, Obama wouldn't have been elected, because the deck would have been stacked to allow Bush to maneuver into a president-for-life situation by trying to do what Hugo's buddy in Honduras just tried to do, on the sly.
If there was any doubt beforehand, it should now be abundantly clear to even the unlearned mind: Stone is not one of the smartest people working in Hollywood. But then again, it's the same medium that continues to allow Michael Moore to make garbage and call them documentaries.
Director Oliver Stone says the U.S. media and government have demonised Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other leftist South American leaders, and argues in a new film that they were right to stand up to Washington.
We can safely assume that Stone is referring to the previous administration, because the present one has appeared to be more receptive, at least in public. But the reality of the situation must escape Mr. Stone, as he clearly demonstrates a total lack of the critical thinking skills necessary to form an intelligent opinion.
For instance, I doubt Ollie has even done an internet news search using the words "Obama criticizes Chavez". If he had, this is what would have popped up. Dropping the word "criticizes" yields a different result. In the latter search, we see that the demonizing isn't coming from Obama. Note some of the the stories that pop up:
Chavez: Obama Ignores Real Issues Facing Blacks
Chavez Likens Obama's Stench To Bush's
Chavez: Obama "A Poor Ignoramus"
So, it's anyone's guess why this Administration doesn't make any effort to defend against the demonizing rhetoric from Chavez. But for whatever reason, it just isn't happening.
Therefore, we must assume that the Stone position is solely based on the opinions of Bush, Cheney, and those "evil" right-wingers who desperately seek to vilify those they do not understand. But if we are astute enough to keep out political senses honed, we can take note of another article, from the same Reuters agency that tells us of Stone's view.
Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez's government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown.
Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was "democratizing" media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.
The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez's government.
I would ask Mr. Stone a question, if I had the opportunity. But I don't have the platform that others have and I doubt he'd really be man enough to answer, anyway. So I will pose it to my loyal readers:
How is it demonizing Hugo Chavez by merely criticizing his government, for shutting down voices of opposition?
One of the things that Stone has never taken into consideration is something that may be beyond his ability to comprehend: Freedom to voice opposition to any government is an essential component of a healthy democratic republic.
If this nation had a leader like Chavez in the White House when Stone made his movie about Bush, it would have never seen the light of day and there is a good chance that he would have been in jail now (or at least under house arrest). Not only that, Obama wouldn't have been elected, because the deck would have been stacked to allow Bush to maneuver into a president-for-life situation by trying to do what Hugo's buddy in Honduras just tried to do, on the sly.
If there was any doubt beforehand, it should now be abundantly clear to even the unlearned mind: Stone is not one of the smartest people working in Hollywood. But then again, it's the same medium that continues to allow Michael Moore to make garbage and call them documentaries.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama Reacts To Honduran Situation
I suppose we shouldn't be overly surprised that President Obama has chosen to be on the same side of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I guess it shouldn't be overly shocking that he would choose to send mixed messages about his foreign policy reactions.
Initially, in the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian elections, he was silent. After much pressure, he finally came out with a weak statement concerning the way the Iranian government treated the protesters:
As you will notice above, I took the liberty to highlight the part I want to focus on. So let's bring this up to the Honduras situation, shall we?
The constitution of Honduras allows its president only one term and the deposed Manuel Zelaya had sought a referendum allowing him to run for re-election. Normally, this wouldn't be such an issue except for the fact that he is not a very popular president. This begs the question, why would someone who is so incredibly unpopular seek re-election in the first place? Seeing how Hugo Chavez has rewritten his country's constitution, placing himself into a position to hold that office indefinitely, wouldn't have anything to do with it--would it?
So, here we are. Without having taken into consideration the entire picture, the American President has chosen to call the actions taken by the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court, illegal. Hugo and Fidel have done so as well. And they have done it under the banner of the democratic process and respect for a democratically elected official (who was trying to pull his own coup against the constitution and subvert the rule of law).
Knowing that Zelaya would not have been re-elected in an election and understanding how the people are not upset with the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court for protecting their constitution, how can we believe Obama's feigned concern for the democratic process? I understand the hypocrisy of Chavez and Castro in this case, it's not hard to grasp that they fear such a thing could happen to them. But why is Obama willing to interject in this case, so soon?
