Been on the anti-authoritarian bent latley, thought it proper to share this video. Larken Rose dutifully illustrates why authority is illusion. Take THAT fake authoritarians! I'll be watching you fuckers..
Enjoy.
WHISTLEBLOWING IS NOT A CRIME
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Much Nothing Regarding Ado
Living in the freest nation on this planet is an exercise in intrigue. Since its political inception, the United States government has been bound by a codex of rights retained by citizens, rights that cannot be infringed upon. The Constitution is a set of rules meant to curb governmental abuses and to ensure that men and women remain in personal life generally free from the paws of power. The really surprising notion is just how far the government will go to abridge these rights, to restrict them, to defile the code that was implemented to restrain them. Once a government is legitimated and instituted, it must struggle and fight for its survival. A government, like an organism is concerned primarily with self-preservation. Individual liberty has clearly taken a back seat to this first directive, and the road toward tyranny continues unabated. In some instances, the sophisticated rulers are even able to concoct public outcry in a direction suiting not liberty, but the thirst for governmental control. People in American society today are plagued by a severe lack of understanding about their own rights, and the rights that their supposed rulers trample upon and usurp. Many are simply disinterested in these concepts, whether the distraction is professional sports or fashionista fancy. In a free society, this type of blame can only be carried so far. The schizophrenic nature of freedom affords humans self-determination. It is not illegal to ignore the bread and circus extravaganza on display, and one cannot blame another for missing the utility of understanding and comprehension. Society is under a constant assault whose objective is to accomplish a level of disinterest and apathy. The two wings on the same bird of prey work wonders, allowing outrage and political difference to be neatly quarantined on one or the other side of "the fence". The importance of this cannot be overstated. There is a real problem with political apathy, but there is another clear and present danger residing in those who vociferously defend the system which continues to restrict and impinge their liberty.
There are many that even claim to respect liberty and the "law of the land", while being simultaneously manipulated into defaming and destroying it. If the attacks of September 11th provided any learning opportunity, it would be found in how societal psychology can be toyed with and manipulated to swallow the most heinous outrages with very little resistance. In some cases, a majority of the population can be made to practically beg for new rules or restrictions. This is a very dangerous moment in human history. It appears as an apex or a bell curve, a visual graph showing the amplitude and frequency of liberty versus tyranny. In the beginning, future United States citizens had to rebel completely against their rulers in a violent revolution. And after that, the rules and regulations foisted upon the concept of government were produced almost as a reaction to what the founders saw as transgressions by a foreign and illegitimate ruler. This was the beginning of the bell curve rocketing skyward. Never before had the world seen that degree of personal liberty and governmental restraint codified in an official document, much less followed by the government built to defend it. Surely there were previous victories, and there will also be future victories, if society today can heal a nasty spat of political amnesia.
Somewhere along that bell curve, perhaps it was the cold war. Perhaps it was the Vietnam quagmire, or the Iraq quagmire. We may even thank the great Emmanual Goldstein himself, Osama Bin Laden for helping convince government to destroy their basis of power and prestige on the world stage. The alleged operation by Osama Bin Laden alone could not have perceivably accomplished a fraction of the damage done to greater society without help from the INSIDE. This is a curious concept to explore, the idea that a significant attack can occur and affect the leadership so greatly that they begin destroying their own freedom. Like the parasite who invades the brain of a cricket and convinces it to drown, so that the parasite may escape and live on. The parasite Bin Laden accomplished far more than he was given credit for. Sure, the September 11th attacks were horrific and severely damaging to the American Psyche. The attacks even managed to kill three buildings with two stones. But political leadership used the attacks as a pretext to instigate a dismantling of some of the most important protections that exist anywhere on Earth. Thanks to parasitical politicians on every side of the aisle, people are willing more and more to assent to government, no matter how dangerous to personal liberty it may be.
