Hugo Chavez Statue Torn Down in Venezuela

Hugo Chávez's statue was just torn down in Venezuela. The people are rising up.pic.twitter.com/GvzyVUne9M

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 29, 2024

"The people," radical, violent Leftists, have torn down statues in the U.S., too.

A few examples:

Christopher Columbus Statues Attacked

Leftists' War on Statues

Rioters Damage Capitol

Emanicipation Memorial - War on Statues

Day of Rage

New York Times - Disgusting Leftist Propaganda Rag

One could go on pic.twitter.com/pi1Khlhn9Z

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 18, 2021

Voter Fraud - Democrats/Leftists Cannot Handle the Truth

So the votes for 30 states are sent to a Canadian firm which subcontracts its software to a Venezuelan firm that counts the votes after they arrive at a Barcelona-based firm that had a remote server in Germany?

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) November 16, 2020

Karen Halnon - Professor, Nutjob (Video)

Dr. Karen Halnon is a Penn State Albington sociology professor, and a complete loon.

From Philadelphia Magazine:

Halnon was flying from Nicaragua to Miami when she let loose with a tirade about Venezuela, possibly a reaction to President Obama’s recent sanctions against Venezuelan authorities. As is the case with all airplane antics in the 21st Century, the passengers caught some of it on video.

Once off the plane, Halnon still wouldn't shut up, spewing drivel to anyone masochistic enough to submit to it.

Can you comment on your arrest and on the videos of you on the plane that are circulating?
I do have a comment. I know that I expressed an act of civil disobedience. But that act was necessary.

Why so?
I'm very knowledgable about that part of the world. I teach about U.S. imperialism in Latin America. And the U.S. has declared war against Venezuela. That means military aggression. They tried to take out Hugo with a coup, and then they took him out with cancer.

Oh?
It is my opinion — and Fidel agrees with me …

As in Castro?
Yes, Fidel agrees with me that the CIA had some involvement in giving him cancer, and so he died very sadly.

...The problem is U.S. military global domination. And they want the oil. And they want the water. And so I found that this act was a necessary Thoreau-like act of civil disobedience. I had to speak out now. The situation is dire and urgent, and any sacrifice I make for my own self, if it saves lives — there have been far too many lives lost due to U.S. global military domination.

What happened once you landed in Miami?
The FBI and TSA tortured me. My voice generally doesn't sound like this. I was put in a room with two fans in the ceiling, it was freezing cold for hours and hours and hours. I asked repeatedly to go to the bathroom. They made me wet my pants. They humiliated me. And then to make matters worse, I have a stomach condition. Everything that comes in goes out. I've been like that for months since I left Cuba. I've lost over 30 pounds. And I was yelling that I had to go to the bathroom. But they ignored me, and I defecated on the floor. And they made me pick it up and laughed at me.

That's awful. But what of the cigarette? One reporter who covered your actions said that lighting a cigarette on a plane is just a little better than yelling "BOMB!"
Why did I have a lighter if there is such great national security? It was right in the top of my book bag.

Listen, the point is, I am a sociologist, and I live in an intellectual world. A sociologist always thinks in terms of symbols. And every revolutionary I know smokes. It was identifying with the revolutionary cause. And then, beyond that, it is a symbol that the United States is a smoking gun. The action was necessary. They are going to kill many more people.

Some people would look at that video and wonder if you were under the influence of a substance. And I know you pleaded guilty in 2013 in Horsham Township to public drunkenness. Do you have a substance abuse issue?
No. I do not have a substance abuse issue. I have had many sufferings in my life, but no. I had a little bottle of wine on the plane that I mixed with apple and cranberry juice over three drinks. A spritzer, if you will. But I wasn't drunk. I don't need alcohol to protest. This is my life.

I am passionate about being an anti-imperialist. To follow Jesus is to be with the poor, to be with the suffering, to be with the oppressed, and to be anti-imperialist.

I made some mistakes here, but it wasn't a mistake to speak out. I would do it again today. Ask anyone who knows me.

The distinguished Dr. Karen Bettez Halnon is an anti-American nut.

Will she be banned from campus? Is her career in jeopardy? Clearly, she's a sociopath and presents a danger.

I wonder how Marquette University would deal with her.

Probably give her an award.

Obama and Chavez

Let's all take it easy on the president for a few days. He just lost a very close friend.

— Matt Braynard (@MattBraynard) March 6, 2013

Hugo Chavez: Dead

Hugo Chavez is dead.

Let's move on.

