Out of respect for President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan-owned oil refinery Citgo flew its flags at half staff outside its Houston and Lake Charles, La., offices Wednesday, sparking outcry from drivers passing by.
In Houston, the flags at the refinery were lowered to half staff as late as this afternoon, and caused a number of people to look twice as they drove by. James Post, an assistant project manager at an engineering and construction firm in Harris County, told FoxNews.com the sight was "jarring" and "deeply disappointing."
U.S. protocol allows for flags to be lowered for foreign dignitaries and Post recognized Citgo's right to do so as a private company. However, he said upon seeing the American or Texas flag at half staff, he questioned the person being honored; and said his mind "immediately jumped to the last time we did this in the Houston-area and it was for Neil Armstrong, so, you wonder."
As much as the outcry from "drivers passing by" was warranted, there is simply still not enough outrage from Americans.
In 2009, Hugo Chavez stooge - and then deposed president of Honduras - Manuel Zelaya, was hiding inside the Brazilian embassy there, in an attempt to make some kind of statement. While there, the Miami Herald reported that Zelaya believed the sore throat he had was the result of toxic gases and that 'Israeli mercenaries' were torturing him with 'high-frequency radiation.'
Now, Chavez is apparently blaming the United States for giving him cancer.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez hinted that the U.S. may be behind a “very strange” bout of cancer affecting several leaders aligned with him in South America.
Chavez, speaking a day after Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, said the Central Intelligence Agency was behind chemical experiments in Guatemala in the 1940s and that it’s possible that in years to come a plot will be uncovered that shows the U.S. spread cancer as a political weapon against its critics.
“It’s very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in Latin America,” Chavez said in a nationally televised speech to the military. “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?”
No wonder Marxists are insane.
The Alex Jones website accused the Miami Herald of making up the story about Zelaya. I would love to get their take on the credibility of Chavez's charges.
Great find by Verum Serum here. Far leftist Noam Chomsky sang the praises of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez back in 2007 for, among other things, calling George W. Bush a 'devil.' Chomsky also bemoaned the notion that Chavez was considered a 'tin pot dictator.' This first clip is Chomsky in 2007 where he derided George W. Bush and defended Chavez on things like Venezuela's 'social programs.' It's quite obvious in listening to Chomsky here that he was having an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend moment.' His hatred for Bush was such that if someone like Chavez hated Bush too, defending Chavez was noble, using leftwing logic.
The admiration Chomsky shared for Chavez in 2007 was obviously mutual. Here is Chavez holding up one of Chomsky's books at the U.N. General Assembly:
Now this. Chomsky is throwing Chavez under the bus. Via The Guardian:
Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an "assault" on Venezuela's democracy.
"Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that's a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not."
Though there is a temptation to gloat from those of us on the right, we should congratulate Chomsky on this 'ah-ha' moment. There needs to be far more of this and we must admit that, at some level, this admission on the part of Chomsky is an admission that he was wrong.
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is known to be sick in the head but how sick is he in the hip? Apparently, the communist leader of Venezuela has been in Cuba since June 10th for medical treatment. Here we are more than two weeks later and the one guy who seeks out cameras as much as - if not more than - Barack Obama has been conspicuously silent. His spokesmen seem to be a little defensive about the speculation, saying that Hugo is fine and will be back on the public stage by July 5th.
Senior allies of Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez have dismissed reports he is sicker than the government has admitted, telling his enemies to "stop dreaming" of his death.
The normally verbose leader has not been seen in public since a June 10 operation in Cuba to remove a pelvic swelling. His long absence has prompted widespread speculation he may be seriously ill, possibly being treated for prostate cancer.
Accusing opponents of cynically rejoicing at his health problems, government officials insist Chavez, 56, is fine and that he should be back for a regional summit planned for Venezuela's 200th anniversary of independence on July 5.
"President Chavez is recovering well from his surgery. His enemies should stop dreaming and his friends should stop worrying," Vice Foreign Minister Temir Porras said on the social networking site Twitter.