This brings us to the main point. Freedom of speech is quickly becoming a lost refuge. All arms of government race toward a total surveillance society. You have the freedom to speak to a friend on the phone, but you do not have the right to that conversation being private. You have the freedom to open an email account, and to utilize it to communicate to persons of your choosing. But you no longer have any assumed right to privacy of communication. The Constitution plainly states our freedoms, while government plainly marches on destroying them. Your freedom of speech now includes government data warehouses being built to store every byte, every word, every whisper. Your freedom of speech now includes an array of info-warriors thrust into social networks to GUIDE the CONVERSATION. To put out ideological fires in the minds of men. To manipulate people at the whim of the government agent and the greater governing structure. As Patreus' recent adventures prove, not even the highest seated authorities are safe from the ruthless intelligence apparatus. The freedom of speech alone has been shown to take down a human regardless of their position in society. It is important to continue asking yourself if you are really free. Do you really have the liberty to say what you feel? Do you have the unfettered ability to communicate with and convince another person to take a deeper look into the issues of today? Do I have the ability to freely write? It appears that way. However, I cannot freely post my ideas to be digested by an untainted pool of opinion. I also do not have the freedom to be ignored. If the post contains enough keywords, someone will come lurking to make sure I didn't fall off my rocker, AND THEY DO! Perhaps they will see my words and label me as someone to be watched, someone to be investigated. All because I sit here arguing about FREEDOM. Releasing each word into the madness of virtual reality as a testament to freedom slowly dying. As I sit in the eroded plains of a democratic republic, I watch the facebook and microsoft bots come to scrape their(MY) data, and look at the interesting and nefarious array of IPs who arrive to come taste this brand of free thinking. Or this dangerous and rebellious exercise against authority. I am powerless as one person to stop the terrorist-roar of tyrannical surveillance, but do not assume for a second that I would fail to display the same level of appreciation for you. You watch us, we most certainly will continue to watch you.
There are many that even claim to respect liberty and the "law of the land", while being simultaneously manipulated into defaming and destroying it. If the attacks of September 11th provided any learning opportunity, it would be found in how societal psychology can be toyed with and manipulated to swallow the most heinous outrages with very little resistance. In some cases, a majority of the population can be made to practically beg for new rules or restrictions. This is a very dangerous moment in human history. It appears as an apex or a bell curve, a visual graph showing the amplitude and frequency of liberty versus tyranny. In the beginning, future United States citizens had to rebel completely against their rulers in a violent revolution. And after that, the rules and regulations foisted upon the concept of government were produced almost as a reaction to what the founders saw as transgressions by a foreign and illegitimate ruler. This was the beginning of the bell curve rocketing skyward. Never before had the world seen that degree of personal liberty and governmental restraint codified in an official document, much less followed by the government built to defend it. Surely there were previous victories, and there will also be future victories, if society today can heal a nasty spat of political amnesia.
Somewhere along that bell curve, perhaps it was the cold war. Perhaps it was the Vietnam quagmire, or the Iraq quagmire. We may even thank the great Emmanual Goldstein himself, Osama Bin Laden for helping convince government to destroy their basis of power and prestige on the world stage. The alleged operation by Osama Bin Laden alone could not have perceivably accomplished a fraction of the damage done to greater society without help from the INSIDE. This is a curious concept to explore, the idea that a significant attack can occur and affect the leadership so greatly that they begin destroying their own freedom. Like the parasite who invades the brain of a cricket and convinces it to drown, so that the parasite may escape and live on. The parasite Bin Laden accomplished far more than he was given credit for. Sure, the September 11th attacks were horrific and severely damaging to the American Psyche. The attacks even managed to kill three buildings with two stones. But political leadership used the attacks as a pretext to instigate a dismantling of some of the most important protections that exist anywhere on Earth. Thanks to parasitical politicians on every side of the aisle, people are willing more and more to assent to government, no matter how dangerous to personal liberty it may be.
