Washington Post Distorts Venezuela's Constitutional Amendment | Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela |Axisoflogic.com

(note: reader response added at bottom of page)

The Washington Post, the second most important US capitalist newspaper after the NY Times, on Dec. 19, 2008, published a 4-paragraph editorial on the upcoming referendum in Venezuela. The referendum is on a constitutional amendment to remove term limits on the office of president and will be held on February 15, 2008. The Washington Post captioned its editorial "Mr. Chávez Tries Again ... With an economic crash in sight, Venezuela's strongman calls another referendum on his tenure in office."

Contrary to the caption of the 4-paragraph editorial in the Post, there is no "economic crash in sight" in Venezuela since the country prudently divested in 2005 its currency reserves from US bonds, including mortgage-back securities based on US home mortgages. Even more prudently the government then removed its currency reserves from US commercial and investment banks [now bankrupt and begging for more handouts from the inept US bourgeois regime in Washington. What's more, the Venezuelan government in 2005 removed its cash proceeds from the sale of mortgage-back securities, other US securities, and the remainder of its currency reserves from the NY branch of the US central bank. Thus, these funds were transferred entirely out of the reach of money-snatching US capitalists to the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland which is a kind of central bank for the central banks of the world.

From 2005 forward, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez repeatedly warned the world that US capitalism was on the verge of a massive collapse and US financiers were mostly a bunch of thieves who were looting the world. Despite the timely and protective steps taken by Venezuela the collapse of capitalism will have some significant and adverse effects on the Venezuelan economy. However, these adverse effects are less severe in Venezuela than in other developing countries or even most developed capitalist countries, most of which have NO currency reserves after being looted by crooked US financiers. In addition, only a dozen or so developed capitalist countries have more than Venezuela's 356 tons of gold in their official gold reserves, the value of which has skyrocketed during the last 8 years as US capitalism slid into insolvency.

If Hugo Chavez were "Venezuela's strongman," as the Washington Post's editorial caption asserts, why would he resort to a referendum from the people to get what he wants? And, why would the alleged "strongman" resort to a referendum "again”? What kind of "strongman" is that? I never heard of a "strongman" who relies on truly democratic elections and popular referendums even one time to get what he wants, not to mention twice. We shall examine each of the 4 paragraphs in the WP article in light of the facts.

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE POST EDITORIAL

The Post states:

"THE FUTURE does not look bright for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Last month, opposition candidates won control of the country's three most populous states and the two largest cities. The price of Venezuela's heavy oil has dropped below $35 per barrel, which is 40 percent below what the government says it planned for in next year's budget and less than half of what independent analysts say Mr. Chávez needs to sustain his heavy spending on projects such as the nationalization of domestic industries, purchases of Russian weapons and subsidies to clients including Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega. Already, Venezuelans are experiencing inflation of more than 30 percent, shortages of basic goods and Barack Obama will remove Mr. Chávez's favorite foil -- George W. Bush -- and replace him with a president who may be more popular in Venezuela than Mr. Chávez himself."

The paragraph is an instance of disinformation or, in other words, a sly combination of lies and facts favored by the US capitalist press.

