The Slippery Eel

Merry Christmas

In the spirit of Christmas, I found this funny great video above on a blog that I just discovered, from Nevada, Sunni Kay's RANTINGS, RAMBLINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS STUFF. I think you'll enjoy the blog as much as I, and you might get a laugh from the video.

Try Getting a Straight Answer from the Slippery Eel

c
andor is sadly missing.



Part of the reason that John Bolton was never confirmed as ambassador to the United Nations, and was roundly criticized, was that he spoke the truth. He was not a diplomat, some say. For example, he was not averse to criticizing the United Nations for its corruption.

Contrast this style with the new Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, who is called the Slippery Eel. I saw him on some of the morning talk shows this morning, and he deserves this sobriquet. He basically says nothing. He sounds like a Miss America contestant when she pronounces she is "for world peace."

Blunt versus Diplomatic

It appears to me that there is a difference at this time in history between these two styles within the two major parties. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, speaks bluntly, a style I like, but of course I don't enjoy the things he says. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois, the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, is the diplomat, barely saying anything, but of course paying heed to the almighty liberal mantras. Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, kind of sways back and forth between being diplomatic and being blunt; again, a style I like, but I don't like her agenda.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the conservative side, Bush is the diplomat, barely communicating anything when he speaks, but sticking to his agenda always, which is one-eighth conservative and seven-eighth's liberal. (I do have to give him credit for holding the line on taxes and being resolute in Iraq.) The really blunt guy on the conservative side is Representative Tom Tancredo, from Denver, who is our champion against illegal immigration. Tancredo keeps getting re-elected, but he commands no national power base.

Pundits versus Politicians

This whole situation is interesting to me, as I see the outcomes for bluntness with politicians versus the outcomes with pundits are different. Politicians like Bolton and Tancredo don't seem to get rewarded much for being blunt. Pundits, though, like radio talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage on the right, and media counterparts Al Franken and Keith Olberman on the left, seem to enjoy great popularity and to reap great wealth from their decisive stands.

I think that politicians don't benefit from their bluntness because they need a majority of voters to elect them. Bolton needed American support and world cooperation to be effective. He couldn't even get confirmed. Tancredo needs national support for his immigration policies, not just local interest.

The pundits don't need majorities in order to "win." They do perfectly well with niche markets. Rush and Savage get the hard-core conservatives, and Franken and Olberman the hard-core liberals.

As a result, I wind up liking Limbaugh, Savage, Franken and Olberman much more than I like the average politician. Rush, Michael, Al and Keith speak their minds, which is what I want in America.

I don't have a solution for this state of affairs, except I think you get what you deserve. I believe we ought to support more politicians who do speak their minds.

Crazy for Obama

I was all excited recently, like the rest of America, with Barack Obama. I am happy to see a black man seriously contend for the presidency. After all, he does not carry the same baggage as Democratic one-time black candidates Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton, two guys who do speak their minds, but unfortunately who are also demagogues.

Yet, as I hear more and more of what Barack says, I realize he is saying nothing. He is a diplomat. What's worse, he is a liberal diplomat—which means he will ultimately appease his base. He does not appear to have any great ideas, and continues to say zilch. How long can the excitement last? Is this still better than Sharpton? Yes, but not very inspiring.

Solution

My solution is this. I want politicians to be blunt enough to be real leaders. I want them to firmly believe in their political philosophies and take their chances with the voters. I favor Tancredo's solution. Say what you think and then let the voters decide. Yes, this means that Tancredo will forfeit any national stage for his ideas, and the Bolton's of the world will never get confirmed—but I prefer knowing where people stand than having them appease me but then later betray me when the voting on issues starts.

So, I prefer Howard Dean over Barack Obama; John Bolton over anyone they will appoint next; and Tom Tancredo over California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (another diplomat and appeaser to boot).

The Payoff for Bluntness

Yet, again, what is the payoff for bluntness? I won't vote for any Dean-like character, no matter how much I like their bluntness. I won't vote for any rabid liberal, nor for a demagogue of any party.

The only payoff for bluntness from me, then, is if you are a blunt conservative. Then, I will respect, admire, love and vote for you. I will be passionate about you. I am passionate about Tancredo. I am not passionate about Schwarzenegger. I am passionate about Dean, too. I passionately abhor the man.

