Chavez warns Venezuelan TV not to support coup

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday warned private media he would shut them down if they promote a bid to topple him he says is planned after his expected Dec. 3 re-election.

Chavez, who has gradually increased his control over most Venezuelan institutions, has accused the opposition of planning to oust him if he wins another big majority as most polls expect he will.

He has said he expects the opposition to claim fraud, and to try to mobilize street protesters and the army.

"We have to shut any television channel that broadcasts messages inciting terrorism, hate or war and calls on people not to recognize the authorities. We have to shut it," Chavez said during a speech on Venezuela's Caribbean island of Margarita.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17406692.htm

oh my.... they even get to align themselves with coups.

They are all damned lucky they weren't all thrown into the remote corners of their country's slammers for what they did during that time.

It would NEVER have been allowed here. NEVER.

any asshole claiming Chavez is a dictator is a lying Freeper A-Hole!

If Chavez were a dictator, there wouldn't be a corporate press in Venezuela. If Chavez were not the great humanist that he is, he would have executed the coup plotters (which he should have done just on general principle IMHO).

You can have all the free speech you want as long as I approve of it.

And sedition and free speech aren't the same thing.

But let me guess, you also believe the School of the Americas trains freedom fighters.

lol

"And sedition and free speech aren't the same thing."

Oh shit.

You will be arrested and charged. There are some things even free speech does not protect.

For other reasons.

Put up or shut up.

How laugingnly simple was that?

Let's see if I can support mine.

Chavez was freely elected, not once, but so far twice, once under the old constitution, and a second time under the new one, starting his first term of 6 years. He is allowed ONE re-election because of a two term limit, and is in the middle of campaigning right now. He threatened, about a year ago, to introduce a referendum to amend the current constitution to get rid of term limits IF the opposition boycotted the presidential elections like they did the mid-terms. The mid-terms pretty much destroyed the Opposition's political power, because they boycotted the vote, idiots!

The Disrespect law wasn't even Chavez's idea, but other members of his party thought it was a good idea since the coup of 2002. They brought it up in the legislature, and it passed, and then promptly vetoed by Chavez for being too strict in its penalties. It was sent back to the legislature, where it was modified. So far, it has been rarely, if at all, enforced.

Now, onto other things, court packing, well, I don't like it, but Venezuela DOES have a huge problem with corrupt judges, and they were almost impossible to dislodge from their positions. Actually, this practice reminds me of what FDR tried to do to the supreme court, it failed here, of course.

PDVSA, the national oil company of Venezuela is, and has been, since the 1970s, owned and operated by the Venezuelan government. Granted, for most of that time, billions of dollars worth of oil revenue was used to line the pockets of the top 10% income earners in the country. Chavez then changed the management of the company, and most of the money is used for public works projects. Other oil companies were leased certain oil fields under agreements with the Venezuelan government, in the past, the deals greatly favored the oil companies, and not the government, tax revenue comes to mind, they weren't charged it. Anyways, so Chavez ordered a reevaluation of all oil contracts, and wanted to renegotiate said contracts, the oil companies left and went crying to mommy government in Washington D.C.

Onto the land grabbing, which I'm sure you loathe, but probably don't know all the facts. First, land that had a legal title was left alone. Every single acre that was claimed by the Venezuelan government since Chavez has been elected was seized, not under imminent domain, but because those who claimed the land couldn't prove it, hence they were squatters, though VERY rich ones. Much of this land seized by the government was then given, with title, distributed among farmers, indigenous tribes, and also national parks and nature preserves. The only exception were foreign land owners, their land was seized if found to be neglected.

Other things the government has done, hammered out a deal with Cuba for free clinics for the poor in Venezuela, free public schools and literacy programs for the poor are also funded. Giving grants and low-interest loans to farmers to encourage farmer co-ops, also money for community radio stations, education programs, pre-natal care, social security for housewives, all sorts of stuff.

Chavez is a moderate, I thought you liked moderates, its just that his country is more left leaning than ours, and Chavez reflects that. He is, if you can quantify it, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, basically someone who believes in leaving people alone in their personal lives as much as possible, in addition to allowing them to organize as they see fit with as little governmental oversight as possible, BUT, with an emphasis on labor rights and human rights. This includes labor self management and other things. He isn't a Communist, that much is clear, for Communists believe in central state control over the economy, which isn't happening in Venezuela.

You're wrong.

