VHeadline.com commentarist Mary MacElveen writes: On Monday (May 22, 2006) in an AFP article Bush was quoted as saying that he was concerned about an "erosion of democracy" in Venezuela and Bolivia.

Did I hear that one correctly?

In both Venezuela and Bolivia, people vote directly for their presidential candidate instead of having to go through an Electoral College as we do here in the United States.  In the United States in any presidential election, the voter does not directly vote for his or her candidate.  They vote for state electors whose votes are certified in congress at a later date.  Based upon how many direct votes are cast, that is how the electors decide.  In some states that is not always the case, since some electors in the same state will vote for one candidate and some for the other.  It truly is a confusing and antiquated process. In the opinion of many it goes against democracy.

So, in previous elections, I did not actually vote for Al Gore or John F. Kerry, I voted for these faceless and nameless electors who I do not even know.

I guess if I wanted their names, I could look them up, but they were not the ones campaigning for my vote. 

In this report Bush spoke out against both countries because they: "have adopted policies which many in Washington view as unfavorable toward US interests."

• Is there a law written somewhere that states a country is only a democracy if it has the United States interests at heart?
  
• So, the power brokers in Washington, D.C. get to decide which country is a democracy and which one is not?

Once again, we see the duplicitous nature coming from the belly of the beast in Washington, D.C.

If you want a good laugh read this quote coming from Bush: "I am going to continue to remind our hemisphere that respect for property rights and human rights is essential for all countries in order for there to be prosperity and peace."

Just last year the United States Supreme Court ruled that if ones personal property was seen as a valued commodity, it could be ripped away from them through eminent domain.  This means that the local, state and the federal governments can condemn private property and turn it over to private developers.

In the case of Venezuela, Bush was most likely commenting how property from the wealthy land owners was seized in order for it to be put to work for the betterment of all Venezuelans.  So instead of importing bananas from other countries, Venezuelans could grow their own crops instead of being dependent on other countries.

Now, he (Bush) speaks of human rights...

The Bush administration and human rights is an oxymoron if ever there were one.  One only has to look at the treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib and GITMO to see who the real culprit against human rights is. 

• One only has to look at Katrina victims to know human rights came second, third or not at all. 

One only has to look at the explosion of those going homeless and without food in this (USA) country to know that human rights does not exist within the United States.  Human rights also demands free health care for all.  Venezuela has that but the United States does not.  Some death penalty opponents such as Amnesty International have railed against the United States for the use of this barbaric form of punishment. 

At one point, Bush was given the nickname "Texacutioner" because, as governor of Texas, his state more than any other state put these condemned prisoners to death.

That is when I became familiar with Bush as he mocked Karla Faye Tucker a condemned prisoner who plead for her life.  As he mocked her, that act in itself told many of his character or lack of it.

Under Venezuelan law, there is no death penalty.

As the cost of living escalates here in the United States: Where is this prosperity?  At least President Chavez is implementing a level playing field for all and not just some.

The United States is currently engaged in the "Bush War" in Iraq...  Is anyone seeing peace in that country?  President Chavez knew that this war was illegal, unwarranted and took no part in it.  Which president actually stood up for peace and yes justice?  We the United States condemned innocent people to death.  Without justice, there is no peace.

Bush also stated: "I'm going to remind our allies and friends in the neighborhood that the United States of America stands for justice; that when we see poverty, we care about it, and we do something about it."

• If America stands for justice, the victims of 9/11 scream for Osama bin Laden's head which Bush has not delivered. 
   
• If America stands for justice, Bush would send Posada Carriles on the next plane back to Venezuela to face Venezuelan justice.

With the exploding deficit and tax cuts to the rich ... how is Bush addressing poverty when he just cut the funds going to Medicaid and food stamps just prior to Christmas this past year? 

What about the three thousand Katrina victims just evicted from FEMA housing?

• Bush knows nothing of how the poor live coming from a wealthy background, but President Chavez does since he grew up in a poor family.

How dare Bush lecture any country on the plight of the poor!

This AFP report also stated: "And in what appeared to be an oblique reference to reports that Venezuela played a supporting role in presidential elections last December in Bolivia, Bush cautioned against "meddling."

How about the long laundry list of how the United States has used the CIA to meddle in the affairs of other nations by toppling leaders perceived unfriendly to U.S. interests? Please read my past piece Blow Back! Contained within that piece I chronicled just how the CIA has meddled in the affairs of other nations based upon a video feed I watched called "Secrets of the CIA"  Also, when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations, one only has to look at the Venezuelan coup of 2002.

• If you are unfamiliar with it, I invite you to read Eva Golinger's book "The Chavez Code" In that book she chronicles how the United States sponsored that coup.

Bush also stated: "I will continue to remind people that trade is the best way to help people be lifted from poverty."

One only has to look at the reaction of those who rioted at the previous America's Summit to know that his brand of trade was seen for what it truly was and that was a farce.  His (Bush's) idea of trade is to make slaves out of the rest of the world's workers only to benefit the United States. 

President Chavez has a different idea in which workers are valued and in some cases have a partnership in the companies they work for ... unlike Wal-Mart in the United States.

What about the minimum wage issue?

In the United States it has not seen an increase since 1996.  President Chavez just increased the minimum wage for Venezuelan workers.

For those who have actually paid attention to the Enron case, the Abramoff scandal, the indictments of Tom Delay and the long, long laundry list of others within the cast of corruption ... this comment made by Bush is down right hysterical: "I'm going to remind people that the United States stands against corruption at all levels of government."

Are you falling off your chair now reading that statement?

From what I see true democracy is taking place in Venezuela and not within the United States of America...

A message to George W. Bush ... don't you dare lecture any nation on what democracy means!

Mary MacElveen
mary@vheadline.com

http://www.vheadline.com/MacElveen