"Civilization is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men." ~ Jane Addams
I am outraged over Venezuela's El Presidente Hugo Chavez's remarks before the UN on Wednesday. How incredibly disrespectful to the president of the most powerful nation in the world!
I think something should be done about this. I don't know what, but it would seem that some sort of sanction or censure is certainly in order here. Perhaps Mr. Chavez should be banned from ever entering the United States again.
It would be a travesty if nothing is done to Mr. Chavez for this grievous affront to our President and to our country.
This is so outrageous, in fact, that even New York Congressman Charlie Rangel took offense, as well he should have. Although his outrage is probably feigned in an effort to boost his political profile, he nevertheless expressed the sentiments the average American no doubt feels. I give him credit for saying out loud what other Democrats probably think, but are so bent on undermining George W. Bush and his administrations policies, that they will keep quiet.
In addition to the incredible rudeness of Mr. Chavez's remarks, I find it incredible that he would abuse the privilege that this country afforded him, in inviting him to speak before the UN, by flinging our graciousness to him back in our collective faces.
I cannot believe that any American would not see this as an incredible insult to our President, and to our country, and to all Americans, Republican and Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Chavez was no more disrespectful than the Democratic leadership and a lot more respectful than most liberal bloggers. Yeah, Rangel said he didn't like Chavez calling our president names, but he said he also thought it was wrong for President Bush to call people evil. Apparently, evil doesn't exist in Rangel's fantasy world. If we really want to punish Chavez, we should send the Democratic leadership to Venezuela.
I think most liberals would have a hard time criticizing Chavez, when they themselves frequently demonize Bush with their anti-war anti-American anti-Christian rhetoric
I like your idea of banning Chavez from this country. How about banning anyone from his country (unless they are seeking asylum)
It was one of the best things to happen for the GOP in a long time, along with present and former Iranian Presidents and their anti-semitic, fascist view's spoken on our soil, condemning us. Exposure and clarity are wonderful, I am glad they spoke up.The loombats hve no defense but appeasement and slavery. I believe Sam Adams said it best.
Personally, I was more irked by the giggles and applause his cute little stint got him. I say let him talk. Don't shut him up.
Chavez was exercising his right to free speech, something that America is supposed to champion. Just because you don’t like what he says isn’t an excuse to ‘punish’ him; that’s the kind of thing that undemocratic dictatorial regimes would do! Anyway I doubt he’s said anything about Bush that Bush or his administration hasn’t said publicly against some other world leader(s) at some point over the last few years.
"Perhaps Mr. Chavez should be banned from ever entering the United States again."
For calling a name?
Umm... I'm guessing all the hysteria about this on the Right is ignoring all the name-calling (traitor, commie, pagan, scum, lying filth, moonbat, among the nicer names I've been called - they get much worse from there) that goes on by the Right?
I suppose this is different because it's the president?
I find your arguments disengenuous and not a bit silly, unless you're prepared to ban all of your ownselves who've called names and demagogued.
"Those who live in glass houses..."
True, if we keep letting liberal nut cases talk, most of the people of the country will see them for what they are... No sense in arguing with a fool, after a while, it's hard to tell who the fool is (yes, that's from Rush).
Glad to see you are able to make an occassional post now and then...
Blessings
What realistically can we do besides stop buying his oil. That would hurt us as much as it would him. Besides, I agree with Wordsmith... Let him talk. It only takes the focus off the GOP's poor showing in those areas Dem's SEEM to have the upper hand. The GOP isn't doing everything right-- and who ever does? --but they're a far cry from the alternative come November. Let him talk. He does this nation a favor every time he opens his pie-hole.
The only pro-active thing you can do is to boycott CITGO gas - it is wholly owned by Venezuela.
And Lone Ranger is correct - if you didn't know it was Chavez giving the speech, you'd think it was Rangel or Pelosi or any of the other Democraticas.
"I cannot believe that any American would not see this as an incredible insult to our President"
When I was a kid, the man next door was a tough, John Wayne sort of big-bellied, cussin, drinkin roughneck - a bit scary but a bit impressive.
One day, a traveling salesman was talking to his wife about his product and said something to the effect of "When older women like yourself go ..." Well, Mr Roughneck was ready to rip the salesman apart.
The kids all loved to watch good fights and I ran over to my dad and said, "Dad! Dad, you got to see this, there's going to be a fight!"
And my dad asked why. I explained how the salesman had insulted his wife and so he had to beat him up. My dad, who by no means considers himself a pacifist, said, "No. He doesn't."
It was a simple thing that had a big impact on me. No, we don't need to be outraged when people call names. We just don't.
I left my grade school mentality behind that day and became a bit more of an adult. Tis a shame that so many people are still so willing to get outraged over a word.
I find it ironic that you would quote a pacifist/peacemaker (Jane Addams) in your attempt to rile up folk about Chavez.
"Umm... I'm guessing all the hysteria about this on the Right is ignoring all the name-calling (traitor, commie, pagan, scum, lying filth, moonbat, among the nicer names I've been called - they get much worse from there) that goes on by the Right?"--Dan Trabue
I'm guessing that the reason that liberals in America tend to defend leaders like Chavez and Ahmedinejad is that they (liberals) too are enemies of liberty, justice, and reason.
If it walks like a duck....and quacks like a duck...well....umm...Dan....it probably IS a duck.
I'm in awe, Dan, of your ability to shield yourself from the reality swirling around you.
A tool of tyrants--that's what you represent yourself as.
Democrats need to return to their anti-totalitarian roots.
Kennedy and Truman would have never supported fascists and theocrats (i.e. Chavez and Ahmadinejad.) The left's hatred of Bush is clouding their better judgment.
There is a big difference here, this was a foreign President on US soil bashing a sitting US President!
What Chavez said at the UN was different, that's a forum for all heads of state to assemble to say whatever. But when you leave that establishment, and head into the streets of the United States with that nonsense that's where everyone should draw the line!
Can you imagine how the left would have responded had this been Clinton in office at the time?
Even Khrushchev only went haywire at the UN, he didnt take his ramblings into the streets of New York!
That isnt going to wash here.
He can say what he wants in his OWN Country or the Useless Nations, but not in the streets of the United States.
Freedom of speech doesnt apply in this case.
"Freedom of speech doesnt apply in this case."
You're right. Screw free speech.
"Freedom of speech doesn't apply in this case."
Exactly. The first amendment is part of the US Constitution and does not apply to foreign communist dictators.
Exactly.
Since when is Hugo Chavez a U.S Citizen?
Since when do the rights afforded to U.S. Citizens apply to him?
He technically was not even on U.S. Soil when he originally made his outrageous remarks, but in the U.N. Building, which is considered to be property of the U.N., and not subject to U.S. Laws.
When he left the U.N. and began preaching on actual U.S. Soil, he should have been jailed for attempting to incite a Riot.
Dan, as usual, is all wet.
Stop trying to bestow the protections and priveliges of U.S. Citizenship onto the enemies of America.
Freedom of speech is one of the natural freedoms bestowed by God that is recognized in our constitution, not given by our constitution. Read it some time, it's pretty decent stuff.
Marie, Ms Green & Tug
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Where does it say that the right to free speech is limited to US Citizens only? It sounds to me as if you are proposing that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? Either you believe that free speech is a right or you don’t. If you are proposing that individual ‘rights’ can be given or taken away depending on which flag you were born under, then you are on your way to legitimising every despot and dictator in the world today and I’m sure you don’t want to do that just because someone said something nasty about your President. He’s a big boy; he can take it.
Dan and Liam, you two are exactly right. Everyone has a God given right to free speech.
I guess what really ticks me off is how rude and disrespectful it was.
And I have read the Constitution. Even the part that talks about treason. The Liberals kind of forget about that part.
Come on, Mark. What are you POSSIBLY thinking that "the liberals" have done that is treasonous?
Disagreeing with the president is not treason. Protesting a war is not treason. Calling the president a boogerhead is not treason (but it is rather satisfying in a grade-school-kind of way). "The Liberals" are not committing treason.
Dan and Liam, you better brake out that copy of the Constitution again because Freedom Of Speech does NOT apply to Heads of Foreign Governments (When They Wander Ouside The UN) and take to the streets of the United States and spew hate at a sitting US President.
Mark is right when he is talking about Treason.
But before anything could be done Chavez cancelled all of his engagements, and high tailed it back to his own Country where he does have the right to spew his crazy antics!
Marie, Liam provided you with the constitution where it clearly points out that Freedom of speech is God-given, merely recognized and supported by our constitution.
And you can say inane comments such as "Liberals are treasonous," but without some supporting evidence, you may as well say that "Republicans smoke cow dung."
(Hey, that may explain how they get that way...)
I’m sorry Marie, but wishing doesn’t make it so. By saying that a foreign national, whether he is Head of State or not, isn’t entitled to free speech, you are saying that the founders were wrong; that all men are not created equal and that the right to free speech is not unalienable. Either free speech is a right or it isn’t; there’s no wiggle room.
As for Treason, yes, let’s break out our Constitutions and see what they say: “Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Venezuela is not at war with the USA, nor is it an enemy of the USA in any legal sense. Nothing that Chavez is reported to have done is treasonous.
You may not like it, you may think it highly rude or offensive, but accepting stuff like this is part of the price you pay for the benefits of a free society.
Um… Dan, sorry to be pedantic, but…
You are correct that it’s the Constitution which recognises a general right to free speech, but the quote I gave was actually from the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunalty, not much can be done to Hugo Chavez. I agree just let him spout off what he wants. If he wants to see a thug he should look in the mirror. as long as he made no threats, physically or life, we cannot do anything.
Boycott Citgo products as one blogger has suggested.
There is no law against stupid bigoted beliefs. If there were America would need alot more prisons and you could kiss any more tax cuts good-bye.
"Dan, sorry to be pedantic, but…"
D'oh!
Post a Comment