*Depraved Venezuelan Opposition Goes Off Deep End* * * * A day after the Catholic church of Venezuela said hypocritically that it was "morally concerned" that the constitution be followed ( they were not so concerned when a coup took place against the president in April,2002) and accused the government of lying about President Chavez's health, the Venezuelan opposition known as the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática ( MUD ) in a letter to the Organization American States (OAS) issued a threat to Venezuelan democracy saying that if President Chavez was not sworn in on January 10th, that it was "a serious constitutional violation". and a violation of the OAS charter.* * * *Also in press conference former presidential candidate and now governor of Miranda, Henrique Capriles with Lara governor, Henri Falcon warned and demanded that foreign governments not support the current governments plans that President Chavez can be sworn in at a later date by the TSJ that VP **Maduro announced this afternoon** .* * * *The MUD position:* * *
1. *Yes, January 10th matters.* 2. *If Chávez doesnt show up for his inauguration that day, a temporary absence of 90 days should be declared.* 3. *No, VP Maduro cannot hold office during that time because his mandate expires January 10th.* 4. *In a great line, he said that Diosdado Cabello, president of the National Assembly, is next in line and should hold temporary powers while Chávez is inaugurated, although he personally considers this a national tragedy.* 5. *He warned foreign governments not to mess around with Venezuelas Constitution, and to withhold support for the chavista interpretation that is clearly illegal.* 6. *He warned that a sector of the Armed Forces supports the Constitution, and said they would be within their rights to act in the presence of a power grab.* 7. *He called on the Supreme Tribunal to act, but warned that if they come down against the Constitution, there may be anarchy and they will be judged harshly by history.* *The opposition like mad dogs, have for the last few days have been searching for many ways to not recognize President Chavez re-election, threatening strikes and and in some instances guarimba's.* * * *Cort* * * *PS- **It happen in the US before, so far the only person who could have become president who was sworn in abroad was William R. King, vice president of the 13th President Franklin Pierce, who suffered from tuberculosis in 1853 traveled to Cuba to try to recover and was not present at the inauguration in Washington. A waiver was allowed by Congress so he could be sworn in Havana which was 20 days later.* * * *When the August 2, 1923 President Warren Harding died suddenly, his vice president, Calvin Coolidge was in a remote rural area of Vermont( some say he was really born in Canada and not a US citizen) thus became president a day later . The oath was taken by his father. * *110 years later, in 1963 Lyndon Johnson was sworn in aboard Air Force One , not even on US soil when JFK was assassinated.* *PSS- T**he Venezuela government announced that President Chávez won't be able to attend on the January 10th for the ceremony and according to article 231 of the constitution, the head of Congress, Diosdado Cabello, will assume interim power as President Chávez is "not in conditions to take the oath and will do so later". * *The other clause likely to be used here, for the time being at least, is article 234 which allows a head of state 90 days absence (in case of illness etc) at the discretion of Venezuela's congress.* * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Exposing Five Key Media Myths about Chavezs Health and Swearing-in Jan 8th 2013, by Ewan Robertson and Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com [image: Venezuelans signing a petition on Sunday against the media distortions (agencies)] Venezuelans signing a petition on Sunday against the media distortions (agencies) Over the last few weeks the private English media has stepped up its campaign against the Venezuelan revolution, spreading a number of lies and misconceptions around President Hugo Chavezs health, the politics and legalities involved in his swearing-in for his new term, and the Venezuelan governments handling of the situation. The media, often taking its line directly from Venezuelas right-wing opposition, is exploiting a sad time for the Venezuelan people. Media Observatory journalist Mariclem Stelling, talking on public television station VTV, called it a combination of glee, irony, and necrophilia...an attempt to remove [Chavez] from his political role. They build the news from the economic and political interests to which they respond, she said. Here, Venezuelanalysis.com debunks the top five lies currently being spread by private media. *1) The Venezuelan government is being secretive about Chavezs health* This charge has been made by international media since Chavez first announced he had cancer in June 2011. Criticisms by the private media of government secrecy around his condition have intensified as the swearing-in date approaches, in part reflecting an increasingly fractious Venezuelan opposition anxious for details they could use to their advantage. Mass media sources describe Chavezs medical condition as a mystery, with outlets such as the Los Angeles Times<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela-chavez-20130106,0,1525868.story> referring to government information on Chavezs post-operatory recovery as sporadic and thinly detailed medical updates. Outlets such as the British BBC<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20896306> and the Australian have picked up the oppositions call for the Venezuelan government to tell the truth on Chavezs health, implying that the government is withholding information, or outright lying. The argument that the Venezuelan government is keeping secrets feeds into the discourse most mainstream media use in relation to the Bolivarian revolution, recently describing the government as despots (Chicago Tribune<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-hugo-0108-jm-20130108,0,4457514.story>) and autocratic populists (Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/venezuelas-endgame-approaches/2013/01/05/bd36fde0-56a2-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html> ). Other media has put out its own versions of Chavezs state of health, with the Spanish ABC<http://www.abc.es/internacional/20121222/abci-chavez-sometido-traqueotomia-201212212153.html> going to great lengths to describe even his bowel movements, and reporting that he is in a coma, and the multinational Terra mistaking its desires for reality, reporting that Chavez is already dead<http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=161841&titular=terra-anunci%F3-el-4-de-enero-la-%93muerte%94-de-ch%E1vez->. These media outlets have just one anonymous source for their reports; they somehow, apparently, have an infiltrator (or an intelligence source as they call it) among Chavezs Cuban medical team. The government has in fact released 28 statements updating the public on Chavezs condition since his operation on 11 December. These statements are available in full text on the internet, and are also being read out by communication minister Ernesto Villegas on all Venezuelan public television and radio. In the latest statement, released yesterday, Villegas said that Chavezs condition remains stationary compared to the last report, where the public was informed that he has a respiratory deficiency due to a pulmonary infection. It is true however, that beyond mentioning the general cancer site; the pelvic region, the government hasnt revealed the exact type of cancer that Chavez has, nor the exact nature of the operation that he underwent on 11 December. This is possibly due to privacy reasons. When asked directly about this issue in a recent interview<http://www.ciudadccs.info/?p=371292>, Jorge Rodriguez, a doctor and key figure in Chavezs United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), said Id give the example of Mrs. Hilary Clinton, who had a cerebral vascular accident. There are three factors which influence these cases: the part of the brain where it happens, the size of the affected zone, and if it produces a hemorrhage or obstruction. Well fine, Ive not seen any serious and decent doctor ask in which zone she had the lesion. And I think its fine that they dont ask because that lady has the right to privacy. Ive not seen Ramon Guillermo Aveledo (the executive secretary of the oppositions MUD coalition) asking to know if her accident affected her in the frontal lobe, in which case, of course, she couldnt continue giving the instructions she normally gives. Of course, when the international media report on the Venezuelan oppositions stance towards Chavezs health situation, they invariably fail to mention that the oppositions approach has a lot less to do with a crusade for truth, and more to do with its hopes of creating a political and constitutional crisis over the issue. They make out that the Venezuelan government is being deliberately misleading and manipulative with information, but would never point the finger at Western leaders such as George Bush or Barack Obama for not announcing the exact locations of their frequent, long, and luxurious vacations, for example. *2) It is unconstitutional if Chavez doesnt take the oath of office on 10 January* This is another lie that takes a leaf straight from the oppositions book<http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7589>. Most opposition leaders, and even the Venezuelan Catholic Church<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20938700>, are arguing that if Chavez cannot be officially sworn-in as president on 10 January then he will lose his status as president of Venezuela. They say that in that case, Chavez should be declared permanently absent, and the head of the national assembly, Diosdado Cabello, would have to take over as president and call fresh elections. The opposition also claim that the swearing-in ceremony cannot be postponed, and that if Chavez continues on as president after 10 January it would be a flagrant violation of the constitution. Their strategy is to use their own interpretation of the constitution in order to try and depose Chavez on a technicality while the president-elect lies in Cuba struggling in post-surgery recovery. Private media outlets have latched onto this argument, and misinformed about the Venezuelan constitution. In a highly misleading article, the Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/venezuelas-endgame-approaches/2013/01/05/bd36fde0-56a2-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html> claimed that a delay in Chavezs inauguration ceremony would be a stretch of the constitutions ambiguous wording. Similar comments were made in other U.S. outlets, with Time<http://world.time.com/2013/01/03/hugo-chavezs-constitution-is-a-muddled-map-out-of-venezuelas-crisis/> arguing that Venezuelas constitution is a murky map that could send the western hemispheres most oil-rich nation into precarious governmental limbo this year. Reuters<http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-opposition-furious-over-likely-chavez-inauguration-delay-002445240.html> argued that the Venezuelan government is violating the constitution and the country will be left in a power vacuum, and the BBC, which maintained a more reserved tone, still portrayed interpretations of the constitution as muddied debate <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20896306> between government and opposition. However, Venezuelas constitution is clear on the situation. The conditions under which a president can be declared permanently absent and new elections called are covered by article 233, and are, death, resignation, destitution decreed by the Supreme Court, mental or physical incapacity certified by a medical council designated by the Supreme Court with the approval of the National Assembly, abandonment of the post, [or] a popular recall of the mandate. Currently Chavezs status is that of absence from the national territory, a status which is granted by the national assembly. This could eventually be declared a temporary absence from the presidency, which is granted by the national assembly for a period of ninety days, and can be extended for 90 further days, as outlined by