Passion, that's the payoff for bluntness. Passion can get you elected, and move your agenda. It can also keep you from being confirmed. It's a double-edged sword.

The Leaderless U.N.

I'm glad the reign of the corrupt U.N. apologist Kofi Annan is over, but I'm sad we now have a diplomat taking his place, instead of a leader. And I'm sad to see John Bolton go.

Ho, Ho, Ho!

God bless you all and Merry Christmas.

click to hide most of this post

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: John Bolton, Ban ki-Moon, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, United Nations, Kofi Annan, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, pundits, politicians, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Al Franken, Keith Olberman, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Merry Christmas

Libyan HIV Case

Libyan HIV Case Reveals Primitivism and Scapegoatism

Prologue

Primitive fears and hatreds can be aroused by appealing to humankind's basist nature.

Foreign medics sentenced to die in Libya case: By Lamine Ghanmi. December 19, 2006, TRIPOLI (Reuters) –

A Libyan court sentenced five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death on Tuesday for deliberately infecting hundreds of children with the virus that causes AIDS, provoking a chorus of Western condemnation.

Experts argue over the importance of dirty needles in HIV transmission in Africa.


There are two accounts of how hundreds of children in a Libyan hospital mysteriously contracted HIV in the late 1990s. One says unhygienic medical practices fueled the outbreak. The other argues that medical workers murdered the children, possibly in a plot sponsored by the CIA and Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.

Chronology

Libya HIV trial of Bulgarian medics: Reuters AlertNet

Following is a chronology of key events in the case.

Feb 1999 - Nineteen Bulgarian medical workers in Libya detained in connection with investigation into how children in a hospital in the eastern town of Benghazi became infected with the HIV virus that causes AIDS. Thirteen are later freed.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Feb 2000 - Trial of six Bulgarians - five female nurses and a male doctor - and a Palestinian doctor and nine Libyans opens at Tripoli People's Court. They are accused of deliberately infecting hundreds of Libyan children with HIV-contaminated blood products as part of conspiracy by foreign intelligence to undermine Libya. Libyan defendants are charged with negligence.

June 2, 2001 - Defendants plead not guilty. Two Bulgarian nurses retract confessions, alleging they were tortured. Libya denies this.

Feb 17, 2002 - People's Court, which tries national security cases, returns trial to ordinary court citing insufficient evidence that defendants acted against Libyan security.

Sept 3, 2003 - French doctor Luc Montagnier, who first detected the HIV virus, testifies the epidemic broke out a year before the arrival of the Bulgarians.

Sept 8 - Libyan prosecutors demand death sentences for the six Bulgarians and Palestinian accused. They demand nine Libyan officers charged with torturing the medics be tried separately.

May 6, 2004 - Libyan court sentences five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor to death for deliberately infecting 426 children. The Bulgarian doctor is acquitted. The nine Libyans are acquitted. Torture charges against the Libyan officers are transferred to a Tripoli court. Bulgaria, the European Union and the United States condemn the death sentences as 'absurd'.

Dec 5 - Libyan Foreign Minister Mohammed Abdel-Rahman Shalgam says will discuss overturning sentences if Bulgaria offers compensation. Bulgaria refuses, saying that would be an admission of guilt.

May 28, 2005 - Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov, visiting Libya, meets children with HIV in Benghazi and the nurses in a Tripoli prison.

June 7 - A Tripoli court acquits nine Libyan policemen and a doctor of torturing the nurses.

Oct 17 - U.S. President George W. Bush urges Libya to free the medics.

Dec 19 - Supreme Court brings forward its appeal hearing to Dec. 25.

Dec 23 - Bulgaria, Libya, the EU and the United States agree to set up fund to help to the Libyan children and their families.

Dec 25 - Libya's Supreme Court scraps death sentences against the nurses and the Palestinian doctor, sends the case back to a lower court for retrial.

Jan 21, 2006 - Families demand total of 4.4 billion euros ($5.6 billion) from donors trying to end the standoff.

April 22, 2006 - Libya court sets May 11 date for retrial.

April 28 - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the Bulgarian nurses have been detained for too long.

July 4 - Defendants again deny charges.

Aug 8 - AIDS outbreak was deliberate, prosecution says.

Aug 29- Prosecutor demands death penalty.

