Tag Archives: Hugo Chavez

Who Will Be America’s Next Ambassador to Venezuela?

Originally posted at American Thinker

Recently, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez praised Barack Obama for making both him and Fidel Castro look conservative by comparison.  Chávez enthusiastically called Barack “Comrade Obama!”  Hugo’s affectionate approval was based on Obama “nationalizing … General Motors.”  In fact, Hugo even gave a shout-out to Castro about Barack, saying, “Fidel, careful, or we are going to end up to his right.”

Hugo gushed when Obama suggested an Air Force One stopover in Caracas.  President Chávez said he would love to team up with Obama to “construct a new world order” and treat him to a hug and a large helping of “socialist arepas.”  An impromptu landing in Venezuela comes with benefits besides lunch because the Venezuelan dictator successfully “abolished term limits and shut down independent media outlets,” two potential techniques for Obama to consider prior to the next few election cycles.

For that reason, the recent blow to Hugo and Barry’s solidarity couldn’t have come at a more inopportune time.  In a matter of seconds, the relationship went from Chávez inviting Obama to join him for corn-based pancakes to laying down the ambassadorial gauntlet by forbidding Obama’s nominee for envoy to Caracas from setting foot in Venezuela.

The cause of the dispute?  Larry Palmer told a “Senate confirmation hearing that Venezuela harbored leftist guerrillas from Colombia and that its military was under Cuban influence.”  Those candid observations caused the Venezuelan president to react in an extremely inhospitable way toward Mr. Palmer, leading to the announcement that Chávez would “veto” Obama’s nominee.

Mr. Chávez interprets criticism as discourteous and expressed that “[i]t would be an indignity if [he] allowed [Palmer] to come to Venezuela.”  Chávez emphatically swore, “Well, [the U.S.] can do whatever they want, but this man is not coming.”  Chávez even challenged Obama, asking, “How do you expect me to accept this gentleman as ambassador? He disqualified himself, he cannot come as ambassador.”

One dares not express an opinion that would indicate that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is anything less than an earthly Eden.  In fact, in response to Palmer’s comments, Hugo dared Washington to “cut diplomatic relations” with his country and to “expel” Venezuelan ambassador Bernardo Alvarez Herrera.  Consequently, Herrera’s visa was promptly revoked, and the diplomat was sent back to South America.

Let’s remember that Chávez “packed [Venezuela’s] Supreme Court and the army with his supporters, seized control of the country’s wealth, and introduced a penal code that criminalizes dissent.  Anyone who opposes Chávez faces violence or prison.  Hence, it would be in Mr. Palmer’s best interest if he steered clear of Caracas lest he meet with an untimely, albeit certainly accidental, end.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley expressed “regret” over the Venezuelan government’s decision to withdraw consideration of Palmer’s post and “hinted it may name a new ambassador, noting that Palmer was never approved by the Senate.”  According to Philip Crowley, “[w]e will have to renominate an ambassador candidate.”  Asked if there could be a nominee other than Palmer, Crowley replied, “These are issues that we will be evaluating, you know, with the New Year.”

Well, the New Year has arrived, and an opportunity to mend fences with the Venezuelan dictator has manifested.  In lieu of Larry, Chávez submitted a list of formidable candidates that would reignite high-level diplomatic communications with the U.S.

Chávez’s personal favorites for ambassador include “alternate candidates … Sean Penn and Bill Clinton.”  In addition, Chávez suggested the U.S.-hating anarchist and his special friend, linguist Noam Chomsky, as well as controversial Marxist director Oliver Stone.

Chávez said, “I hope they name Oliver Stone. I’ll suggest a candidate … Sean Penn, or [Noam] Chomsky.  We have a lot of friends there.  Bill Clinton!”

Consider the diplomatic possibilities.  “Dead Man Walking” Sean Penn could address Caracas being one of the most dangerous cities in the world and speak about the futility of maintaining an “annual murder rate … in excess of 135 per 100,000 population.”  Sean, aka “Harvey Milk,” could also address Venezuela’s ongoing discrimination against the GLBT community.

Despite Venezuela’s human rights abuses, Noam Chomsky could continue to promote “survival” over what he perceives to be the U.S.’s “quest for global hegemony.”  In addition, Chomsky could succinctly articulate with superior linguistic acumen the “better world” in which Venezuelans reside.  Noam has said that visiting Venezuela is “exciting” because it is there that he “can see how a better world is being created.”