articles 234 and 235 of the constitution. What the opposition are trying to do is use article 231 of the constitution, which describes the presidential inauguration, to argue for Chavezs deposal. The article states that the president elect will assume their mandate on the 10th of January of the first year of their constitutional period, through a swearing-in ceremony in front of the National Assembly. The opposition claim that Chavezs inability to attend that ceremony means that he has not assumed his term and his permanent absence should be declared. However, as noted above, not being able to attend the inauguration ceremony is not considered a reason for permanent absence in the Venezuelan constitution, leaving the Venezuelan opposition without a constitutional leg to stand on. Rather, this situation is dealt with by the second half of article 231, which states, If for any supervening reason the president cannot take office in front of the National Assembly, s/he will do so before the Supreme Court. No date is specified. Venezuelan constitutional lawyer Harman Escarra, an opposition supporter who helped draft the 1999 constitution, explained in an interview with Venezuelan daily Ciudad CCS <http://www.ciudadccs.info/?p=371229> that constitutionally, even if the president cant attend the 10 January ceremony, the new presidential term still begins, including the constitutional mandate of the presidents council of state, the vice-president, and government ministers. As such, he affirmed that in Venezuela there isnt a power vacuum. The constitutional lawyer further explained that under both the letter and spirit of article 231 of the constitution, The President, from the point of view of sovereignty, is the President. Theres no other, and the mandate of the popular majority cannot not be overturned because of the issue of a date at a specific moment, because that would be to violate a sacred principle that is in article five of the constitution, which says that power resides in the sovereignty of the people. Therefore, it is erroneous for international media to report that Venezuela is entering a constitutionally ambiguous situation in which either the status of the president or the next constitutional step is not clear. Further, it is not only misleading, but dangerous to wrongly paint Chavez allies as looking to subvert the constitution to stay in power, when the opposition is trying to question the governments constitutional legitimacy in order to provoke a political crisis and depose Chavez as president. The opposition is not the critical and unbiased democratic voice that the private media represent them as. Such reporting also displays a certain level of hypocrisy, as one can be sure that if the U.S. president or British prime minister were unable to assume a particular inauguration ceremony for health reasons, such outlets would not start casting doubt on their legitimacy, as they are currently doing with Chavez. *3) Should elections have to be called, they may not be fair and opposition leader Henrique Capriles has a good chance of winning* This third myth adds to the previous two to create the impression that the Bolivarian revolution is undemocratic. It is spouted by most private media, but especially media from the US, which rarely points out the utterly unfair conditions in which elections are held in its own country. The Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/venezuelas-endgame-approaches/2013/01/05/bd36fde0-56a2-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html> claimed that if Chavez were to die and new elections had to be called, Chavezs inner circle may consider postponing the election or even calling it off. Thats why the first responsibility of the United States and Venezuelan neighbors such as Brazil should be to insist that the presidential election be held and that it be free and fair, the WP said, and even suggested that Mr Chavezs followers or military leaders might attempt a coup. The US State Department has also called for any elections that Venezuela has to be free and transparent and the Chicago Tribune<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-hugo-0108-jm-20130108,0,4457514.story> in an article today said, In October, Chavez vanquished his first serious challenger, Henrique Capriles, despite being too sick to campaign... Too sick to give speeches, he bought votes through political stunts like awarding a free government-built home to his 3 millionth Twitter follower. The Chicago Tribunes statement is a lie; Chavez attended one to two huge rallies around the country in the month before the presidential elections, including one in Merida the authors of this article attended, as well as fulfilling his duties as president. And, of course there is no basis or need for these calls for fair elections. None of the private media will remind its readers of the 16 elections held over the last 14 years, that 81% of Venezuelans voluntarily turned out to vote in the October presidential elections, that Venezuela is building up participatory democracy through its communal councils, and that Venezuelans have access to completely free and widely available health care, education, and even to subsidised housingbasic conditions necessary for democracy to be practiced. The Washington Post argued that the Venezuelan government fears free elections because a fair vote would be won by opposition leader Henrique Capriles, who lost the October presidential ballot but is more popular than Mr. Maduro. This is wishful thinking, another example of the media mistaking its desire for reality. The opposition did not receive more votes than the governing PSUV in the recent 16 December regional elections, despite Chavezs absence. The opposition is weak, divided, disillusioned after 14 years of losing election after election (except the 2007 constitutional referendum), has no street presence what so ever, and has no program or cause to unite around, beyond wanting power. *4) A Split within the Chavista Leadership between Maduro and Cabello is coming* This is another idea bandied about by the Venezuelan opposition and propagated by the international media. The notion, or hope, is that if the worst