This brings us to the main point. Freedom of speech is quickly becoming a lost refuge. All arms of government race toward a total surveillance society. You have the freedom to speak to a friend on the phone, but you do not have the right to that conversation being private. You have the freedom to open an email account, and to utilize it to communicate to persons of your choosing. But you no longer have any assumed right to privacy of communication. The Constitution plainly states our freedoms, while government plainly marches on destroying them. Your freedom of speech now includes government data warehouses being built to store every byte, every word, every whisper. Your freedom of speech now includes an array of info-warriors thrust into social networks to GUIDE the CONVERSATION. To put out ideological fires in the minds of men. To manipulate people at the whim of the government agent and the greater governing structure. As Patreus' recent adventures prove, not even the highest seated authorities are safe from the ruthless intelligence apparatus. The freedom of speech alone has been shown to take down a human regardless of their position in society. It is important to continue asking yourself if you are really free. Do you really have the liberty to say what you feel? Do you have the unfettered ability to communicate with and convince another person to take a deeper look into the issues of today? Do I have the ability to freely write? It appears that way. However, I cannot freely post my ideas to be digested by an untainted pool of opinion. I also do not have the freedom to be ignored. If the post contains enough keywords, someone will come lurking to make sure I didn't fall off my rocker, AND THEY DO! Perhaps they will see my words and label me as someone to be watched, someone to be investigated. All because I sit here arguing about FREEDOM. Releasing each word into the madness of virtual reality as a testament to freedom slowly dying. As I sit in the eroded plains of a democratic republic, I watch the facebook and microsoft bots come to scrape their(MY) data, and look at the interesting and nefarious array of IPs who arrive to come taste this brand of free thinking. Or this dangerous and rebellious exercise against authority. I am powerless as one person to stop the terrorist-roar of tyrannical surveillance, but do not assume for a second that I would fail to display the same level of appreciation for you. You watch us, we most certainly will continue to watch you.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Christopher Dorner: Sapiens-Hunt or, Elephant Exorcism?
The treatment of the bloodthirsty, animalistic Dorner story has been interesting. Manifesto hijinx plentiful. So many probabilities and ways to spin this to serve the agenda. Gun control and other platforms asserted by 'manhunted', downplayed or ignored? Ignoring because its ranting and raving by a lunatic? Ignoring to protect and serve? Protect those serving. Hunt they who endanger those serving to protect. Hunting any who commit the supreme crime considerably higher than that of normal human-on-human murd3r, that of the C0p persuasion. Bringing out the heavies, pulling out all stops to track and capture this so-called 'animal'.
Now that this story has simmered for a few days, a few ideas regarding this media event have materialized. Some have questioned the LAPD's role in Dorner's firing. Some have questioned the use of drones to track down suspected criminals. And that damning police scanner audio is another useful aspect of this story. Suspected is an interesting and important keyword to recall later. Surely there are questions that must be asked. Although justice will never be accomplished in this case.
When I state that justice will never be served, I imagine a voice countering with "Justice was served though. Dorner is dead. End of story". But what exactly is justice then? Is it public satisfaction? Is it a statement by police that justice was served? A statement by the media? Is it a personal belief or feeling of accomplishment? Is justice served when the accused is put to death without being given their day in court? Even the Baghdad Queen Hussein was given a proper trial, and subsequent execution, and that was in IRAQ! Perhaps some context is required to fill out these definitions and better complete the word picture..
(Dictionary.com) Justice -
1. The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:to uphold the justice of a cause
2. Rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title, justness of ground or reason
3. the moral principle determining just conduct
4. Conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct, just conduct, dealing, or treatment
5. The administering of deserved punishment or reward
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process
Now for a quick and filthy primer on the Magna Carta..
From wikipedia.org,
"The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited."The Magna Carta was a critical document in the centuries-long fight for civil liberty. The king was forced to admit and adhere to a doctrine stating that his will, his word, is NOT immutable or free from question or challenge. The United States of America regards herself as the beacon of hope in a skyline of darkness. The United States is supposed to be a country whose governing figures are bound by a code. A colorblind codex of justice and reason. But all of these holy and high concepts mean nothing when civil victories from eight centuries past are ignored, all in pursuit of JUSTICE.
