web analytics


By ATWadmin On January 20th, 2007

chavez-iran3.jpgNo, not Jade – but the pin-up boy of the International left – Venezuelan thug Hugo CHAVEZ!

The man admired by the likes of London Mayor Ken Livingstone, endorsed by America’s worst-ever President Jimmy Carter, and a good friend to holocaust deniers like Iran’s lunatic Ahmadinejad, has decided to dispense with any vestige of democracy and rule by decree for at least 18 months Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes. I bet. Not much of an outcry from the MSM on this, I suppose they look on – in envy.


  1. Let’s hope that somewhere in Venezuala a man is cleaning a sniper’s rifle and checking his sights. For any liberals who feel like taking me to task for advocating an assassination, don’t bother, because that’s exactly what I’m advocating and won’t apologise for it.

    Politicians screw things up, we know that. But this is exactly the kind of despotic move which justifies Chavez’s removal by any means. Don’t get me wrong though, I don’t sympathise with most Venezualans, who seem to have voted for Chavez with enthusiasm. They knew they were voting for socialism, they knew they were voting for theft, they knew they were voting themselves the right to others’ wealth.

    So when, in a few years time, Venezuela announces food shortages and increases in disease and malnutrition, then holds out the begging bowl, don’t mind me when I say we shouldn’t give them a damn penny.

  2. >>don’t sympathise with most Venezualans, who seem to have voted for Chavez with enthusiasm. They knew they were voting for socialism, they knew they were voting for theft,<<

    So why is it a "despotic move" then and what are you talking about?

  3. David
    I agree with the post. Chavez is clearly dispensing with any democratic constraints.

    Pete-London posted:
    "Let’s hope that somewhere in Venezuala a man is cleaning a sniper’s rifle and checking his sights."

    Outrageous comment. Is incitement to murder acceptable on ATW?

  4. Peter,

    Read the comment at the bottom of every post on ATW.

    To wish for the removal of thugs like Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinnerjacket anc co is entirely sensible. To wonder if there is an sniper waiting for them is conjecture.

    Go back in time to the days when a few brave sould tried to kill another tyrant – this time in Germany. Would it have been right to both encourage them and wish them well? I say it would. Do you?

  5. David stop trying to use logic to explain things to those who have no understanding of it….

    Pete you would’nt last 5 min in Venezuela before you were labelled a threat and locked away. The man is dangerous and is making alliances for war he should be dealt with along with Imamadjihad with extreme prejiduce….

  6. David
    The Hitler analogy had already occurred to me. At the moment I’m reading "The Nazis – a warning from history". Hitler ruled by decree almost as soon as he became chancellor in 1933. But Chavez has won several elections in a row. Hitler never won any.

    Is assassination now to be an accepted weapon? If so, where do you stop?

  7. I don’t believe that anyone here is calling for Chavez’s assassination. You know that Peter. What are you anyway – the frigging thought police around here?

    Venezuelans get what they deserve. They’ll be starving soon. Stupid asses.

  8. Good old Chavez, any man who annoys the dark side AKA Conservative Right to the extent that he does gets my vote.

  9. Not surprising, Gaskin.

  10. I would hope not Monica

  11. <i>"But Chavez has won several elections in a row. Hitler never won any."</i>

    Whilst he never achieved a majority, he certainly won by the system of the day. The Chancellor was normally chosen from the party with the greatest number of seats.

    But your parallel is appropriate for given Chavez’s anti-semitism, his apparent determination to suppress dissent from the media and his announcement of his own enabling act, he seems to be following the script to a T.

  12. Monica posted:
    " What are you anyway – the frigging thought police around here? "

    If someone on ATW had posted "Let’s hope that somewhere a man is cleaning a sniper’s rifle and checking his sights" about Bush you’d have been calling for his arrest.

  13. Peter,

    At the risk of putting words into Monica’s mouth, I doubt she would do as you say. She has always defended the first amendment to the US Constitution (freedom of speech) just as much as she defends the second amendment (right to bear arms). I myself am what we Americans call a "strict constructionist" on the first amendment. Mere speech should NEVER be prohibited, no matter how abhorrent.

  14. Even incitement to murder?

  15. I’ve no time for Chavez either but Pete_London did say that assassination was ‘exactly what I’m advocating’.

    My online dictionary tells me that the verb advocate means to ‘publicly recommend or support’.

