Viva Chavez! Blog

Viva HispanTV!

2012-01-31T18:05:00.001-08:00

Forget nuclear weapons; Iran knows how to hit below the belt. Knowledge is power, and the simple truth may be the most potent weapon known.

But will Iran's new HispanTV be a truthmonger, or will it be nothing more than another propaganda machine? The cruel irony is that HispanTV's reporters could lie their asses off 24/7 and still appear more credible than the U.S. media, which lie their collective ass off 24/7.

But there's really no need to lie or disinform, because HispanTV has an ocean of truth on its side. Merely exposing the truth behind the United States' relations with Latin America and the Middle East could be devastating to Wall Street.

If it sounds like I'm an instant fan, I am. I learned about HispanTV the same day the media began discussing a new flaring of tension between Argentina and the UK. The problem? The Falkland Islands, which the British stole from Argentina long ago.

Potentially valuable offshore gas and oil reserves are apparently part of the equation, but dispatching a state of the art warship to the Falklands didn't help.

Let's face it: The UK can't hold on to the Falklands, its last South American colony, forever. The entire continent of South America is already free of U.S. military bases, except for Colombia.

As Latin Americans increasingly ally with China, Russia and Iran, it's only a matter of time before the entire continent rids itself of Yankee Imperialism, Wall Street or whatever you want to call it, once and for all.

After that, the revolution will have nowhere to go but north, through Central America and into Mexico, which is ripe for revolution. After its economy collapses, the U.S., with its enormous and growing Hispanic population, may be ripe for revolution, too.

I look forward to the day that HispanTV replaces Fox News' right-wing fairy tales with some real news.

Viva la revolucion!

Links
Hispan TV connects Iran, LatAm states (PressTV, Jan. 31, 2012)
HispanTV

Hugo Chavez condemns Gaddafi's assassination

2011-10-21T16:31:00.000-07:00

Once again, Hugo Chavez is probably the only world leader to state the obvious - that Africa's brightest star, Gaddafi, was assassinated. Every world leader who hasn't said something similar is a disgrace.

God, I wish Hugo Chavez would turn his guns on Bill Gates, probably the greatest living symbol of corporate corruption. Speaking of which, why is Bill Gates virtually ignoring Latin America even while he races to help Monsanto recolonize Africa? Is it because Gates knows that Chavez and his allies won't put up with Gates' exploitation masquerading as philanthropy?

Gaddafi remains an enigma; he led a very unusual nation in a troubled region with the CIA breathing down his back - and 90% of what we read about him in the corporate media was one big lie. I really can't say much about Gaddafi's bad side, as the record is simply too muddled, but he did some outrageously good things the media never credit him for, just as the media ignore the simple fact that Hugo Chavez stood up to George W. Bush and Exxon.

Viva la revolucion!

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez says Muammar Gaddafi's death is an outrage

Obama: Latin Whore

2011-06-18T18:25:00.000-07:00

Mr. Change You Can Believe In / Nobel Peace Prize Winner (aka Obama) has acquired quite a reputation. Like George W. Bush, Obama is regarded by many as a traitor and war criminal, largely because he is a traitor and war criminal.

Members of the black community are beginning to refer to Obama as a “21st Century house nigger,” while many Africans see him as the figurehead for a new colonialism. To millions of Muslims around the world, Obama represents genocide.

Quite an honor for America’s first biracial president, who claims to be a Muslim born in Kenya.

Obama can now add a new feather to his multicultural cap - Latin whore.

Of course, Obama never has been a friend of Latin America, even if he isn’t overtly hated as much as George W. Bush was. But one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that things haven’t changed under Obama.

To his credit, Obama became the first president since John F. Kennedy to visit Puerto Rico. And what a visit it was.

In fact, it was just a four-hour fundraising trip that earned Obama some unwanted attention in the Miami Herald: Obama’s Puerto Rico visit spurs anger, discontent (Danica Coto, June 18, 2011). The first sentence sums it up nicely: “President Barack Obama may have been in Puerto Rico for only four hours, but his brief fundraising visit has unleashed a growing political furor in this U.S. Caribbean territory.”

Of course it wasn’t just about money; Obama flew to Puerto Rico “to woo Hispanic voters on the mainland in his quest for re-election.” Adding injury to insult, he offered no help or solutions for Puerto Rico’s problems, which include a soaring crime rate and even higher unemployment than in the U.S.