Oliver Stone is another ideal pick.  Friend-of-Hugo Oliver could gain further insight from Chávez on improving the American economy and in turn assist Obama in advancing the socialist agenda at home.

Oliver directed South of the Border, “a film that [drew] attention to the social improvements ushered in by Chavez, who … nationalized parts of Venezuela’s economy, including important bits of the oil sector and big chunks of the banking, electric and steel industries.”  The Marxist film director believes that “[y]ou hear all the criticism, all the exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking the economy has surged in Venezuela from 2003 to 2008 … This is a story that people don’t know.”  Thus, Oliver’s primary role could be remediating the reputation of misunderstood “Leftist Menace” Hugo Chávez.

Then there’s Bill.  Chávez mentioned he had a friendly meeting with Secretary of State Señora Clinton at Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration ceremony over the weekend.  It was there that Hugo asked about [Hillary’s] husband Bill.

“Slick Willy” is a gregarious type whose name usually evokes spontaneous affection from women as well as international tyrants.  This is not for nothing, but if diplomatic efforts fail, at least cigar aficionado Clinton can assist Venezuela’s endeavor to resurrect the Crispin Patino line of fine Venezuelan cigars here in the U.S.

Missing from the ambassadorial assemblage was bloated up-and-coming politician and star of “30 RockAlec Baldwin.  Although Chávez didn’t mention Alec, the Long Island native told CNN’s disgraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer that he’s “very interested” in a political run.  When asked about a foray into politics, left-winger Baldwin said, “It’s something that I’m very, very interested in.”  Baldwin maintains that elected leaders should be “people who have not lost sight about what the middle class in this country is.”  What better way for a labor union/ACORN/progressive Working Families Party coalition favorite like Alec to break into politics than by acting as an emissary to “working family”-friendly Venezuela?

Baldwin, although not “diplomatic” in the traditional sense, is fearless when it comes to verbal reprimand.  If the United States does not comply with Chávez’s edicts, Baldwin could administer authoritarian correction and, on behalf of Hugo, rebuke America for being a nation populated with capitalistic pigs, or what Baldwin might define as “a rude, thoughtless little pig” with no “brains or … decency.”

In the end, removing Larry Palmer from contention for envoy to Caracas may ultimately benefit Venezuelan-American relations to a level never imagined.  A contingent of potential ambassadors made up of Marxist actors, pudgy liberal comedians, communist apologist/directors, libertarian socialist linguists, and an impeached ex-president with a penchant for fine cigars could provide the opportunity for Obama to rekindle a beloved friendship and finally share that steamy pile of totalitarian tortillas with like-minded comrade and reconciled socialist/soul mate Hugo Chávez.

Camp Chávez

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

No one could accuse Hugo Chávez of not putting everyone else’s money where his mouth is.  Recently, the Venezuelan socialist president “shared the wealth” and invited 25 families who lost their homes to temporarily move into Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas.

Chávez’s sleepover guests are the victims of Venezuela’s worst weather catastrophe in 50 years, which brought with it severe flooding, mudslides and death to untold numbers of people.

In addition to putting up cots in the palace, Venezuela’s Sugar Daddy is exploiting the opportunity to further indebt the indigent by providing housing to thousands of government-reliant citizens whose coveted cardboard and tin huts were washed away in the floods.

According to Chávez-issued Presidential Decree 1,666, the one chance a person has to ever own property on the side of a mudslide-prone hill in Venezuela is to prove the home was built by its occupant. Renowned for “radical disrespect for the sanctity of private property” and determined to prevent property ownership, Hugo Chávez invested “284 million bolivars ($66 million USD) in the purchase of the new homes,” funded, built and owned by the government and paid for “based on economic ability.”

We know that there are people who can pay more, others who can pay less, and others who can’t pay anything… The necessity for housing is large… I assure you that [President] Chávez has ordered the housing projects to be accelerated… This housing complex has 1,138 homes … fully equipped with furniture and domestic appliances including refrigerators, stoves, and washing machines.

Thus far, Chávez has been consistently lackadaisical about the deplorable living conditions the Venezuelan people endure and has done little to provide adequate housing for the majority who dwell in barrios riddled with abject poverty, violence and despair.

