VHeadline managing editor Elio Cequea writes: In his last written piece “Chavez’s authoritarian move was predictable” Andres Oppenheimer, the Miami Herald’s syndicated columnist, continues his insolent disinformation campaign against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Thank God, the sun can not be blocked with a single finger.In his article Oppenheimer calls Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez “authoritarian.” On other occasions he has mentioned that Chavez controls all the public powers.
Paradoxically, the analyst recognizes that Chavez lost the referendum of December 2 last year!
Unless the “analyst” has an intelligent explanation of how a “dictator” that controls everything gets defeated in an election that, by the way, “would have permitted him to stay in power indefinitely,” isn't it to recognize that (contrary to what he is stating) the Venezuelan President at least DOES NOT control whomsoever is in charge of counting the votes?
While talking about banned politicians who were supposedly stripped of their rights to run for office, the acclaimed analyst drowns in his own lies ... he indicates that the government’s decision is unconstitutional because: “under Chavez’ own 1999 Constitution only candidates with confirmed judicial sentences against them by a court of law may be banned from running for office.”
Nothing is further from the truth!
Oppenheimer is referring to Article 65 of the Constitution, which says: “Those who have been condemned for wrong-doings perpetrated during the exercise of their public functions can not opt for a publicly elected position.”
Nowhere in the article does it say that the sentence has to come from “a court of law.”
Comparing apples with oranges is what Oppenheimer does when he tries to draw a parallel between stripping Chavez of his political power for attempting to overthrow the government in 1992 and doing the same to Leopoldo Lopez because of alleged "administrative irregularities."
In Chavez’ case, it was NOT the jurisdiction of the General Comptroller of the Republic to ban him from running for office: Chavez’ “irregularity” was obviously NOT “administrative.” Besides, in HIS situation, there was never a firm sentence from a corresponding public authority.
On the other hand, Lopez was banned from running for public office by the General Comptroller of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ... in his case, the corresponding constitutionally competent public authority.
A disappointing statement from Oppenheimer is the one he makes with regard to the 26 decrees enacted by the President the day his special legislative powers expired.
- Analyzing like a regular pedestrian would, he considers that the decrees “have already been rejected by the people in the referendum of December 2 ... that is simply erroneous conjecture!
The proposed constitutional reform consisted of modifications to 69 articles. The proposal was presented to the people in two blocks: one with 46 articles and the other one with 23. There were only two options for each block. One was to approve all the articles in the proposal, even though you might not agree with some of them. The other was to reject them all even if you felt like one or two of them were pretty good. The point is that it is possible to dislike an automobile even when it has an impressive transmission and an incredible stereo.
In his article, Oppenheimer mentions (again) the files on the hoary old FARC computer as evidence “that shows Chavez’ active support for Colombia's largest guerrilla army!”
In his open forum in the Miami Herald, Oppenheimer categorized these files as “authentic, as pointed out by the INTERPOL” but, later, his best argument defending that authenticity was a timid “the files were not altered.” When pressured a little bit further, his last stand was that the files were “believable.”
Isn’t it illusory to defend evidence presented in files that are barely considered “believable”?
Oppenheimer opens “Chavez’ authoritarian move was predictable” by saying that the Venezuelan President “always moves one step backward after a political setback.”
Always?!
One thing that is known worldwide is that Chavez has suffered ONLY ONE of those setbacks...
The pastime of some analysts is to try to shorten ... when suitably convenient ... the distance between the truth and the fallacy.
Generally they do it with perverted analysis ... however, when they need to, they never underestimate the value of telling flat, blatant lies...
Elio Cequea
Feico57@att.net
ecequea@gmail.com
Venezuela is facing the most difficult period of its history with honest reporters crippled by sectarianism on top of rampant corruption within the administration and beyond, aided and abetted by criminal forces in the US and Spanish governments which cannot accept the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people to decide over their own future.
HELP US TO KEEP BRINGING YOU THE TRUTH
http://tinyurl.com/n4fg
No comments:
Post a Comment