An unscheduled lunch date with gubernatorial candidate Alejandro Garcia - commemorated by a picture of the meeting prominently posted on the White House’s website - further angered members of the opposition New Progressive Party. Needless to say, Obama is no big fan of Puerto Rican independence.

My favorite quote from the article: “The President did not bring anything to the table. His visit only served to take away dollars, just like they take away our young people to war.”

That statement was attributed to Puerto Rican Senator Melinda Romero, who demanded an apology from Obama. She also demanded that he return the money he raised.

* * * * *

It would be interesting to see what Nuyorican (a person of Puerto Rican descent born in New York City) salsa music icon Willie Colón might have to say about Obama’s big adventure. Politically active, Colón is associated with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and endorsed Hillary Clinton when she ran for president.

(To her credit, Hillary recently warned Africans about the menace of recolonization. Unfortunately, she pointed her fascist finger at China, ignoring the NATO assault on Libya, which ties in very nicely with the corporate colonization being led by Bill Gates and Monsanto.)

Colón was once closely associated with another salsa icon - Rubén Blades. Blades is also politically active; his album Siembra (1978) is the best-selling salsa album of all time, and it’s very political. Blades has since become a prominent supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.

In the U.S., music died in the ’70s, along with the political counterculture. In contrast, the revolution keeps growing in Latin America, where a record number of left-wing presidents have formed a formidable alliance. Of course, Fidel Castro established an island of resistance in the Caribbean long ago.

Perhaps Cubans and Puerto Ricans should collaborate more on politics, just as they’ve long collaborated on Latin music and dance.

Viva la musica!

Gaddafi + Chavez vs Bill Gates?

2011-05-07T04:28:00.000-07:00

I still haven't figured Muammar Gaddafi out. There's too much I don't know about him, and the same corporate media that daily remind us that Hugo Chavez is the anti-Christ and Bill Gates is Jesus are no help.

The fact that the corporate media (and some really disgusting right-wing politicians, from Ronald Reagan to Obama) have expressed their contempt and hatred for Gaddafi tells me he must be doing something right. Based on my research and a little logic, I've begun to see Gaddafi as Africa's equivalent of Hugo Chavez.

Let me be a little more precise. While I don't regard Hugo Chavez (or anyone else on this planet) as a saint, I think he's pretty clean. In comparison, Gaddafi has been accused of carrying out assassinations in other countries (similar to Obama) and other vile deeds. If these charges are true, then I would still like to hear Gaddafi's defense before passing judgment; after all, ruling a country like Libya - a nation located near the volatile Middle East, with many citizens who identify more with their tribes than with their country - can't be easy.

At the same time, Gaddafi may be even more important than Hugo Chavez. If, God forbid, Chavez was taken away from us today, Latin America would probably continue to evolve into a stronger political bloc free of Yankee imperialism. Brazil is mushrooming into a very powerful country, and several Latin American nations are ruled by left-wing visionaries. Even Mexico is ripe for revolution.

Libya: Africa's Venezuela?

In comparison, Africa is a sociopolitical wasteland. How can one explain the fact that, as of early 2011, every African nation but Libya, Eritrea and Somalia had signed on with George W. Bush's Africom (African Command) program? And how does one explain the deafening silence from Africa regarding the role Bill Gates and Monsanto are playing in what some describe as the recolonization (or neocolonization) of Africa?

So, if Gaddafi has done some bad things, he's also done some good things; indeed, there's evidence to suggest that Libya may be Africa's most independent and progressive nation. In this spirit, crushing Libya could be a powerful blow against all of Africa.

(It's also a blow against China, which had substantial investments in Libya. In fact, some observers describe Libya as the beginning of a new Cold War, pitting the U.S. against China and fought largely over control of Africa.)

The U.S. vs Libya

But talk about the good things Gaddafi might have done or Libya's importance to African independence is largely moot; NATO has already done a good job of destroying Libya, a process it will probably continue once Gaddafi is dead.

Officially, Obama and his fellow terrorists aren't out to assassinate Gaddafi. But they've done a damn good job of targeting his residences and killing his relatives, and they assassinated Osama bin Laden (though it isn't clear if Osama was killed in 2011 or several years earlier).

I don't have a clue about Gaddafi's plans or strategy. I'm impressed that he's hung on as long as he has. I just wish his supporters had the ability to stick it to NATO...you know - shoot down some planes and sink some ships.