I mean, if we are to believe that he has an ounce of integrity, why do we not read:
The Honduran people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Honduran government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
I think the answer is plain. What do you think?
Initially, in the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian elections, he was silent. After much pressure, he finally came out with a weak statement concerning the way the Iranian government treated the protesters:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
As you will notice above, I took the liberty to highlight the part I want to focus on. So let's bring this up to the Honduras situation, shall we?
The constitution of Honduras allows its president only one term and the deposed Manuel Zelaya had sought a referendum allowing him to run for re-election. Normally, this wouldn't be such an issue except for the fact that he is not a very popular president. This begs the question, why would someone who is so incredibly unpopular seek re-election in the first place? Seeing how Hugo Chavez has rewritten his country's constitution, placing himself into a position to hold that office indefinitely, wouldn't have anything to do with it--would it?
So, here we are. Without having taken into consideration the entire picture, the American President has chosen to call the actions taken by the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court, illegal. Hugo and Fidel have done so as well. And they have done it under the banner of the democratic process and respect for a democratically elected official (who was trying to pull his own coup against the constitution and subvert the rule of law).
Knowing that Zelaya would not have been re-elected in an election and understanding how the people are not upset with the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court for protecting their constitution, how can we believe Obama's feigned concern for the democratic process? I understand the hypocrisy of Chavez and Castro in this case, it's not hard to grasp that they fear such a thing could happen to them. But why is Obama willing to interject in this case, so soon?
I mean, if we are to believe that he has an ounce of integrity, why do we not read:
The Honduran people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Honduran government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
I think the answer is plain. What do you think?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Recommended Reading
Still in a writing funk here, but I have been getting some reading in. Here is a good op-ed from the Wall Street journal on the Honduras situation.
The reason this coup went down is because the Honduran president was looking to institute the same opportunity Bro. Hugo has in Venezuela, the right to be president for life. Whereas Hugo had a tighter grip on the military in Caracas, Mr. Zelaya evidently did not.
This is why Hugo is rattling his sabers. If this coup succeeds, who is to say that Venezuela's military may not eventually turn on Chavez? These kinds of things like to follow the domino model, sometimes.
In any Latin American nation, democratic principles are so strained and tensed, it is the military that controls the country. Whoever they support is the one in power. They decide, not the people. If the people do decide, it is only because the military lets them decide.
So, give this a read when you get a minute and rest assured that this development in Honduras will be watched by other generals, in other countries down south.
The reason this coup went down is because the Honduran president was looking to institute the same opportunity Bro. Hugo has in Venezuela, the right to be president for life. Whereas Hugo had a tighter grip on the military in Caracas, Mr. Zelaya evidently did not.
This is why Hugo is rattling his sabers. If this coup succeeds, who is to say that Venezuela's military may not eventually turn on Chavez? These kinds of things like to follow the domino model, sometimes.
In any Latin American nation, democratic principles are so strained and tensed, it is the military that controls the country. Whoever they support is the one in power. They decide, not the people. If the people do decide, it is only because the military lets them decide.
So, give this a read when you get a minute and rest assured that this development in Honduras will be watched by other generals, in other countries down south.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Lula da Silva - Another Irrational Caudillo
Some time ago, I overheard two co-workers talking; they adamantly agreed Brazil is not a racist nation. Both are Americans, one is a black lady and the other is a naturalized citizen from Brazil. I have known both for years and have the utmost respect for both in matters of personal integrity. But in matters of politics, I am afraid we don't always see eye to eye. So I just listened.
Let's fast forward and consider this news item:
I don’t know about you, but that statement sure sounds racist to me.
I realize there are many on the American left who firmly believe that racism only works from one direction. I have heard and read statements to the effect that blacks, browns, and Asians cannot be racist towards whites; only white people owned slaves (and other such nonsensical garbage). It is a historical fact that white people were enslaved in far larger numbers than black people and that many slave owners were Islamic blacks. The fact is that everyone, regardless of skin color, is capable of the most outrageous racism. Brazil’s president ranks among these numbers. However, in his moment of utter stupidity, he seems to have overlooked one or two things.
First and foremost, he is incorrect. His statement is dead wrong and one only needs to look at a list compiled by Time Magazine to see whom most people are blaming for this current economic mess. Here are my thoughts about that list, in brief:
Many of the others on the list are white; but I would be willing to bet many have hazel eyes.