Oct 31 - Neglect caused HIV infections, the defense says.

Nov 4 - Judgment day set for Dec 19.

Dec 19 – Defendants sentenced to die.

Before the Verdict

Libya court to deliver nurses' HIV case verdict: TRIPOLI (Reuters) By Salah Sarrar. Sun Dec 17, 2006 - Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor could face the firing squad if a Libyan court convicts them on Tuesday on charges of deliberately infecting hundreds of Libyan children with HIV.

Concluding a retrial regarded by the outside world as a test of justice in Libya, the court will make a decision that, either way, is likely to have repercussions on the north Africa's gradual rapprochement with the West. The six are accused of intentionally infecting 426 Libyan children with HIV at a hospital in Benghazi in the late 1990s. The prosecution has demanded the death penalty. The medics were convicted in a 2004 trial and sentenced to death by firing squad. But the supreme court quashed the ruling last year and ordered the case be returned to a lower court. Medical and human rights associations around the world have rallied to the medics' defense to prevent what they say may be a miscarriage of justice. But in Benghazi, where more than 50 of the infected children have died, most people have seen a member of their extended family touched by the tragedy. There is profound public anger against the nurses and international efforts to free them.

LIBYAN MEDIA WANTS GUILTY VERDICT. State-controlled media want a guilty verdict for the six, who have been in detention since 1999. Aljamahirya newspaper wrote: "What would happen if Bulgarian children were injected with the AIDS virus? Would millions of Bulgarians keep silent about the crime? We say to everyone: Our children's blood is precious."

The Sentence

Libya sentences medics to death: BBC NEWS, Tuesday, 19 December 2006. The medics have one final right of appeal against their sentences.

"They violated their obligations and sold their consciences to the devil." Abdullah Maghrebi, Father of HIV infected child.

A Libyan court has sentenced five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death for knowingly infecting hundreds of Libyan children with HIV.

The medics have been in detention since 1999, during which time 52 of the 426 infected children have died of Aids.

The nurses and doctor were sentenced to death in 2004, but the Supreme Court quashed the ruling after protests over the fairness of the trial.

The defendants say they are being made scapegoats for unhygienic hospitals.

The Evidence

Study backs Libya HIV case medics: BBC NEWS

The medics were arrested in 1999. Scientists have cast doubt on charges that five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor deliberately infected Libyan children with HIV.

"All the lines of scientific evidence point in the same direction," said Dr Tulio de Oliveira, Oxford University.

An international team analyzed samples taken from the infected patients. Writing in Nature, they said their work showed the HIV subtype involved began infecting patients in Libya well before the medical workers arrived in 1998. "All the lines of scientific evidence point in the same direction," said Dr. Tulio de Oliveira of Oxford University.

The medics say the children were infected through poor hygiene - and a body of scientific work supports their claims.

See also: news @ nature.com. Dirty needles, dirty dealings.: news@nature.com. Documentary draws attention to the role of hygiene in HIV transmission in Libya. Charlotte Schubert.

And: A Shocking Lack of Evidence.

Implications

This case shows once again how we in the Western World have become so politically correct that we can't say what is actually going on here. First, you have the demagogues of Libya using these poor five nurses and the doctor as pawns in an effort to foment hatred against the West. Once again, a Middle-Eastern country is using innocent humans to exact what they feel is revenge against Western dominance. Second, these demagogues are taking advantage of their populace's primitivism.

Primitivism

One thing no one ever is allowed to say anymore, but I'll say it, is that we human beings need to be enlightened. We can exist with primitive values and superstitions, and behave like animals, or we can elevate ourselves and act civilized. There are some regions of the world where primitivism rules. There, it is easy to incite the populace into an unthinking mob. In our times, much of this kind of thing exists under Muslim rule. Why is this? Let someone smarter than I answer. Of course they won't, will they? It's not politically correct. We know in our hearts, though, that these Muslim mobs we see spouting hatred towards America and Bush and so on, are the same kinds of folks that can see plots to spread HIV for political purposes.

Primitivism, Demagogues, and Liberals

I am horrified by this Libyan HIV case, but I am also concerned with the last vestiges of primitivism in our society—with, you guessed it, the demagogues and liberals.