But it's hard to imagine that Gaddafi has any chance against NATO. My hunch is Gaddafi will be dead within the next few weeks. The only way he can avoid that fate is to leave Libya.

Political Asylum

But where could Gaddafi find refuge? Most governments in both the Middle East and Europe are in bed with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Africa is apparently in the same boat.

China might conceivably offer Gaddafi asylum, but would Gaddafi feel comfortable living in an authoritarian capitalist state similar to the U.S.?

There's been speculation that Gaddafi might seek asylum in Venezuela (Gaddafi might seek asylum in Venezuela). Unless Gaddafi has some magic card up his sleeve, I think that would probably be his best choice. In fact, it could be an awesome maneuver.

Granting Gaddafi refuge in Venezuela would obviously strain the country's already strained relations with the U.S. Of course, that would be dangerous, though it could also work against the U.S.

Free Speech

For starters, the U.S. couldn't silence Gaddafi the way it silenced Osama bin Laden. Dispatching unmanned drones on assassination missions anywhere in Latin America would ignite a firestorm of criticism and anti-Americanism. Thus, Gaddafi would be free to speak his mind - and he would be at the center of a media storm.

What kind of things could Gaddafi talk about? Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeidi accused the West of aiming "to punish Africa through Libya" and to "steal its wealth and colonize it again."

Ouch! Those are words Team USA does not want publicized. But how are they going to impose a media blackout if Hugo Chavez and Gaddafi are standing side by side, calling a spade a spade? Stupid Americans might swallow the corporate media's propaganda and manipulation, but Latin Americans will only find it more repulsive; in effect, the media divide could drive an even bigger wedge between the U.S. and Latin America.

Target: Bill Gates

And here's where things get positively evil: Chavez has long ranked as one of the most vocal critics of George W. Bush, Obama, Yankee imperialism and capitalism. Suppose Chavez and Gaddafi both turned their guns on one of the biggest capitalist crooks in world history, Bill Gates?

Bill Gates has emerged as a major menace to humanity, from helping to corrupt government and exploiting education to supporting genetically modified food and nuclear power. It may not be an exaggeration to say that Gates poses a greater threat to all of Africa than any other living person; it's certainly hard to think of anyone who's a greater threat other than Obama, who won't be in office forever.

Looking at it from another perspective,it's getting damn tiresome watching freedom fighters destroyed around the world while the evil ones - from Henry Kissinger to Obama - live in corrupt opulence and safety. Wouldn't it be nice to see a cosmic scumbag like Bill Gates forced to defend himself - and perhaps eventually run for his life - for a change?

There are also other options. Suppose Gaddafi decided to sue the U.S. - for any number of crimes, from murder to stealing Libyan assets - in an international court?

The World Needs Gaddafi

Gaddafi's death would be a staggering blow to the growing global Resistance. Wether you love or hate Gaddafi, we need him.

In summary, it would appear that Gaddafi's only realistic chance of survival is to seek refuge in another country, and I can't imagine a better - and more explosive - fit than Venezuela.

Of course, there's a problem: How do you sneak someone who's been targeted for assassination by the CIA out of a country that's under constant bombardment and surveillance by NATO? And what about Gaddafi's friends and supporters, who will likely be murdered or imprisoned and tortured by U.S. operatives? How many can be smuggled out of the country and taken to safety?

Like the proverbial captain who goes down with his ship, Gaddafi may elect to die in his homeland as a matter of honor. But if he really cares about Africa and global justice, and if he really wants a chance to strike back at the U.S., he should consider the option the U.S. dreads most: survival.

Hugo Chavez' Journalism Award

2011-03-29T22:10:00.000-07:00

“Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who critics accuse of stifling press freedom, has been given a prize by an Argentine journalism school for his contribution to 'popular communication.'”

So reports The Guardian.

The school is associated with La Plata University, which was “a hot-bed of leftist activism during Argentina's 1976-1983 military dictatorship.” Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez met there as law students in the 1970s. They later married, and Kirchner (now deceased), then Fernandez, served as President of Argentina. Both also became staunch allies of Hugo Chavez.

The corporate media's reaction was perfectly predictable: Hugo Chavez is a dictator who prefers censorship to free speech. One critic quoted in The Guardian is John Dines, a professor at Columbia University's School of Journalism in New York.

So what are my thoughts? First, screw John Dines and the Colombia University School of Journalism. Sheez, are there ANY real journalists in the U.S. these days?