I suppose that the LAPD murdering Chris Dorner technically does fall under one of the definitions for justice, ' The administering of deserved punishment or reward', however definitions are a tricky matter.. Chris Dorner's death could be considered justice, or justified, if indeed the punishment or reward was deserving. But here the contradictions are plainly evident. One cannot assert that punishment was justly administered unless the justice system is allowed to operate and deduce the verity of claims against a suspect. There is a rule of law for a reason. The rule of law and the machinations of the justice system are there as a matter of reason. Suspects have rights under the law because they have not yet been proven or condemned guilty. When those processes occur(this is not to say that this system is perfect, it has its problems) at least one could make a claim that a reasoned process occurred and that justice was sought and attained in a justified manner.It is not legal to burn down a neighbor's home because you simply SUSPECT they stole something. It should not be legal to burn down a SUSPECT in boiling blood for suspected transgressions. As it turns out, there is even a basis for protection against this manner of violence in international law, for whatever thats worth.. "Fucking Burning This Motherfucker" preemptively without trial or negotiation, that 'motherfucker' has been robbed of justice, whether he was a terrorist, a thief, or even a suspected cop killer.
The real danger made apparent by this story is not even the civilian operation of drones in American territory, although this fact is definitely high up on the concern scale. The real danger lies in public worship of those in positions of authority. That full public confidence is given to a police force whose body count by the end of the fugitive battle almost equalled the SUSPECTED killer's. The idea that the police, or the politicians, or the military generals KNOW BETTER simply because of their position in the stratum of society. [Sensible American Voice] Well, we know Chris Dorner committed those crimes because the police are chasing him, the chase is justified. The fugitive chase is justified, the cops murdering innocent bystanders in their pursuit is justified, and the eventual order to murder a SUSPECT was also justified, because after all, he did it, right? The excuse given by the LAPD regarding terminology and mistaken public understanding of it is absolutely weak and ridiculous. The impassioned roar from the brave cop, I believe it went something like "Fucking burn this motherfucker!" is all the examination necessary to flout claims of confusion. It is also worthy to note that in the entire Dorner drama, from early reporting to the untimely murder of Dorner, no civilians were injured by Dorner. Some can make the argument that his first two alleged victims were civilians and innocent. Civilians, not exactly. Innocent, clearly one does not advocate that these murders were justified, or that Dorner was necessarily innocent. But it was never proven in court. In the courts of justice. In a system of justice. There was no justice in this story, not for Dorner, not for the LAPD, and not for the innocent civilians gunned down by panicked patrollers.
A final thought on this. The Dorner story is novel in that his manifesto stated his intentions, and his intentions were directly aimed at law enforcement. During his claimed fugitive adventures, he crossed paths with at least two different groups of civilians he could have easily killed or damaged far more severely (no disrespect to any of the victims either). It is notable that he did not. His actions appear in accordance with his manifesto dictates, consider this..
While P.O.s may believe they are above the law, and superior, they are not. Many, if not most officers in L.E. are probably decent and ethical people. There are some that get away with dirty deeds, miscarriages of justice, mistaken identity tragedy but they are constrained by law and civil procedure. This discussion is not necessarily about any specific outrages, but more about a culture being drenched by a lake of authoritarian ideology and deference based upon location on the authority power pyramid. One who becomes an officer of law enforcenment agrees to payment to perform a service: serve and protect. A police officer is allowed conscious choice, they can decide to or not to write a ticket, to discontinue chasing a SUSPECT when there is significant danger to the public. I do not care how far up the pyramid one resides in the authoritarian paradigm, reality is reality. This was not a cavalier, dashing rescue or protection mission for lowly civilian life. The police were keenly aware of the threat Dorner posed to THEM, the threat had to be neutralized. Sure, the public can be warned and made to worry about the merciless, morally-abject killer on the loose, but evidence in this case bears out that not being the truth. Dorner went after who he thought was the monster. The residual mess left by the LAPD is what happens when their protected, superior, AUTHORITARIAN class is threatened, and makes me question the definition of monstrosity. And although I state these claims about police being equals to every other human, in the blind eye of justice, another truth is revealed...
"In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm." -Wikipedia.org
This is the perfect statement of clarity on authority and rule of law. Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, but be damned scared when one of their own is threatened.
Now that this story has simmered for a few days, a few ideas regarding this media event have materialized. Some have questioned the LAPD's role in Dorner's firing. Some have questioned the use of drones to track down suspected criminals. And that damning police scanner audio is another useful aspect of this story. Suspected is an interesting and important keyword to recall later. Surely there are questions that must be asked. Although justice will never be accomplished in this case.