This same kind of mob rule, blind hatred, and uncritical thinking is practiced by the liberal hate-America, hate-Bush, hate-Republican crowd. This is why I always see a tie-in with them and the conspiracy theorists. It's all paranoia, imagining what goes on behind closed doors, and convicting without evidence.

I like people who are individuals, who can think for themselves. I don't like crowds chanting together mindless mantras, like the liberals screaming "No war for oil."

Again, I don't mind if someone comes to conclusions based on unbiased investigation. Yet, our "mobs," the liberal masses, read only from sources that support their religion. Their sources contain only anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-religious, anti-military articles and opinion pieces.

click to hide most of this post

They are mindless automatons, just like the Libyans calling for the death of these fiendish medics.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

Technorati Tags for this post:
Primitivism, Libya HIV case, HIV, mob rule, mass hysteria, Libya, liberals, demagogues, demagoguery, mindless thinking, anti-Bush, anti-America, War for Oil

A Shameful End to a Shameful Career

Kofi Annan is exactly the Kind of Demagogue that This Blog is Against

A Wasted Human Life

Kofi Annan will go down in my history at least, along with other nefarious characters like Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson, as a man who has abused and wasted the abilities and power that God has given him.




Instead of doing great good for the world, as he could have done, he, like Carter and Jackson, have instead chosen to be demagogues. They are purveyors of lies that promote their personal and harmful agendas. Demonstrating the state of our world, both Annan and Carter are Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Jackson was a nominee, and all are beloved at the United Nations.

Annan's Agenda

Annan and Carter are darlings of the vicious left in America, the so-called "progressives." I know some "real progressives" in America, and these are decent, intelligent people who want only good for this country; but there is a strain of progressives who are full of hate, which is mostly aimed at America. This is the strain that loves Annan and Carter.

The common agendas of these two villains and their followers are:

The United States is a bad country that bullies the world, abuses its power, and engages in gross human rights violations.

Israel is also a bully country that abuses its neighbors, engages in Apartheid, and is the main reason for all the problems in the world today.

The United States does not have the right to defend itself. Only the U.N. has the right to decide how to defend the U.S.

It is understandable how the world can hate the U.S. In fact, the U.S. bears responsibility for being attacked on 9/11.

The Iraq War is illegal, and George Bush is a war criminal.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The United Nations

The United Nations began life as a result of a secret meeting on board the warship "Prince of Wales" which was moored off of the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941. The United Nations came from a meeting was between F D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. At this time America was not in World War Two though she was giving help to the Allies as a result of Lend-Lease. Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss what shape the world might take once the war ended.

On June 25th 1945, the representatives of the 50 nations in San Francisco met in the city's opera house. Here they signed the charter and it is this date that the United Nations is considered to have come into existence. The so-called Atlantic Charter outlined the hopes of Roosevelt and Churchill for a better world. The main points to it were:

All countries should have a democratic government.

All countries would engage in trade freely with one another.

All countries would share in world prosperity.

All countries would seek to reduce their weaponry.

K

ofi Annan

is retiring as United Nations Secretary General. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The secretary general acts as the de facto spokesman and leader of the United Nations.

On 13 October 2006, the Security Council's choice of Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to succeed Annan was ratified by acclamation in the General Assembly, consisting of all 192 UN member governments. Ban's five-year term as the next Secretary-General is to run from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011.

Kofi Annan is from Ghana. He is the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was the first to be elected from the ranks of UN staff.

As Secretary-General, Mr. Annan has given priority to revitalizing the UN through a comprehensive program of reform; strengthening the Organization's traditional work in the areas of development and the maintenance of international peace and security; advocating human rights, the rule of law and the universal values of equality, tolerance and human dignity; restoring public confidence in the Organization by reaching out to new partners and, in his words, by "bringing the United Nations closer to the people." The Secretary-General has also taken a leading role in mobilizing the international community in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and more recently against the global terrorist threat.

Annan's Final Speech

In his final speech (see also The Secretary-General's Statements) before leaving office, given on December 11, 2006, at at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, in Independence, Missouri, Annan called for the United States to return to the multi-lateralist foreign policies of Harry S. Truman and to follow his credo that "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world," an apparent rebuke of the alleged unilateralist policies of the George W. Bush administration. He also said that the United States must maintain its commitment to human rights, "including in the struggle against terrorism."