5 Blatant Lies in the first paragraph.

Lie #1 - "THE FUTURE does not look bright for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." The principal foes of Chavez are those who have fallen on hard times. Laissez faire capitalism, the beloved of US reactionaries, is now despised even in the USA; US imperialism has been exposed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a genocidal and bestial monster; bourgeois ideology, culture, and morality are widely seen as rotten to core; and the financial sector of the US bourgeoisie, masters of accounting and securities fraud in connection with mortgage-back securities, has finally been exposed as a nest of racketeers, gangsters, mafia, thieves, looters, and pirates. (It's unclear why the Post capitalized "THE FUTURE". It’s almost as if the Post knew what is going to happen or, at least, what is planned by the US imperialists and their Venezuelan quislings for Venezuela.)
Lie #2 - "Barack Obama will ... replace him [Chavez] with a president who may be more popular in Venezuela than Mr. Chávez himself." This lie obviously expresses the imperial conceit of the Post. Moreover, the confidence that rode the winds of euphoria for Obama have already begun to wane due to his appointments to his new administration, his pro-Israel stance, his warmongering in Pakistan and Afghanistan and most recently, his silence on the genocide being executed on the Palestinians. On the other hand, President Chavez has never been more popular as evidenced by the millions of affirmative signatures preparatory for the referendum for his re-election.
Lie #3 – It is a fact that "opposition candidates won control of the country's three most populous states and the two largest cities," as the Post alleges. But the revolutionary forces allied with Chavez won 75% of the states and 82% of the cities. What the Post said, on its face, is a fact, but the way the Post told the fact promotes an impression of a victory for the opposition - another lie.
Lie #4 –The Post statement, "Venezuelans are experiencing inflation of more than 30 percent," distorts the situation. Price increases often hit the reactionary middle class harder than the workers and poor. This is due to the fact that many of the most necessary goods and services for the workers and poor are supplied by the increasingly proletarian state either free of charge or at significant discounts. These include things such as such as education, health care, energy (e.g., 12 cents a gallon for gasoline), price controls on essential food and increasingly, affordable housing. Inflation strikes harder at luxury goods ... goods and services other than basic necessities, which the mass of reactionaries in the middle class view as "essentials." Only about 20% of the Venezuelan population is either middle class [defined broadly] or bourgeois. Inflation always comes with booming economies like the one that has been taking place in Venezuela and the government is working to bring inflation under control. Meanwhile, as inflation hammers bourgeois discretionary spending it brings with it the side effect of stemming consumerism which is negatively correlated with the fruits of the socialist economy in Venezuela.
Lie #5 – The Post claims that the Venezuelan government revenues are, "less than half of what independent analysts say Mr. Chávez needs to sustain his heavy spending on projects such as the nationalization of domestic industries, purchases of Russian weapons and subsidies to clients including Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega."

First, who are these “independent analysts" the Post has chosen as their source? It’s interesting that the Post doesn’t name them or cite their data. We can be sure that they are anything but "independent”. They are Post analysts who simply claim to be “independent”.

Second, trade with Cuba and Nicaragua is not a matter of subsidies. They amount to business agreements, favorable to both trading partners. If the value of services of tens of thousands of Cuban doctors, teachers, engineers, sports trainers, agricultural experts, security specialists were appraised at market value rather than appraised at the extreme discount prices Cuba charges Venezuela, Cuba would have a surplus in its balance of trade with Venezuela. The export of Nicaraguan agricultural exports, especially beans, to the Venezuelan market is increasing sizably and swiftly.

Third, the Post doesn't consider the very real possibility that austerity measures that will be imposed in Venezuela as a result of the crash of US capitalism may be imposed chiefly on the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists, not chiefly on Venezuelan workers, the poor, and their proletarian allies in Cuba and Nicaragua. The bourgeoisie knows and fears this as they clearly prefer a gap between the rich and poor like that in the United States.

SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE POST EDITORIAL

The Post states:

"What to do? Mr. Chávez could have moderated his policies and reached out to his opposition. Instead he is rushing to stage another referendum on a polarizing constitutional amendment that would remove the limit on his tenure in office. The self-styled "Bolivarian revolutionary" lost a similar vote last December, and polls show that only about a third of Venezuelans now favor such a measure. So why insist on this new vote, which could take place as early as February? Evidently, Mr. Chávez sees his opportunity to turn himself into a president-for-life slipping away along with the opportunity to lead a new bloc of authoritarian and anti-American states in Latin America."

Reaching out to the opposition: By "opposition" the Post means the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and the US imperialists who dominate the reactionary groups in the Venezuelan middle class. Why should Mr. Chavez want to "reach out" to such bourgeois and imperialist trash who resort to coups, manager lockouts, relentless, one-sided pounding of the government with their powerful media, systematic hoarding and destruction of food to create artificial shortages and random murder of citizens in their attempt to undermine Chavez, the government and ultimately the Venezuelan people?

