A Dictator Loses a Referendum
December 3rd 2007 13:46
Hugo Chavez has been called a terrorist and a dictator he has been accused of censoring the media and oppressing human rights. Yet this man just held a referendum to change the constitution and he lost that referendum.
Does a dictator not always get his way? Are democratic proceedings not just null and void or a mere obstacle in the minds of those who want absolute control? I question anyone who labels this man a dictator on what grounds they do. He was voted in democratically, he was removed through a conspiracy by the CIA, yet he came back to power and how? By the people, who revolted against the self appointed President, a Military General who along with his colleagues masterminded a sick and depraved plan to create negative sentiment towards Hugo Chavez. They tried to spark riot and protest, and in that they succeeded, yet it was directed against them rather than Hugo Chavez.
People say Hugo Chavez censors the media, yet on the media we have the man depicted as a Nazi and the anti-Christ. People say he censors free speech, yet almost every single media outlet spouts continuous propaganda against him, calling the people to overthrow him even violently. Alas, the corrupt cannot create such passion in the hearts of those they fool such that they can cause them to take drastic action. When your beliefs are hollow and fake your emotions will be the only product of your beliefs.
Inevitably the media will convince people he's an evil man despite the glaring contradictions. But the supreme irony comes from the fact he lost a referendum and accepted it. When George Bush ratifies yet another Constitution defying law, from the Patriot Act to HR1955 does he ask the people's permission? Has there ever been a time in the history of the Bush Administration that a referendum has been carried out to amend the constitution to be compatible with the laws he himself advocates?
Of course not, the constitution is a mere obstacle, it would be much easier to ignore it than try and change the text. A respectable leader would not contradict the constitution he has vowed to protect. Even in times of crisis and dire need a respectable leader would ask the people if the constitution should be changed and accept if the people disagree with him.
Does a dictator not always get his way? Are democratic proceedings not just null and void or a mere obstacle in the minds of those who want absolute control? I question anyone who labels this man a dictator on what grounds they do. He was voted in democratically, he was removed through a conspiracy by the CIA, yet he came back to power and how? By the people, who revolted against the self appointed President, a Military General who along with his colleagues masterminded a sick and depraved plan to create negative sentiment towards Hugo Chavez. They tried to spark riot and protest, and in that they succeeded, yet it was directed against them rather than Hugo Chavez.
People say Hugo Chavez censors the media, yet on the media we have the man depicted as a Nazi and the anti-Christ. People say he censors free speech, yet almost every single media outlet spouts continuous propaganda against him, calling the people to overthrow him even violently. Alas, the corrupt cannot create such passion in the hearts of those they fool such that they can cause them to take drastic action. When your beliefs are hollow and fake your emotions will be the only product of your beliefs.
Inevitably the media will convince people he's an evil man despite the glaring contradictions. But the supreme irony comes from the fact he lost a referendum and accepted it. When George Bush ratifies yet another Constitution defying law, from the Patriot Act to HR1955 does he ask the people's permission? Has there ever been a time in the history of the Bush Administration that a referendum has been carried out to amend the constitution to be compatible with the laws he himself advocates?
Of course not, the constitution is a mere obstacle, it would be much easier to ignore it than try and change the text. A respectable leader would not contradict the constitution he has vowed to protect. Even in times of crisis and dire need a respectable leader would ask the people if the constitution should be changed and accept if the people disagree with him.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