Ramshackle homes are crammed on top of one another, and crime is rampant on the narrow, garbage-strewn streets and stairways. In many places, they are vulnerable to collapse in the mudslides often triggered by frequent downpours. Some lack sufficient electricity supply and telephone access, and their water is delivered by trucks two or three days a week.

Chávez, doing what all good socialist dictators do, in a familiar defensive diatribe “blames the [housing] problem on his free-market predecessor.” Now, after eleven years of neglect, Hugo has suddenly decided to share his “piece of the pie” with a small band of dispossessed houseguests whose lean-tos were washed away in a muddy avalanche.

Twenty-five nomadic “rains chaos” victims will trek, muddy shoes and all, to downtown Caracas, where they will bunk in a “spacious, whitewashed palace.” A communal spirit of camaraderie is sure to fill the palace along with the wafting aroma of peasant-prepared Pabellón Criollo, cooked in the security personnel-provided  “huge kitchen …20 families can use.

“¡Viva Chávez” supporters exalt Hugo as the first leader in the history of Venezuela to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of the poor.  Others say Chávez is a savvy “populist seeking votes with gimmicky measures that fail to address the South American country’s underlying problems,” first and foremost of which is inadequate housing for millions.

Nevertheless, if setting up a campground inside the presidential palace is all it takes for Chávez to gain the support of those who directly suffer from his socialistic policies, maybe in the run up to 2012 Barack Obama can follow a revered mentor and open the White House to those who’ve lost homes to foreclosure.

Obamas take a break from vacationing to attend two major galas and big reception this week

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Nothing refreshes a hard working couple coming off an exhausting month of vacationing like changing into eveningwear and moving right into a “packed social schedule…with two major galas and a reception for college athletes.”

So it is for perpetual vacationers Barack and Michelle Obama, who hold firmly to the tenet “All work and no play make Barack and Michelle a dull couple.” Thus, the twosome alternate between vacations and play as often as humanly possible.

The duo’s upcoming packed social schedule starts with the President welcoming “collegiate star athletes to a White House reception.”  Obama and Michelle will honor exceptional student athletes “in more than a dozen sports.” With any luck, before the evening party, work-a-bee Obama will have an opportunity to work over the hardwood with a busload of dribblers.

After resting up the next day, the First Lady will throw on her haute couture and Mr. Obama will “don black tie” for the annual Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gala.  Two former White House guests, percussionist Shelia E and Mexican-American/ “Desperate Housewife” Eva Longoria Parker, will both be honored with awards for being… well, for being Hispanic.  Also receiving kudos is five-time Grammy award-winning trumpeter Arturo Sandoval who may be called upon to royally toot during the President and First Lady’s entrance into the event.

The Congressional Hispanics will also be graced with the presence of non-Hispanic icons like Harry Reid (D-Nev), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) and Ground Zero mosque supporter, New York’s very own tolerant Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all of whom pride themselves on being Hispanic in spirit.

The next day, after sleeping in, Barry and Michelle will select outfits for the next big function, “the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s (CBCF) annual Phoenix Awards dinner.  The dinner will mark the culmination of the foundation’s 40th Annual Legislative Conference.”

Honorees will include: New Jersey State Assembly Speaker and Democrat Sheila Y. Oliver, as well as actor and humanitarian Harry Belafonte. Everyone knows Harry Belafonte of “Day-O” fame – he’s the Democrat and liberal activist who called President Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world.” The Banana Boat honoree believes Black Republicans are “tyrants,” and whenever overcome with affection for Hugo Chavez, breaks out in an over-enthusiastic “Viva la Revolucion.”

The CBCF function would almost be worth attending just to see if Barack and Michelle Obama jump to their feet and give a standing ovation to a passionate supporter of the “socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.”

Also being honored is 88 year-old retired Washington Bureau Chief for JET Magazine, (new home to Desiree Rogers, former White House social secretary), Simeon Booker. Choreographer and former artistic director of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre Judith Jamison, fresh off a gig at the White House dance party, is also an honoree. Mrs. Obama praised Jamison for being an “amazing, phenomenal, fly” woman and did so while saying “It’s a good thing” over and over and over again.

After enduring one star-studded affair after another, two very tired wild-and-crazy party animals will climb into a gas-guzzling Cadillac Stagecoach and slowly make their way up the gravel driveway outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Once inside, the First Couple will take a short reprieve from unending merriment in order to regroup and gain the strength needed to continue to inflict mayhem on the rest of the country.