The 2 referenda cannot be compared: Yes, it is true that "the self-styled Bolivarian revolutionary" (Chavez) lost the 2007 referendum vote last December" but it was not a "similar" referendum as the Post says. In fact it was a vote to reform 69 articles of the constitution, one of which applied to term limits. The loss of that expansive referendum cannot be compared with this referendum, nor can it be used to predict the outcome of this vote on the single issue of term limits. Moreover, Chavez' lost the December, 2007 vote by only 10,000 votes out of a then 16,000,000 electorate of registered voters. In addition, in the recent Nov. 23, 2008 regional elections, this same "self-styled Bolivarian revolutionary" got a million more votes than the bourgeois-controlled opposition, notwithstanding the fact that opposition candidates won control of the country's three most populous states and the two largest cities.

Winning the referendum on term limits in February takes only one vote over 50% of the turnout. So, if we look solely at the Nov. 23 regional election results, the "self-styled Bolivarian revolutionary" potentially has a 1 million vote edge in the upcoming referendum.

The Post's sources: The Post cooked up the big lie -- namely, that "polls show that only about a third of Venezuelans now favor such a measure (referendum on term limits)." The Post doesn't cite any of these so-called "polls" because they either have no credibility or do not even exist. Prior to every election and referendum the government has won by huge margins in the past, similar “polls” were quoted predicting the government would lose.

The day before Dec. 19 when the Post editorial appeared, the Group of Social Researches (GIS 21), a polling firm in Caracas, released a poll showing 53% of registered voters support the constitutional amendment, 42% reject it, and 5% are undecided.

Most of the polls that have been released by credible firms so far are consistent with the GIS 21 poll.

Implications of the GIS 21 poll: The Post no doubt understands the electoral implications of the GIS 21 poll released Dec. 18 and the implications of the GIS 21 poll explains why the Post rushed to put out a slanted and deceitful editorial, Dec. 19, the day after the release of the GIS 21 poll.

Here are the electoral implications of the GIS 21 poll.

The Venezuelan electorate (The National Electoral Council says the electorate is about 17.3 million.)
about 17,000,000

Estimated 35% abstention (In the Nov. 23 regional elections, the abstention was 35%.) about 6,000,000

Referendum 65% turnout (Turnout is the electorate less the abstention.) about 11,000,000

Estimated revolutionary share of the turnout
(53% is the finding of the GIS 21 Dec. 18th poll) 53%, about 5,830,000

Opposition and "undecided" 47% share of turnout (47% is the sum of opposition and currently undecided votes.) about 5,170,000

Estimated size of revolutionary victory
[The difference between the estimated revolutionary and opposition vote in the referendum.]
about 660,000

So, even if the opposition gets every last one of the currently undecided votes, the opposition would lose. If the referendum had been held on Dec. 18, they would have lost by much more than 500,000 votes.

Projections of the revolutionaries: The Venezuelan revolutionaries are completely sober and objective in their analysis of their prospects in the upcoming referendum to remove presidential term limits. But these spirited and willful proletarian revolutionaries are working hard with a little twinkle in their eyes. They believe they can win ... provided they give this electoral struggle their all ... by a whopping and crushing 1,000,000 votes.

And they just may do it.

To this end, the revolutionaries launched a petition drive in virtually every city, small town and countryside across the nation on behalf of the referendum. In little more than a week, the petition gathered 4.7 million signatures. Each and every signature and voter registry number are accessible online to assist those who care to verify the document. Since a large number of Venezuelan revolutionaries are devout Nazarenes, members of a religious group derived from Jewish mythology, the revolution indulgently called a temporary halt to the petition drive out of respect for the Nazarene holiday. But after the celebration of religious holiday, the petition drive will resume with a display of revolutionary will and spirit that are sure to erase the smug expressions from the countenance of the counter-revolutionaries and asses*.

