Hugo Chávez compares his wounded pride to the suffering of Jesus Christ

Royal insult echoes persecution of Christ, says Venezuelan leader
Rory Carroll in Caracas and Paul Hamilos in Madrid
Tuesday November 13, 2007
The Guardian

Hugo Chávez is not shutting up. Venezuela's president stepped up his verbal counter-attack against the Spanish king yesterday by comparing his wounded pride to the suffering of Jesus Christ and Latin America's colonial oppression.

Three days after Juan Carlos urged Chávez to "shut up" at a summit it was the latter doing all the talking while the king retreated into silence. The "explosion" of royal disdain betrayed an enduring colonial superiority complex, the president said upon his return to Caracas. It echoed not only 500 years of imperial power and abuse, but also the persecution of Christ.

Should he accept the king's injunction to shut up, "the stones of the people of Latin America would cry out", said Chávez, paraphrasing a comment by Christ in Jerusalem shortly before his crucifixion. The Venezuelan information ministry issued press releases identifying the relevant part of the Bible.
The self-styled socialist revolutionary also suggested that Juan Carlos, whom he referred to as "Mr King", supported a coup which briefly ousted him in 2002.

At a reception in the royal palace in Madrid - Juan Carlos's first public appearance since the summit - the king made no reference to Chávez's allegations, The spat began on Saturday at a summit in Santiago, Chile, when Chávez accused the former Spanish prime minister, José María Aznar, of being a fascist. The king interjected: "Why don't you shut up?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2210129,00...

Enough problems here in the USA to worry about.

And I was critiqued when I suggested he had a megalomania problem!!!



Where dat crown o'thorns, there, bro?

And where-d holes in yer hands an' feet, dere?

When is the well fed fellow gonna drag the cross up the hill for the amusement of the rabble?

and they're smearing him with delusions. I told you guys, these are going to be three really LONG weeks ahead of the vote.

the tiniest thing to prove they were right about Chavez all along.

And, here we have bushit talkin' to "god" and sayin' he was told to bomb the shite outta Iraq and he fucking sleeps like a baby and our m$$$$$mwhores just yawn some more.

lol

That well-known fount of right-wing propoganda.

Did you know the Beeb also echoed WH lies about the US-backed coup in Venezuela? You know, cause they're also not a "well-known fount of right-wing propoganda" (sic)

Hmmm?


Might want to at least *consider* being more careful about content, instead of assuming any outlets are 100% pure and unable to lie for the corporatocracy... and judging information on its merits, rather than the source.

That's pisspoor logic, right there. There actually can be more than one crazy, halfbaked leader on the world stage...REALLY!!!!!!!

you could accuse me of the same thing.

lol

Come on, this is just silly. The guy uses a literary allusion and all of a sudden, he's Christ? If I quote Lear, does that make me Edmond?

lol

You just don't COMPARE YOURSELF to JC.

Well, maybe YOU do, but in most predominantly Christian countries, it IS considered poor form. No matter how much parsing anyone tries to use to get around it.

But hey, whatever.

No dissent. The Southern Hemisphere Santa can do no wrong.

Que Viva Chavezuela!

but if you need to bray against Chavez for some reason that I don't really want to explore, please, be my guest.

lol

had NOTHING TO DO with the remarks? That POOR BUSH was being "misconstrued?" That's what you are doing here:


Should he accept the king's injunction to shut up, "the stones of the people of Latin America would cry out", said Chávez, paraphrasing a comment by Christ in Jerusalem shortly before his crucifixion.

The Venezuelan information ministry issued press releases identifying the relevant part of the Bible.

I failed to find that comparison in the quoted statements from Chavez, with your degree in National Security perhaps you can decrpypt that coded comparison out of the text.

I would suspect he would have to say something as literal as "Much like Christ, I..." or "I am just like Jesus in that..." before any of the choir around here would give it any credence. Actually, nah, they still wouldn't.

But he was the one using biblical references. It makes him look as though he believes he's such a put upon martyr, and that isn't going to help endear him to those in the world who are sitting on the fence about him.