Danny Glover Keynote Squawker – American Thinker Blog – May 11, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

Following presidential example, Danny Glover decided to express sentiment toward America not in words but by failing to place his hand over his heart during the color guard presentation of the American flag at Utah State University’s commencement ceremony.

Keynote speaker and ardent supporter of socialist regimes, Danny Glover, “told The Salt Lake Tribune after the ceremony that he doesn’t typically cover his heart during flag ceremonies and he meant no disrespect.” Heck if President Obama doesn’t adhere to the United States flag code and is exempt from putting his  hand over his heart during the pledge, why would a Hollywood actor be held to a different standard?

Glover, defended his action claiming, “I was listening to the national anthem and paying attention. I probably wasn’t the only one in there who didn’t put a hand over their heart.”  Glover can say that again!

Apparently graduates and those in attendance largely approved of Glover’s irreverence toward the flag and National Anthem, “intermittent booing throughout the graduation was largely overpowered by clapping and cheering.”

Glover was unbowed by patriotic student criticism, which was deemed “stupid,” “rude” and “disrespectful” by Lethal Weapon fans in attendance.  Largely, many students considered Glover’s behavior neither, stupid, rude or disrespectful.  In fact, Danny Glover was  “rewarded with a standing ovation by the majority of the large crowd,” similar to the type of lauding, Barack Obama often receives when showing contempt toward the nation he leads.

Glover said this isn’t the first time, “I’ve been booed before. People have problems sometimes with what I believe and who I talk to.” Danny Glover said, “I try to respect people, honor them.”  For Danny, when it comes to insolence and detestable behavior, the actor restricts obnoxia to the American flag and the country that brought him immeasurable wealth and success.

“It was the crowd surrounding [Glover’s] critics that finally quieted the disruptive yelling.” Morgan Jackson, “who came to watch her cousin Sidney Allen graduate,” said “the constant booing a few rows behind her was ‘irritating’.”  Excuse me, Morgan; were Danny Glover’s manners inspiring and refreshing?

Jackson said, “You would think you could let this be about the people who were graduating today.” Morgan opined the hecklers “probably didn’t know anyone graduating and only came to cause a scene.”  Not that Danny was causing a scene or sending a subliminal message.

A black USC football player said “it meant a lot, after being a minority on the Logan campus for four years, to have Glover accept an honorary doctorate. The celebrity’s speech, which highlighted many advances for minorities in the past 63 years since Glover’s birth, was inspirational.”  Apparently on the left African American advancement includes pardon for unpatriotic, impious conduct.

Glover, close friend of Venezuelan environmental President Hugo Chavez, inspired graduates by sharing the opinion that “global warming is real and that climate change is a human-rights issue, as well as an environmental issue,” bringing many to their feet in agreement.

UNICEF good-will ambassador, Glover also “talked about the dangers of Arizona’s proposed immigration Senate Bill 1070 and about his efforts to fight work-force discrimination and poverty in places such as Haiti,” but failed to mention UNICEF’s support for groups advocating worldwide slaughter of the unborn.

Beckoning New Age power honorary doctorate Danny Glover told graduates at an institute of higher learning, “Maybe with all our force, all our conviction, all our humility, all our understanding, we can make something get done.”

And hopefully accomplish that end without placing our hand over our heart or exhibiting respect for the nation offering all of us every opportunity for success?

Latin American Lessons Learned

Slide1In a representative democracy fear of displeasing those who have the power to keep you in office was once a deterrent for politicians.  In America the voice of a largely center right majority served to dissuade politicians from moving the pendulum too far left.

Following the Republican Revolution in the 1990’s even Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to shift to the center. Under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party won control of both houses of Congress, sending a clear signal to a Democratic president to align with public opinion or suffer the embarrassing fate of serving one term.

Presently, we have a Chief Executive whose daily actions and statements are only surpassed by the absurdity of what he says or does the following day.  Actually, the more the public rejects a particular policy the more Obama insists on imposing it.  Barack Obama’s hard left; liberal initiatives are worrisome.  But, even more disturbing is Obama’s lack of trepidation concerning the consequences of implementing policy in spite of public objection.

Suffering “…the worst third quarter decline in public approval rating of any elected president in the post-World War II era,” Obama audaciously remains determined to inflict socialistic policy on a nation with strong opposition to everything from stimulus to universal health care. Undeterred by the gallows of Election Day, Obama forges ahead, caring little about the result of continued diminished popularity.