The opposition's fascist tactics: The counter-revolutionaries and asses* strut about with smug expressions on their faces because their Venezuelan bourgeois and US imperialist leaders have adopted or, rather, expanded a tactic that's been around for some time -- paying mercenaries imported from Colombian death squads and Venezuelan drug addicts desperate for a fix to randomly murder Venezuelan citizens, usually poor people, to intimidate and discourage the voters from supporting the revolution. The counter-revolutionaries call their "new" tactic the "surge." The money to pay Colombian mercenaries and Venezuelan junkies to commit the murderous "surge" comes principally from the International Republican Institute (IRI), an arm of the US government-controlled and financed, National Endowment For Democracy (NED). US Senator John McCain controls the NED as chairman of the board of directors. Sen. McCain is the architect of the "surge" in Iraq which has murdered over a million people. At one point in the Iraqi "surge", US troops and their allies randomly rounded up and exterminated about 40,000 Iraqs per month.

Venezuelan revolutionaries have remained disciplined so far and have not struck back at the rich, depending on legitimate and constitutional means to bring them to justice. The 4 Chavista trade union leaders who were shot dead in one November week by these killers and the response by their comrades serves as a good example of this.

THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE POST EDITORIAL

The Post states,

"In theory, advocates of democracy in Venezuela might welcome this referendum as a way to decisively stop Mr. Chávez's attempt to turn the country into a 21st-century Cuba. The problem is that elections in Venezuela are no longer free and fair. Mr. Chávez has turned national television into a state propaganda outlet, and the Miami Herald reported Sunday that the government spent tens of millions of dollars to buy votes in the recent state and local elections. The state election authority, which is controlled by Mr. Chávez's loyalists, delayed the announcement of his defeat in last year's referendum; reliable sources say the president conceded only after he was told by military commanders that they would not put down protests against a falsified result. The official results, showing the margin of Mr. Chávez's loss, have not been released."

In every election in Venezuela in which the opposition does better than expected ... like the Dec. 2007 defeat of the constitutional reform proposed by Chavez and, to a lesser extent, the Nov. 2008 regional elections ... the lying Washington Post accepts and welcomes the election results. But as soon as the balance of forces shift back in favor of the revolutionaries, these malignant outlets of the US capitalist press return to their lying and slanderous rubbish about "elections in Venezuela are no longer free and fair."

Buying votes: The revolution did not spend "tens of millions of dollars" or any other amount of money to buy votes in the Nov. 23 regional elections, as the Post and the Miami Herald falsely report. Revolutionary funds were spent in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution and electoral laws to win votes. All one has to do for verification is to look at the massive marches - millions strong - that preceded the elections. Not even PDVSA has enough money to pay 6 million Chavistas to come out in support of the elections! - unless the Post is talking about "buying votes" with free health care and education, subsidized food and housing and the most robust economy Venezuelans have ever known!

Buying traitors: In contrast with the revolutionary campaign, the opposition took corruption money from foreign principals. The NED [mentioned above in connection with genocidal "surge"] and the USAID poured $4,7000,000 of corruption money from the bourgeois regime under Bush into the opposition during the Nov. 23 regional election campaign. This violated Venezuelan law on financial contributions from foreign principals in connection with elections in Venezuela.

These attempts by Washington and their opposition lap dogs in Venezuela is not a matter of rumors and hearsay. In a still-breaking story, 3 days ago, Alberto Ravell, the director of Globovision, the television station that leads the way in anti-Chavez propaganda, along with heads of 3 opposition political parties were busted by a young journalist when they traveled to Puerto Rico to meet with an official of the U.S. government to plan their strategy for attacking the upcoming referendum. They were entertained in the grandest style in San Juan and were paid $3 million for their services. They were caught red-handed by the astute journalist and a memo that Ravell sent to his 3 co-conspirators which spelled out the purpose, terms and financial arrangements for the plan. When confronted at the airport upon their re-entry into Venezuela, Ravell blew his cool, cursed the journalist while threatening to hit him. He and his buddies are now the butt of jokes among the revolutionaries.

Again, it is a criminal offense in Venezuela for a foreign government, individual, corporation or association to make a financial contribution or offer to make a financial contribution in connection with an election in Venezuela. The Venezuelan law is modeled on a US law, the "Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which makes it a felony for a foreign principal to offer "any thing of value," including but not limited to financial contributions, "in connection with" ANY election in the USA.