"The only thing that has metastasized is the cancer of the Miami Herald and the rest of the right-wing press."
Having lived in South Florida for many years, I can attest that while the Miami Herald is many things, 'right wing' is certainly not one of them - not even close.
It was a saga that carried on for months beginning in the summer of 2009. Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was constitutionally removed from office for attempting to stay in power. The only thing the judicial, legislative, and military branches failed to do when removing Zelaya was follow the most strict interpretation - instead of detaining him, they exiled him. The Obama administration was adamant that Zelaya be returned to office and that his removal was the result of a coup. Such a stance flew in the face of the facts.
Zelaya, a protege of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, was a would-be dictator. It was obvious that the Obama administration was backing a thug but thanks to cables released by Wikileaks, the why can be more clearly sustantiated.
Lots of hypotheses have been floated to explain why the Obama administration went to such extremes last year to try to force Honduras to reinstate deposed president Manuel Zelaya.
Now the release of two WikiLeaked cables from the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa strengthens one of those theories: that the U.S. knew Mr. Zelaya was a threat to democratic Honduras but had decided the country should tolerate his constitutional violations in the interest of realpolitik.
Practically speaking, Hugo Chávez was the man to please. After a decade in power, the president of Venezuela's influence around the region was notable. George W. Bush had clashed with him. Barack Obama was out to prove that they could get along, as evidenced by the warm handshake at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain in April 2009.
Honduras offered a bonding opportunity. Mr. Zelaya was a protégé of Mr. Chávez. Standing up for him as democratically elected was a way to score points with Latin America's hard left.
Obama allied with the hard left? Say it ain't so!
In the quintessential underdog story, Honduras stood up to the world - including Obama - and won.
The two cables provide two different perspectives. The first was from Charles Ford, who was U.S. ambassador to Honduras during the Bush administration. In 2008, he warned of Zelaya:
The insightful diplomat also recognized Mr. Zelaya's disdain for other institutions. He "resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court." That resentment rose to the surface in June 2009 when the Supreme Court ruled that a referendum on his re-election was unconstitutional. Mr. Zelaya responded by leading a mob to break into a military installation where the ballots for his initiative were being stored.
Ford's successor, Hugo Llorens provided the other perspective, which was one that showed support for Zelaya after his removal from office. However, unlike Ford, Llorens - the Obama administration by extension - had no defense for standing with Zelaya.
Mr. Llorens sent his own legal analysis to Washington. In it he acknowledges that there might have been a case to be made against Mr. Zelaya for a number of violations of the constitution. But he also claims that there is "no doubt" that the Supreme Court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya was "a conspiracy" with Congress and the attorney general.
In the many months that have passed since Honduras stood up for its own Constitution - and won - their colleagues in Venezuela have chosen to stand down as Chavez gobbles up more and more power.
By now, many of us are familiar with the 2008 video of current FCC "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd saying some very flattering things about Hugo Chavez (video below) defeating opposition by shutting down media outlets that provided it. Now we have Reuters reporting that Chavez continues to shut down radio stations that are not in lock step with his agenda:
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.
"Democratizing" media ownership by silencing adversarial voices? It's easy to see that Lloyd shares very similar views of private broadcasters in America after watching him speak and reading what he's written. That makes him a walking contradiction in addition to being an ALINSKY DICIPLE.
Don't you know that Lloyd is envious of what's going on in Venezuela right now? Make no mistake. If Lloyd had his way, he would flip a switch and shut down all radio stations that carry views in opposition to Obama. Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones would call this a "MAXIMUM GOAL". As an aside, Jones, with coaching, understood he had to push "Minimum Goals" that contained very "radical kernel(s)" but he ultimately couldn't walk the walk because his maximum goals were revealed in a slew of shocking revelations last week.
Lloyd has gone public with his intentions. While his goals run parallel to those of Chavez, his means are more covert. CNS NEWS reported on Lloyd's plans to have private broadcasters pay double their current operating costs in the form of licensing fees. These fees would then fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
CHAVEZ AND AHMADINEJAD
There are additional reasons for Americans to be disturbed by Lloyd's reverence for Hugo Chavez today. An AP REPORT shows that Venezuela is exporting gasoline to Iran.