The President of the United States might as well be robbing houses in broad daylight.  Begging the question, why is Barry such a risk taker?

Take for example, at the Summit of the Americas, rather than avoiding tyrants, Obama specifically sought an encounter with Dictator Hugo Chávez’.  And why not, Barack Obama and Chávez’, together with Honduran President Zelaya are ideological amigos? Recognition of the Venezuelan leader indicates a troubling comfort level on Obama’s part with Chávez’s modus operandi establishing, orchestrating and maintaining power.

Chávez is a university level lecturer on a subject Obama majors in and Manuel Zelaya, the lab rat. Barack Obama is well aware that new friends and Members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have extended term limits in unscrupulous ways. In addition to embracing their Marxist economic policies, is President Obama considering circumventing Constitutional restrictions by utilizing the retention methods of fellow socialist compadres? Could a US President be mulling over setting aside what he considers a “flawed,” “hypocritical” document and using Latin America as an alternate route of escape from the wrath of disgruntled voters?

In 2007, under Hugo’s communalist tutelage, Venezuelans’ voted on a referendum to “…lift presidential term limits to censor the media, suspend civil liberties and allow the government to nationalize private property.” Presently, Chávez mentee, Barack Obama, is systematically completing the assignment of repressing opposing views, looking for ways to control the Internet, nationalizing every branch of the private sector and appointing Supreme Court judges who hold biases against private property rights.

Based on attitude and actions it appears Barack Obama is an outstanding student, furiously jotting down vocabulary words in his marbled Composition notebook like “labor unions,” “the poor,” “socialist populism.” Only time will tell whether, Obama included “Constitutional crisis” on that list.

As a precursor to taking a shot at establishing an indefinite term in office Zelaya labored to cultivate the proper political climate.  Hugo Chávez tutored Manuel Zelaya on how to gain “…the support of labor unions and the poor.”  However, the Honduran, “…middle class and the wealthy business community feared [Zelaya] wanted to introduce Mr. Chávez’s brand of socialist populism into the country.” Sound familiar?

Wearing a signature ten-gallon cowboy hat and in a brazen abuse of Chávez-encouraged power Zelaya then attempted to circumvent the system and establish himself as Honduras’ president past the January 2010 deadline. To assist the undertaking, Hugo generously sent truckloads of ballots to Honduras for a referendum vote to rewrite the Constitution and overturn Presidential term limits.

In June, Zelaya was ousted by the military with the approval of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Honduran political and business leaders argued that, “…the military coup was a legal response to Mr. Zelaya’s attempt to rewrite the Constitution and seek re-election.”  This particular constituency was astute enough to recognize Zelaya’s, “deepening alliance with Venezuela’s leftist president, Hugo Chávez.” Ya think?

Yet, Barack Obama openly supports Zelaya being reinstated to power saying, “America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies.” A US President, supporting an attempt to rewrite the Honduran Constitution with the help of Hugo Chávez should alarm every American that loves freedom and abhors tyranny.

A perplexed Washington Times questioned Obama’s support for the toppled leader,

You can understand someone like Mr. Chávez pleading [Zelaya’s] case. That egomaniacal Marxist is in the oppressive process of destroying rights, legal traditions and the Venezuelan middle class. He is in the process of making the poor poorer in the name of anti-capitalist equality, and he would like company. But dear heavens, how in the world can the Obama administration call for Mr. Zelaya’s reinstatement…here’s a fear – that this administration has deep, abiding sympathy for socialist solutions.

An even greater fear is having the leader comporting himself in a manner similar to Chávez and Zelaya.  The President carries on making outrageous policy decisions and ignoring public opinion as if the only one that dictates whether Obama remains in power is Obama.  Like a killer unphased by the death penalty, Obama’s worrisome attitude and disturbing dismissal of the citizens of this nation is alarmingly similar to ideological peers in Latin America.  Next thing you know Barry will show up at a press conference sporting a Stetson Rancher.

Some observers say, “Mr. Zelaya’s attempt to change the laws should serve as a lesson to anyone attempting to tamper with democracy… and are sort of clearly moving in undemocratic ways.” Exiled and deposed by the government and speaking from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Zelaya emphatically, contends he is the democratically elected leader of Honduras and should be returned to serve out his office, repeatedly intimating an eerily familiar, “I won!” In the same way, Obama ignores declining public support the toppled Honduran leader remains impervious to discipline and fails to recognize the error of his ways.