Eva Golinger, a researcher and lawyer who has done a lot of revolutionary work, using the US Freedom of Information Act. She has pried loose top-secret documents from the CIA and other US imperialist agencies and recently wrote:

“It's not just the 4.7 million dollars invested in the opposition's campaign for the regional elections in 2008 by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and their affiliated agencies, but also the 50 million dollars, along with expert political consultation, donated by the US and used since 2000 to construct a solid base of the Venezuelan opposition, who, beginning in 2004, began to set their sights on infiltrating communities supportive of Chavez as well as students.”

Naturally, the two-faced Washington Post strongly supports efforts of the bourgeois regime in Washington to defend the US electoral process from corruption by foreign sources, including friendly foreign sources. But the Post adamantly argues that the US government and its surrogates, like NED, have the right ... and the duty ... to spend as much of U.S. taxpayer money as they like to corrupt the Venezuelan electoral process. This is blatant hypocrisy.

CNE's report of the 2007 results: The Post lied when it wrote, in its editorial, that "The state election authority, which is controlled by Mr. Chávez's loyalists, delayed the announcement of his defeat in last year's referendum."

Proof that the announcement was not delayed appeared on Bloomberg News, a capitalist propaganda outlet on the morning after the Dec. 2, 2007 defeat. On Dec. 3, 2007, the Boomberg News reported, "Cheers, fireworks and the banging of pots and pans could be heard in a mostly anti-Chavez Caracas neighborhood after the results were announced."

Chavez conceded defeat: The Post lies again when it writes "reliable sources say the president conceded only after he was told by military commanders that they would not put down protests against a falsified result."

On the night of December 2, 2007, Les Blough, editor of Axis of Logic was reporting on the referendum from Hotel La Floresta in East Caracas, an opposition stronghold. He reported that within minutes after the CNE reported the results on television, Plaza de Altamira filled with thousands of “Pitiyanquis” (opposition members) shutting down the streets and avenues with their SUVs and other expensive cars, blowing their horns and setting off fireworks in a drunken blowout that lasted nearly until dawn. Blough interviewed many of the celebrants who had no problem accepting the results reported by the CNE when they won but even then, some argued that they won by a greater margin. President Chavez conceded the defeat 2 hours after the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced the results.

In another example, the Post says, "The official results (December, 2007), showing the margin of Mr. Chávez's loss, have not been released."

The morning after the Dec. 2, 2007, defeat of the referendum that Chavez proposed, Bloomberg News, among many others reported,

"The first set lost 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, the second block 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent. About 8.9 million people voted, or 56 percent of those eligible, according to a statement on the election agency's Web site."

Where did they get this information? Aren't these the results of the Dec. 2, 2007 referendum? Aren't these results "official”? After all, these results appeared on "the election agency's website." When a government agency puts a story on its web site, isn't that a "release" of the story or an "announcement" of it?

Did the Post get its lies about "Mr. Chávez's loss have not been released." - from those "reliable sources" that it cites?

The Miami Herald: The Washington Post quotes the lies and slanders about the November regional elections from the Miami Herald. The Herald is well known in leftist as an extreme, reactionary, capitalist newspaper. It is infested with counter-revolutionary Cuban-U.S. lunatics and terrorist supporters, most of whom are on the payroll of the US government-operated Radio and TV Marti.

When the relationship between the US intelligence agents and the Miami Herald was exposed in 2006, the editor of the Herald fired three of the US agents. A week later, the Herald fired the editor and rehired the three agents.

Note that US intelligence agents at the Miami Herald make more money in their side-job as Radio and TV Marti propaganda agents than they do as Miami Herald reporters. The job at the Herald supplies these intelligence agents with journalistic cover. From time to time, the Miami Herald no doubt reciprocates by quoting the lies in the Washington Post. So, the two reactionary bourgeois newspapers hold hands and dance together. Perhaps, the Miami Herald is another one of those unnamed "reliable sources" on which the Post relies as a source for its lies. Each repeats the lies of the other ad nauseum.