MAdem.

it.

You get it..it's so transparent.

But hey..Que viva Chavezuela!!

I get it!!

Say nothing negative about the red shirted fatman!!!

It's against the Chavezuela rules!!

No dissent!!! No discussion!!! The dictator has decreed it!

His acolytes obey!

lol

really bad.

I presented a rather straight forward analysis below that indicates nothing of the sort. Please show me exactly how the quote from Chavez and the related passage in the bible (Luke 19:40, but be sure to read all of Luke 19 to get the full context) demonstrates an absurd use of metaphor in the given situation (being told to shut up by a king) and extreme hubris.

are accusing him of HUBRIS.

LOL

that, OK?

He's already packed the legislature, like BushCo did during the Frist years. And they're doing his "Que Viva Chavezuela!" bidding. The crap he's pulling makes BushCo look like rank amateurs.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/10/18/venezuela.... /

How long would you put up with this SHIT in the US? We only do this kind of crap to "furriners!!"

...(The Constitutional) amendment, if approved, would allow President Chavez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law," Vivanco said.

These include the presumption of innocence and rights to a fair trial, to an attorney, against self-incrimination, for a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him, and against double jeopardy, he said.

The proposed amendments would eliminate limitations on how long a state of emergency could last and the requirement that a constitutional tribunal review the suspension of rights during times of emergency, Vivanco said.

They also would get rid of language requiring that any such decree "meet the requirements, principles and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights," he said.

Advocates of the amendments have cited the ill-fated 2002 coup attempt against the socialist president as evidence of the need for constitutional reform.

But Vivanco disagreed. "Recent Latin American history shows that it is precisely during states of emergency that countries need strong judicial protections to prevent abuse," he said. "Otherwise, what has historically prevailed is the brutal exercise of power."

From the Lefty Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2193346,00...


As part of the same package of changes presidential term limits will be abolished, allowing Mr Chavez, who seldom seems to sleep or take time off, to continue his hyperactivity for some time to come.

Critics say the two proposals are directly related: the six-hour proposal is a populist sweetener to ease the constitution's passage in a December referendum which will give the president the right to stand for continuous re-election. They have also criticised a proposal to suspend due process in "emergencies", allowing citizens to be detained without charge.
Under the existing constitution the 53-year-old soldier-turned-president, first elected in 1998, is obliged to step down when his current term ends in 2012.

Opinion polls suggest the new charter, which the Chavista-dominated congress is due to vote through this month, will be endorsed in the referendum as the president is popular among the poor majority, although some remain sceptical.



This article is a beaut, it speaks from the perspective of both the supporters and opposition--a bit lengthy, but worth it: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=4...

On Sunday December 2, Venezuelans will return to the voting booths to ratify or reject two slates of constitutional reforms, 33 of which have been proposed by President Hugo Chávez and 36 additional reforms made by the National Assembly. Included in the proposed reforms to Venezuela’s 1999 constitution are an increase in the presidential term from six to seven years and a removal of the two-term limit, a shortening of the work week to 36 hours, the suppression of the right to information during national emergencies, the elimination of the autonomy of the central bank, increased funding for communal councils, the creation of new forms of collective property, the requirement of gender parity in positions of public office, and the recognition of Afro-Venezuelan groups, in addition to indigenous groups included in the previous reforms.

This mixed bag of proposed reforms has provoked polarized reactions across the country, and from international observers. The familiar cries of “dictadura” (dictatorship) coming from the opposition camp are no surprise, but the student protests coming out of the main public and private universities of Caracas, and the renegade voices within Chávez’s own administration have caused some confusion over where the fault lines lie. Some social movements supporting Chávez have been concerned that retrogressive proposals are mixed together with progressive reforms, making it difficult to campaign and vote on the issues as a bloc. What is at stake in Venezuela’s upcoming reform referendum? Does the outcry over the reforms signal yet again the frustrations of a thwarted opposition in its ongoing tussles with the government, or is there something more at play?