The 2010 and 2012 elections draw near it remains to be seen whether Zelaya’s disciplinary expulsion has taught the socialistic-wannabe in the White House anything about how democracy works and the consequences of making an effort to achieve personal power by means other than a fair, sound Constitutional election. Either way, Obama can always count on “divisive and demagogic leader” and friend, Hugo Chávez to propose creative ideas about how a comrade can secure an extended tenure in office without the hindrance of a democratic election.

Chavista’s Constitutional Coup League

APTOPIX Honduras CoupThomas Jefferson said, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Throughout history, oppressed people tend to eventually rise up against dictatorial leadership and demand freedom.  Barack Obama, who should champion the cause of liberty, appears to endorse repressive governments and leaders and admonish the actions of those fighting to attain or maintain independence from tyranny. President Obama exhibits a disturbing tendency to support government regardless of which side of the law they err on.

When Iran sponsored an illegal election Barack Obama failed to condemn their action for days.  He stood by refusing to get involved for fear of appearing to “meddle” in Iran’s affairs.  According to information gathered from Iranian province, the reformist challenger, Mousavi won the election, “…getting 65 percent of the votes cast.” Ahmadinejad prematurely claimed victory, with the support of the theocratic mullah’s, prompting protests when the Iranian people demanded fair and free elections.  Obama’s response to the accusation of widespread irregularities and the premature closing of polls was lackluster at best.

Obama exhibited unspoken support for the government of Iran and refused to strongly condemn the action being taken against Iranian pro-reform, freedom fighters, while they were being bludgeoned with government sanctioned batons and bats.  Looking to Obama for support, all the reformists got was weak acknowledgement for their courage followed up by a supportive government clarification, “…I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs.”  While Obama proclaimed respect for Iran rule, plainclothes militia rode through the crowds on motor scooters, axing peaceful protesters to death with sovereign government approval.

Then, when Honduran military rose up against President Mel Zelaya, who decided to change the countries constitution to extend his term limits in the style of Castro, Ortega and Chavez, Obama quickly denounced patriotic defense and sided with the dictator.

One has to ponder why the president of the United States would be sympathetic toward  the Honduran leader who decided he was above the law?   Zelaya determined his nation’s constitution required a re-write, to extend time in office without the approval of a constitutional assembly, in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro…and Obama sides with Zelaya?

In fact, Zelaya, with the assistance of Hugo Chavez decided to declare the vote on his own and had the Venezuelan president ship him ballots.  The Honduran Congress and the Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional.  Refusing to be curtailed in his quest for dictatorship, Zelaya, “…led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.” The Honduran military, in defense of the nation’s law, arrested Mr. Zelaya  and exiled him to Costa Rica in what is being considered by chavistas, throughout the region, and now even here is America, a military coup…and Barack Obama sides with Zelaya?

What hombre chavistas, Chavez, Castro,  Ortega and Obama fail to mention when defending the overthrown dictator is that the military acted, “…on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution.”  Why an American president would “lash out against” the Congress and military of Honduras defending its law and Constitution should be a red flag to every American who knows that Barack Obama has opined that he considers the Constitution of the United States a “flawed” document. The Honduran people have stated that they, “…want to live in peace, freedom and development.” Why does Barack Obama side with a dictator who wants to deprive those basic God given rights?

Barack Obama’s exhibits affection for Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and exerts an obvious desire to placate an Iranian despot while apologizing for all things American.  Obama neglects the blood of the Iranian people drenching the streets of Tehran and demands the return of Zelaya to Honduran power, in spite of the threat he poses to the laws and Constitution of that nation.  When the “hope and change” cloud of deception dissipates and the “forest can be seen from the trees”, Obama’s warmth toward despotic dictators should leave the cautious observer a tad apprehensive.

The question arises as to why Obama sides with government regardless of whether they are sponsoring false elections to entrench dictators, hacking peaceful protesters to death with machetes as they peacefully march for freedom, changing the legal constitution of nations, breaking the law or defying their Supreme Courts? 

Could it be that Obama fears aligning with the masses against the government, because it could impact his own authority in the future?  If Obama agrees with the people, he allies against himself and threatens his own dearly held autonomy and ability to exercise government control or presidential decree if the need should arise.   