Harry Belafonte: Throw Republicans in Jail (Video)

I suppose it's not surprising that Harry Belafonte, pal of Hugo Chavez, would recommend that Obama use the tactics of a third world dictator to deal with those opposing him.

From The Blaze:

And apparently, Belafonte thinks his other Left-leaning idol, current President Barack Obama, could stand to learn a few things from Chavez’s example (or someone like him). Speaking on Al Sharpton’s show on MSNBC this week, Belafonte made a strange suggestion about where Obama might want to go with his Presidential powers.

“What fascinates me is that in the face of millions of Americans expressing their desire, the whole political establishment defining its game, that there should be this lingering infestation of really corrupt people, who’re still trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama, and I don’t know what more they want. The only thing left for Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and put all these people in jail. They’re violating the American desire!” Belafonte said.

Granted, the tone Belafonte took during the final section implied that the comment might have been a joke, but with a supporter of actual third world dictators, one never knows. In any case, it is less than clear what Belafonte means by the “American desire,” though his “infestation of really corrupt people” seems an obvious reference to the “right wing” Sharpton mentions when setting up the response.

If a conservative suggested tossing the "infestation" of Leftists in jail, he would be crucified by the media.

Yes, Belafonte is an elderly man. Perhaps it's dementia talking and he should be cut some slack. If that's the case, and Belafonte's advanced age is to blame, he should not be on MSNBC, yapping about Obama jailing his opposition.

If Belafonte is in full control of his faculties, he's the enemy of freedom.

Here's video:

Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Speech (Video)

Here's the full transcript of Mitt Romney's speech at the Virginia Military Institute, October 8, 2012.

Romney pulled no punches.

Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost.

I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served. Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours. Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans.

All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss. The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked.

Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001.

This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.

No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and others on Obama's team covered up the truth about Benghazi. They lied to us. They lied about a terrorist attack planned to mark the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. They continue to stonewall.

The truth about what happened in Benghazi has not been acknowledged properly by Obama. It's inexcusable. He needs to be held accountable for his failures, and Romney is doing exactly that.

Moreover, Romney understands the real War on Women and the abuse being endured by women and girls in the Middle East. Obama calling the trumped up BS about contraception a War on Women is disgraceful. He minimizes the real threat to women posed by Islamists.

Most importantly, Romney understands that we don't achieve peace through weakness, something Obama doesn't get at all.

Obama has failed our allies and he's failed our country. Are we safer today than we were four years ago?

No.

America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden.

These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East. The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

In his address, Mitt Romney explains his foreign policy strategy, but he also gives specifics about his plan.

He understands that lofty words aren't enough. Actions are what matter. America needs to lead to keep the Free World free.

"Hope is not a strategy."

We have an opportunity here to get America back on track, at home and abroad.

We can vote to prevent conflict in the world and defend freedom by voting for Mitt Romney.

I challenge any Leftist to defend Obama's foreign policy record, to defend the indefensible.

Maria Conchita Alonso: Open Letter to Sean Penn

Native Venezuelan-born actress Maria Conchita Alonso is setting the record straight about Hugo Chavez. She wrote an open letter to Sean Penn, a staunch defender of anti-American Chavez, to enlighten him on the truth.

On Bill Maher's Real Time, Penn recently said:

Every day, this elected leader (Chavez) is called a dictator here, and we just accept it and accept it. And this is mainstream media who should... truly, there should be a, a bar by which they, one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.

Really?

Penn wants people going to prison for spouting lies?

He might want to reconsider that position, especially since he is out spreading lies via the mainstream media.

Read Maria Conchita Alonso's open letter to Penn.

I am thankful that someone from Penn's own Hollywood community has come out against his promotion of Chavez.

Video.

Hugo Chavez: UN Speech

When Hugo Chavez addressed the UN General Assembly on Thursday, he used some very stale material.

Chavez made reference to remarks from his September 20, 2006, speech to the General Assembly, appealing to Leftists in America and around the world.

He bashed President George W. Bush. All good Leftists enjoy that.

From the New York Times:

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, reversing one of the more memorable lines in the annals of speeches at the United Nations General Assembly, declared Thursday that the smell of sulfur had deserted the green marble podium.

“It doesn’t smell of sulfur here anymore, it’s gone,” said a grinning Mr. Chávez, who was one of about 40 leaders to address the assembly. “It smells of something else — it’s hope.” He was referring to the address by President Obama on Wednesday. Mr. Chávez infamously said from the same pulpit in 2006 that it smelled like sulfur shortly after President George W. Bush had spoken, and he referred to Mr. Bush repeatedly as “the devil.”