It is important to understand the anatomy of the various social forces who have thrown their hat into the ring. The long-term anti-Chavista camp, opposed to the proposed reforms, is divided over what strategy to take to the reform referendum. Some opposition parties, including Primero Justicia, Un Nuevo Tiempo, and the Christian Democratic COPEI have begun a campaign to encourage people to vote “No” to the reforms. By contrast, the National Resistance Command, which includes opposition parties such as Acción Democrática (AD), Alianza Bravo Pueblo and Bandera Roja called for a boycotting of the referendum and have mobilized people in the streets for their cause, although the AD retracted this position and joined the “No” campaign just a few days later. Like in earlier moments, the opposition’s indecisiveness and its inability to come to a united decision about how to confront Chávez has weakened its political impact.

In a surprising move, Chávez’s former Defense Minister Raul Isais Baduel who had played an important role in restoring Chávez to power during the 2002 coup, also came out against the constitutional reforms and urged people to vote “No” in the upcoming referendum. The former army commander described the changes as a “coup d’état” that would concentrate further power in the hands of the president, saying that there was no need to overhaul the 1999 constitution. Some were concerned that the defection of a senior military personnel could have an impact on the armed forces, but so far there is no indication that this should be the case. It also seems that Baduel’s opposition stems from his concerns over the proposed changes to Article 328, which would require changes to the structure of the Armed Forces.


.....As can be seen from the criticisms coming from social movements and commentators supportive of the Chávez government, it is possible and necessary to criticize the state’s attempts to monopolize power, not in the name of a procedural democracy, as the free-market proponents of the opposition would have it, but rather in the name of a substantive democracy that puts decision making power in the hands of people organized within communal councils, assemblies, and popular organizations. On this account, “participation” is not limited to campaigning and mobilizing people to vote in the recall referendum on articles that have already been decided by a small group of representatives. It aspires to a local level of decision making that would have people themselves determine the content of their laws and institutions.







The Shah did "land reform" to con the peasants. Hugo gives 'em a shorter work week in exchange for the opportunity to suspend the Constitution anytime he says "Emergency, Emergency, Everybody To Get From Street!!!" (The reference for that line is Alan Arkin in {i]The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming FWIW.)

You'll be able to fly to the top of the Rockefeller Center tree with those wings before they take it down this year! Bush could take lessons from the guy on "how it's done," but he waited too long--he doesn't have his rubber-stamp legislature like Hugo does, anymore.

very worrisome.

benevolent and timid son of an Army Colonel who took control of his country by decree.

A dictator is a dictator. Abrogation of democracy is DICTATORSHIP.

I've lived in one. It ain't fun.

Last of the monarchs, actually.

And what do you mean, "took control by decree"? He took over after his father was forced out.

His son, Last of the Monarchs? Are you mad???? By that standard, the 'last' is actually Little Reza, the middle-aged son of Shah, in exile in suburban MD. And HE has kids, too.

REZA Khan, the shah's daddy, TOOK OVER the country, deposed the existing monarch, wiped his ass on the Qajar Dynasty, and made HIMSELF the Shah. He had no "royal" pedigree. He was the son of an Army man, from a small village, who 'made good' and allied himself with the Brits, who helped him and other cronies with whom he was associated to achieve power.

He followed HIS father into the Army, rose through the enlisted ranks, to the officer corps, and made his bones as an Army Colonel, just like HIS daddy did, eventually promoting himself to General.

Then HE MADE himself the SHAH.

And he passed on the crown to his boy.

Before Reza Kahn, there WAS no "Pahlavi" dynasty!!!!

You really should check these things before you get didactic. It saves embarrassment.

A rather sunny history of the man: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/reza_shah/reza_shah....

In 1911, serving under the overall command of Abol Hossein Mirza Farmanfarmaian or called Farmanfarma (The prime minister of the time) Reza Khan took part in battles against Salar al-Doleh who was attempting to topple the Government in Tehran and reinstate his brother Mohammad Ali on the throne. Reza gave a good account of himself in that campaign and was promoted to First Lieutenant. His proficiency in handling machine guns elevated him to the rank equivalent to Captain in 1912.

