Shut-Up Pat!

Well, he's at it again. Pat Robertson opens his mouth and more vile shit comes cascading forth. This time he's calling for the American government to assassinate Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Here is some of what the asshole said:

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.

And:

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

And just in case you didn't fully understand what he was saying, he clarified for you:

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

Wow. Where the hell to begin? How about with "strong-armed dictator"? Well, let's think about that for a minute. Patty-boy, you certainly have no problem with strong-armed politicians, being a huge supporter of the Texas Idiot who started a war against the wishes of the majority of his citizens. So that can't really be your problem with Mr. Chavez. Let's look at the dictator part then. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of dictator is:

1.

a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.

2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.

3. One who dictates: "These initials are those of the dictator of the letter."

OK Pat, I'm going to guess that you weren't accusing Chavez of being an ancient Roman or a guy who makes his secretary transcribe his letters for him, so we'll go ahead and assume you mean the first definition. So let's look at that. First, there is "absolute ruler". Well the last time I checked Venezuela still had a democratically elected legislature called the National Assembly, which is elected much like the British Parliament except that the president is elected separately instead of appointed by the majority party. Not only did Chavez win his first term in 1998 by the largest margin in four decades (over 56% of the vote) and even increase that margin in his reelection in 2000 (59%), but he also won a California-style "recall" election in 2004 in which 58% of Venezuelans voted "no" to removing him from office. And the recall vote was monitored by not one, but two independent international observers, who both declared that there was no evidence of fraud. Oh, and there was the coup attempt in 2002 by members of the Venezuelan military backed by U.S. oil companies and supported by the Bush administration. Chavez was returned to power after massive demonstrations of supporters way outnumbered those who marched in support of the coup attempt. Strong leader? Sure. Absolute power? Not even close. All of his power comes from the fact he keeps winning elections and has pretty broad support

What about "tyrant" or "despot"? Well, one would assume that a country ruled by a tyrant would have no independent press, and journalists who spoke against the tyrant would be thrown in jail, or worse. This is not the case in Venezuela. In fact, all of the five privately owned TV networks are his biggest opponents. He hasn't shut them down or put any of them in prison, and no reporters have mysteriously disappeared. Well, he did shut them down temporarily during the coup attempt. Not defensible necessarily, but a little understandable. While they showed all of the anti-Chavez rallies, they refused to air coverage of the larger pro-Chavez rallies and generally tried to whip up support for a violent coup d'etat of a democratically elected government. But if that's the most tyrannical he's been there is not much of a case for him being a despot.

So what else do tyrants and despots do? As we've seen from examples all over the Middle East and Africa, they seem to like to build themselves lots of mansions and castles and hoard millions, even billions, of dollars for themselves while the poor people in their country starve. Can't really say that El Presidente has done that, as he has not built himself any huge new homes or put state money into his personal accounts. But here are some things he has done: He started a nationwide literacy program that focuses on not just learning to read, but also on understanding the country's constitution and their rights under that document. Oh the horror, right Pat?

President Chavez has also started a program to provide free health care to Venezuela's poorest people, in a program praised by the World Health Organization. He has also built clinics, started manufacturing cooperatives to create jobs, opened subsidized grocery stores in impoverished areas, and implemented a land reform program that would give more people the chance to own a piece of property and lessen his country's dependence on food imports. And he took tighter control over the state oil company to make sure more profits from Venezuela's vast oil supply go to benefit the people of Venezuela instead of rich oil executives.

Oh, and democratic reforms too. Remember that little bit about the recall election his opponents used to try to oust him? He created that law, along with the one that created the parliamentary style assembly, when he created the new constitution. He actually made a way for his country to remove the president if they are unhappy with the person in that office.

So that's your definition of a dictator, Pat?

Now to the whole assassination thing. Ummm, so Pat, isn't that against your so-called religion? I believe it's even in your most important list of rules. If you need a refresher see my blog from Friday. I know it's the Catholic version of the Commandments, but "thou shalt not kill" was the same in all three versions I found. Not once did I see a "...unless it's someone Pat Robertson doesn't like". Maybe that part is written on the copy at the CBN compound, but somehow I doubt it.

And rather than dictatorial, isn't helping poor people the (ahem) "Christian" thing to do? The bible says a hell of a lot more about helping poor people than it does about homosexuality being bad. And it's a lot less vague about it too. I'll bet your god would be a lot more pleased with a guy that's done the things Senor Chavez has done to help those in need than with the guy who uses money from the poor and desperate to buy himself expensive suits and a TV station (yes, I mean you dumbass). Ask these guys which way is time better spent.

Look, I'm not saying the man is perfect. There are things he's done that aren't so good, most notably the firing of over 12,000 employees of the state oil company for going on a general strike to protest his presidency. But compare the human rights record of his country against a lot of others, like America's allies Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Colombia, or Turkey and you find a lot more leaders you should be condemning instead.

So why Chavez then? My guess is that, like most nationalistic fascist Republicans like yourself, you are worried that Chavez doesn't have the best interest of the U.S. in mind when it comes to his country's oil. I've got a news flash for you Patty, he wasn't elected by the U.S. He was elected by Venezuelans, three times now. That's two more presidential elections than your boy Dubya has won here in the States. Put that in your collection plate and spend it.

So I've got a different proposition Pat. Instead of murdering Hugo Chavez, I've got a better idea. I say we tie you up in the middle of Times Square and invite everyone in America to come up and kick you in the nuts as hard as they can.

I've got dibs on first in line.