That's like:

Hitler was a dictator.

Would a dictator be so kind as to not eat meat?

You would think the internet would cure ignorance.

He's a democratically-elected leader, not a dictator.

Stop lying.

He ruled by decree for a period, keeps people fearful that his country is going to be invaded, intimidates the media (not just the coup thing, but by threatening to sue them for libel), broadcasts direct state propaganda, threatened to do away with his own term limit...if I didn't criticize him for those things I'd have to apologize to Bush* for questioning some of the shady and unaccountable things he did. Maybe he doesn't fit your definition of a dictator, but a demagogue isn't much better.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is, by definition as a democratically-elected leader, not a dictator.

Stop lying.

Unanimous at that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

Stop lying about Chavez.

1) No longer, so shouldn't he at least be former?
2) Prepared is more accurate.
3) Wrong, they don't look intimidated to me
4) So propaganda now equals dictatorship? France releases propaganda too ya know.
5) Wrong, threatened to push for a <b>referendum</b>

From the looks of it he is about as dictatorial as Bill Clinton minus Kosovo.

Because evidently they give you all the freespeech they ALLOW, anything more and you could be jailed.

overthrow of their governments, even in the United States? If I went on TV and advocated the assassination of the president of the United States, I wouldn't be free for a day after that, yet in Venezuela, that is EXACTLY what happened, and most of those that DID advocate just that are STILL free. If Chavez is guilty of anything, its being too conciliatory with the coup plotters and the media, all still broadcast for crying out loud, and the OWNERS OF THOSE STATIONS, had ADVANCED knowledge of the coup of 2002. Think about that.

durrrr

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry, I don't have patience for idiots...

the majority voted for Chavez.

Is there any other democracy in the world that wouldn't do the same?

And, mind you, Venezuela didn't even do this last time when there was a coup and the media was supporting the overthrow of the government and the dissolution of the constitution.

stations looks pretty dictatorial to me..What if Bush had done the same here we would have , and rightfully so, been up in arms.

I oppose the fairness doctrine because it attempts to block the medias right to free speech. What Chavez is doing is much more obscene than the fairness doctrine.

If he HAD?

Encouraging a country's people to overthrow their government falls under free speech? No country I know of ever allowed this... except maybe Rowanda. And we know how that turned out.

They had an attempted coup in Venezuela during which the coup plotters called for violence against the government and during which people were killed.

The government didn't muffle the press during that coup. In fact, if you've seen the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, you'll see that the one government station that tried to broadcast was blocked by the opposition (so the only free expression muffled was the government's -- and that was at the same time that the coup leaders were tearing up the constitution).

What Chavez is saying here is that if that happened again, the opposition coup leaders would not be allowed free access to the airwaves as they were last time.

The same thing would happen in the US if there were an attempted coup and NPR and PBS were trying to incite violence against the government.

That is right there was none.

bush* lost - GORE won - ALL possible recounts.

The REPUKE SCOTUS INSTALLED him against the wishes of the VOTERS...

This website was founded on the fact that b*s* was illegitimately placed in power in 2000.

It's right in the "About" section of the site.

Learn some history.

to overthrow a lawfully elected government.

Geezus.

We should take over the TV and radio stations in the US and free them, and the public airways, from the propaganda of their owners.

Can you support a coup of the US government on the radio today? Shut up...

by the right wing, Ted Turner would decide it was time to sell CNN? His channel had the most valuable MSM niche imaginable thrown in his lap, yet he sells it right then....

It might not necessarily have been spelt out to him in as many words, but it seems to me more than a little likely that he received an offer he couldn't refuse. There's more than one way to swing a cat, as the Patriot Acts corroborate.

the corporatism/fascism of today, normally, the laws of the land are not enacted to shackle the people into serfdom, but to liberate them from the dark forces that all always assume power in the absence of a responsible controlling agent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After all, that's a definite litmus test.

:eyes:

DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS IN SIXTEEN STATES contacted the Venezuelan government after being flatly denied by American oil companies the opportunity to locate and contract for reduced rates for winter heating oil for their poorer constituent areas.

THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR they are going to receive oil.

You've tried that one before, and you've been told the same thing then. The truth remains the truth. It's not different tonight just because you thought you could pass a lie past DU'ers if the ones who know the truth might not be online.

I'll check back later, as I've got to spend my evening with loved ones. I will be very pleased to provide links out the wazoo to back myself up on this.