By 1915 he had come to be regarded as a brave and fearless soldier and was handpicked by his successive senior commanders to accompany them on military expeditions. Reza Khan's military reputation, his native intelligence and professionalism served him well and he soon became well known by some prominent Iranians in Tehran and other provinces. By 1915 he was promoted to the rank of colonel. .......In 1918 Reza Khan was referred to as a Brigadier General in the campaign of Cossacks in the Kashan area against the bandits. ....Reza Khan became prime minister of the new regime in 1923. He negotiated the evacuation of the British forces stationed in Iran since World War I in 1924.




In 1925 Reza Khan deposed Ahmad Mirza, the last shah of the Qajar Dynasty, and was proclaimed shah of Iran. He changed his name to Reza Shah Pahlevi, thus founding the Pahlevi dynasty.

And yeah, I know HIS DAD unseated the prior guy... but THE shah didn't... so... whatever.

I see you're still as charming as ever.

I told you that SHAH, the guy who deposed Mossadeq, was the son of an Army Colonel.

That is FACT. I gave you a cite to prove it. Your post "inferred" that he came from "royal" stock, and was the 'last of a monarchial line.' He did not and was not. He came from career military stock, that assumed power by force.

What's with the "charming as ever" crack?

Look, I'm not the one who is didactically "correcting" with false facts. You are.

If you got your facts straight in the first place, and didn't try to pull that finger wagging BS when it turns out you're dead wrong, you wouldn't get your little feelings hurt.

It doesn't thrill me to have to correct your incorrect assertions, BTW. But when you suggest that I am shopping one, it's a vested interest, you see.

The last one... The one most commonly referred to as "The" Shah...

Oh nevermind.

Yes, the cack... that comes from experience "debating" with you.

Have a nice day.

is KING. Shahinshah is King of Kings, i.e. Emperor.

Yeah, "nevermind" all right. You're dead wrong. I call you on it, and you get all pissed off because you couldn't pull a snow job of superiority, like you usually do.

And then, still you go for the cheesy, snark-laden put-down. Like you're persecuted, or something, or I'm being "mean" to you because I correct a falsehood you assert about a country that is not foreign to me.

You have one of those nice days, too.

Okay, man... whatever...

Peace.

monarchial assertions, that you made in post 130, and again, I called you on it. You can't do this kinda stuff on a message board and get away with it--see, your previous responses are up there for all to see.


But OK, man, whatever....



Peace.

Monarchs depose each other all the time.

The last monarch doesn't HAVE to be a blood relation to the FIRST monarch to be considered the last monarch. Does that clear it up?

I didn't want to have to go to the trouble of spelling all that out because honestly... I don't see much point. We've gone rounds on other issues and I've come away with much the same bad feeling from the lack of honest discussion and your propensity for shouting and cackling and that sort of thing.

Seriously... communication doesn't have to be this difficult or contentious. Peace.


and in case you're wondering what I mean about your shouting and cackling here's your FIRST response to me:

Uh, the Daddy shah WAS an ARMY COLONEL. Jesus!!
His son, Last of the Monarchs? Are you mad???? By that standard, the 'last' is actually Little Reza, the middle-aged son of Shah, in exile in suburban MD. And HE has kids, too.

REZA Khan, the shah's daddy, TOOK OVER the country, deposed the existing monarch, wiped his ass on the Qajar Dynasty, and made HIMSELF the Shah. He had no "royal" pedigree. He was the son of an Army man, from a small village, who 'made good' and allied himself with the Brits, who helped him and other cronies with whom he was associated to achieve power.

He followed HIS father into the Army, rose through the enlisted ranks, to the officer corps, and made his bones as an Army Colonel, just like HIS daddy did, eventually promoting himself to General.

Then HE MADE himself the SHAH.

And he passed on the crown to his boy.