We all know Hugo Chavez has a big mouth. He probably heaped more verbal abuse on George W. Bush than any other three world leaders combined. Good for him. That's what I call popular communication.

Chavez seems to shoot from the hip, and he sometimes says things that sound a little screwy. However, it's hard to really be sure because the corporate media take his statements out of context and focus on them relentlessly while ignoring all the good things he discusses.

Is John Dines as critical of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as he is of Hugo Chavez? Did he have anything to say about Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

Frankly, I think Hugo Chavez has probably done more to advance both free speech and fair speech in Latin America than any other living individual. He does appear to be at war with Venezuela's media, but is that necessarily bad? If I could be President of the U.S. for a day, I'd certainly wage war against the media whores that have made a mockery of free speech.

I'd stand up and cheer if I read about freedom fighters leaving bomb craters where the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Seattle Times headquarters used to stand. But that's another story.

* * * * *

Hugo Chavez awarded journalism prize in Venezuela

Off Base in Latin America

2010-01-17T19:33:00.000-08:00

Latin America is widely hailed as George W. Bush’s biggest failure. While the worst president in modern U.S. history (if not the worst ever) raped and pillaged the Middle East and Central Asia, he seemingly ignored the “Bolivarian Revolution” spearheaded by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

• Introduction
• Plan Colombia
• Sovereignty vs Slavery
• Reaction
• World War III?
• Why It Matters
• Revolution!
• Update
• References

The Bush administration may have helped thwart the election of a left-leaning president in Mexico. But Bush had worse luck in South America. Indeed, the Monroe Doctrine seemed forgotten as one nation after another elected a leftist president - or, at least, a leader who isn’t connected at the hip to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Dubya was apparently associated with an unsuccessful coup against Chavez. He and Condoleeza Rice made some spectacularly embarrassing visits to Latin America. In the end, Bush appeared impotent in the face of Chavez’ stinging rhetoric, one-man war against corporate bullies (note to Exxon: bummer) and international fan club. (Argentine soccer great Maradonna let the world know he’s no fan of George Bush.)

Of course, one man’s failure is another man’s victory - to intelligent people, the “Bolivarian Revolution” burning South of the Border sometimes seems the only bright spot in a world that appears to be spiraling ever downward.

Ironically, the Great Savior championed by America’s army of clueless liberals - Obama - may be a more efficient conquistador than Bush. Even as he was being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and presiding over a military coup in Honduras. More alarm bells were set off by the news that the U.S. is building new military bases in Panama, officially commissioned to help fight drug traffic. So where have we heard that line before?

Oh, that’s right - Afghanistan and Colombia.

Plan Colombia

While U.S. soldiers courageously battle Afghan poppy fields, South American cocaine production is apparently out of control. The obvious solution (to the White House) is an increased military presence in Colombia. (So why haven’t the Air Force and Marine Corps been mobilized to fight marijuana growers in the U.S.?) But Colombia’s problems go far beyond cocaine.

Colombia has long been a thorn in its neighbor’s sides, from its continuing war against freedom fighters (at least, that’s how FARC started out) to its propaganda war against Chavez to a military attack on Ecuadorian soil. But Obama may have plucked the last straw when he OK’d a deal (signed October 30, 2009) that would effectively create at least seven new U.S. military bases in Colombia. As Moira Birss notes, “Three of the bases are clustered near each other on the Caribbean coast, not far from existing U.S. military sites in Aruba and Curacao – and closer to Venezuela than to the Pacific Ocean” (where the U.S. previously focused its anti-drug activities, allegedly with great success).

The details are shrouded in secrecy - even Colombia’s Congress reportedly hasn’t been fully informed - but it isn’t hard to see what’s going on here. Team Obama is clearly gunning for Hugo Chavez. Are the Pentagon, CIA and Wall Street Journal planning an invasion of Venezuela? Are they planning on goading Chavez into making a first strike, which they can then use as justification for an invasion? Or do they simply want to establish a strong military presence that will better enable them to organize all sorts of nasty little plots designed to destabilize Venezuela?

Two things are certain: These bases are being built for a reason, and that reason will serve the Ruling Class at everyone else’s expense.

Sovereignty vs Slavery

Ironically, the greatest victim of Plan Colombia may be Colombia. Many Colombians have rightly complained that President Alvaro Uribe has surrendered their sovereignty. In fact, Article 173 of the Colombian Constitution prohibits the presence of foreign troops except in transit, and then only after legislative approval.