It's not a litmus test of whether or not one is progressive, and the only reason people want it to be is to cow other people into ridiculous notions of how it's acceptable for Chavez to do things we would and should rightly come down hard on Bush* for.

since WHEN?

Kill your television.

I'm serious. They called him a dictator in a segment. I forget who they were interviewing, but, when they went to commercial, that person (Cindy Sheehan?) asked the reporter how in the world she could claim that. The response: "oh, we decided that in a meeting." The reporter couldn't give a single reason other than it was the DICTATE of the editors.

Sound familiar? That same logic -- or absence of logic -- is echoed in several posts in this thread.

Nobody can explain why they think Chavez is a dictator.

A poster said that anybody who said that was a freeperish asshole, or something to that effect, so I figured I'd say it just because.

Given the sheer amount of information on DU, the conservatives here aren't ignorant of the facts...so they must be lying.

English.

Did you even read the story? :eyes:

and, this doesn't make sense to any CHAVEZite.

:eyes:

argument and information.

Chavez Warns Opponents Not to Destabilize Venezuela (Update1)

By Peter Wilson

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned his opponents not to take actions aimed at destabilizing the country during next month's presidential election, or he will be forced to take ``drastic actions.''

The country's opposition, press and some businesses, including power and telephone companies, may be tempted to encourage disruptions during the election, Chavez, 52, said during a televised address from the tourist island of Margarita.

``I am warning them not to force me to take drastic actions because I won't hesitate to defend the sovereignty of the country,'' said Chavez. He gave no details.

Chavez said the country's opposition may seek to discredit the results of the Dec. 3 vote by calling fraud. Most polls show Chavez leading challenger Manuel Rosales by double-digits.

``Any television station that broadcasts a message of terrorism, hatred, war or makes a call to disavow the authorities, we have to shut it down,'' Chavez said. ``We are not going to allow them to fill Venezuela with blood again.''
(snip/...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=awgq.zF.FWoA&refer=latin_america

I can.

If they lie in claiming fraud, they should be able to be sued without human rights watch or amnesty international complaining. (But they still have)

calling for 3 things: vote on the 3rd, march on the 4th, and the armed forces topple the gov the 5th.

http://www.youtube.com/v/UT02dOmjb1s

This happened very recently.

No facing the reality of the polls, no respecting the vote result, no respecting the international observers but calling out a coup.

I pray for his continued safety.

I do not pray for any such thing for OUR War Criminal currently occupying OUR White House.

Our very own DICTATOR...

by U.S. corporate media sources. It's written by a principled author, a professor in New Mexico, Justin Delacour:

U.S. op-ed pages’ collective derision of the Chávez government reveals profound contradictions within the commercial press. While editorial boards parrot official U.S. rhetoric about “democracy promotion” abroad, they have refused to provide space for commentary representing popular opinion in Venezuela. In spite of the fact that recent polls indicate that Chávez’s domestic approval rating has surpassed 70 percent, almost all commentaries about Venezuela represent the views of a small minority of the country, led by a traditional economic elite that has repeatedly attempted to overthrow the government in clearly anti-democratic ways.

In presenting opinions that are almost exclusively hostile to the Chávez government, U.S. commentaries about Venezuela serve as little more than a campaign of indoctrination against a democratic political project that challenges U.S. political and economic domination of South America. The near-absence of alternative perspectives about Venezuela has prevented U.S. readers from weighing opposing arguments so as to form their own opinions about the Chávez government.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1876

democratically elected government in '02, and the fascist military clique who did it, shut down the National Assembly (which is separately elected) and kidnapped and imprisoned President Chavez. During this period, the corporate TV stations and other media spread disinformation for the coup leaders, and rabble-roused the public to foment violence in the streets. For instance, they helped spread the rumor that Chavez had resigned, which wasn't true. Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets--but not to support the coup, to support Chavez and demand his return and the re-opening of the National Assembly.

There are reports that this fascist element in Venezuela--which is FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS--is planning something similar, and they may be better organized this time, and have more dollars to throw around. It is very worrisome. The Bush Junta welcomed the '02 coup, and will surely welcome this one as well, if it occurs. And the anti-Chavez propaganda issuing from the Bushites and their lapdog corporate news monopolies here is not a good sign.