Before Reza Kahn, there WAS no "Pahlavi" dynasty!!!!

You really should check these things before you get didactic. It saves embarrassment.



Do you see the nastiness?

Particularly when the monarch is booted off the throne by force of violence, and the booter decides to make himself king after the fact.

There was a gap between the Qajar and Pahlavi 'dynasties' too.

If you don't like my tone in my reply you cited, above, look at what I was responding to--you "corrected" me, when you were wrong.

then to you, that legitimizes being rude and nasty to them?

And what difference does it make if they're wrong? Is it that you think if someone contradicts you and they're right, then you have to be polite about it? But people who are mistaken don't deserve civility?

Okay.

What you are trying to tell me, and what isn't true, is that the Qajar and Pahlavi Dynasties are part of the same "line" when they aren't. You're the one getting annoyed when I point out that this distinction is IMPORTANT to anyone with roots in Iran or who has an understanding of the people and culture, to say nothing of those who think accurate history, not propaganda, counts for something.

That's like trying to suggest that Fidel Castro was heir to Fulgencio Batista's regime. Certainly, one followed the other, but that occurred as a result of force of arms, not an inheriting of the mantle, a passing of the torch. It's both a distinction and a difference. If that hurts your feelings, well, it's not intended. But the point matters. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

A lot of people didn't know that, either!!! In fact, I think you're the only one who "knows" that.

Of course, what's more likely is that you have a problem with a definition of a word, or two.

Most world leaders who are sane compare themselves to Jesus, and compare their struggles to those of Jesus. Especially when a figurehead tells them to callate.

YEAH, that's the ticket.

My concern for your opinion is about equal to your concern for mine.

I said, already, I GET IT!!! Que Viva Chavezuela!!!

Please, dictator, don't take me to the reeducation camps!!! That red shirt makes you look...THIN!!!!

The press made the comparison.

Oh, Christ.

made damn sure the "press" UNDERSTOOD what he meant.

indeed!!!!

Here, one more time, with feeling:

Should he accept the king's injunction to shut up, "the stones of the people of Latin America would cry out", said Chávez, paraphrasing a comment by Christ in Jerusalem shortly before his crucifixion.

The Venezuelan information ministry issued press releases identifying the relevant part of the Bible.

I get it. You don't.

Hugo Chávez compares his wounded pride to the suffering of Jesus Christ

(He didn't say that.)

Royal insult echoes persecution of Christ, says Venezuelan leader

(He didn't say that either.)

He quoted a suffering/persecuted Christ, in the context of the remark by the King, and his very own PRESS SECRETARY (not the mean old Chavez-hating press, his very own Dana Perino) made goddamn sure the PRESS took the point by handing out the Biblical quote--just so the stupid heathens would not MISS THE POINT that he WAS, in fact, QUOTING Christ.

How tortured can your excuses get? Jesus Christ, indeed!!!!

But hey--que viva Chavezuela!!!

Why would a dictator quote "headlines?" Your effort to pretend he didn't mean what he clearly, plainly meant makes no sense.

He sure did do what those headlines said he did--he quoted JC in the context of Christ's persecution, and made sure that his press secretary let the media know who he was evoking.

¿Constitución? ¡We don´t need no stinkin´ Constitución!

Hyperbole is something one would expect in his repertoire.

cross of yours hugo. Sheesh, can't he just let it go. Talk about ego.

Or you'll get what's coming to ya!!!

Que viva Chavezuela!!!!

No dissent!!


Toe that line!!

Wear that red shirt with PRIDE, now!!

President for Life Chavez, Ruler of Chavezuela, is Our One True Lord!

lol

Que Viva Chavezuela, who will fuck his constitution so hard that it will make what Bush has done to ours look like a peck on the cheek.

Que Viva Chavezuela!!

No DISSENT!

Whatever.

as I have quoted elsewhere.

He is going to destroy Venezuela, and replace it with "Chavezuela" on 2 December; he intends to crayon over the Constitution in ways that would cause riots in the streets here in placid, sleepy, who-gives-a-shit America.

Guilty until proven innocent, does that sound OK to you?

Chavez can declare a state of emergency and suspend ALL LAWS except his decrees, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, without ANY judicial check--does that sound good, too?

Even his DEFENSE MINISTER doesn't like it.

But it's probably gonna pass, because he's giving everyone, all those poor slobs who just can't see past their next meal, to their children's bleaker futures, a 36 Hour Work Week!!! Wheeeeee!!!!

I am appalled at the slavish support of this dictadura.

It's just incredible to me.

knee jerkish posts on these threads.

You have a prediction for Venezuela? Cool -- don't expect me to take it as fact.

You don't know that EX defense minister has his own agenda, cool. Please don't make me explain it to you.

Every Western democracy has a provision for states of emergency. If it's codified, it can be challenged unlike in Pakistan where Mussarif is making it up as he goes along.

The proposed reforms have been actively and systematically debated all over the country. And with a lot more skill and thoughtfulness than you have seen fit to bring to this thread.

state of emergency that can be declared by a single individual, with no check or balance, that can last forever.

You gripe about reading, and you don't even read what I offer you. In VZ, if these laws pass, it will NOT be able to be challenged. Guilty until proven innocent. No rights.

Chavez, who makes fun of kings, will be EMPEROR-DICTATOR and all of the power of the state will be vested in him if he declares it so.

Franco did the same fucking thing. And he hung on, doing that State of Emergency shit, for DECADES.

that describe the proposed reforms in detail and that do not come pre-distorted from the BushCo backed opposition. There are some in the Latin America forum. You might want to compare them to the hit pieces you've read so far. They might surprise you.

They all start out with good intentions. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is not rocket science--Dictators suck.

Anyone who tries to mitigate or justify the rule of ONE PERSON, without ANY input from the people (for their own "unwashed peasant" good, of course) has a serious problem.

And all of the well meaning "proposed reforms" do not, can not, and will not mitigate the fact that if you are in VZ and Hugo wants you shot, it's bang-bang time for you. No lawyer, no trial, no nothing. You're guilty because HE said so, and you're DEAD because HE said so.

You can't be a progressive in favor of representative democracy and support Hugo Chavez's "reforms." He's buying off the poor and dumb, who are selling off their freedoms and rights foolishly and trustingly, with a shorter work week.

Don't try to tell me that the EVIL media has made up the fact that he will be able to wield absolute power at the snap of his fingers, either. That is bullshit--the proposals are that ALL POWER can be vested in Chavez simply by HIS decree. To say nothing of him controlling all the money, all by himself.

But hey, whatever. Que Viva Chavezuela. Knock yourself out.

couldn't be directed towards something that really mattered.

Would you like to live in a society where you can be arrested without charge, held forever, not allowed legal counsel, guilty until proven innocent, convicted by the decree of one man, who can declare a state of emergency forever and put the mantle of President for Life upon his person?

Yeah--things that REALLY MATTER, eh? I see people whining and crying quite dramatically that Bush is TRYING to do these things here.

Guess what? They VOTE on that shit in VZ on 2 DEC. And the trade-off for the poor, unwashed, stupid people going to the polls? Let Uncle Hugo take care of everything--you can trust him, you have so far, and he's been fine, isn't that right? Yes, let Uncle Hugo worry about all that government stuff, and you get.....(drum roll) A SHORTER WORK WEEK!!!!

Your willingness to flush the democracy of Venezuela down the toilet is more than a little off-putting.

I've lived under dictators--it is a soul-crushing experience.

I think they're really just obsessed. Rational thought doesn't seem to enter into what passes for 'debate' in that crowd.

telling people what they have to believe to be a progressive.

Fuck that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I support much of what Chavez has done. At the same time, I recognize that he's a bombastic egotist. And this remark, and continuing peevish fit about this minor incident, demonstrate that he's exactly that.

but post so consistently against other progressives and take positions here that are anything other than progressive. For example "I support much of what Chavez has done" but you join in with the rightwing chorus of anti-Chavez folks. Did you even read the quote and try to analyze what Chavez actually said vs. what you were told it meant?