The two countries signed the agreement late Sunday during a visit by Chavez, who pledged to deepen ties with Iran and stand together against what he called the imperialist powers of the world.
The radio stations in Venezuela who would carry voices that oppose such agreements are being targeted for closing by Chavez. What does this say about Lloyd and, by extension, Obama himself, who has already aligned with Chavez in the Honduran crisis? By championing the efforts of Chavez, isn't Lloyd advocating government action that leads to agreements between Ahmadinejad and Chavez increasing in boldness and frequency while becoming increasingly unchallenged?
Lloyd's writings carry an air of backward thinking and contradictions. In fact, he reminds me of a character from a Gilligan's Island episode - Wrong Way Feldman. Quoting from the AP report, here is an example of how Lloyd's proposed policies would actually serve to help Iran:
Western leaders have threatened to impose further sanctions against it should Iran refuse to bend to deadlines for talks aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear activities. One idea that has been touted, though not yet formally proposed, is to cut off exports of gas station-ready fuel to Iran.
By showing admiration for Chavez and his aggressive policy of shutting down opposing voices, Lloyd is espousing a weaker stick when it comes to imposing further sanctions on Iran since Chavez is thumbing his nose at the notion and wants to make it even easier by silencing any remaining vestige of an adversarial press.
OLIVER AND HUGO
Isn't this special? Oliver Stone's favorable documentary of Chavez is being screened in Venice as the deal between Hugo and Mahmoud is revealed, a deal that helps to alleviate a huge bottleneck for the Iranian leader - refinery capabilities amid a sea of oil.
DRUDGE has links to stories about the Stone documentary. If there is good news in these very troubling times, it may just be that a substantial number of far leftwingers who like to portray themselves as either apolitical or objective fence-sitters are unmasking themselves. Oliver Stone appears to be overtly choosing sides in the left/right debate these days as REUTERS is reporting that Stone views Chavez as a victim.
Stone no doubt thinks he's doing important and daring work. The irony is that he seems to be suffering from the same delusion that afflicted the likes of Cindy Sheehan, who also embraced Chavez. When you're sympathetic to dictators, you're in no real danger as long as you are useful. Jane Fonda certainly comes to mind.
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.
Here's where Stone confounds in a way similar to Lloyd when one takes a look at another film Stone is responsible for - JFK (the left's hero). If memory serves, that film outed communists and implicated Castro's Cuba. Aren't the Castros and Hugo close allies? It should be no surprise why those on the left seem to share a trait of rampant confusion.
Before reading these quotes from Stone, take another look at the one of countless photos above showing Chavez and Ahmadinejad embracing.
"I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez," Stone told reporters in Venice, where South of the Border has its world premiere on Monday.
"But I didn't want to make a movie only about the American media's attacks. I felt that that was too small for what this man is about. This man is a big phenomenon.
"So we travelled in a road trip kind of movie to visit these other presidents and we saw the positive side of what is going on, the sweeping change in this region. It's a very important historical phenomenon that is ... ignored in America."
Just curious but how soon will it be before Stone does a glowing documentary on the leader of Iran? As he and Chavez yuk it up in Venice, what's the possibility Chavez drops the idea in Stone's lap in much the same way he handed a book to Obama in front of the cameras?
In summary, as Chavez wheels and deals with Ahmadinejad, he's closing down radio stations that might have opposing voices to that kind of thing. FCC Diversity Czar Lloyd is on video extoling the virtue and courage of Chavez while filmmaker Oliver Stone is screening a glowing documentary of the communist dictator that identifies him as a victim.
Is Stone's film the kind of thing Lloyd would find acceptable for airing on the public airwaves he wants to control one day?