I suggest www.venezuelanalysis.com for real news. Recommended reading:

"Another coup in the making in Venezuela?" - http://venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1878

"Letter from Venezuela: Land of Chavism" - http://venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1880

"Venezuela’s Economy Grew By 10.2% in 3rd Quarter" - http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2140


The third article is enlightening:

"...The driving force behind the growth is the non-oil sector of the economy, the Venezuelan Central Bank said yesterday.

"The oil sector overall growth in the oil sector actually fell. Public sector oil growth was at 0.9%, while the private oil sector fell by 11.2%. This was partly due to maintenance activities, but private companies blame the down time due to the renegotiation of their operating contracts early this year. The combined growth figure for the oil sector compared with last year was down 1.8%.

"Contrary to the image of the Venezuelan government and its president, overall private sector growth eclipsed the public sector figure. The private sector grew by 12.3%, while the public sector grew by only 2.7%...."

Social justice works!

And here's an article on independent monitoring of the election. The EU is already arriving bringing 130 election monitors from Europe. They just signed an independence agreement with the Venezuelan election commission. The OAS will also participate--and the Carter Center more than likely will monitor as well. These are the three outside groups that have monitored past elections in Venezuela, with all of them concluding that the elections were honest and aboveboard.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2138

Some people just don't get it: if Chavez were a dictator, the corporate-owned media that slanders him daily would do so in fear of their very lives. Previous South American dictators have been very expeditious in such matters. If a dictator desires to stifle dissent in the press, he can and will do it at gunpoint. That's pretty well established.

In the "free press" USA, if a broadcast network openly advocated violent overthrow of the government, the FCC could and would shut them down in a heartbeat and the owners would be in jail within 24 hours. It's been this way for a long, long time.

If anything, Chavez is just restating a point that would be common sense in most countries technologically advanced enough to have broadcast media.

This is insane, this accusation that he's taking away peoples freedom of speech. You are NEVER free to encourage a violent overthrow of the government. Freedom ends where bloodshed, lawlessness and terrorism begin.

to remain free after 2002. I have a copy of The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised, and there they were after Chavez had been taken away,
mocking the democratic process and celebrating the way they'd subverted
it.

In any other western democracy, they'd have been arrested, put on trial
and jailed for life; in a dictatorship they'd have just been shot dead.

I can't think of anything else that so clearly shows Chavez' support
for democracy, even when his own life may be in peril.

But instead of being thankful that they're alive and allowed to continue
unhampered, the plotters are still determined to overthrow the Chavez
democracy and restore themselves to their former power, regardless of
the will of the people. Chavez shouldn't be so merciful next time.

The same applies to anybody in the corporate news media who would go so far in Venezuela.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

Quite a bit of difference, of course, when the poster actually comprehends the subject matter, like a DU'er.

Latin America is preparing to settle accounts with its white settler elite

The political movements and protests sweeping the continent - from Bolivia to Venezuela - are as much about race as class

Richard Gott
Wednesday November 15, 2006
The Guardian

The recent explosion of indigenous protest in Latin America, culminating in the election this year of Evo Morales, an Aymara indian, as president of Bolivia, has highlighted the precarious position of the white-settler elite that has dominated the continent for so many centuries. Although the term "white settler" is familiar in the history of most European colonies, and comes with a pejorative ring, the whites in Latin America (as in the US) are not usually described in this way, and never use the expression themselves. No Spanish or Portuguese word exists that can adequately translate the English term.

Latin America is traditionally seen as a continent set apart from colonial projects elsewhere, the outcome of its long experience of settlement since the 16th century. Yet it truly belongs in the history of the global expansion of white-settler populations from Europe in the more recent period. Today's elites are largely the product of the immigrant European culture that has developed during the two centuries since independence.

The characteristics of the European empires' white-settler states in the 19th and 20th centuries are well known. The settlers expropriated the land and evicted or exterminated the existing population; they exploited the surviving indigenous labour force on the land; they secured for themselves a European standard of living; and they treated the surviving indigenous peoples with extreme prejudice, drafting laws to ensure they remained largely without rights, as second- or third-class citizens.