American consumers made the list, but we know that they are not exactly a monolithic racial demographic, certainly not all of Aryan descent. So knowing what we now know, it is plainly obvious that President Lula da Silva is an idiot along the lines of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden, who more than anything in the world prefer listening to the sound of their own voices.
My point is, there are people who are given to making hasty generalizations at the drop of a hat. We have all heard and seen them. This is either because they think the people are too stupid to notice them or because they, themselves, are too stupid to understand how onerous they really are. Such talk, as it applies to race, is the sort of thing that increases (and even causes) racial tensions, but perhaps that is the entire purpose of such idiocy. (SEE: Jackson and Sharpton)
In spite of the man being dead wrong, there are some other considerations involving Lula da Silva and his peculiar brand of stupidity. Let's evaluate at a few pertinent facts about Brazil, the non-racist country, shall we? According to Reuters News Service:
Stephen Buckley, writing for the Washington Post in 2000 told us:
Apparently, the situation hasn’t substantially changed in the past nine years.
Now that we have a factual understanding about social conditions in Brazil, it does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that Lula da Silva is typical of most Latin American caudillos. He apparently aligned himself with such nitwits as Hugo Chavez, because he believes doing so is in his best interests. Perhaps it is, in this case.
But we should note that it is a popular strategy to shift blame to other people in order to divert attention from oneself. A reasonable person might conclude that President da Silva could achieve greatness within Brazil by fixing the rampant problems that stifle his economy, and which deny hope to generations of the poor. If he chooses not to do that, fine – but the downturn in financial markets is simply not a racial issue.
My guess is that he knows he is unable to do anything about the problems of his own nation and it's government. And as a result of this ineptitude, the only way to deflect criticism of that inability is to fashion his model of governance, from the example laid out by the Congress and current President of the United States. They are both well adept at pointing fingers, without considering how many are point back at them.
Let's fast forward and consider this news item:
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.
Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”
He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis.”
I don’t know about you, but that statement sure sounds racist to me.
I realize there are many on the American left who firmly believe that racism only works from one direction. I have heard and read statements to the effect that blacks, browns, and Asians cannot be racist towards whites; only white people owned slaves (and other such nonsensical garbage). It is a historical fact that white people were enslaved in far larger numbers than black people and that many slave owners were Islamic blacks. The fact is that everyone, regardless of skin color, is capable of the most outrageous racism. Brazil’s president ranks among these numbers. However, in his moment of utter stupidity, he seems to have overlooked one or two things.
First and foremost, he is incorrect. His statement is dead wrong and one only needs to look at a list compiled by Time Magazine to see whom most people are blaming for this current economic mess. Here are my thoughts about that list, in brief:
· Wen Jiabao made the list, he is Chinese.
· Bankers Stan O'Neal and Franklin Raines are both black.
· Angelo Mozilo is of Italian descent, no blue eyes there. Some members of the elite group now known as the "Friends of Angelo" may have them, but I doubt all do.
Many of the others on the list are white; but I would be willing to bet many have hazel eyes.
American consumers made the list, but we know that they are not exactly a monolithic racial demographic, certainly not all of Aryan descent. So knowing what we now know, it is plainly obvious that President Lula da Silva is an idiot along the lines of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden, who more than anything in the world prefer listening to the sound of their own voices.
My point is, there are people who are given to making hasty generalizations at the drop of a hat. We have all heard and seen them. This is either because they think the people are too stupid to notice them or because they, themselves, are too stupid to understand how onerous they really are. Such talk, as it applies to race, is the sort of thing that increases (and even causes) racial tensions, but perhaps that is the entire purpose of such idiocy. (SEE: Jackson and Sharpton)
In spite of the man being dead wrong, there are some other considerations involving Lula da Silva and his peculiar brand of stupidity. Let's evaluate at a few pertinent facts about Brazil, the non-racist country, shall we? According to Reuters News Service:
The government of Rio de Janeiro is building concrete walls to prevent sprawling slums from spreading farther into the picturesque hills of this world-famous tourist destination, an official said on Saturday.
Construction has begun in two favelas, or shantytowns, in the southern districts of Rio de Janeiro, a government spokeswoman told Reuters. One of the two is Morro Dona Marta, which police occupied in November to control crime and violence caused mostly by rival drug gangs.