The most sinister aspect of all may be the fact that U.S. troops based in Colombia will be given immunity from criminal persecution. This is especially alarming considering 1) American troops’ reputation in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and 2) the human rights abuses that are already rampant in Colombia.

Consider the two U.S. soldiers who abducted, drugged and raped a twelve-year-old Colombian girl. Better yet, put it in perspective. Imagine if the U.S. allowed Israeli or Chinese military bases to be built in Kansas, and several foreign soldiers gang raped an American girl. U.S. citizens would be outraged. But when U.S. soldiers commit such crimes in distant lands, even many liberals would dismiss the thugs as a few bad apples, reminding the world that “We support the troops.” (Have I told you that I do NOT support the troops?)

But Colombia isn’t the only nation whose sovereignty is compromised by a U.S. military presence. The situation compromises the sovereignty of all South American nations. Again, a little perspective: Imagine if Russia or China built half a dozen military bases in Canada and Mexico. Right-wingers would be frothing at the mouth, and even many U.S. liberals would be roused out of their trademark apathy.

Reaction

Latin Americans certainly weren’t apathetic towards the increased militarization of Colombia. Hugo Chavez predictably wasted no time in predicting that U.S. imperialist aggression was blowing “winds of war,” just as the corporate media predictably dismissed him as a dictatorial crackpot. But Chavez wasn’t a voice crying in the wilderness. The U.S./Colombia military bases deal ignited a diplomatic firestorm that left Colombia generally isolated except for its allies in Washington, D.C. The resultant feuding tested Brazil’s hopes of molding the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), which was founded in 2008, into a vehicle for regional integration along the lines of the European Union.

After Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil asked Unasur to intervene, an Extraordinary Summit was held in August in Barloche, Argentina. At the summit, many leaders of Unasur’s twelve member countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Suriname, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and Ecuador) voiced their concerns over the intended military agreement.

While key Venezuelan allies Ecuador and Bolivia condemned the bases plan, even the more centrist governments of Argentina, Brazil and Chile expressed unease. Colombia responded with a formal complaint to the Organization of American States (OAS), accusing Chavez of “expansionism” and meddling in its internal affairs.

Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, said, “If the Colombian president wants his bases to be used, I say I want a referendum in South America so the people of Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina all 12 countries can decide.” Brazil’s foreign minister, Celso Amorim, reiterated his government’s concern. “The presence of foreign bases in South America awakens sensibilities of a political and even psychological nature that should be taken into account.”

Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez said his country opposed the establishment of foreign military bases in any part of Latin America. He said his country shared the need of keeping South America “as a land of peace.”

Adam Isacson, of the Centre for International Policy, which monitors U.S. initiatives in Colombia, wrote “The United States is creating a new capability in South America, and capabilities often get used.”

The Extraordinary Summit ended with a joint call for strengthening South America as “a zone of peace.” Unasur stressed that “the presence of foreign military forces cannot, with its means and linked resources to goals, threaten the sovereignty and integrity of any South American nation and, in consequence, the peace and security of the region.”

But the protests fell on deaf ears; Colombian Foreign Minister Jaime Bermudez and U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield signed the agreement on October 30, 2009.

Post-Agreement Reactions

In November, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, current rotating president of Unasur, repeated Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” Da Silva’s suggestion of inviting U.S. President Barack Obama “to discuss issues of vital importance for the region” with Unasur.

On December14, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA) strongly condemned the U.S. political and military activities in the region and the military cooperation agreement.

In the meantime, Venezuela has issues several reports of U.S. war planes and unmanned drones invading its air space. More ominously, Newsweek predicted that Hugo Chavez will be toppled by a coup in 2010. When the corporate media make a prediction that big and bold...well, read into it what you will. With Team Obama accelerating the war in Afpakistan, apparently contemplating an occupation of Yemen and nearly surrounding Venezuela with military bases, Chavez’ talk of war doesn’t sound so hysterical.

But I forgot to mention another country that has protested against the U.S.-Colombia bases deal - Colombia. Colombian lawmakers have themselves bitterly protested their loss of sovereignty.

World War III?

Many people perceive the United States as a dying empire on the verge of getting its butt kicked in Afghanistan. Surrounded by nuclear powers - Russia, China, India and Pakistan - along with Iran, the U.S. could get squeezed out of the Middle East and Asia.

So what does a defeated bully do? Look for someone weaker to pick on - and the United States’ perennial favorite whipping boy is Latin America. There are no great military powers there, and few Eurasian powers have ever shown an inclination to come to the aid of a Latin American nation being raped by the U.S.

But times have changed. Latin Americans have become intoxicated with the word freedom. Most South American nations are now represented by leaders that might be broadly described as leftist, with several firebrands among them. Brazil is emerging as a world power and has joined Venezuela in strengthening its military. So what nation might threaten Brazil? The answer is obvious.

Not all Latin Americans are united behind Chavez’ revolution, but the cause certainly resonates with the common people. What’s happening South of the Border is reminiscent of what the U.S. experienced during the 1960’s and 70’s. Latin Americans certainly aren’t paralyzed by the apathy and stupidity that U.S. citizens have since become famous for.

That makes a blatant U.S. military assault against Venezuela problematic. Obama presumably doesn’t want to wind up going to war with Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia - especially after being given the Nobel Peace Prize. And might such an attack inflame Mexicans, many of whom are still fuming over what they perceive as a stolen presidential election?

People who criticize Hugo Chavez for courting allies in distant lands should take another look. Whether or not you’re a huge fan of its government, Iran would be a mighty useful ally against an oil-starved bully like the U.S.

Even if a military engagement in Latin America didn’t mushroom into a global conflict, it could still equal World War II in significance. Of course, the wild card is the winner. If the U.S. wins, it will put the entire planet that much closer to corporate domination and assimilation. Imagine Haiti on a global scale. But a victory for the good guys could be the proverbial shot heard round the world.

Remember, there’s an enormous Hispanic community in the U.S. How would members of this historically maraginalized group react to an assault on Latin leaders who are standing up for the citizens who have for so long been abused by corporate interests? In other words, a Latin American War might possibly spark the U.S. revolt so many people have been yearning for.

Why It Matters

No nation has a monopoly on freedom and democracy. The torch has been passed from ancient Greece to England and on to the United States, where it grows dimmer by the day.

Canada and Mexico have both been described as the fifty-first state, and most of Central America is firmly under the United States’ thumb. (Witness the military coup in Honduras and an agreement to build new U.S. military bases in Panama.) North America is thus almost a lost cause.

In recent years, some of the world’s most spirited protests have occurred in France, Italy and other European nations. Yet most European leaders remained allied with Corporate America even during George W. Bush’s reign of terror.

Asia’s all over the map. Japan’s a U.S. puppet, while North Korea and Burma are among the world’s most evil dictatorships. China is perhaps the world’s greatest threat to U.S. dominance, but it’s hardly a cradle of democracy.

Africa may be even worse. People in some African nations actually cheered for George Bush when he visited the continent. As I write this, it looks like Africa could become another notch in Bill Gates’ investment portfolio.

That leaves Latin America, particularly South America and Cuba. Some of the strongest anti-American protests in recent years have occurred there. But the people didn’t stop at protesting; one nation after another has elected a left-leaning president. Moreover, most South American nations have united to stand up to the U.S., just as thirteen colonies once united to fight King George.

Latin America is the current guardian of the torch of freedom, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is generally regarded as the voice of the revolution. As Latin American nations consolidate their power, the revolution can only spread north into Mexico, which is already ripe for revolt. Its large Hispanic population could then help fan the flames of revolution in the U.S.

On the other hand, if the United States succeeds in stopping the revolution and once again putting all of Latin America under its corporate-fascist rule...well, we could see a repeat of the Dark Ages.

If you still don’t get it, consider this: The techniques Corporate America has used to control people in Latin America (including torture and economic sabotage) are now being applied to the United States itself. My country is well on its way to becoming the world’s premier banana republic. That’s one reason I feel more solidarity with Latin American Chavistas than I do with the brain-dead liberals I rub shoulders with here in Seattle.

That’s why all U.S. citizens should care about Latin America. Indeed, people around the world should rally behind the Chavistas.

Revolution!

But even if U.S. meddling in Latin America doesn’t lead to World War III or the Second American Revolution, it’s still just plain stupid. As a U.S. citizen, it infuriates me to see my government spending billions upon billions of dollars on military adventures around the world while everything around me goes down the toilet. The economy continues to worsen. Public schools continue to decline. The government continues to become more corrupt. The only people getting richer are global pigs like Bill Gates, who thrives off the exploitation of consumers, taxpayers and children. Indeed, Gates himself has made some forays into Latin American politics.