When the Post says, "Mr. Chávez has turned national television into a state propaganda outlet," the Post forgets that the Washington Post itself is a "state propaganda outlet" of the bourgeois regime in Washington. In September 2008, for example, the Washington Post hired as a key editor a veteran CIA agent who spied during the last 18 years in over 20 countries, using Wall Street Journal credentials as cover and his wife now spies on the UN using LA Times credentials as cover. The U.S. media as an arm of the government can be seen in the Herald, NPR, PBS and a host of other big media in the U.S. But these same outfits have a problem with Venezuela's handfull of TV and radio outlets that support the government against a backdrop of the 80% privately-owned TV, radio and newspaper media that have free rein to systematically attack the government every day and night of the year!

FOURTH AND FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE EDITORIAL

The Post reports,

"Mr. Chávez's campaign means that the Obama administration is likely to find Venezuela in turmoil as it takes office. The caudillo has taken to threatening his domestic opponents with arrest or military action -- and both history and the polls say he cannot win this referendum without force or fraud. While any U.S. attempt to influence the vote would probably be counterproductive, Mr. Obama ought to make clear that any chance that Mr. Chávez has of rapprochement with his administration will disappear if he corruptly entrenches himself in power. "

The Post immediately shows its hand when it describes President Chavez with the worn out and prejudicial term, "the caudillo" (strong man). The term also has a racist character about it given that it has historically referred to Latino leaders. As for the Post's prediction that Obama "is likely to find Venezuela in turmoil," Obama should focus on turmoil in the USA, especially the corruption in his home state of Illinois. If Mr. Obama craters under imperialist and Zionist pressure and breaks his promise to the US people to withdraw from Iraq, he won't have to go abroad to look for turmoil. If he simply removes troops from Iraq and redeploys them to Pakistan and Afghanistan, as he has promised to do, he will perpetuate even more hostility, turmoil and debt at home, not to speak of his contribution to the hatred for the U.S. abroad.

As for the Post's statement that "both history and the polls say he (Chavez) cannot win this referendum without force or fraud," the Post again must receive its “history” and polls from those unnamed "reliable sources" which fed the Post the lies about the December, 2007 referendum. History says Chavez lost only one election/referendum (Dec. 2, 2007) in 10 years. As for the polls, nothing more needs to be said to debunk this shallow attack.

Regarding the Post's lie about "the necessity of force or fraud in order to win the upcoming referendum," Venezuelan elections, unlike the rotten US presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, are the most internationally monitored elections in the world. The EU, OAS, Carter Center, among others, have monitored Venezuelan elections and declared them to be free and fair. Reactionary slime like NED (again, Washington’s front known the "National Endowment For Democracy"), other anti-democratic US government agencies, and anti-democratic NGOs allied with US imperialism (e.g. "Human Rights Watch") have never made a case against Venezuelan elections that stands up to the findings of EU, OAS, Carter Center, and other international election monitors. The same international monitoring agencies were largely excluded from monitoring the US presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 when intimidation and illegal disfranchisement of millions of voters took place. In 2000, for example, the GOP-infested US Supreme Court stopped a recount that had exposed massive fraud in the state of Florida which manipulated the outcome of the entire national election in favor of the GOPs. These media reports rely, not on credible evidence of any sort, only on the effects of repetition on the minds of TV viewers and readers of headlines in U.S. newspapers.

The Washington Post after a few weeks of coverage of the 2000 fraud in Florida swept the whole story under the rug and the Post keeps the story there; yet the Post persists in digging up lies about the electoral process in Venezuela.

Again, when the opposition unexpectedly defeated the Dec. 2007 constitutional reform proposed by Chavez, all of the two-faced bourgeois propaganda outlets, like the Washington Post, judged the Dec. 2007 election devoid of force or fraud, very free and very fair because the opposition prevailed. But when opinion polls, signature petition drives, mass mobilizations, and the most recent election suggest that Chavez and his revolutionaries will win the next election on the constitutional amendment to remove term limits, the capitalist media, especially its USA section, duplicitously snivel and whine about “force and fraud”.