were to happen and Chavez were to die, Chavismo would immediately become divided among itself and fall apart. In particular, it is argued that national assembly president Diosdado Cabello would try to seize the presidential candidacy of the PSUV from Vice-president Nicolas Maduro. Some opposition figures appear to be actively encouraging this, with opposition legislator Maria Corina Machado demanding<http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Machado-Maduro-Cabello-desconfianza-quiere_0_113990997.html> that Diosdado Cabello take power on 10 January and that distrust and fear exist between Cabello and Maduro. On cue, always backed by vague analysts or observers, the international media has informed the public of, A potential rift inside Chavismo between Maduros more socialist faction and that of the more pragmatic Cabello ( TIME<http://world.time.com/2013/01/03/hugo-chavezs-constitution-is-a-muddled-map-out-of-venezuelas-crisis/>), or, Mr Cabello wields considerable power and is thought to harbour his own political ambitions (BBC<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20750536>), and that, Chavez's death or resignation could set off a power struggle within the party among Maduro, Cabello, Chavez's brother Adan and state governors (LA Times<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela-chavez-20130103,0,1329257.story> ). Such commentary has been slammed by Maduro, Cabello and other leaders within Chavismo, who all stress the unity of different currents within the Bolivarian movement in the current difficult situation. Indeed, the scenario of a direct power grab by Cabello or any other figure within Chavismo of Maduros role as successor if Chavez cannot assume his presidential term is very unlikely. Just before Chavez flew off to Cuba for surgery in December, he told the nation that, If such a scenario were to occur, I ask you from my heart that you elect Nicolas Maduro as constitutional president of the republic. Chavez has such strong support and respect from among his followers that it would be almost unthinkable for another leader within Chavismo to publicly go against Chavezs express wish that Maduro be his successor. Any attempt to usurp Maduros leadership and candidacy in fresh presidential elections would be seen as political suicide. *5) That the Revolution is Over without Chavez* Most private media have also subtly cast doubt that the revolution will continue without Chavez, suggesting that the leadership will collapse, that Venezuela is already in economic chaos and disaster, that Venezuela is living a political crisis right now, and that the revolutionary process cant survive without Chavez. The Chicago Tribune<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-hugo-0108-jm-20130108,0,4457514.story> said that, Whoever ends up running Venezuela will preside over the mess Chavez made of a prosperous and promising nation and there is now high unemployment, record inflation and rampant crime. This is despite Venezuela ending 2012 with 19.9% inflation, the lowest in years, and unemployment lower than the US. The media is ignoring the fact that the country has been doing fine this last month without Chavez, that the PSUV leadership won 20 out of 23 states in the regional elections in December, without Chavezs presence, that there is no crisis here; schools started again as normal today, people are working, shopping, returning from Christmas season vacations, as normal. There is no panic buying, no looting, no political unrest. Most importantly, the media is ignoring, is invisibilising the biggest factor there is; the people of Venezuela. Chavez isnt just a person, or a leader, he represents a political project; of economic and cultural sovereignty, of Latin American unity, of freedom from US intervention, of all basic rights satisfied, and of participatory democracy. The majority of Venezuelans have showed their support for that project by turning out to vote en masse time and time again, including in elections in which Chavez wasnt running, with voting rates generally increasing each year. In most other countries people would be tired and would have gotten over so many elections by now. Venezuelans have marched in the thousands and millions around the country again and again, not just to support electoral candidates, but to march for workers rights on May Day, as well as for other causes such as gay rights, defending journalists against violent attacks by the opposition, in support of various laws, and more. It was Venezuelans, en masse, who helped overturn the coup against Chavez in 2002. The list of gains over the last 14 years is a long one. To mention just a few: complete literacy, broadly available and free university education, free healthcare centres in most communities, free laptops to primary school children, free meals for primary school children, subsidised food, subsidised books, increased street culture and street art, a range of new public infrastructure such as train lines and cable cars, laws supporting the rights of disabled people, women, and so on, government assisted urban agriculture, legalised community and worker organising, nearly a 1000 free internet centres, music programs, pensions for the elderly, and much more. These huge changes cant be quickly reversed, and the Venezuelan people have every reason not to let them be. Further, over the last 14 years, Venezuelans have woken up. They read and know their laws, everyone, even opposition supporters, spends hours each day debating and discussing politics and economics. Apathy still exists, but is way down. There is a political consciousness and depth that cant be turned off overnight. While it is true that after Chavez there will probably be bureaucracy, corruption, reformism, and some internal disagreements, these issues existed with him as a leader as well. Any change in political circumstances is an opportunity to bring these problems to the surface and to confront them. We are fighters here, and we are stayers. ------------------------------ *Source URL (retrieved on 08/01/2013 - 7:10pm):* http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7595 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