Last week, we saw video of newly appointed FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd praising the rise of Hugo Chavez. Now we have video of Lloyd praising Paul Robeson, member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) while deriding Joe McCarthy (as time goes by, McCarthy is looking to be vindicated more and more).
While Robeson deserved praise for his artistic talents, there is no excuse at this late date for ignorance about Robeson's real record not only as a secret member of the Communist Party USA but as an apologist for communist tyranny. Lloyd's comments suggest that he would have preferred that the media not make an issue of Robeson's involvement in an international movement that has cost the lives of more than 100 million people.
This is absolutely chilling when one takes into account that Lloyd is calling for policies that will, in effect, bankrupt private broadcasters by requiring them to double their operating expenses in the form of fees to support public broadcasting. Couple that with Obama's Internet czar Cass Sunstein calling for increased regulation of the interenet and a new bill that would give Obama the authority to shut down the internet during an emergency and you have a witch's brew of censorship with the U.S. Constitution as kindling.
Here's the unbelievable video of Lloyd in 2005. While his extoling Robeson is bad for sure, I found this quote at the 2:47 mark about somes up my problems with Lloyd (also the name of the bartender in Stephen King's, "The Shining):
"I argue that the answer to bad speech is not censorship but better speech."
Frankly, if that statement is meant to convey that the arena of ideas should win the day, fine. However, it's obvious after watching this video that Lloyd has a different interpetation. This guy is nuts. Period.
As Kincaid points out, indications are that Lloyd wants to take a page out of the playbook of Hugo Chavez when implementing policy here in the United States:
At a 2008 "media reform" conference sponsored by the George Soros-funded Free Press organization, Lloyd declared that the Marxist revolution in Venezuela under Chavez was "incredible" and "dramatic" but that the "property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled" against the would-be dictator and supported a coup against him. However, Lloyd said that Chavez wised up and "then started to take the media seriously..."
Did I mention that according to Rasmussen, approximately 30% of the American people strongly approve of the job Obama is doing?
Keeping in mind that Lloyd's strategy involves creating a situation in which private broadcasters go out of business because they can't afford the FCC's fees, what is the logical outcome? Answer: A broadcast entity is then made available to the government through attrition.
It is apparent that Chavez is using the government to force private companies out of the media business and restrict and investigate the remaining independent journalists. This is a process that apparently meets with the approval of "progressives" such as Mark Lloyd in the U.S.
Who'd have ever imagined that the FCC would one day decide to follow a model set by that of a tinpot dictator in Venezuela.
We know that Bill Ayers traveled to Venezuela in 2006 but we don't yet know who funded the trip. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy In Media reports that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that Ayers did extensive world travel on the taxpayer's dime but the trip to see Hugo was conspicuously absent.
So it appears that Ayers' trip to celebrate Chavez's "Socialism of the 21st Century" was financed by someone or something other than the taxpayers who pay Ayers' $126,000 annual salary at a public university. Did Chavez pick up the tab?
Kincaid teases an August 20th conference in Washington, D.C. that will shed more light on the situation.
Central to the piece are the details of a book written by the Ayers' adopted son who is also the biological son of a convicted cop killer, David Gilbert. Chesea Boudin, who is author of a book titled, "Gringo", also worked for Hugo Chavez according to Kincaid:
Boudin, a Rhodes Scholar, writes about working for Chavez in the presidential palace in Venezuela, on subjects such as "Presidential International Relations," and being involved "in the revolutionary process" and assisting with such projects as the "Third Annual International Conference in Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution." He also "worked as a freelance journalist, an interpreter, and a think tank researcher with ties to the Ministry of Higher Education."
Higher education, huh? Like father, like adopted son. I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
The implication is that Boudin just may be a foreign agent in America for Hugo Chavez, which would require him to register with the Department of Justice:
Being an advocate for Chavez in the U.S., which clearly continues with publication of the book Gringo, seems to be the textbook definition of a foreign agent, who, according to the U.S. statute, provides "propaganda" for a foreign regime for the purpose of "attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws." Foreign agents are supposed to register as such with the U.S. Department of Justice. But again, Holder, who facilitated the Clinton pardons of Weather Underground members, can't be expected to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is under the supervision of the Department of Justice.