Officials say the wall is to protect the remaining native forest but critics fear the move could be seen as discriminatory and become a blemish symbolizing Brazil's deep divisions between rich and poor.
There is no way around the fact that residents of these slums are overwhelmingly black and poor. In fact, the standard of living among blacks in Rio is far lower than in LA or NY.
Stephen Buckley, writing for the Washington Post in 2000 told us:
No one today writes about Brazil being a racial democracy," said Livio Sansone, director of the Center of Afro-Asian Studies in Rio de Janeiro. "Today, people will tell you that there is racism in Brazil, which wasn't the case 20 years ago. They think a racial democracy is a nice thing to work toward, or dream of, but no one would say that's the way things are today."
Black activists say they are frustrated that Brazilians still do not believe they could be racist. In the poll by the marginalized populations center, 87 percent of respondents said they themselves were not racist, even while large majorities saw racism as a societal problem.
"So we're fighting an invisible enemy," said Ivanir dos Santos, the center's executive secretary.
In the latest, and arguably most dramatic, evidence of the importance of race in daily life, a report by the respected Institute for Religious Studies found that police in Rio de Janeiro's slums kill nine out of every 10 black suspects they shoot--nearly double the ratio of white suspects.
That comes as no surprise to people such as Ivanilde dos Santos. Nearly two years ago, police in the Rio de Janeiro shantytown of Babilonia shot her son, Wallace de Almeida, in the back as he entered dos Santos's yard.
Witnesses said the police, who had accused the slim, dark-skinned 18-year-old of dealing drugs, initially refused to call an ambulance. They called only after learning that he was a soldier. Their allegations against him ultimately were proved baseless.
"They were just used to shooting people up here and getting away with it," said dos Santos, 41. "He died because he was black."
Babilonia is one of dozens of crumbling hillside shantytowns in Rio. Nationwide these communities tend to be majority black--and they have come to symbolize the persistent economic gap between the races.
Apparently, the situation hasn’t substantially changed in the past nine years.
Now that we have a factual understanding about social conditions in Brazil, it does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that Lula da Silva is typical of most Latin American caudillos. He apparently aligned himself with such nitwits as Hugo Chavez, because he believes doing so is in his best interests. Perhaps it is, in this case.
But we should note that it is a popular strategy to shift blame to other people in order to divert attention from oneself. A reasonable person might conclude that President da Silva could achieve greatness within Brazil by fixing the rampant problems that stifle his economy, and which deny hope to generations of the poor. If he chooses not to do that, fine – but the downturn in financial markets is simply not a racial issue.
My guess is that he knows he is unable to do anything about the problems of his own nation and it's government. And as a result of this ineptitude, the only way to deflect criticism of that inability is to fashion his model of governance, from the example laid out by the Congress and current President of the United States. They are both well adept at pointing fingers, without considering how many are point back at them.
Monday, March 23, 2009
News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)
From the Hartford Courant comes a scathing review of their worthless crook of a Senator. From the sounds of things, he's not so popular these days. Rumor has it that Dodd will not run for re-election. If he does, he's toast. If only we could get someone in the 4th Congressional District of Massachusetts mad enough at Barney Frank to vote him out.
The CBO is projecting a $1.8 trillion budget deficit.
Get used to it. As long as the government keeps spending money, it's going to get worse.
I watched the CBS 60 Minutes interview with Obama last evening. I found most of the questions to be of the softball nature, except for this little exchange:
Several times he blamed Bush, several times he had no real answers for the questions. One was how he planned to handle Afghanistan. Although he answered the question with his usual tap dancing rhetoric, he still doesn't know just how he is going to win this thing or what exactly he is going to do.
Hamas is hailing Obama. Why not? They contributed to his campaign and probably want in on this stimulus package, like AIG and countless others that have benefited from their contributions.
Meanwhile, Chavez called him an ignoramus. Brother Hugo doesn't realize that he just irritates this nation more and more, every time he opens his mouth. Obama may be an ignoramus (in some areas), but he is OUR ignoramus.
The CBO is projecting a $1.8 trillion budget deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office's projected deficit for the 2009 fiscal year ending on Sept. 30 would amount to 13.1 percent of expected gross domestic product -- a level not seen since World War Two. In January, the budget office had forecast a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009.
Get used to it. As long as the government keeps spending money, it's going to get worse.