CONCLUSION

The imperialist US regime is alarmed by the possibility that Venezuelan voters may pass the constitutional amendment that will allow Hugo Chavez to run for office again, because Hugo Chavez is too strong and too smart for the bungling US officials in power under the Bush regime and most likely, under the incoming Obama regime next week. What's at stake is the control of the Venezuelan state through which the US imperialists have traditionally oppressed and exploited the Venezuela people, using servile Venezuelan bourgeois quislings as US surrogates. Also at stake is the role of Venezuela and its growing number of regional allies in the struggle to preserve national sovereignty in Latin America and Caribbean - and achieve greater economic cooperation despite hegemonic interference from US imperialists.

In the domestic sphere, if the Chavez wins the constitutional amendment he wants, the US imperialist-financed and dominated political opposition in Venezuela may shatter since after repeatedly defeats, the opposition has come to rest its hopes and dreams on getting rid of Chavez by term limits. The passage of the amendment will be an irreparable blow to the confidence of the opposition. If the opposition shatters, some of its elements may resort to terrorist activity against the revolution and other opposition elements may make their peace with Chavez.

In international sphere, Chavez is widely seen as having decidedly outperformed the bourgeois US regime under Bush in the competition for regional "leadership" or, more correctly, regional influence. For over a century, the US imperialists were the largely uncontested "leaders" of the region, but now the US imperialists must compete with all of the countries of the region for influence. The growing anti-imperialist ties and stance of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Dominica and some of the other Latin American and Caribbean countries are often presented, in part, as evidence of Chavez diplomatic successes. Now that the US capitalist economy has plunged into absolute bankruptcy requiring handouts, bailouts, and give-a-ways to the richest strata of the US bourgeoisie in order to produce signs of life, many observers expect Chavez to continue to outperform his weakened and insolvent foe in the North.

To change the level of the playing field in his favor, Chavez encourages the Russians, the Chinese, Iranians, and Vietnamese and others to expand their economic, political, and military presence in the region as a counter-balance to the enormous weight the US imperialists still retain. If Chavez wins the referendum, he will likely invite the North Koreans, the revolutionaries of Laos, and progressive Arab forces to drop by and get introduced to his pals. The Korean revolutionaries will especially like such a scenario.

The Washington Post is nothing more than the US government printing press that tries to convince the people in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Latin America and the Caribbean and the world that the gains being made in Venezuela and the region are based on fraud and force. What do they hope to gain from this propaganda? They would be ill-advised to use their deception as a platform for using force of any kind against their neighbors to the South.

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

Contact the author, Arthur Shaw: Belial4444@aol.com

*Read Arthur Shaw's bio and his essays on Axis of Logic

Added: Letter from an Axis of Logic reader and response by Arthur Shaw:

Letter from Kiosa

"Arthur, LOVED the mincemeat you made of the Washington Post's article on Venezuela's Referendum. Pero, cuidado -- those 'Philistines' are Palestinians. Ai kaRAMba. Please to find an alternative invective for shamelessly debauched parasites.

Muchas gracias como siempre,

Kiosa"

Arthur responds:

"Well, after reading this comment from kiosacoup quoted below, so much ... forever ... for the use of the term "Philistines" by me. I regret dropping even this tiny piece of the sacred lingo from my ideological and political tradition.

"[Both PF and DF, Palestinian organizations with a presence in Houston, have, in the past, mentioned my insensitivity to me.]

"Naturally, Dr. Marx fumes over the abandonment of his linguistics, because, to Karl, Philistines didn't refer to Palestinians. To Marx. a philistine was one who is smugly indifferent to any kind of culture ... especially proletarian culture, which certainly is not and never has been a characteristic of the heroic and glorious Palestinian people.

"I'm not bereft of alternatives after this belated abandonment, because Marx used the term "asses" interchangeably with his peculiar definition of "Philistines" ... the latter, once again, is not politically correct.

"I believe "asses" will aptly describe the non-Palestinian individuals whom brother Marx had in mind."

Art

Ed. note: Thus Axis of Logic editors have duly changed the word "Philistines" to "Asses" in Arthur Shaw's hammering essay - with apologies to all the real 4 legged burros and donkeys out there.