Not only did Holder facilitate the pardons of Weather Underground members but he recently dropped an AIR-TIGHT CASE against members of the Black Panther Party who were caught on video intimidating voters on election day in Philadelphia. In fact, the prosecuting attorneys had already won a default judgment prior to the case being dropped.
Excellent work, as usual, from Kincaid. Be sure to read the ENTIRE ARTICLE.
When you consider the similarities between the paths both Chavez and Obama have taken, is it really all that surprising they each share one degree of separation from Bill Ayers?
Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya is Chavez' guy too. Does anyone doubt for a second he's also Ayers' guy? Some day the common nefarious affiliations all of these guys share is going to rear its head for all to see. My personal hope is that it's not too late when they do.
Mary Anastasia O'Grady's piece in the Wall Street Journal today is very critical of Obama's stance on Honduras. With a title like, 'The U.S. Steers Left on Honduras', you know it has to be. Steering left on Honduras necessarily means aligning with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro brothers.
Throw on top of that the fact that as the sitting government, led by Roberto Micheletti, continues to stand up to Zelaya and practically the rest of the entire world, it is looking more and more like Micheletti is with the good guys. Another benefit to Micheletti is that Zelaya's rhetoric has been so incendiary and caustic since his ouster, he appears to be unmasking himself by the minute.
For her part, O'Grady does a great job of zeroing in on the consequence of Obama's policy toward Honduras having the effect of aligning the United States government with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
The Venezuelan may feel that his aims have enough support from the U.S. and the Organization of American States (OAS) that he would be justified in forcing Mr. Zelaya on Honduras by supporting a violent overthrow of the current government. That he has reason to harbor such a view is yet another sign that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history.
Mr. Obama on the wrong side of history? Naw.
Anyway, O'Grady cites none other than Miguel Estrada who quotes directly from the Honduras Constitution:
"Article 239," Mr. Estrada noted, "specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection 'shall cease forthwith' in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any 'infraction' of the succession rules constitutes treason."
So the United States is supporting a man whose own Constitution points to him committing treason to boot?
O'Grady then nails the reality of the current situation had Obama sided with Micheletti and against Chavez / Zelaya:
That might have been the end of it if the U.S. had supported the Honduran rule of law, or simply refrained from meddling. Instead President Obama and the State Department joined Mr. Chávez and his allies in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be restored to power. This has emboldened Venezuela.
But No.
Here's another lesson to be learned by what is happening. The courage shown by Micheletti and the sitting government appears to be concerning Chavez.
Mr. Chávez understands that Mr. Zelaya's star is fading, which is why he called Tom Shannon, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at home at 11:15 p.m on July 9. Mr. Shannon told me that Mr. Chávez "again made the case for the unconditional return of Mr. Zelaya, though he did so in a less bombastic manner than he has in the past."
Chavez the bully. We all know what bullies really are, right? Think Scut Farcus in "A Christmas Story". We all know what Ralphie did to him.
One last thing on Obama and Honduras... I know there's almost a reticence to pay much attention to what's going on with a country like Honduras but when you peel away the layers, we see much about Obama.
Whenever Obama's affiliations are brought up and he is forced to acknowledge them (Ayers and Wright), he attempts to distance himself by saying he doesn't agree with them. In the case of Ayers, he was on a Board with him but didn't share his views. In the case of Wright, he belonged to his church but didn't share his views.
Now, Mr. Obama finds himself in a situation where he cannot say he doesn't support the views of Hugo Chavez. Those views consist of installing a stooge of the latter as the president of Honduras. A stooge that was allegedly going to rig the results of a referendum that showed the country wanted him to illegally change the Constitution.
The group formerly known as ACORN is planning to be very involved in administering the census and we're all familiar with allegations of fraud relating to voter registration, right?
"An acorn doesn't fall far from the tree." - Barack Obama, 2008