He echoed earlier speeches, where he also hammered the theme that the United States is a rogue nation, stating, for example, that the Iraq War is illegal (BBC News). In other speeches, he has claimed that the United States is "dominating" the world and is a major human rights violator.

Hypocrisy

In December 2004, reports surfaced that the Secretary-General's son Kojo received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna Inspection SA, which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil-for-Food Program.

Kofi Annan supported his deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown who openly criticized the United States media in a speech on June 6, 2006, saying: "The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable...You will lose the U.N. one way or another."

US ambassador John R. Bolton said to Annan on the phone: "I've known you since 1989 and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official that I have seen in that entire time."

All the while, Annan has not done anything effective about the holocaust in Darfur. Israel is under attack and he blames the victim. He has been ineffective in handling the Oil-for-Food scandal, with its attendant rationale for why the world will not support the Iraq War.

Annan, while failing ever to rebuke the real bullies of the world, like the Palestinians who constantly shell Israeli innocents, or terrorists who blow up U.S. citizens, presided over all the U.N. corruption of recent years.

Mr. Annan and his cronies all got rich while blood still flows nonstop because of their policies.

In his final speech, he outlined "four lessons ". I cannot help adding my own take on them:

First, we are all responsible for each other's security.

Except, Mr. Annan, if you are the United States, or Israel.

Second, we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity.

Especially the beneficiaries of Oil-for-Food and other U.N. scandals.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law.

Unless you are a terrorist or Palestinian.

Fourth, states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

This means, you bad U.S. people, that you cannot defend yourselves. Leave that to us, the nations of the world that value brute force, terrorism, corruption and graft.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

So you can promote thuggery, graft and corruption, leaving millions starving, homeless, and dead.

Annan's Inspiring Words

IN his paper, IN LARGER FREEDOM: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, Annan calls for:

I. Freedom from Want

II. Freedom from fear

III. Freedom to Live in Dignity, with:

Rule of Law

Human Rights

Democracy

IV. Strengthening the United Nations

What Could Have Been

Mr. Annan's words, as usual, are noble and inspiring. No one can disagree with the above goals. Yet, Mr. Annan has perverted these into a defense of dictatorships, anti-Americanism, and just plain thuggery. If he could have stood for all these points genuinely, then he would have earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Go in peace my brother.

click to hide most of this post

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

Sgt Dub to Ahmadinejad

Sgt Dub is an American hero, although he never would say this himself.

This is a first for me. I’m posting twice today. Since Sgt Dub says some things better than I was able, I am going to post his comments on Ahmadinejad for yesterday’s article as a post in and of itself. I hope you don’t mind, Sgt.

Then, I’m going to post the article I wrote for today’s post, on Hugo Chavez, who I call The Clown, based on a comment from one of my readers.

Visit Sgt Dub’s blog, at SGTDUB, for a first-hand experience of a soldier serving in Afghanistan, a great guy with a level head, communicating with the world from one of the hotspots on the globe. We remain appreciative of what you do, Sgt.

Here is the first post, Sgt. Dub responding to Ahmadinejad’s letters:

Rock, I read his letter to Noble Americans on Sunday, and immediately felt compelled to respond, of course. This may get long but I will cut it down to just the parts I responded to.

Ahmadinejad:

Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.

Dub:

Taking a hostage by the elbow and escorting him is not considered a hand of friendship in this country.

Ahmadinejad:

Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities.

Dub:

Yes, there are many Iranian people who fled the oppressive and destructive nature of Iran in hopes of finding a better place to live and we welcomed them to our country.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Ahmadinejad:

In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.

Dub:

I consider a "substantial number" an exaggeration on your part.

Ahmadinejad:

You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.
You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed "war on terror." But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

Dub:

First, kidnapping is described as the illegal abduction against one's will, and describes the tactics you might be familiar with, and the tactics used by the factions your country has sent into Iraq to push the so called civil war. The insurgents that have been captured by us have been taken during battle or by intelligence gathered, each being a target and not just an opportunity. The possibility that some may be innocent is possible but the kidnappings in Iraq by factions under the control of Iran and other groups are of civilians who are innocent. The detainees suffer far less than those taken by the factions at large in Iraq, who are doomed to certain torture and execution.