What a disgrace!

The man is a nut.

From CNN:

In a rambling speech at the U.N. General Assembly, Chavez spoke highly of current President Obama, saying he is an "intelligent man" and comparing him to President John F. Kennedy.

"I hope God will protect Obama from the bullets that killed Kennedy," he said. "I hope Obama will be able to look and see, genuinely see, what has to be seen and bring about a change."

Three years ago, Chavez spoke at the gathering the day after Bush spoke, and said the lectern "still smells of sulfur."

But on Thursday he looked around the podium and said, "It doesn't smell of sulfur. It's gone. No, it smells of something else. It smells of hope."

He did, however, criticize some U.S. policies, questioning whether there are "two Obamas."

Chavez accused the Pentagon of being behind the ousting of Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya in a military-backed coup in June. "American soldiers knew about the coup and supported it," he said. "Hence the contradiction that Obama has to face. Are there two Obamas? Obama spoke here yesterday. Does he have a double? ... Let's hope the one we heard yesterday will prevail. Let us hope. That's what the world needs."

Any criticism Chavez had for Obama was lost in the disrespect he showed for Bush, taking "political shots at his former rival."

From FOX News:

Chavez joked that he hoped no one would throw a shoe at him, a reference to Bush ducking at a shoe hurled at him during a visit to Iraq last year, and laughed that he thought the Cuban official at his U.N. desk was preparing to remove his shoes.

I don't see how there can be a new world order, as declared by Obama, when the old players are sticking to their old ways.

I think it's troubling that dictators and terrorists consider Obama to be on their side.

The "smell of hope" stinks.
______________________

Related: Chavez rants about the "stupid people from FOX News."

Chavez and Obama are on the exact same page.

flag@whitehouse.gov: Illegal?

Judge Andrew Napolitano questions the legality of Obama's new snitch program.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The term "fishy" kills me.

From FOX News:

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.

"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.

"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

...The White House said it wanted to be made aware of "fishy" comments about its health care plan because it wants to set the record straight. But critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate.

"This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog.

"This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan," Sekulow said. "And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed 'speech police.' This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care."

Sekulow said he imagines that opponents of mandatory abortion coverage are engaging in what the White House considers "fishy" speech and should be reported.

"What the White House is touting is absurd," he said.

But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that's unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.

"That's a silent violation of your right to privacy," he said.

Legal or illegal, flag@whitehouse.gov sends the wrong message.

Can you imagine what the Leftists would have done if President Bush had set up a similar snitching operation on the White House website?

They would have gone ballistic. They went ballistic over imaginary violations of the Constitution.

The White House website is the people's site. It shouldn't be a fringe Leftist outlet for intimidating fellow citizens, gathering information on them, and setting up an enemies list.

Flag@whitehouse.gov is something Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez would create.

It certainly seems like Obama is abusing his power. It's creepy. It's un-American.

How it looks matters.

Gutfeld: The Case for Punching Chavez in the Face

Greg Gutfeld makes a compelling case for punching Hugo Chavez in the face.

He first tells of a childhood experience he had with a bully. Appeasement didn't work. He then draws a connection between that tale and the Chavez/Obama dynamic.

Gutfeld writes:

I only bring this up because I now see Obama regularly engaging in dialogue with bullies - who for years have been crapping all over America. I hope Obama knows that “dialogue,” and friendly handshakes mean nothing to them. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned: you can’t rehab a bully. Bullies cannot afford to change, because their power exists only through fear, not through competence, confidence or popularity. I mean, things are so bad for Chavez at home, that shaking a fist at America is all he can do to keep the spotlight off his own corruptive incompetence.

But what’s even worse: Chavez is a turd-shaped bully we could destroy in our sleep – which is precisely why he keeps bullying. He knows that being the David to our Goliath guarantees victimhood if we decide to shut him up.

But by lecturing us on what’s wrong with America, Chavez is giving Obama a golden opportunity to do something we`d all love to see: to stand up for America, by flattening Hugo like a frittata.

I for one, would like to see if there’s something underneath Obama’s suit, other than well-sculpted abs.

In my opinion, Obama's abs aren't that well-sculpted.

And I haven't seen any indication yet that Obama has anything of value to offer underneath his suit.

Mark Levin and Hugo Chavez: Book Wars

Hugo Chavez presented Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano to Barack Obama. It was a little gift.

The book trashes America.

Open Veins of Latin America skyrocketed to second place on Amazon as a result of the little Chavez-Obama infomerical.



Chavez has as much clout as Oprah when it comes to boosting book sales.

Wait. Did I miss something? Did Oprah announce Open Veins of Latin America as her latest book club selection? Maybe I'm giving Chavez too much credit.

In any event, Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto remains in the top spot.

That's good.

Chavez Gift to Obama

UPDATE, April 20, 2009: Obama Calls Chavez Gift a 'Nice Gesture'

Obama did not make note that the book offered by Chavez, "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, blames foreign interests like the United States for exploiting Latin America for centuries.

"It was a nice gesture to give me a book. I am a reader," Obama said during a solo press conference at the end of a the summit held in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago

"We had this debate throughout the campaign. I mean the whole notion was somehow that if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us that would show weakness. And the American people didn't buy it and there's a reason they didn't buy it -- because it didn't make sense," Obama said.

"NICE gesture"?

I wouldn't call it that.
_________________

Hugo Chavez gave Barack Obama a book that attacks the United States for exploiting Latin America.

How thoughtful! It will be a great source of things Obama can use in his apologies for the sins of the U.S.

From ABC News:

At President Obama's meeting with the heads of South American countries this morning, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stood, walked over to him, and presented him with a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano.

Obama politely posed for a photograph with Chavez, shook his hand, and accepted the gift.

The book, first published in Spanish in 1971, offers a critique of the consequences of 500 years of European and U.S. colonization of Latin America.

"The division of labor among nations is that some specialize in winning and others in losing," the book begins. "Our part of the world, known today as Latin America, was precocious: it has specialized in losing ever since those remote times when Renaissance Europeans ventured across the ocean and buried their teeth in the throats of the Indian civilizations. Centuries passed, and Latin America perfected its role."

Galeano writes that while the era of "lodes of gold" and "mountains of silver" has passed, "our region still works as a menial laborer. It continues to exist at the service of others' needs, as a source of oil and iron, of copper and meat, of fruit and coffee, the raw materials and foods destined for rich countries which profit more from consuming them than Latin America does from producing them."

At another point in the book, Galeano writes: "Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others; our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others."

The book also criticizes the U.S. for "spreading and imposing family planning. ... In Latin America it is more hygienic and effective to kill future guerillas in the womb that in the mountains or the streets."

...The copy of the book Chavez gave Obama appears to be in Spanish, a language Obama does not speak.

At the start of the first plenary session at the Summit of the Americas later this morning, President Obama was asked what he thought of Chavez’s gift.

“You know, I thought it was one of Chavez’s books," Obama answered. "I was going to give him one of mine.”

What? No iPod?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Chavez: "Capitalism Needs to Go Down"

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday ridiculed the G-20 summit's attempts to deal with the global financial meltdown, saying that capitalism is in crisis and must end.

..."It's impossible that capitalism can regulate the monster that is the world financial system, it's impossible," Chavez told Venezuela's state TV late Thursday. "Capitalism needs to go down. It has to end. And we must take a transitional road to a new model that we call socialism."

Clearly, Chavez is mocking the U.S.

But in many ways, he seems to be on the same page as Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner.

We must change. We must make new rules. We must seize private businesses. We need a new model.

Obama and Geithner differ from Chavez in that they don't want to call it socialism.

Simply calling it "change" makes it so much more palatable to the masses.

We're "the masses."

Get used to it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Will capitalism be different?

TIMOTHY GEITHNER: I think capitalism will be different, and the financial system will be dramatically different.

The Rev. James L. Bevel and Election 2008

UPDATE, October 15, 2008: Rights leader sentenced to 15 years for incest

A top lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. was sentenced Wednesday in a Virginia court to 15 years in prison for incest for having sex with his teenage daughter.

The Rev. James L. Bevel was a key architect of the 1963 Children's Crusade in Birmingham, Ala., and other pivotal moments of the civil rights movement. He was convicted after a four-day trial earlier this year in Loudoun County Circuit Court.

The prison sentence was the most severe the judge could impose. Sentencing guidelines called for a term of probation and the jury that convicted Bevel recommended the 15-year sentence.

Bevel, 71, took the stand during the sentencing hearing and revealed that he was recently diagnosed with end-stage pancreatic cancer and that doctors estimate he has six weeks to six months to live. A prosecutor said that was unfortunate but that Bevel deserved the sentence.

During the trial, Bevel's daughter testified that she was repeatedly molested by Bevel beginning when she was just 6 years old, culminating in sexual intercourse in 1993 or 1994 that formed the basis of the incest charge.

_________________

UPDATE, April 10, 2008: Civil rights leader convicted of incest
_________________

UPDATE, April 7, 2008:

LEESBURG, Va. -- A daughter of a civil rights icon who served as a top lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. testified Monday that her father regularly molested her beginning when she was 6 years old.

The Rev. James L. Bevel pleaded not guilty to a charge of incest before jury selection began Monday. Prosecutors have said he had sex with a teenage daughter years ago, and told her the sex was part of religious training.

The daughter testified she grew up in a communal lifestyle in which she regularly saw her father having sex with women and she came to perceive her own molestation as normal.

She also testified that she and her siblings did not call Bevel "Dad" but instead referred to him as "Rev" or "Jim." She said she told her mother in a written letter that her father was molesting her.

The mother "handed (the letter back) to me and said I spelled 'molest' wrong," the daughter testified.

The Associated Press generally does not identify the victims of sexual abuse. The daughter is one of at least 14 children Bevel has with several different women, according to her testimony on Monday.

...An ex-wife of Bevel testified that he instructed his family and followers in the commune that it was parents' obligation to "sexually orientate" their children — meaning in her mind that they were to have sex with them.

Disgusting.
__________________


Rev. James L. Bevel

rev·er·end [rev-er-uhnd, rev-ruhnd] –adjective
1. (initial capital letter) (used as a title of respect applied or prefixed to the name of a member of the clergy or a religious order): Reverend Timothy Cranshaw; Reverend Mother.
2. worthy to be revered; entitled to reverence.
3. pertaining to or characteristic of the clergy.

Is Rev. James L Bevel worthy of his title?

LEESBURG, Va. -- A civil rights leader who worked closely with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has been charged with incest.

The Rev. James L. Bevel, 70, was arrested late last month in Alabama, where he has been living, after being indicted on one count of unlawfully committing fornication.

...According to the indictment, the crime occurred in Loudoun County in northern Virginia between Oct. 14, 1992, and Oct. 14, 1994, when the accuser was 13 to 17 years old.

Bevel, who worked with King and witnessed his assassination in Memphis, Tenn., in 1968, has played a key role in some of the country's major civil rights protests.

He organized the 1963 Children's Crusade in Birmingham, Ala., and was a leader of the Freedom Rides to desegregate public accommodations throughout the South in the early 1960s. And he was an architect of the March on Washington in 1963 and the Selma-to-Montgomery march in Alabama in 1965. He also helped organize the Million Man March in Washington in 1995.

If the charges are true, when Bevel was in his mid-50s, he was abusing a child.

A civil rights icon sexually exploiting a child is serious stuff.

What do the Democrats have to say about this?

Will the press demand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and other Dem presidential contenders condemn Bevel?

Whenever Pat Robertson says something stupid, the White House is held responsible.

The lib media consistently closely connect the statements of evangelicals with President Bush and the Republican Party.

The press had conniptions when Robertson made his lame comments about assassinating Hugo Chavez.

Robertson, 75, is a founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a supporter of President Bush, who was elected twice with the solid backing of Christian conservatives.

"I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are," [State Department spokesman Sean] McCormack said. "They are the expression of one citizen."

Note how the press associated President Bush with Robertson's personal opinion. Caracas responded as if Robertson spoke on behalf of the United States.

Jesse Jackson traveled to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chavez and addess Venezuela's National Assembly over the matter.

Rev Jackson urged US authorities to take action against Mr Robertson's statements.

"We must choose a civilized policy of rational conversation," he told reporters during his three-day visit to speak at a ceremony.

Rev Jackson later met and shook hands with Mr Chavez during the Venezuelan leader's weekly radio and television programme, the Associated Press reports.

Mr Jackson's visit is a propaganda coup for the Venezuelan president, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Caracas.

Mr Chavez is likely to use the reverend's presence to demand that the White House apologise for Mr Robertson's remarks, our correspondent adds.

All of this resulted from PRIVATE CITIZEN Robertson's comments.

But as the lib media reminded us, Bush was elected on the strength of the Christian Coalition.

OK.

Dem candidates are elected on the strength of the African-American vote.

That's what pushes Hillary Clinton into putting on her fake Southern drawl. She wants to make sure that African-Americans remember that she was the first black First Lady.

Barack Obama is certainly courting the African-American vote, adopting a similar accent. He even said that his conception was a direct result of Selma.

Bevel, of course, was instrumental in the Selma march.

John Edwards, too, wants to win over black America, recently using tool Danny Glover. Rich man Edwards is quick to fall into his poor Southern boy roots routine.