I watched the CBS 60 Minutes interview with Obama last evening. I found most of the questions to be of the softball nature, except for this little exchange:
"You're sitting here. And you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people gonna look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money.' How do you deal with, I mean, explain the…mood and your laughter," Kroft asked. "Are you punch drunk?"
"No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," Obama explained. "You know, sometimes my team talks about the fact that if you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I don't think anybody would have believed it. But we've got a lot on our plate. And a lot of difficult decisions that we're gonna have to make."
Several times he blamed Bush, several times he had no real answers for the questions. One was how he planned to handle Afghanistan. Although he answered the question with his usual tap dancing rhetoric, he still doesn't know just how he is going to win this thing or what exactly he is going to do.
Hamas is hailing Obama. Why not? They contributed to his campaign and probably want in on this stimulus package, like AIG and countless others that have benefited from their contributions.
Meanwhile, Chavez called him an ignoramus. Brother Hugo doesn't realize that he just irritates this nation more and more, every time he opens his mouth. Obama may be an ignoramus (in some areas), but he is OUR ignoramus.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Chavez Insults Merkel
From the Reuters news agency comes this report:
She must be doing something right. But she isn't quite there yet. He said she was a DESCENDANT of Hitler. To be a true top level hero that goes against everything communism stands for, you must be called Hitler. Or Satan.
Maybe next time she can work her way up to Mrs. Satan or Mrs. Hitler, as a bridge towards the ultimate goal.
Good luck Angela, we are all pulling for you.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday almost told German Chancellor Angela Merkel to go to hell, but stopped short of insulting the woman leader on Mother's Day.
Instead he called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and German fascism.
"Ms. Chancellor, you can go to ...," he said, pausing for effect and eliciting giggles from the audience, a group of military officers, cabinet ministers and government officials. "Because she's a woman I won't say anything else."
She must be doing something right. But she isn't quite there yet. He said she was a DESCENDANT of Hitler. To be a true top level hero that goes against everything communism stands for, you must be called Hitler. Or Satan.
Maybe next time she can work her way up to Mrs. Satan or Mrs. Hitler, as a bridge towards the ultimate goal.
Good luck Angela, we are all pulling for you.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Colombia: Chavez Funding FARC
From the Miami Herald comes this story about evidence being found that Venezuela has been funding FARC. No wonder, Chavez and his Ecuadorean counterpart, Correa, are creating smokescreens out of claims of violations of sovereignty.
From the article:
That's not all they are claiming. Let's read on:
I find this troubling, but not surprising in the least.
Chavez would love nothing more than to help keep instability thriving in Colombia, for the reasons I outlined yesterday. There is little doubt that he'd love Venezuela to have nuclear capabilities. Now that he has nationalized the oil industry, we can expect he will have the capital to pursue such ends, in the face of critical shortages the nation he leads is now facing.
Some socialist society, right?
But , it gets even better.
Who ever said war was fair? If you don't want to fight an unfair war, don't start one.
FARC has no qualms about killing innocents in their quest to overthrow the government, why should the government show any deference in this matter? You fight battles to win, you fight wars to win.
It's not a credible argument, when one party does the same thing they accuse the other of. It's called hypocrisy.
From the article:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez gave Colombia's FARC guerrillas $300 million this year and accepted some $150,000 from the leftist rebels in the early 1990s, according to explosive allegations by Colombia's police chief.
That's not all they are claiming. Let's read on:
Gen. Oscar Naranjo made those and other allegations of FARC involvement with drug shipments and uranium based on materials discovered in one of three computers captured when Colombian troops raided a rebel camp in Ecuador on Saturday.
I find this troubling, but not surprising in the least.
Chavez would love nothing more than to help keep instability thriving in Colombia, for the reasons I outlined yesterday. There is little doubt that he'd love Venezuela to have nuclear capabilities. Now that he has nationalized the oil industry, we can expect he will have the capital to pursue such ends, in the face of critical shortages the nation he leads is now facing.
Some socialist society, right?
But , it gets even better.
A furious Correa blasted the Colombian raid into his country, saying the neighbor's military leaders and President Alvaro Uribe ``are lying to Ecuador and lying to the world.''
Correa said evidence shows the rebels were shot in the back and in their underwear, suggesting they were killed in their sleep and not in hot pursuit from the Colombian side of the border as Bogotá claims.