If Obama challenges the authority of the Iranian government or Honduran president he puts himself in the position of being challenged by the world community for diktats he deems necessary against his own citizenry.  Lack of intervention affords the American president the ability to say that he expects the same respect for his decisions as he extended to governments and presidencies by supporting their sovereign decisions.

Obama appears to be so committed to government control that bullets, axes and illegal ballots trump democracy, freedom, liberty and legality.  Obama’s slow response to condemn violence against pro-democracy reformers is juxtaposed against his rapid-fire response condemning the supposed military coup in Honduras.  Obama’s defense of the Honduran president’s illegal actions in re-writing the nation’s constitution to accommodate his desire to extend term limits is something that Obama seems to empathize with.

The American people need to analyze their president’s actions, non-actions, silence and statements.  His intrinsic beliefs are revealed by whom he supports and whom he chooses to condemn. Barack Obama’s lack of desire to stand up for  freedom fighters, while defending tyrannical governments, despots and dictators, illuminates who Obama is aligned with politically and what he may have planned for our Constitution, our future elections, as well as our nation’s highly esteemed liberties and freedoms.

The First “We All Hate America” Debate


In a “…season of new beginnings” the hope and change President Barack Obama has expressed he “…would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leader.” The Iranian dictator has responded by saying he would welcome a debate with the president if it was held in an unbiased, anti-Semitic venue like the United Nations. As a concerned resident of the global community it is unlikely Barack Obama would decline such a gracious opportunity to interact face-to-face with the maligned despot.

The Iranian leader is preparing the debate arena by drawing a chalk line across the floor. In hopes of wooing Obama to the conversation Mahmoud is industriously removing stones and rocks by rejecting “Western proposals for Iran to ‘freeze’ its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions.” In addition, Mr. Mahmoud is warming up the dais by delineating additional margins for his opponent by the friendly dispatch of warships to, “…international waters and the Gulf of Aden…indicative of his country’s high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country’s shore.”

Hopeful that Barack Obama will agree to the contest, Mahmoud is also preparing the pre-debate fallow ground by bald-facedly precluding their discussion by saying, “…the dispute over his country’s nuclear program is ‘over’.” Obama will likely agree to Mahmoud’s qualifications or he would be setting preconditions of his own after vowing to the global community to have none. If Barry favors bantering with the Iranian dictator, which would be a photo opportunity not to be squandered, submissively steering clear of nuclear issues and a surrendering all preconditions would make Obama the precondition dupe.

In an attempt to justify his positions, Ahmadenijad appears anxious to engage the novice American president in direct dialogue about things he has been openly discussing worldwide since January 20th, which is “the origin of the global problems.” Mahmoud is probably more than willing to review with Barack his unending punch list of apologies and address US culpability as the origin of most global woes, a subject the US president is adept at reiterating every chance he gets. For Ahmadenijad a debate with Obama could evolve into a convivial love-fest replete with duplications of Obama’s derogatory American sentiments.

Debate is supposed to be verbal interaction between people with opposing viewpoints who argue to make their position known in an attempt to convince their opponent to convert to their way of thinking. This would not be the case if Obama agrees to an Ahmadenijad repartee. For a mediocre debater like Barack Obama, debating Ahmadenijad would merely be an opportunity to win a contest, or at least score a respectable draw by sparring with a challenger who shares analogous opinions on  his own anti-American views.

Obama agreeing to debate could benefit both he and Mahmoud, furthering both their agendas. They could enlist CNN Palestinian sympathizer Christine Amanpour to frame all the pertinent questions. 60 Minutes, interviewer Mike Wallace could set the tone by allowing Ahmadenijad the time to confront Obama on how the United States has been disengaged and sought to dictate their terms to the rest of the world. Obama, who is of same opinion as the Iranian dictator, can then recap exactly what he expressed at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain Trinidad.

Ahmadenijad can then proceed to tell Obama that the United States is an, Israel loving nation at war with Islam and accuse America of breaking trust with the Eastern Hemisphere. Barack can concur by saying, “It is true that the trust that binds the United States with places where the Muslim faith has been practiced has been strained because of past administrations?” He can then guarantee that, “We are not at war with Muslims, especially not Iran,” which will surely warrant break time for kisses on both Obama’s cheeks and a big Persian hug from his new found comrade.