However, as I suggested earlier, there’s nothing trivial about the Latin American political scene. Although there were some spirited anti-Bush protests around the world, the few world leaders who joined in condemning that global bastard were almost unanimously Latin American. With the (s)election of Obama, the world was too eager to believe that all our problems had been fixed. Chavez himself seemed a little too eager to befriend Obama in the beginning, in my opinion.

But the gloves have come off. Chavez was right to criticize the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, a de facto war criminal. Chavez was right to lash out at the plan to award the U.S. military bases on Colombian soil. Brazil and other nations were right to join in the growing protest.

Do you get it? We’re not talking about brain-dead Americans who are stoned on computer games, reality TV and Fox News here. There are intelligent, spirited people in Latin America, people who are not content to let Exxon, Haliburton and Microsoft rule the world. They may be the only people who can save us from ourselves.

So, as a U.S. citizens, I say to my government: Get the Hell out of Latin America! And if you do start another war South of the Border, I will not support the troops. On the contrary, I’ll rejoice every time I read about a U.S. soldier getting a bullet in the head, just as I rejoice when learn about U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. My sympathies lie with the children who are too often victims of America’s imperialistic wars.

I also urge politically astute Latin Americans to take a closer look at Africa. One of the world’s biggest corporate predators, Bill Gates, has been waging a war to corporatize the entire continent, seeking to addict it to Microsoft software and genetically modified food - a lethal combination. I love to hear people from other lands condemning George W. Bush, Obama and members of their administrations. But let’s take the battle to another level and stick it to their corporate masters, beginning with that vile crook who dares call himself a “philanthropist.”

Vilifying Bill Gates will help educate the muddled masses here in the U.S., and it will also give the corporate media a new problem to wrestle with. Sure, they’ll call you idiots for criticizing a philanthropist, but so what? They ridiculed me when I ran for public office - six times. But I haven’t given up; I just throw their insults back in their lying faces. That’s one of the reasons I revere Hugo Chavez; he, too, knows how to use words as weapons.

This isn’t a game. It’s war!

Update

Things are happening fast! Since I began working on this article, three major events have occurred. Venezuela has claimed that its air space was violated by a U.S. war plane and unmanned drones. Newsweek predicted that Hugo Chavez will be toppled by a coup in 2010.

Finally, a monstrous earthquake devastated Haiti, the world’s poorest nation and a virtual U.S. colony. The tragic event put Haiti’s corporate masters in an awkward situation and helped publicize their one-sided relationship. Pat Robertson wailed that Haiti deserved to be demolished because it had signed a pact with the devil. That’s the same Pat Robertson who publicly declared that Hugo Chavez should be assassinated.

Frankly, I hope Venezuela offers proof of its claims of airspace violations (by drones, as well as planes) by shooting down a plane or two. And if Chavez is ousted (and likely killed) in a coup, I hope his supporters make Pat Robertson’s address very public.

There’s one more major event that could occur in 2010 - the collapse of the U.S. economy. I’ll have more to say about that on my website Great Depression II.

References

Introduction
• US Military Bases Surround Venezuela (InsideCostaRica.com, Jan. 8, 2010)

Plan Colombia
• Seven New US Military Bases in Colombia Is Hardly a Move to the Left (Moira Birss, CommonDreams.org, Aug. 7, 2009)

Sovereignty vs Slavery
• Impunity for American Plan Colombia Soldiers? (Vanessa Morris, Periodico El Turbion)

Reaction
• Outcry in South America over US military base pact (Rory Carroll, The Guardian, Aug. 27, 2009)
• Yearender: Colombia-U.S. military agreement provokes tension in Latin America (Alejandra del Palacio and Zhou Jianxin, China View, Dec. 9, 2009)
• Brazil Steers an Independent Course (Susan Kaufman Purcell, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 2010) [PROPAGANDA]
• Why Latin America is Disappointed with Barack Obama (Sarah Stephens, The Huffington Post, Jan. 7, 2010)
• As Colombian resistance unifies, government increases repression (Sam Holguin, PSLWeb.org, Jan. 15, 2010)

World War III?