I am not policing anyone. I simply asked why you behave the way you do here, as I find your stances in these discussions in contradiction to your stated positions on issues. Unlike some of the rightists on this board, I am not calling for a purge of anyone or demanding anyone be silenced or alerted on. I just asked why. And as usual, the answer is some complete distortion.

or call it purity cop if you wish. Sorry, I can appreciate some of what Chavez has done, without succumbing, as you and others have done, to the cult of personality surrounding him. But I've noticed you have a tendency toward hero worship- something I straight out abhor. I'm wary of all power. Period. You find some kinds of power just dandy. Have fun with that.

I see lots of obsessive hatred of the guy... and lots of bizarre fixation on the political goings on in Venezuela (where the people actually DO elect him... so... )

I also see lots of claims that people who attempt to counter WH/CIA attempts to discredit this elected leader are somehow "worshiping" him or members of a "cult"... it's really baffling. The reason it's baffling is because this same group of people can seem to differentiate between substance and bullshit if it's about dems... but if it's about CHAVEZ they go into fits to try to rationalize the framing of him as a madman / dictator / whatever.

It's quite puzzling.

et cetera

a murder victim holding a bloody knife and DUers will still admire him as... Jesus incarnated?

But watch him saying something positive about Bush or the U.S.A and all of a sudden he will be a pariah on these pages.

lol

The article cited contains exactly one relevant quote from Chavez: "the stones of the people of Latin America would cry out". That does not translate at all to the headline: Royal insult echoes persecution of Christ, says Venezuelan leader.

Chavez is not comparing himself to the Christian god, he is paraphrasing Luke 19

39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"

40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter...

Meaning of course not that Chavez is the messiah, the clear implication of Yet Another Hit Piece, but that he has a duty to the people of Latin America to not shut up on the demand of kings. In this quoted section those ordered to 'keep quiet' are the disciples, not Jesus. If the author of the Guardian article wanted to be at all accurate, Chavez was comparing himself to a disciple of Christ, a messenger of truth in the Christian mythology, not to Christ himself.

In cultures as overwhelmingly Catholic as is Venezuela, making these sorts of biblical references to current situations is evidence of a Catholic education, not of a messiah complex.

Should he accept the king's injunction to shut up, "the stones of the people of Latin America would cry out", said Chávez, paraphrasing a comment by Christ in Jerusalem shortly before his crucifixion.

THAT is what this second flap in the same day is about.

Come on, context, now--he quoted CHRIST in relation to himself...and just in case the dumb press didn't get it, his Tony Snow did this:

The Venezuelan information ministry issued press releases identifying the relevant part of the Bible.

That's called making a deliberate comparison, and making SURE the unwashed Trotskyites listening to his diatribe "get" it.

Geezus on a trailer hitch.

you'd SURELY be as blase about it.

Come off it.

There's no misreading going on here, save by you. You're being deliberately obtuse, because it's all about Que Viva Chavezuela...

lol

press the passages from the Bible, just to make SURE that the dumb, atheist press knew where that quote was coming from.

But thanks for playing! I've never seen such tortured excuses made for a dictator in my life!

Aznar es facha y el Rey es un asqueroso lameculo.

Hace poco minutos llegarán los malditos lamearbustos.

as cannibalism and some posters would buy it. It's just hilarious in a way. But all those Bush lickers who helped get our people killed never got this kind of attention, did they?

Between our emperor.....oh I mean president........and The Whole Global Warming Hoax I have to much to think about than a fool like Chavez feeling persecuted. His words are about as sincere as bush's and thats not at all.

Claim to not care, but post about what a fool and a liar he is.

Welcome. Enjoy your stay.

lol

I see a pattern here.

Did you see the article in the NY Times today about his repression of students who are against his dictatorship?

I recognize the genre. By the same people who brought you your war.

That would be Hit Piece #3 for this week alone. BushCo is not happy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/world/americas/10vene...