Addressing the global economic crisis Ahmadenijad can verbally indict the, “Leaders of the Western bloc … for trying to extend their own crisis to the rest of the globe to portray it as global.” Again, Obama can come along side his Iranian fellow world citizen and agree, “It is true that the economic crisis that the world is experiencing started in the US?” Before the first buzzer goes off Barack Obama can fit in taking responsibility, apologizing and coinciding with Iran’s tyrant that he is in fact correct emphasizing he too is relieved that the United States’ has lost high standing in the world. Obama’s full accord should result in Ahmadenijad breaking out in a full unbridled bandari dance.

After he calms down Mahmoud can then express gratitude to Obama for wresting banks out of the hands of the Zionist bankers who are largely responsible for the world’s financial woes. Then Mahmoud can thank the UN for sponsoring the debate acknowledging with pride their long history of rightly felt anti-Jewish bias and condemnation of Israel in much the style and manner of Barack Obama’s long time mentor and pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright . Barack can express to the panel that even Reverend Wright would agree that notwithstanding His Jewishness, “…had He been alive today, Jesus Christ would be on the side of Iran, not the West.”

Impartial journalist Christine Amanpour can then address Bush’s “war mongering” approach to the Middle East and the former president’s past mistakes in the same manner Obama has expressed the world over. Mahmoud can offer unfettered praise to Obama for exposing Bush for the failure he was. Ms. Amanpour can touch on Bush’s counterterrorism policies and refer to them as torture and then both Ahmadenijad and Obama can in unison give Bush a duo thumbs down reaching between podiums for a customary fist bump.

Obama can remind his rival that even his newest compadre Hugo Chavez felt George W. Bush was responsible for the world’s economic crisis and desired to see the ex-President put on trial. Mahmoud will likely suggest to Obama that Bush be tried for his economic foibles at the same time the administration prosecutes him for war crimes and torture…Obama might be apt to applaud Mahmoud for such an obviously efficient proposal.

Mahmoud can again stress discussions are “Over” concerning Iranian nuclear proliferation aspirations and thank Mr. Obama for his submissive attitude on the subject. If Obama ruffles a tad, Mahmoud can tamp down his reaction by rearticulating how, “Regardless of what Mr. Obama says, even he has admitted that ‘All too often the United States starts by dictating…and they don’t always know all the factors that are involved.’ Obama has even said, America needs to listen more…even the president of the Great Satan admits mistakes and lack of perfection. So why Iran should be forced to comply with their wishes?” When Obama is slated to reply he can again be of the same mind as the Iranian despot saying, “You have an excellent point there my brother.”

Three quarters of the way through the debate, it should be evident that every quarrel Ahmadenijad has against the United States has been one that Obama has commiserated with. Even Christine Amanpour might be forced to ask the obvious question, is this any way to run a debate?

Addressing the high level of agreement between the two world leaders Obama, speaking on his own behalf can then express to the CNN reporter, a beaming Ahmadenijad and a slack jawed Mike Wallace. “I’ve always been someone who’s brought people of different views together by trying to reach a higher level of candor and honesty and understanding. Moreover, that has worked well for me…always addressing our own imperfections. I want to understand my Iranian brother’s hurts, pains and feelings.” Mahmoud will obviously be so thrilled with Obama’s response he will likely embrace the president and squeeze him to the point of bear hug embarrassment.

Obama may be forced to push the Iranian leader off and point him back to his stead. After regaining his composure Ahmadenijad can then turn to Barack Obama and thank him for never stringently opposing his nuclear ambitions. And, in an effort to finally end the Middle East crisis, for understanding Iran’s jihad justified desire to wipe Israel off the map. He can express appreciation for Obama by admitting that even though the Persian culture might be a little different he is relieved he can exercise candor and honesty without the risk of the American president instituting new sanctions, threatening military action or going beyond stating, “Let me be perfectly clear…this is unacceptable.” Ahmadenjad can convey overwhelming gratitude that Obama’s supercilious rhetoric is never followed-up by action!

Obama can then conclude by telling Ahmadenijad that exposing America’s deficiencies has worked well in bringing people of different views together. It won him an election! It has become the hallmark of his inexperienced, anti-American, leftist agenda presidency, gaining him new likeminded colleagues all around the nuclear obsessed world.

Wrapping up Obama can acknowledge that without a word of decent he accomplished the impossible his first successful debate tie with both parties in complete concurrence.

%d bloggers like this: