Monday, May 28, 2007

Memorial Day Massacre

The massacre is Hugo Chavez’s final extermination of free speech in Venezuela. At the stroke of midnight, Chavez shut down RCTV in Caracas. Fox News and Al Jezeera have a pair of interesting takes.

Hillary “Evita” Clinton dispatched a top level team of observers; ex President Jimmy Carter; Michael Moore (who was willing to fly immediately from Cannes where the Euro-trash elite have feted him with the entire Continental amour displaced since the fall of Saddam); and the gruesome twosome of John Forbes Kerry and Bahama Tommy Harkin. Evita has to case study the best means of silencing media dissent should she win.

The Real Sporer’s secret police advise that Pres. Carter begged to attend. The Chavez move to fully silence the critical press will more realistically reflect the promise of true socialist democracy Chavez showed when Jimmy went global with his endorsement of Chavez’s government. Michael Moore will have to document the move for history-with all the commitment to accuracy he displayed in Fahrenheit 9.11. Danny Glover is already signed to narrate the “People’s Revolution”, dedicated to two of the left's most misunderstood icons, Mao and Pol Pot (whose attempts to clean up society in Cambodia were the direct product of U.S withdrawal from Vietnam-right again Sen. Kerry).

The Harkin/Kerry duo couldn’t miss this moment. They’ve been helping Cuba legitimize and expand Marxist totalitarianism in Latin America for over 30 years. Now, instead of poverty stricken and backward Cuba as the spawning point for the movement they have rich, young and even more hate filled Hugo Chavez, who is demonstrating a media savvy his kind hasn’t shown since Hitler hooked up with Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl, although Harkin came close at the Wellstone memorial service.

Freedom of speech, as repulsive as it sometimes is, is what makes us who we are, and why our soldier fight. The people I’ve described above reject that premise-whole heartedly. Everything they’ve done in public life has weakened that corner stone of our democracy.

Ask yourselves why and be afraid, be very afraid.


KenRichards said...

America's liberals are so anti-America they tolerate an open communist dictator. Republicans really need to tie our Liberal Democrats to Hugo as the atrocities will certainly follow such an egomaniac.

"just trust me" gave us CIETC. do not trust them. "they" are still in charge of your taxpayer $$$ said...

Voters where a proposed 1-cent-per-dollar sales tax increase will be decided in July will see ballots that place no restriction on how governments could spend roughly $2.5 million of the $75 million generated each year.

In communities voters will be asked to authorize a spending list that includes "any other lawful purpose".

The tax increase was sold as a way to renovate old school buildings and build new ones. But school administrators and school board members in some communities were later criticized for spending money on athletic fields - West Des Moines used sales tax money to pay for a new football stadium for Valley High School; Des Moines used some sales tax money to help pay for the John R. Grubb Stadium, now North High School's home football field.

Promised school improvements in West Des Moines, Des Moines and elsewhere were later delayed or scaled back when tax revenue turned out to be less than expected.

"any lawful purpose" language.

"It means what it says," said Christopher Liebig, an instructor at the University of Iowa College of Law.

"It leaves it wide open for anything they want to do that's not illegal. I don't know how else those words can be interpreted."

Dallas County and other governments included the phrase to avoid being boxed in toward the later years of a 10-year tax. He said the "any lawful purpose" language is not worth "a whole lot of citizen consternation."

I think it recognizes that circumstances change. This just allows some flexibility on the part of the government.

The language means it's not a guarantee. Then, it just comes down to a question of trust.

Any legal purpose. What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm tired of the United States screwing around with dictators.


Anonymous said...

Funny how we look the other way when proping up dictators that are "friendly" (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Too bad we aren't pushing for democracy everywhere.

the libs love Hugo. this is what they'd like to do to FOX. prevent conservatives from talking said...

we can only deal with one dictataor at a time. Heck, democrats LOVE dictators. Pakistan is working toward democracy and Musharref has done some incredible work against the most difficult of all odds in doing so.