Obviously, Hillary and Obama and Edwards want to have a very close connection with African-Americans and civil rights leaders. That would include the Rev. James L. Bevel.

So let's hold Obama accountable for Bevel's behavior.

Let's insist that Hillary be held responsible for Bevel's allegedly incestuous two year romp with a child.

Let's associate Edwards with Bevel's crime.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

John Edwards, Danny Glover, and Hugo Chavez

I question John Edwards' judgment.

I don't think enlisting the help of Danny Glover is a wise move.

If by some snowball's chance in hell Edwards manages to win the Democrat nomination, his association with Glover could be a problem in an attempt to swing toward the center for the general election.
Danny Glover is a real piece of work.

FLORENCE, S.C. -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards added some Hollywood star power to his focus on rural problems, campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina's small towns with actor and political activist Danny Glover.

Glover, whose movie credits include "The Royal Tenenbaums" and the "Lethal Weapon" series, joined Edwards as he spoke to a crowd of more than 200 about increasing employment and improving education.

Glover said Edwards understands the needs of the working poor and that the campaign is telling their story. "This is a campaign about real democracy," Glover said.

The Associated Press should mention that Glover's idea of "real democracy" is the brand that his best buddy Hugo Chavez touts.

Why leave that out of the article?

Trying to make Glover seem less radical, socialist, and anti-American, I suppose.

...Edwards said the nation's need to wean itself off foreign oil could create 1 million jobs and help rural economies with the development of alternative power such as biofuels and wind turbines.

Hmm.

Is Edwards really suggesting that the U.S. should wean itself off Chavez's "black gold," "Venezuelan tea"? That must have rubbed Glover the wrong way.

Glover can't possibly want Chavez to lose oil revenue.

Chavez's Venezuelan Congress approved financing to bankroll two films to be made by Glover.

They are close friends, Chavez and Glover. Good buddies.

Remember last year when Chavez made his despicable remarks to the United Nations General Assembly, calling President Bush "the devil" and calling Americans "imperialists"?

Remember when he repeated the "devil" remark the next day at an event in Harlem?

And who stood shoulder to shoulder with Chavez, endorsing his disgraceful anti-Bush comments?

John Edwards campaigner Danny Glover.

NEW YORK -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, appearing Thursday at a Harlem Church for an oil-for-poor event, repeated his 'devil' reference hurled a day earlier at President Bush during a speech at the United Nations.

"They told me that I should be careful after I called him the devil — and I think he is the devil — because he might kill me" Chavez told a crowd packed into the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem.

"But, I place myself in the hands of God," he said.

Chavez, who was introduced at the podium by activist-actor Danny Glover, was visiting the church as part of ceremonies to announce the sale of discounted home heating oil to qualified low-income families.

The appearance came a day after Chavez delivered an insult-riddled speech at the U.N. General Assembly in which he called President Bush the 'devil.'

Danny Glover-- This is the guy, the "Hollywood star power," that John Edwards has asked to hop on board his campaign bandwagon; this high profile pal of Hugo Chavez.

Is Edwards trying to appeal to fringe Lefties in the U.S. while at the same time hoping that most Americans don't realize what a kook socialist Glover is?

I think Edwards knows that he has to gamble. He has to get support from the far Left-wing any way that he can. He can't let all of that support and cash go to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Maybe it's not a stunt. Maybe he really agrees with the Chavez-loving Glover. Maybe Glover and Edwards don't make such strange bedfellows.

Maybe Edwards really is comfortable around socialists, at least more comfortable than he is around gays.

Viva Hugo Chavez!

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel guest columnist Henry Hamilton believes that the "U.S. could learn from Venezuelan voting."

According to Hamilton, Venezuela's elections should be envied by Americans.

He writes:

As an official international observer of the recent Venezuelan presidential election, I was impressed with the level of participatory democracy and integrity reflected in that country's voting process.

I was invited to serve as an international observer by the National Electoral Council, the official independent body charged with administering Venezuela's elections. I accepted the invitation with the sole focus of traveling to Venezuela, to do as I have volunteered to do during many elections in the United States - work to ensure that the express will of the voters is realized.

I observed no evidence of fraud or any illegality with the Dec. 3 election. The express will of the Venezuelan voters was realized. Venezuela's anti-voter fraud system, including paper and electronic trails, is a model that voting rights advocates in the U.S. would envy. That is not to say there were not some glitches, such as long lines, but nothing that would cause a reasonable person to conclude the results were not legitimate or equal access to the polls was not afforded everyone.