Latin America shares these characteristics of "settler colonialism", an evocative term used in discussions about the British empire. Together with the Caribbean and the US, it has a further characteristic not shared by Europe's colonies elsewhere: the legacy of a non-indigenous slave class. Although slavery had been abolished in much of the world by the 1830s, the practice continued in Latin America (and the US) for several decades. The white settlers were unique in oppressing two different groups, seizing the land of the indigenous peoples and appropriating the labour of their imported slaves.
(snip/...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1948162,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of us LOVE us some Richard Gott.

democratic revolution that is sweeping Latin America. In fact, I've found the absence of anger and divisive rhetoric on the part of the leftist (majorityist) movements remarkable. It seems to me to be a very positive, as well as inclusive, movement, and very forward-looking--to a time when these countries, by mobilizing ALL the resources of their societies, achieve regional political and economic strength, and self-determination. For instance, in Venezuela, they aren't taking anybody's jaguars away, or confiscating property. It's just that the people who drive jaguars and hold property are the minority, and their interests are not catered to, in a truly democratic country where most of the people are poor. The majority is creating a mixed economy with a strong element of social justice, with forward-looking goals--education, technical advancement, seeding enterprise among the poor with small business loans and grants, widespread availability of health care, free university education, promoting Venezuela arts (as opposed to corporate monoculture), and food self-sufficiency.

There is no anger in these policies--they are very constructive, and much needed for a healthy society and economy. Any decent government would be implementing many of them. It's a stretch to call these policies "leftist." But we in the U.S. has such a screwed up idea of the political spectrum that we hardly recognize decency and social responsibility any more.

Example: One of the needs of the poor in Venezuela is low-cost housing. The shanties that many people are forced to live in regularly slide off the hills of Caracas in heavy rains. Recently, the mayor of Caracas proposed confiscating two country clubs/golf courses in the city, to use the land for low cost housing. The Chavez government nixed this idea because the Venezuelan Constitution PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY. This is no extremist government. It is a government of measured DECENCY and progressive goals.

And, in my research and readings, I see similar governments and policies in all the countries that now have what we call "leftist" governments (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Bolivia)--and in the countries with strong new "leftist" movements (Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, Nicaragua) (--virtually the entire continent of South America, and parts of Central America). What we are looking at is simply MAJORITY government, transparent elections, and democracy (--with majority rule denied in only two cases--Mexico and Peru--but with strong democracy movements in progress there, which will eventually succeed). We are not looking at a race war--nor even at "racial tensions" that I have been able to discern. To call this a "settling of accounts" is to stir up trouble where there doesn't seem to be any.

The protest in Oaxaca is a good example. It is largely an indigenous-led protest, and ALL the violence (including at least a dozen murders) has been perpetrated by the fascist governor and his thugs (and, recently, by the Fox/Calderon federal army), with NO retaliation by the protesters. They are not "angry" and violent--the connotations of the phrase "settling of accounts." They have harmed no one. They took over the state capitol and established an alternative government in an entirely peaceful and orderly way, and maintained their own peacefulness despite huge provocations. They are simply asking for justice. And they have to numbers to eventually get it (--but not without some struggle, obviously). (This is also apparent in the campaign of Lopez Obrador and the events in Mexico City--millions of people gathered in protest, with NO violence!)

Race is a visceral matter--an ugly sort of tribalism that seizes people who are angry, greedy, jealous and vengeful. I simply don't see this in the Latin American democracy movement. Brown-skinned people are naturally arising as community and national leaders as democracy and fair elections do their work of empowering the majority. It's not anti-white or anti-European. It's pro-democracy. And I have to say that only ONE of these elected leaders is 100% indigenous (Evo Morales in Bolivia). Hugo Chavez is mostly Spanish, with some indigenous and black heritage. And the other Latin American leaders are also mixed heritage, or mostly European. I've personally felt joy seeing brown faces at last representing largely brown populations. But it's not racism on my part. (I'm nearly 100% white northern European--with just a touch of American Indian.) It is DEMOCRACY that I am celebrating, not vengeance, and not any kind of "settling of accounts." And I've yet to see evidence that the inspiration of this movement is negative in this or other ways. On the contrary, it seems to be a liberation of the energies, talents and genius of Latin American society. As such, it cannot be decapitated (for instance by nefarious rightwing/Bushite assassination plots), nor stopped with other kinds of violence. It is unstoppable, rather like our civil rights movement in the 1960s. As Evo Morales has said, "The time of the people has come." And I'm sure he did not mean "settling of accounts." He meant the success of democracy at last.

We're funding the opposition's campaign. Look at the roll calls over the last two years. All kinds of funds were alloted to defame Hugo on Venezuelan TV stations. Venezuelan TV should not be run by foreigners involved in dirty politics.

HUGO WAS RIGHT ABOUT BUSH.