Who ever said war was fair? If you don't want to fight an unfair war, don't start one.
FARC has no qualms about killing innocents in their quest to overthrow the government, why should the government show any deference in this matter? You fight battles to win, you fight wars to win.
It's not a credible argument, when one party does the same thing they accuse the other of. It's called hypocrisy.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Venezuela, Ecuador Threaten Columbia With War
The AP is reporting this story.
Who among us can say we are truly surprised here?
The situation in Venezuela must getting tough, since socialism has hit town. It doesn't sound like it's doing the job by itself, we need a war to whip up the masses. Chavez wants and needs a war to rally his country, out of the malaise condition brought on by crappy economics. But that's not the only objective, there are more.
One of the secondary gains that could be achieved by Ecuador and Venezuela ganging up on Colombia is a corridor connecting the two. If that happens, Chavez stands to be more of a thorn, than Castro ever was. Castro was confined more because he was surrounded by water and much closer to the United States.
Despite the fact that Venezuela wasn't attacked by Colombia, he gets a chance to flex his muscles toward the U.S. and the rest of the world. Once an attention seeker, always an attention seeker.
At the same time, Hugo gets the opportunity to extend his influence over the northern-most portion of South America (SA), in the area that is adjacent to Central America (CA). Panama will be next.
It's not just Chavez and Correa wanting to turn SA and CA into a bloc of socialist establishments either. Evo Morales, President of Bolivia and the Shining Path of Peru would love nothing more than to create a united front against the imperialist George Bush, better known in some circles as el diablo.
The funny thing will be to see how much seriousness is given to this bad actor. How deep will this story be buried and what will be said about their hero? Let's see what Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte have to say about this? I am also betting that Obama will call for talks with Chavez, one to one talks.
Boy, I can't to wait to hear the crickets chirping over this one.
President Hugo Chavez ordered tanks and thousands of troops on Sunday to the border with Colombia, accusing it of pushing South America to the brink of war by killing a top rebel leader on Ecuadorean soil.
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa also ordered troops to the Colombian border, saying "Ecuadorean territory has been outraged and bombed by an air attack and the later incursion of (Colombian) troops."
On Saturday, Colombian security forces killed senior rebel leader Raul Reyes and 16 other Colombian guerrillas at a camp across the border in Ecuador.
Who among us can say we are truly surprised here?
The situation in Venezuela must getting tough, since socialism has hit town. It doesn't sound like it's doing the job by itself, we need a war to whip up the masses. Chavez wants and needs a war to rally his country, out of the malaise condition brought on by crappy economics. But that's not the only objective, there are more.
One of the secondary gains that could be achieved by Ecuador and Venezuela ganging up on Colombia is a corridor connecting the two. If that happens, Chavez stands to be more of a thorn, than Castro ever was. Castro was confined more because he was surrounded by water and much closer to the United States.
Despite the fact that Venezuela wasn't attacked by Colombia, he gets a chance to flex his muscles toward the U.S. and the rest of the world. Once an attention seeker, always an attention seeker.
At the same time, Hugo gets the opportunity to extend his influence over the northern-most portion of South America (SA), in the area that is adjacent to Central America (CA). Panama will be next.
It's not just Chavez and Correa wanting to turn SA and CA into a bloc of socialist establishments either. Evo Morales, President of Bolivia and the Shining Path of Peru would love nothing more than to create a united front against the imperialist George Bush, better known in some circles as el diablo.
The funny thing will be to see how much seriousness is given to this bad actor. How deep will this story be buried and what will be said about their hero? Let's see what Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte have to say about this? I am also betting that Obama will call for talks with Chavez, one to one talks.
Boy, I can't to wait to hear the crickets chirping over this one.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
PYY Sunday Reader
Here is a collection of some articles, stories, and essays that I think are worth a read on your Sunday.
Today is Veterans Day in the United States. A deep heart-felt thank you to all veterans that read PYY. It's no big secret that one of my favorite veterans in the world is my good friend, Mustang. At his site, Social Sense, he has a piece you may want to read.
Every time I pass a flag flying in the wind, I immediately think of how men, braver than me, have paid a price, so that flag can fly high and proud. Their sacrifices have not gone unnoticed and are much appreciated. So, if you see a vet today, give him/her a special thanks for their contributions to the freedom we are all so very fortunate to enjoy. Many people have longed for this kind of freedom and cannot attain it.