Why It Matters
• USAID, Inc. (David Blomstrom, Billysoft, Nov. 13, 2009)

Revolution!
• Chavez says Obama did “nothing” to deserve Nobel (Andrew Cawthorne, Reuters, Oct. 11, 2009)
• USAID, Inc. (David Blomstrom, Billysoft, Nov. 13, 2009)

Update
• Chavez Faces Another Coup (Newsweek)

Hugo Chavez vs Bill Gates

2008-06-06T09:32:00.004-07:00

George Bush is Satan

2008-06-06T09:32:00.001-07:00

U.S. vs Venezuela: The World

2008-06-06T09:25:00.000-07:00

U.S. vs Venezuela: Latin America

2008-06-06T09:21:00.002-07:00

U.S. vs Venezuela: Venezuela

2008-06-06T09:21:00.001-07:00

Will the U.S. attack Venezuela?

2008-06-06T09:19:00.001-07:00

Is Venezuela a Threat to the U.S.?

2008-06-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

Is Venezuela's Militarization Justified?

2008-06-06T09:16:00.002-07:00

Destabilizing Venezuela

2008-06-06T09:16:00.001-07:00

Good Hugo, Bad Hugo

2008-06-06T09:14:00.001-07:00

Hugo Chavez vs The World

2008-06-06T09:12:00.002-07:00

Hugo Chavez vs Latin America

2008-06-06T09:12:00.001-07:00

Hugo Chavez vs Venezuela

2008-06-06T09:11:00.000-07:00

Is Hugo Chavez a Terrorist?

2008-06-06T09:09:00.000-07:00

Does Hugo Chavez Help the Poor?

2008-06-06T09:08:00.000-07:00

Is Hugo Chavez a Genius?

2008-06-06T09:07:00.003-07:00

Hugo Chavez' Big Mouth

2008-06-06T09:07:00.001-07:00

Is Hugo Chavez Honest?

2008-06-06T09:06:00.001-07:00

Supporters claim Hugo Chavez is a truthful, honest leader, while critics claim he's just as corrupt as George W. Bush. What do you think?

Don't miss the parallel poll and discussion.

Hugo Chavez = Dictator?

2008-06-06T09:05:00.001-07:00

Among the most common charges against Hugo Chavez is that he's authoritarian. Many critics claim he's a dictator in the making.

Supporters point out that he was fairly elected, then re-elected twice. What do you you think?

Don't miss the parallel poll and discussion.

Defining Hugo Chavez

2008-06-06T09:04:00.001-07:00

Hugo Chavez is one of the best known and most controversial world leaders of our generation. Someone on Opera's Discussions and Debates Forum suggested he "isn't a world player." Oh, yeah? How many other world leaders can the average American even name? More than name Chavez, many people around the world can associate him with the proper country - Venezuela. Ironically, Chavez may be the United States' best geography teacher.

But the corporate media are burying us in anti-Chavez propaganda, making it hard to really understand Chavez. The guy's human, and the task he's undertaking is as complex as it is vast. Surely he has some faults and has made a few mistakes. But do they hint at corruption or gross incompetence, or are they just bumps in the road? Is Chavez really an aspiring dicattor or warmonger?

The poll on the right won't answer all those questions, but it will at least indicate what people believe. (Note: #12 should read "Exploits the POOR," not "Exploits the war.") And don't miss the parallel poll and discussion.

Do you like Hugo Chavez?

2008-06-06T03:51:00.000-07:00

Few world leaders are better known or more controversial than Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Chavez is regarded by many as a global hero, yet he's demonized by the corporate media with a ferocity that's often as bizarre as it is frightening.

So how do you feel about Chavez - and why? Do you feel that you really understand the issues, or have your opinions been shaped by the media?

ANYONE can participate in the poll on the right, though comment privileges are more limited. Anyone registered with Opera can participate in an identical poll associated with a forum (link).

Welcome!

2008-05-29T17:21:00.001-07:00

Welcome to Viva Chavez!

This blog presently consists of little more than a series of polls designed to ascertain public knowledge of and attitudes towards Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The most important polls are located beneath this introduction. If you have time to participate in just one poll, please choose the first one. It's a very short, simple poll, and it nicely sums everything up.

Sorry, discussions are not allowed here, though that might soon change. However, you can discuss Hugo Chavez, these polls and related issues at Viva Chavez' Opera Group site (see link at right). You will have to register with Opera if you want to participate in similar polls on the Opera site. To comment in the forums, you will also have to join the Opera > Viva Chavez group.

Thanks for visiting!