Ahmadinejad:

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

Dub:

You bring up undermining the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council? In this country we say, “Isn’t that the kettle calling the pot black?” The war in Iraq had the backing of the United Nations and continues to see international support. Only when cowards attack innocent civilians in other countries do we see some countries falter and pull back. It seems you think intimidation works on everyone; well, it only works on the frail.

Ahmadinejad:

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

Dub:

America has continually changed the seat of power since the onset of elections in this country. That is the freedom of self-rule. The fear that you show of President Bush just shows how little you understand the American political system. That power here has the ability to change every four years and we have done it without bloodshed and kidnapping; can you say that?

Ahmadinejad:

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

Dub:

Then condemn the dogs of war that you support, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Ahmadinejad:

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

Dub:

Does November 4, 1979 ring a bell?
I could obviously go on further, but I should stop here. thanks for letting me rant.

Thank you Sgt Dub. We are all grateful for your contributions to the world by serving in Afghanistan, by your blog, and by your regular comments on my blog, which I believe is also making a small contribution to the world, with truth. Thanks again, Sgt., and God bless.

Rock

click to hide most of this post

The Clown

Continuing the Discussion on

Chavez, the clown.

I want to thank Discoriggall for commenting on yesterday’s post, Dear Mr. Ahmadinejad below. (By the way, Discoriggal, I like your site, even though you’re on the wrong side of things politically.) Discoriggal gave a very reasoned defense of The Clown, to which I responded. I am so incensed by The Clown, however, that I decided to make him the topic of today’s post. This will be the second time I honor Mr. Chavez with a post, who is the hero of those great Americans, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, and Noam Chomsky; and that great humanitarian, Fidel Castro. For my readers, see Thank You Charlie Reingold, where I applaud Mr. Reingold, a diehard Democrat, for denouncing Mr. Chavez for calling President Bush “the devil.”

Mr. Discoriggal, no offense, I just can’t stand demagogues, or clowns who are supposed to act like statesmen.



I’m going to include some of my responses to your comment in this post, and expand from there a bit.

Thug and Demagogue

A recent poll found that 57% of Venezuelans felt intimidated to vote for Chavez. The man is a thug. He actually participated in a coup earlier in his career, and he is not above using the power of his government to hurt people. Yes, Venezuela is a “democracy,” but not quite free and not quite honest. If Bush was running goon squads the left would be all over him, but they accept Chavez?

Chavez is a demagogue. Any popularity he does legitimately have is earned by demonizing America and President Bush. I am against all demagoguery. If you have to demonize a person or country in order to win an election, then you are using a dark force to rule. I don’t see how a person like this can be your hero. All he does is encourage hatred in the world. Chavez’ tactics are much like the tactics of the Democratic Party at this time in history with their class warfare. The so-called party of peace continually fosters hatred against Republicans by calling them the party of the rich.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Other Thugs and Demagogues

Chavez’ heroes are Fidel Castro and other dictators who have abused human rights and deprived their people of essential freedoms. Yes, socialists and communists. Chavez is a modern-day populist who wages his own class warfare, the old communist ploy of promising everything to the lower classes while destroying the middle class. The middle class in Venezuela is disappearing and feeling threatened. The lower class is happy with Chavez for the moment, and his upper class cronies and thieves are thrilled. This is the story of Cuba all over again. Are you, my worthy Dems, like Robert Redford and Danny Glover, a fan of the way Cuba does things? Yes, they have free health care and free education, but the level of that health care and education are inferior, plus, the overall economy is a mess. How far they have sunk since the corrupt capitalistic era. And, they have no freedom—just lockstep agreement with their “Papa,” dictator for life.

How Popular Those Dictators Are!

Kim Jung Il is popular in North Korea; Ahmadinejad is popular in Iran; and Chavez is “popular” in Venezuela. This is what happens when the leaders control their own press and intimidate any opposition. The people get brainwashed. North Koreans don’t know any better. Iranians shut up if they know what’s good for them. Venezuelans think Chavez will give them everything they need, free. It’s all based on lies and intimidation.

Sarge Charlie commented on yesterday’s post,

I would like to point out to Mr. Discoriggall that the tyrant in Baghdad was elected with 95% plus of the vote, our friend in Cuba was reelected with near 100% of the vote, Chavez only got about 60%. Could it be that his thugs are not as good as the others?