    I’m no lawyer but isn’t that incitement?

  16. Peter,

    Speaking strictly for me, yes, even that is protected.

  17. Maybe in the USA but not in the UK, Alan. It’s recently been declared illegal, much to the chagrin of certain toxic Mullahs.

  18. Alan, what about the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre exception?

  19. Phnarr, phnarr!

  20. Frank,

    Even then, no prohibition. Remember that I am expressing my personal adoration of the first amendment, not its current application in American law. The Supreme court has seen fit to reduce freedom of speech in certain circumstances, like the "fire" in a crowded theater one.

    I believe it is always permissible to argue that any law limiting speech is unconstitutional, and make the prosecution prove that it is not.

  21. I won’t send anyone after you for threatening to kill President Bush. Our Federales may not take too kindly to it, though…

  22. The American courts seem to side with Alan here.

    "In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court limited the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 871 to situations involving the communication of a "true threat." At a political rally Watts had said, "If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sight is L.B.J." This, the court held, taken in context amounted to mere indulgence in political hyperbole, and such speech is within the protection of the First Amendment. Following the principle announced in Watts, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Alexander v. United States, 418 F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1969), held that neither idle talk nor mere jest qualify as a true threat. But see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)(threats of violence are one of the categories of unprotected speech)."

  23. Charles,
    Watts said ‘I want to get…’ Can one incite oneself?

    The law here deals with inciting others to commit wicked deeds. Pete_London is ‘advocating’ an assassination, thus theoretically inciting the readers to commit a murder.

  24. Bono

    If Chavez gets bumped off by any ATW regular then I’ll take the rap.


    Read the post. Chavez won an election (not contested by any opposition) but now proposes to rule by decree. It’s the ‘rule by decree’ bit which is despotic.

    Now then, liberals, understand a simple point. When anyone attempts to set themselves up in the way Chavez is, the only sensible response is for the people of that country to remove him anyway and anyhow. If he ends up dead at the hands of an assassin he’d be receiving exactly what he deserves.

  25. Pete_London,
    ‘If Chavez gets bumped off by any ATW regular then I’ll take the rap.’

    Let’s all pray those words don’t come back to haunt you :0)

  26. >>It’s the ‘rule by decree’ bit which is despotic. <<


    Musharraf, staunch ally of the west, did similar, but worse, He unilaterally changed the Pakistani constitution to ensure he stays in power.

    Would you also welcome his assassination for this depotism?

  27. Cunningham

    Nope, because what would come after Musharraf would be extremely damaging to us and our interests. If Musharraf was a bar to good governence and order as well as being despotic then I’d welcome him being bumped off.

  28. ‘I’d welcome him being bumped off.’

    Pete, thanks for not saying ‘I’d advocate him being bumped off.’ :0)

  29. So we’re back to the old hypocracy:
    "He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch."

    If Chavez was more typical of past South American dictators (i.e did what Uncle Sam told him to do) you wouldn’t get right-wingers calling for his murder. His real crime is not being a dictator, but being a dictator who defies Uncle Sam.

  30. When you liberals have stopped wetting your knickers, please feel free to tell us what you think of Chavez and his despotic move, instead of what I think.

  31. I already said that I agree with David’s post (Saturday 10.25pm in case you missed it).

    Why don’t you share with us the names of other world leaders you’d like to see murdered?

  32. Rule by decree is wrong whether it is Chavez or Musharraf or Bush that does it. On the other hand, I recognize that one’s first tendency is to "defend your corner" as you Brits say, which results, as Peter says, in defending "our son of a bitch" against everyone else’s.

  33. You are putting Bush in the same company as Chavez, Alan?

  34. Yes, Monica, because he ran an illegal NSA spy operation for five years based solely on presidential "decree." Check out:

  35. Chavez is a minor tyrant in the making and I suspect Mr. Gaskin that voting for him in anything other than a rigged election will soon be the only option, thereby rendering your proffered vote superfluous in addition to inconsistent for someone who espouses real democracy.

    He has been able to come to power in a nation that suffers from deep poverty so I would not be so quick to dismiss the population. The key to dealing with the likes of Chavez is to deal more creatively with South America.