...Venezuela makes it easy for its citizens to express their will on election day. The presidential election is held on a Sunday. The government provides free subway transportation for some who otherwise may be unable to go to a voting center. Most felons are allowed to vote, and there are voting centers set up in penal institutions.

Wow. Venezuela is a utopian democracy.

Since the government offers free subway transportation, I suppose no one slashed the tires on vans meant to transport voters to the polls, like in Milwaukee.

Venezuelan felons have the privilege to vote, so felons voting illegally isn't an issue as it is in the U.S.

I wonder if any ID or proof of citizenship is required to cast a vote in Venezuela. If not, it's hard for Hamilton to claim that there was no election fraud.

I wonder if people list vacant lots as their places of residence, potentially enabling them to vote multiple times, like they do in the U.S.

How does Venezuela prevent people from voting twice or more in the same election, Donovan Riley-style?

I wonder.

According to Hamilton, Venezuela's elections are an enviable model. They are what we should aspire to in this country.

It was inspiring to see elected officials working to increase voter participation rather than conspiring for new avenues to disenfranchise voters, which unfortunately has often been the case in our country.

What is Hamilton talking about?

Which U.S. elected officials have conspired to disenfranchise voters?

Is he talking about the Dems' efforts to get the absentee ballots of military personnel tossed out in the 2000 election?

Smokes for votes?

Maybe that's it.

With the new U.S. Congress expressing a will to re-examine the polarized foreign policy of the current administration, there is a historic opportunity to create a foreign policy that is not at odds with the sweeping changes in Latin America, nor our own business relations with Venezuela, which remains our second-largest trading partner in the hemisphere.

Some in the U.S. may not like Chavez; however, Venezuelans have soundly and democratically re-elected him as their leader.

The White House should take notice. It's time to respect the democratic will of Venezuela's voters and normalize the bilateral relations between our two governments.

Now it makes sense.

Hamilton is a fan of Chavez.

No wonder he's touting the superiority of Venezuela's elections, with Chavez beating his opponent Manuel Rosales by nearly a 23 percentage point advantage. Of course, he'd cheerlead for the legitimacy of that country's electoral process.

Hamilton is excited by the "sweeping changes" being seen in Latin America, but it should be noted that not all are friendly to the U.S.

Why would the White House normalize relations with a nutjob like Chavez?

Does Hamilton have short term memory issues?

Chavez has been relentlessly ripping President Bush.

Some of his past statements include:

--"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush. You're an alcoholic Mr. Danger, or rather, you're a drunkard."

--"The U.S. empire is defeated in Iraq, they just don't want to admit it. Mr. Donkey thought they were going to be received as heroes."

--"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush."

--"If you are going to compare me to the worst criminal in humanity - the president of the US; He is an assassin. He is a criminal responsible for genocide, completely immoral.

"I believe that he should be put in jail. He has invaded a country. Are we bombing cities?"

--"The North American empire is becoming a paper tiger."

--"If it's true that the empire is taking sanctions against us, firstly it's a confirmation of imperial abuse, of imperial desperation (and) secondly we will take no notice. It is an impotent empire."

--"Israel often criticizes Hitler ... but they have done the same thing [in Lebanon], perhaps even worse. What has happened was a genocide. They must be brought in front of an international tribunal."

And of course, who can forget the anti-Bush, anti-American Chavez rant at the UN this past September?

He called President Bush "the devil."

He called Americans "imperialists."

He complained about Bush leaving "the smell of sulfur" behind after addressing the UN General Assembly.

He said Bush's behavior is like that found in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He even gave it a title -- The Devil's Recipe.

Is Hamilton so clueless that he doesn't see a problem with Chavez?

Rather than respecting the democratic will of the Venezuelan people, I think we should be wary of their judgment.

What is Hamilton really saying?

I think he's saying that the American people should respect Chavez and his government more than they respect Bush and his administration.

What a good Leftist!

If only America could be more like Venezuela.

Is that what the new Congress has in mind for the country?

Dem Dishonesty and Hugo Chavez

The little nutjob Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is still making a fool of himself and still serving as a Lefty tool.

The little man from Venezuela is much like the little man from Iran -- severely lacking in diplomatic skills, seeing things in black and white, dangerously unstable.

Actually, Chavez is everything that the Democrats and the liberal elite claim President Bush to be.

The similarities don't end there. Like Chavez, a significant number of Dems think Bush should no longer be president. At least 38 U.S. representatives have signed on to impeachment efforts.