October is still alive in Amerloque's heart. As always, he displays the natural talent of painting a lucid and picturesque image of life in Europe. His prose is always a delight to read and just by reading the descriptions of his life, it will make a person want to experience this place, he now calls home. If you are like me in this respect, you will not want to miss his latest communique to the cyberworld.
War is never a good thing. It may be necessary at times, and there are times when it it may not be. As a soldier, sailor, or marine, you always hope that the cause you are asked to fight for is noble, cannot be settled any other way, and is well-planned out with well-defined objectives. From most of his writings, you can gather that Flocon is (and has been) highly critical of the Iraq war. Now, he is questioning the wisdom of an extended operation of Afghanistan. The questions he asks and the points he tries to make in this essay are all fair, and worthy of some thought and consideration.
Hugo Chavez is very prone to miscalculation. Evidently, he assumes that he can say whatever he wants to anyone, at anytime. This especially rings true when he assumes that everyone that is critical of American policy will instantly want to hear his disrespectful socialist diatribes. Well, not everyone is willing to listen to some third-world dictator, and hack in the making, bad-mouth a former constitutionally elected leader of their nation. The King of Spain was one such person.
Democrats are getting nervous about the coming 2008 election. And I think there are a lot of good reasons for this. Here are a few that the liberal American Prospect seems to think are possible reasons for the anxiety. I will add that there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment, with much of it that could conceivably be directed at Congress, next year.
Today is Veterans Day in the United States. A deep heart-felt thank you to all veterans that read PYY. It's no big secret that one of my favorite veterans in the world is my good friend, Mustang. At his site, Social Sense, he has a piece you may want to read.
Every time I pass a flag flying in the wind, I immediately think of how men, braver than me, have paid a price, so that flag can fly high and proud. Their sacrifices have not gone unnoticed and are much appreciated. So, if you see a vet today, give him/her a special thanks for their contributions to the freedom we are all so very fortunate to enjoy. Many people have longed for this kind of freedom and cannot attain it.
October is still alive in Amerloque's heart. As always, he displays the natural talent of painting a lucid and picturesque image of life in Europe. His prose is always a delight to read and just by reading the descriptions of his life, it will make a person want to experience this place, he now calls home. If you are like me in this respect, you will not want to miss his latest communique to the cyberworld.
War is never a good thing. It may be necessary at times, and there are times when it it may not be. As a soldier, sailor, or marine, you always hope that the cause you are asked to fight for is noble, cannot be settled any other way, and is well-planned out with well-defined objectives. From most of his writings, you can gather that Flocon is (and has been) highly critical of the Iraq war. Now, he is questioning the wisdom of an extended operation of Afghanistan. The questions he asks and the points he tries to make in this essay are all fair, and worthy of some thought and consideration.
Hugo Chavez is very prone to miscalculation. Evidently, he assumes that he can say whatever he wants to anyone, at anytime. This especially rings true when he assumes that everyone that is critical of American policy will instantly want to hear his disrespectful socialist diatribes. Well, not everyone is willing to listen to some third-world dictator, and hack in the making, bad-mouth a former constitutionally elected leader of their nation. The King of Spain was one such person.
Democrats are getting nervous about the coming 2008 election. And I think there are a lot of good reasons for this. Here are a few that the liberal American Prospect seems to think are possible reasons for the anxiety. I will add that there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment, with much of it that could conceivably be directed at Congress, next year.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Economic Freedom Index
For what they are worth, the 2007 rankings are out.
As you may expect, the U.S. fared pretty well, at #4.
When you have a free market economy, free from unnecessary regulation and government interference, you have the ability to be more in control of your own destiny. When you have excessive government interference, you see much of that control lost.
Here is the breakdown of the rankings for the U.S., pay close attention to the ten different areas. Note the particular rating given for Freedom From Government (FFG) - 67.5%. Compare that same category rating with the #1 rated, Hong Kong - 91.6%.
For my French readers, you will note France coming at #45. According to the index, your economy is 66.1% free and your FFG score - 32%. You like government to be involved in your financial world and it shows. Despite the poor showing in this particular category, France does manage to do some things better than others. Note the other nine categories to see how the republic places higher, than most that garner a 32% in the FFG department.
