Chavez: Television Is Bad For You

What a surprise. The darling of the liberal, anti-American, pro-’anybody else’ brigade has continued to demonstrate his dictatorial, totalitarian heart by shutting down Venezuela’s most popular television station. Its crime? Free speech and not showing undying love for President Hugo Chavez.

Chavez is following a path laid down by others of his ilk sucha as Che Guevara and Fidel Castro – they claim or have claimed to be on the side of ‘the people’ but in reality they put themselves first and are quite happy to see the working classes (and everybody else, for that matter) struggle and suffer.

Hopefully, Americans such as Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte, along with many others, will take note of Chavez’s actions and condemn him. The rest of the world needs to send a message to Chavez, but that is unlikely to happen.

Oh, by the way, Chavez also turned the water cannons onto thousands of peaceful protesters. What next?

The way these Marxist dictators do business is not dissimilar to kings of France in the 1700s. They control all the wealth, they live in fine abodes, and they have scant regard for the lives of the people. We know what happened in 1789.

CNN’s coverage

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 ”Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.

Blair Firm On Terror Until The End

It is being reported that outgoing UK PM Tony Blair is keen on providing police and authorities ‘wartime’ powers in the ongoing battle against terrorism. CNN reports that several men wanted in connection with planned attacks on UK and US forces had escaped the necessary interrogation owing to limitations in the law with regard to the length of time suspects could be held.

Tony Blair recognizes that the War on Terror is a ‘real’ war and that UK security forces need s[ecial powers if further terrorist atrocities are to be averted.

O’Donnell – Defending the Indefensible

Rosie O’Donnell is leaving The View ahead of her scheduled departure time following her spat with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. On the back of her regular efforts to discredit the US troops, denigrate the President, and propogate unsubstantiated falsehoods (9/11 conspiracy theories), this departure is long overdue.

While free speech and questioning of authority are to be encouraged in a democratic society, abuse of a public position to spread unproven, extremist theories and to undermine the country at a time of war should not be tolerated.

It is interesting that this blog has received a number of comments containing extreme vitriol as a result of its criticism of O’Donnell and yet these same people are quite happy to hear her compare the US forces to terrorists and President Bush to war criminals.

O’Donnell’s right to free speech is undeniable - she does not have the right to abuse the troops and spread groundless, extremist conspiracy theories on national television without being questioned.

Dream Team? Rosie and Ron Paul…

Just a quickie here, but has anyone noticed how closely aligned Rosie O’Donnell of The View and Ron Paul, one of the outsiders in the race for the 2008 Presidency, are in terms of their political outlook?

Both O’Donnell and Paul have an interpretation of 9/11 that is significantly different from the established facts that millions saw unfolding in front of their eyes on live television. O’Donnell throws her weight behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories and sees Bush as beling involved in a huge cover-up of the ‘facts.’ Paul lays the blame for 9/11 firmly at the feet of the victims themselves and of America as a whole.

It is obscene that these opinions gather so much support and attention. While freedom of speech is one thing, dishonouring the innocent victims and their families with these ludicrous claims is unforgivable. Luckily, both have been defeated in the eyes of the public recently: Giuliani tore a strip off Paul in the last Republican debate for his 9/11 views, while Elisabeth Hasselbeck pulled the carpet from under O’Donnell’s feet on The View this week.

Paul demonstrates why he is not fit to run for President with his ‘the terrorists are not to blame’ manifesto. O’Donnell shows she is not fit to be on mainstream television with her mindless repetition of extremist, anti-American conspiracy propaganda.

Both fail to see the bigger picture. Both seem to hate what America stands for. They would make a dream team. Not politically, but rather as a comedy duo. Unfortunately, we’ve grown tired of the Bush-bashing, anti-American, ‘blame us not the terrorist’ approach.

Rosie O’Donnell AWOL? MIA?

Rosie O’Donnell, having criticized Elisabeth Hasselbeck as “cowardly” on Wednesday 23rd May on The View for not kowtowing to her (Rosie’s) bullying efforts to defend her outrageous statements against the troops in Iraq, did not turn up to next show.

Why? One can only imagine what must be going through the delusional O’Donnell’s mind. Right now, it’s probably full of conspiracy theories about how Bush orchestrated her firing from The View because her ranting was attracting too much attention and opening the eyes of a misled nation. If this is the case, she should book herself into a clinic and get the help she clearly needs.

In reality, she did not show because she was feeling sorry for herself. Bullies hate it when their victims strike back – even more so, when the victim stands up to the bully in public. Hasselbeck found her spine at last and stood (sat, to be precise)  toe-to-toe with O’Donnell. Surprisingly, the mainstream media has given the spat a great deal of coverage. I say “surprisingly” because the outcome of the coverage has been greater sympathy and respect for Hasselbeck and her opinions on the war and the troops.

Maybe O’Donnell went missing owing to the fact that she realizes the American public is growing tired of her constant anti-American troop-bashing routine. She may also recognize the fact that Hasselbeck came across as strong and rational (somewhat unusually for her), while she was seen as irrational, obnoxious and disrespectful.

Please come back today, Rosie. It would be nice to see Hasselbeck finish you off. Having said that, a reappearance by O’Donnell might signal a made-for-TV ‘let’s kiss and make up’ moment. Oh dear.