When I state that justice will never be served, I imagine a voice countering with "Justice was served though. Dorner is dead. End of story". But what exactly is justice then? Is it public satisfaction? Is it a statement by police that justice was served? A statement by the media? Is it a personal belief or feeling of accomplishment? Is justice served when the accused is put to death without being given their day in court? Even the Baghdad Queen Hussein was given a proper trial, and subsequent execution, and that was in IRAQ! Perhaps some context is required to fill out these definitions and better complete the word picture..
(Dictionary.com) Justice -
1. The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:to uphold the justice of a cause
2. Rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title, justness of ground or reason
3. the moral principle determining just conduct
4. Conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct, just conduct, dealing, or treatment
5. The administering of deserved punishment or reward
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process
Now for a quick and filthy primer on the Magna Carta..
From wikipedia.org,
"The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited."The Magna Carta was a critical document in the centuries-long fight for civil liberty. The king was forced to admit and adhere to a doctrine stating that his will, his word, is NOT immutable or free from question or challenge. The United States of America regards herself as the beacon of hope in a skyline of darkness. The United States is supposed to be a country whose governing figures are bound by a code. A colorblind codex of justice and reason. But all of these holy and high concepts mean nothing when civil victories from eight centuries past are ignored, all in pursuit of JUSTICE.
I suppose that the LAPD murdering Chris Dorner technically does fall under one of the definitions for justice, ' The administering of deserved punishment or reward', however definitions are a tricky matter.. Chris Dorner's death could be considered justice, or justified, if indeed the punishment or reward was deserving. But here the contradictions are plainly evident. One cannot assert that punishment was justly administered unless the justice system is allowed to operate and deduce the verity of claims against a suspect. There is a rule of law for a reason. The rule of law and the machinations of the justice system are there as a matter of reason. Suspects have rights under the law because they have not yet been proven or condemned guilty. When those processes occur(this is not to say that this system is perfect, it has its problems) at least one could make a claim that a reasoned process occurred and that justice was sought and attained in a justified manner.It is not legal to burn down a neighbor's home because you simply SUSPECT they stole something. It should not be legal to burn down a SUSPECT in boiling blood for suspected transgressions. As it turns out, there is even a basis for protection against this manner of violence in international law, for whatever thats worth.. "Fucking Burning This Motherfucker" preemptively without trial or negotiation, that 'motherfucker' has been robbed of justice, whether he was a terrorist, a thief, or even a suspected cop killer.
The real danger made apparent by this story is not even the civilian operation of drones in American territory, although this fact is definitely high up on the concern scale. The real danger lies in public worship of those in positions of authority. That full public confidence is given to a police force whose body count by the end of the fugitive battle almost equalled the SUSPECTED killer's. The idea that the police, or the politicians, or the military generals KNOW BETTER simply because of their position in the stratum of society. [Sensible American Voice] Well, we know Chris Dorner committed those crimes because the police are chasing him, the chase is justified. The fugitive chase is justified, the cops murdering innocent bystanders in their pursuit is justified, and the eventual order to murder a SUSPECT was also justified, because after all, he did it, right? The excuse given by the LAPD regarding terminology and mistaken public understanding of it is absolutely weak and ridiculous. The impassioned roar from the brave cop, I believe it went something like "Fucking burn this motherfucker!" is all the examination necessary to flout claims of confusion. It is also worthy to note that in the entire Dorner drama, from early reporting to the untimely murder of Dorner, no civilians were injured by Dorner. Some can make the argument that his first two alleged victims were civilians and innocent. Civilians, not exactly. Innocent, clearly one does not advocate that these murders were justified, or that Dorner was necessarily innocent. But it was never proven in court. In the courts of justice. In a system of justice. There was no justice in this story, not for Dorner, not for the LAPD, and not for the innocent civilians gunned down by panicked patrollers.