9% of US Congress now supports the impeachment review, including 18% of Democrats, 100% of Independents (1 out of 1), and 0% of Republicans.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (9), New York (6), Illinois (3), Massachusetts (3), Minnesota (3), Georgia (2), New Jersey (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 38 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).

Two Wisconsin representatives, Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, are supporters of "H. Res. 635, a bill which could lead to recommendations to impeach President Bush."

Interestingly, Charlie Rangel supports the impeachment inquiry, yet he was one of the very few Dems to rebuke Chavez for the comments he made about Bush during his visit to the U.S.

There's something inconsistent there, something very dishonest.

When Chavez returned to Venezuela on Friday, he continued to talk like a rabid Dem.

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launched yet another verbal assault against President Bush upon returning from a highly charged U.S. visit Friday, calling on the American leader to resign.

..."He should renounce the presidency if he has any dignity. The president of the United States has failed completely," Chavez said at the inauguration of a natural gas project in northwestern Venezuela.

I'm sure Chavez would support H. Res. 635.

...The comments coming near U.S. legislative elections have drawn condemnation even from some of Bush's critics.

Bush's political foes and fans alike condemned the remarks, U.S. newspapers criticized the Venezuelan leader, and one governor said his state is no longer interested in buying discounted heating oil from Venezuela-owned Citgo this winter.

In Boston, a city councilor said he wants to take down a landmark Citgo sign near the city's famed baseball park and replace it with an American flag.

"Given the hatred of the United States displayed by dictator Hugo Chavez, it would be more fitting to see an American flag when you drive through Kenmore Square," councilor Jerry McDermott told The Boston Herald, saying the sign — prominently visible over the left-field wall at Fenway Park — had to go.

On Friday, The New York Daily News' front page headline told Chavez to "ZIP IT!" and the New York Post called him a "jerk" and the "Caracas crackpot."

"I wanted President Chavez to please understand that even though many people in the United States are critical of our president that we resent the fact that he would come to the United States and criticize President Bush," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY., said Thursday.

Dems being critical of Chavez are hypocrites.

Why would they resent Chavez for saying what they've said?

"The imperialist government of the United States says we have failed but they are the ones that have failed in everything you see," [Chavez] said Friday.

He accused the Bush administration of fueling terrorism, claimed that both the CIA and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration were "infiltrated" by drug traffickers, and urged people to divest their dollars because new bills were being "fabricated."

In an interview broadcast Friday Chavez kept up his attack.

"I think it was a rather humorous speech," Chavez told TV and radio host Tavis Smiley in a PBS broadcast. "People were smiling."

I'm sure a lot of Lefty wingnuts enjoyed Chavez's performance and would agree with Chavez's assessment. He's a real crowd-pleaser.

Maybe CBS and Katie Couric will offer Chavez a "Free Speech" segment. Of course, they might limit his topics, insisting that he use the 90 seconds to bash Bush. That probably wouldn't be a sticking point with Chavez since I'm sure he'd do that anyway.

Lorne Michaels may be trying to arrange a cameo appearance by Chavez on SNL. The broadcast has featured other presidential nemeses. Remember Monica Lewinsky's stint on the show?

But then added, "(Bush) considers himself a god. And that is a terrible manipulation, since this is obeying interests that are against God. And since he considers himself like God, when you call him the devil, it is just to strike a balance."

Hey! That's basically a synopsis of Madeleine Albright's latest book.

If you don't see the parallels between Chavez and the radical Dems, then you are blind.

I don't like the pretense of the Dems.

As far as I know, Tom Harkin is the only fringe Leftist to endorse Chavez's views.

I don't like the games.

I have more respect for Harkin, negligible as it is, than for the Dems claiming to be offended by Chavez's remarks.

In truth, the Dems and Chavez are soul mates.

Sulfur by Any Other Name...

The UN translator responsible for deciphering Hugo Chavez's speech to the UN General Assembly didn't do the words of the Venezuelan leader justice.

Desperate Irish Housewife writes:

"The word he used to describe the smell was not 'sulfur'. It was the Spanish slang word for feces, "sucio", meaning that which is dirty. All his homies will know it as 'crap' but more derogatory. Most commonly used, for example, in Mexico, for caca.

"As in 'el sucio de los ninos,' when changing diapers, or when referring to a horrible sight, be it a terribly failed dish from the kitchen, or the upchuck of a drunk.

"In other words, it was extremely insulting. 'Sulfer' was a classic sympathetic translator's whitewash."

Yes, well.

It's not like this makes the speech that much worse, but it does provide a bit of added insight into the mind of Chavez.

And best bud Danny Glover.




h/t Charlie