My view exactly. Communists and dictators have held “elections” for years, “proving” with 100% of the vote (as Saddam had) that everybody “loves” them. Plus, Jimmy Carter “validated” Chavez’ election—you can’t get much more honorable than that, right?

The Presidency and Gravitas

I think that once you assume the elevated position of president of your country, you cast aside juvenile behavior. If you got elected by acting like a clown, like Chavez did, you discard this in favor of assuming some gravitas, fitting the persona of a world leader. Politics is a tough game. Bush is bashed every day of his life, and he has to turn the other cheek time after time. The only people Bush ever “demonized” have been the Axis of Evil and terrorists, people who kill innocent human beings and foster terror in the world. You don’t go around calling leaders of the world “devils,” and expect to be taken seriously.

Demagogue Alert

Again, this is Chavez the demagogue. This whole blog is dedicated to one thing—the exposure of demagoguery in every form. Demagogues do not tell the truth. They lie and use those lies to become popular. The world does not need people like Chavez as leaders.

Kryptonite for Democrats

I’ve always said that truth to a Democrat is like kryptonite to Superman. Facts only get in the way of their theories. (Caveat, I am not speaking of Classical Liberals like JFK or Truman, but liberals of today, like John Kerry and Howard Dean). Dems are always asking me to “prove” my points, instead of my just ranting. Whenever I oblige them, they denigrate my proofs. Ah, well, the way of the world. So, I usually don’t set out to “prove” anything to Democrats. I just state my views, back them up with what I have, and let it go at that. We all are allowed our opinions. My only goal with this blog is to get a reasonable opinion, grounded in truth, out there in the ether, to counter the lies of the liberal left and other liars or dissemblers.

Still, I’ll try to oblige my critics with as much “proof” as I can muster for my opinions. Just to let you know that I am not alone in my condemnation of Hugo Chavez, please peruse the following references at your leisure; and there are plenty more of these if you take the time to find them:

Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders: Human Rights Watch, Washington, July 8, 2005)

In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.

Venezuela: Rights Lawyer Faces Judicial Persecution (Human Rights Watch, 5-4-2005): Criminal Investigation Launched to Intimidate Critic of Government’s Rights Record (Washington, April 5, 2005)

The Venezuelan government should immediately halt criminal proceedings opened against one of Latin America’s most prominent human rights lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today.

Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened (Human Rights Watch, 24-3-2005): (Santiago, March 24, 2005)

Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public’s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.

“By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,” said Jose Miguel Vivanco, America’s director at Human Rights Watch. “While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.”

Venezuela: Chavez Allies Pack Supreme Court (Human Rights Watch, 14-12-2004): (Washington D.C., December 14, 2004)

The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chavez’ party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.

“Five years ago, President Chavez’ supporters helped to enshrine the principle of judicial independence in a new democratic constitution. Now, by packing the country’s highest court, they are betraying that principle and degrading Venezuelan democracy.” Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch.

Venezuela: Media Law Undercuts Freedom of Expression (Human Rights Watch, 24-11-2004): (Washington, November 24, 2004)

A draft law to increase state control of television and radio broadcasting in Venezuela threatens to undermine the media’s freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today. Venezuela’s National Assembly, which has been voting article by article on the law, known as the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is expected to approve it today.

“This legislation severely threatens press freedom in Venezuela,” said Jose Miguel Vivanco, America’s director at Human Rights Watch. “Its vaguely worded restrictions and heavy penalties are a recipe for self-censorship by the press and arbitrariness by government authorities.”

Independent Groups Denounce Human Rights Abuses in Cuba, Venezuela - US Department of State: Rights of Cuban journalists, Venezuelan activists violated, organizations say. By Eric GreenWashington File Staff Writer Washington.

An international press freedom advocacy group has denounced the mistreatment of jailed journalists in Cuba, while another global organization promoting human rights says civil society leaders in Venezuela are being put on trial on “dubious charges of treason.” The independent, nonpartisan press freedom group, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said in a July 11 statement that it is greatly concerned about the deteriorating health of several imprisoned Cuban journalists who have been jailed for more than two years.

For more stuff on the Clown, Google this: Hugo Chavez human rights abuses; or just go to the Human Rights Watch website, at Human Rights Watch.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

click to hide most of this post