A final thought on this. The Dorner story is novel in that his manifesto stated his intentions, and his intentions were directly aimed at law enforcement. During his claimed fugitive adventures, he crossed paths with at least two different groups of civilians he could have easily killed or damaged far more severely (no disrespect to any of the victims either). It is notable that he did not. His actions appear in accordance with his manifesto dictates, consider this..
While P.O.s may believe they are above the law, and superior, they are not. Many, if not most officers in L.E. are probably decent and ethical people. There are some that get away with dirty deeds, miscarriages of justice, mistaken identity tragedy but they are constrained by law and civil procedure. This discussion is not necessarily about any specific outrages, but more about a culture being drenched by a lake of authoritarian ideology and deference based upon location on the authority power pyramid. One who becomes an officer of law enforcenment agrees to payment to perform a service: serve and protect. A police officer is allowed conscious choice, they can decide to or not to write a ticket, to discontinue chasing a SUSPECT when there is significant danger to the public. I do not care how far up the pyramid one resides in the authoritarian paradigm, reality is reality. This was not a cavalier, dashing rescue or protection mission for lowly civilian life. The police were keenly aware of the threat Dorner posed to THEM, the threat had to be neutralized. Sure, the public can be warned and made to worry about the merciless, morally-abject killer on the loose, but evidence in this case bears out that not being the truth. Dorner went after who he thought was the monster. The residual mess left by the LAPD is what happens when their protected, superior, AUTHORITARIAN class is threatened, and makes me question the definition of monstrosity. And although I state these claims about police being equals to every other human, in the blind eye of justice, another truth is revealed...
"In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm." -Wikipedia.org
This is the perfect statement of clarity on authority and rule of law. Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, but be damned scared when one of their own is threatened.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Remembering Hugo Chavez (1954-2013)
 |
| "By the time I was 21 or 22, I made myself a man of the left." |
He would go on to organize (and unfortunately lose) Operation Zamora (1992) of which Chavez and a small group of rebels attempted to intercept and take custody of then President Carlos Andres Perez, the candidate of the centrist Democratic Action Party, who was elected President after promising to oppose the United States government's Washington Consensus and financial policies recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Nevertheless, he did neither once he got into office, following instead the neoliberal economic policies supported by the United States and the IMF. He dramatically cut spending, and put prominent men in governmental posts. A debate soon developed in the Bolivarian movement as to whether it should try to take power in elections or whether it should instead continue to believe that military action was the only effective way of bringing about political change. Chávez was a keen proponent of the latter view, believing that the oligarchy would never allow him and his supporters to win an election, whilst Francisco Arias Cárdenas instead insisted that they take part in the representative democratic process. Cárdenas himself proved his point when, after joining the Radical Cause socialist party, he won the December 1995 election to become governor of the oil-rich Zulia State.
Subsequently changing his opinion on the issue, Chávez and his supporters in the Bolivarian movement decided to found their own political party, the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR) in July 1997 in order to support Chávez's candidature in the Venezuelan presidential election of 1998. And in that year, Hugo Chavez found himself the victor and served the Venezuelan people for 14 years, being reelected once again in January of this year, giving his nation constitutional reform, resistance against the CD and it's "democratic" opposition, and established as Chavez put it, "Socialism of the 21st century".
Chavez' legacy will live on through his people for what we can only hope will be for all time. A report on Chavez' death on the 'Russian Times' news station speculated the future of Venezuela with a poll which stated "Now that Hugo Chavez has died, Venezuela will..." with the following voting results:
7% - "Be led towards a more moderate stance by Maduro"
16% - "Descend into chaos as a new power struggle emerges"
46% - "Carry on as before, led by Vice President Nicolas Maduro"
31% - "Fall to the US-backed opposition"
Here are some links from the Russian Times website in relation to what's to come for the nation of Venezuela this year:
Chavez's Pal Or US Backed Rich Kid: Who Will Inherit Venezuela?
Venezuelan Elections: It's Either Chavez Or Washington!
This year is going to be a large amount of change and unrest; it's time to strap ourselves in, because we are along for the ride.
 |
| Gone But Will Never Forgotten: Hugo Chavez (July 28th, 1954 - -March 5th, 2013) |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)