To get a real feel for what government can do to screw things up, take a look at Venezuela. By the numbers indicated in the index, they are 47.7% free, which puts them at #144, overall. While they fare far better in the FFG rating than France (69.5%), they come in almost a hundred places lower. And despite the fact they rate a couple of points above the States in the FFG, they blow it badly in three critical areas.
The success of a nation depends on how free that nation's economy is. It can be as successful as its government and people want it to be. The French people are content to be where they are at, at least that's what I have read. And that's okay, to each his/her own.
France has a choice. They make their choices known through free elections and their willingness to demonstrate in the streets, when they do not like something. No one gets rounded up for expressing themselves, unless they commit crimes in the process.
In Venezuela, they have a government run by someone that wants to be president for life. The people have little choice in the matter, because slowly he erodes their political freedom while he runs their economy into the ground. He closes down opposition media outlets and actively seeks to re-write their constitution, so he can take even more freedom away.
So to all of my fellow Americans that want to be critical of France in the worst way I say, take a look at Venezuela and see that it could be worse. The French are content to be where they are at, let them be. And to all of my fellow Americans that cheer the likes of Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, and Cindy Sheehan for visiting Brother Hugo in Venezuela (on their "Badmouth America" tours) I say, try living and/or investing some money there.
As you may expect, the U.S. fared pretty well, at #4.
When you have a free market economy, free from unnecessary regulation and government interference, you have the ability to be more in control of your own destiny. When you have excessive government interference, you see much of that control lost.
Here is the breakdown of the rankings for the U.S., pay close attention to the ten different areas. Note the particular rating given for Freedom From Government (FFG) - 67.5%. Compare that same category rating with the #1 rated, Hong Kong - 91.6%.
For my French readers, you will note France coming at #45. According to the index, your economy is 66.1% free and your FFG score - 32%. You like government to be involved in your financial world and it shows. Despite the poor showing in this particular category, France does manage to do some things better than others. Note the other nine categories to see how the republic places higher, than most that garner a 32% in the FFG department.
To get a real feel for what government can do to screw things up, take a look at Venezuela. By the numbers indicated in the index, they are 47.7% free, which puts them at #144, overall. While they fare far better in the FFG rating than France (69.5%), they come in almost a hundred places lower. And despite the fact they rate a couple of points above the States in the FFG, they blow it badly in three critical areas.
The success of a nation depends on how free that nation's economy is. It can be as successful as its government and people want it to be. The French people are content to be where they are at, at least that's what I have read. And that's okay, to each his/her own.
France has a choice. They make their choices known through free elections and their willingness to demonstrate in the streets, when they do not like something. No one gets rounded up for expressing themselves, unless they commit crimes in the process.
In Venezuela, they have a government run by someone that wants to be president for life. The people have little choice in the matter, because slowly he erodes their political freedom while he runs their economy into the ground. He closes down opposition media outlets and actively seeks to re-write their constitution, so he can take even more freedom away.
So to all of my fellow Americans that want to be critical of France in the worst way I say, take a look at Venezuela and see that it could be worse. The French are content to be where they are at, let them be. And to all of my fellow Americans that cheer the likes of Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, and Cindy Sheehan for visiting Brother Hugo in Venezuela (on their "Badmouth America" tours) I say, try living and/or investing some money there.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Who You Calling Dictator, Willis?
Here's a real gem, I ran across.
Let's see if I have this straight. If anyone calls him a dictator or a tyrant, they get kicked out. Right? That's showing them. But what about his last trip to the UN, where he called Bush "the devil"? Or any other foreign national that comes here and bad-mouths our leaders? They do not get kicked out from here. It's called freedom of speech, something that dictators do not tolerate.
Sounds like Brother Hugo is a dictator, a tyrant, and now a hypocrite.
President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.
Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela _ and deport any outspoken critics.
"How long are we going to allow a person _ from any country in the world _ to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.
Let's see if I have this straight. If anyone calls him a dictator or a tyrant, they get kicked out. Right? That's showing them. But what about his last trip to the UN, where he called Bush "the devil"? Or any other foreign national that comes here and bad-mouths our leaders? They do not get kicked out from here. It's called freedom of speech, something that dictators do not tolerate.
Sounds like Brother Hugo is a dictator, a tyrant, and now a hypocrite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)