Students Emerge as a Leading Force Against Chávez
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: November 10, 2007
CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 9 — Finding Yon Goicoechea, a leader of the nascent student movement protesting the expanding power of President Hugo Chávez, is not easy. He changes cellphones every few days. After receiving dozens of death threats, he moves among the apartments of friends here each day in search of a safe place to sleep.

In an interview this week in a back room at one such residence, a villa in a leafy district in this city, Mr. Goicoechea described the movement that has supplanted traditional political parties in recent weeks as the most cohesive and respected challenger to Mr. Chávez’s government.

“We believe in exhausting the democratic options available to us through peaceful action,” said Mr. Goicoechea, 23, who studies law at Andrés Bello Catholic University here, referring to the students’ opposition to a constitutional overhaul. In the polarized world of Venezuelan political debate, such parsed and polished statements are rare.

But what about the claims, from Mr. Chávez and his loyalists, that the students ultimately want to oust him from office? “We want social transformation, not a coup,” Mr. Goicoechea said. “The real coup d’état is coming from Chávez, who wants to perpetuate himself in power.”


snip

That is a private school for the wealthy, for the same group that has been busted for using scripts and choreography supplied by the oligarchy. Over and over.

If you read the whole article, you'd know that. I hate to burst your bubble, but don't presume it's just rich kids marching against that little tinhorn dictator. MAybe there are people in the country, rich and poor, who don't want their rights trampled. Gee, ya think?

to suck the life out of the country.

Last week this same group set fires and carried signs explicitly calling for violence and tried to break into a government building. They're not just students peacefully demonstrating just as Chavez didn't say he was Christ.

And if this is the kid you're referring to --

'“I live in Catia,” said Ricardo Sánchez, 24, a student leader at Central University, referring to a conglomeration of slums on Caracas’s western fringe. “I leave home at 5 in the morning, and I have to go home very early so the thugs won’t attack me.

“This reform doesn’t solve those problems,” Mr. Sánchez continued, referring to the proposed constitutional overhaul.'

--he's talking about a police problem, crime not government suppression. And since all the student groups are planning further actions, it's difficult to see how they're rights are being "trampled".

Venezuela: Disturbing Plan to Suspend Due Process
Chávez Supporters Seek to Suspend Rights in Emergencies
(New York, October 16, 2007) – A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela’s National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.

This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chávez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law.
snip
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/16/venezu17104.htm


Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression
(Washington, DC, May 22, 2007)—The Venezuelan government’s politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country’s oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm

This is an explanation of that change:

Among the more controversial of the reforms put forth by the National Assembly on October 15th, Article 337 calls for the suspension of some political liberties during a national emergency, including due process and the right to information. Similar limitations on civil and political rights were in force in Venezuela in the past, most recently in the 1961 Constitution. This reform has been hotly debated by lawmakers and across Venezuelan society. Progressives and supporters of President Chavez have also raised concerns, hoping to elevate the debate.<6> However, it is fully consistent with international law, which recognizes the right of governments to limit certain rights in extreme circumstances. Article 4 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Venezuela on August 10, 1978, notes, “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant."<7> Certain rights, however, would still be guaranteed such as the right to life, freedom from torture, disappearances, and going incommunicado.



Similar laws outlining the imposition of a state of exception or a state of emergency are in place in many of the world's prominent democracies, including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Spain and the UK. In the U.S., the 1976 National Emergencies Act allows the president to invoke a state of emergency and limit certain rights – including the right of habeas corpus – for up to two years. There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976 and 2001 in the United States.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And as far as RCTV, that has been gone over on this board a brazillion times. This is what FAIR said:
Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

/oops it's->its

They either need the OK of another entity, like a judiciary or legislature, or they have a TIME LIMIT.

Chavez's proposals have NEITHER. He snaps his fingers, and he makes it so.
Forever, if he so desires, or at least until he croaks.

That's why Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian agencies are fucking APPALLED by this effort at a power grab.