Because Democrats won't allow us to become energy independent by drilling for our own oil on our own land, we have to tolerate a relationship with Saudi Arabia.

We do push for democracy everywhere. That's what NeoCons do. It's liberals or their preferred title, because they think it is a nicer term for liberal, don't believe in democracy. Listen to Tom Harkin talk about his admiration for Hugo.

john edwards doesn't understand national security OR poverty OR good character said...

May 29, 2007
Edwards: Slogans For Me But Not For Thee
By Tom Bevan

It takes a great deal of chutzpah for a man who's built his entire presidential campaign around the concept of "two Americas" to go out and attack the phrase "war on terror" as being "a slogan designed only for politics." Yet that's exactly what Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards did last week."

Let's start from the beginning and go slow. Of course the "war on terror" is a slogan and of course it's not a plan. It's a metaphor. Just like the War on Cancer, the War Against Global Warming, or - perhaps closer to Mr. Edwards's heart - Lyndon Johnson's famous War on Poverty.

Those aren't plans, either. They are slogans and they are made to fit on bumper stickers. But they were all designed specifically to communicate to the public that whatever it was we were declaring "war" on was something to be taken seriously - a problem we needed to devote extra attention and resources to with the ultimate goal of eradicating.

edwards thinks that his bumper sticker is a plan. his plan is to divide his two america's said...

Edwards has never found cause to question any of America's other metaphorical wars, but he clearly seems upset that we've chosen to declare "war" on terrorism. The implication is that the issue of terrorism is somehow undeserving of such a declaration.

So if we can't declare "war" on terror, can we at least "struggle against" it? Or is even "the struggle against terror" too much of a bumper-sticker slogan for Edwards' taste?

Let's hope we can at least say we're "fighting" terror, otherwise we'll be reduced to telling our allies and enemies we are simply "working" on it.

edwards has bad judgement. he thinks terrorism is less important than poverty pimping said...

I'm being facetious, but only to point out how quickly this parsing of language devolves into absurdity. Really, how is the "fight against terror" that much different from the "war on terror"?

The reason Edwards employs such rhetoric, and the reason he crafted his own metaphorical "two Americas" to effectively communicate his message to crowds, is because he believes eliminating poverty is one of the "great moral issues" facing America.

On this point we can't question Edwards' sincerity, but it certainly does bring up questions about his judgment.

Last month during the first Democratic debate, MSNBC's Brian Williams asked the group of presidential hopefuls for a show of hands from those who would answer yes to this question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Four candidates raised their hands; John Edwards was not among them.

Is the plight of the poor (in the richest country in the world, no less) really a greater moral issue than dealing with a worldwide movement of religious fanatics who slaughter innocents around the globe - including more than three thousand of our own citizens on September 11 - and whose stated mission is the destruction of the United States?

It is if you don't believe terrorism represents much of a threat to begin with.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.

KenRichards said...

"Funny how we look the other way when proping up dictators that are "friendly" (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Too bad we aren't pushing for democracy everywhere." - Anon 10:42pm

What does he think we should do differently? I agree these regimes are not good but as Iran demonstrated during the Carter years there are worse regimes in the wings.

RF said...

I have to agree regarding the terminology. Call it war on terror or whatever else, I think most reasonable people realize a problem exists and it needs to be addressed. We can disagree and debate how to best address the problem, but we really are wasting our energies when we start splitting hairs about the rhetoric.

To continue some earlier exchanges about the neocons. I have to give at least some of them real credit, the ones who have gotten serious about our oil-dependence by driving hybrid Priuses, etc. Much smarter than the idiots who bought Hummers to show their support for our troops. This is an issue where it’s great to see the left and right coming together.

Spotlight said...

Chavez is very popular in his country and he has been elected and re-elected. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

you get the government you deserve.

The Real Sporer said...

Spotlight, so is George W. I see you quite supportive of his agenda.