Las incógnitas tras el fallecimiento de Hugo Chávez

RunRun.es - » ABC

ABC.es ofrece respuestas a las principales cuestiones que deberán abordar y conocer los venezolanos

¿Cuáles han sido las causas de la muerte?

Tras una larga enfermedad desde que a comienzos de 2011 le fuera detectado un cáncer, el pasado 11 de diciembre Hugo Chávez regresaba a La Habana para someterse a una cuarta operación quirúrgica debido a que habían reaparecido las células cancerígenas. Desde un principio,la no aceptación de la realidad por parte del difunto presidentele condujo a un retraso demasiado prolongado antes de decidirse a acudir a los médicos. Cuando el 22 de febrero de este mismo año se le diagnostica un nuevo tumor que afecta al 35 por ciento del pulmónizquierdo, su estado de salud era ya demasiado grave para revertir la situación.

¿Cuándo falleció realmente Hugo Chávez?

A pesar de que el vicepresidente de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, indicó que Chávez había fallecido a las 16.25 hora local —las 21.55 en España—, según confirmaron a ABC fuentes próximas al equipo médico, la muerte habría tenido lugar alrededor de las siete de la mañana(hora de Cuba).

¿Dónde se produjo la defunción?

Uno de los principales motivos de retrasar el anuncio se encuadraría dentro de la estrategia del régimen venezolano para proceder al traslado del cadáver en avión desde Cuba, donde realmente habría fallecido.

¿Qué actos fúnebres llevará a cabo el régimen?

El Gobierno venezolano ha declarado «siete días de duelo nacional» y la suspensión de clases hasta el próximo viernes, día en que tendrá lugar la ceremonia oficial de Estado. El cuerpo de Chávez será trasladado mañana a la Academia Militar. «Informar que la ceremonia oficial con los jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos del mundo que quieran asistir será el viernes a las 10 de la mañana en el hall de la Academia militar de Venezuela», señaló el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores,Elías Jaua.

¿En qué situación queda el escenario político de Venezuela?

Según la Constitución venezolana, la falta absoluta —por defunción, en este caso— del presidente obliga a celebrar nuevas elecciones presidenciales «dentro de los treinta días consecutivos siguientes». El problema es quién debe ejercer la presidencia interina hasta que se elija a un nuevo mandatario. La Carta Magna establece que si la falta absoluta se produce antes de que el presidente electo tome posesión, como ha ocurrido, «se encargará de la Presidencia de la República el Presidente o Presidenta de la Asamblea Nacional», es decir, Diosdado Cabello. No obstante, el ministro de Exteriores, Elías Jaua, ya ha anunciado que será Maduro el que gobierne el país hasta las elecciones. Esto sería lo indicado en caso de que Chávez hubiera llegado a jurar el cargo. El Supremo aseguró en enero que no era «necesaria una nueva toma de posesión», resolución en la que podría apoyarse el Gobierno para justificar su decisión de mantener a Nicolás Maduro en el poder hasta las elecciones.

¿Quién se pondrá al frente del chavismo?

El futuro del chavismo es incierto y prueba de ello es la pugna que desde hace un tiempo mantienen Nicolás Maduro y Diosdado Cabellopor quién será el encargado de ocupar el lugar de Chávez. El repentino traslado del ya desaparecido presidente a Caracas, tras un complicado postoperatorio de la cuarta intervención quirúrgica, tenía como fin una urgente investidura, que beneficiaba a Maduro, puesto que Chávez podía nombrarlo en firme como vicepresidente. Eso le hubiera permitido ser él, según la Constitución, quien institucionalmente encabezase el país hasta la celebración de las elecciones. Tanto Maduro como el régimen cubano temían una maniobra de Cabello en caso de que sustituyera a Chávez.

Publicado en ABC

Announcements On The First Day Will Define A Lot For Venezuela After Chavez

The Devil's Excrement

It is my interpretation that the first Maduro speech was the result of not having reached a decision as to how to proceed forward once Chavez’ death ocurred. You don’t have a gathering of the Cabinet, twenty Governors, the military high command and the high ranking members of Chavez’ PSUV party, to discuss spelling some US Air Force attache to Venezuela or talk about discipline in this tough moment. We may never know the truth, but I suspect that the meeting at 11 AM was to discuss how to proceed and there was not a unanimous agreement.

While one can be concerned about Diosdado Cabello’s absence, it is also true that his mother died on Sunday and was buried yesterday. However, under the Constitution it should be him that assumes the Presidency until the election is held within the next thirty days, which I think will likely be stretched until April 7th. or 14th.  because clearly, there could be logistic problems and within thirty days involves holding elections on Easter Sunday, when most of Venezuela is likely returning from vacation.

But the two key decisions are precisely that, that Diosdado Cabello assumes the Presidency until the elections and the announcement that, at least, there will be quick elections. In this manner the Constitutional order will be preserved, which still matters.

Any other path, will signify a bad start for the post-Chavez era, which will likely irreversibly mark the future of Venezuela.

While it was offensive for the military high command to use the word comrade and socialism and political slogans, I found two positives in their words: First, they said the Constitution will be enforced by them and then they sent a message of support for Nicolas Maduro and Diosdado Cabello. Given Maduro’s leading role in all this, the second part had to contain a message to all. I do hope that I am not reading too much into this, but  that is my interpretation.

Because in the end, I think all of the secrecy and moves of the last two months have been motivated by the desire to have Chavez be sworn in so that Maduro could be President and candidate at the same time. Things did not work out Maduro’s way, let us then hope the Constitution is followed and the post-Chavez era begins on the right foot for Venezuela.

The ontology of power

Understandingsociety
By  Daniel Little

There have been quite a few posts on the concept of power over the years in this blog (link). This continues to be an intriguing subject for me. Fundamentally the question of the moment is this: how does "power" fit into a social ontology of the kinds of things that exist in the social world? Does "power" exist, or is it a term that encompasses a range of other social things and relations? At one point I characterized power as an "influence" concept (link), analogous to "is humorous," "is rude," or "is charismatic". In each case the concept is defined in terms of a capacity possessed by the agent to influence certain kinds of behaviors by others around him or her.  Along these lines we might define power as a feature of an individual as follows:

Caesar is powerful =df Caesar has access to social levers of coercion that permit him to coerce certain kinds of behavior by others.

Those levers might include --

• command of military or paramilitary forces
• relations with conformant legislators positioned to enact legislation and regulation
• relations with conformant private citizens positioned to coerce their dependents to behave this way or that

On this approach, "power" is a dispositional concept attaching to individuals and invoking access to certain kinds of instruments of coercion.

What is "coercion"? This is a topic that Robert Nozick picked up early in his career (“Coercion” in Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel). We might define coercion very simply in terms of an actor's ability to influence the terms of choice that confront another actor. The Godfather put it best: "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse." Here is a possible definition:

x coerces y =df x creates a choice situation for y in which the costs of choosing other available options are unacceptably high, leaving only O_n+1 to be chosen.

(Here is an article on coercion in SEP; link.)

We can then broaden this concept to groups in society by postulating that certain groups have greater access to the levers of coercion than others. So we might say that "capitalists have more power than workers" because capitalists have access to the lever of unemployment, whereas workers have access only to the power to withhold their labor at substantial personal and familial cost. And we might say that organized crime lords have more power than shopkeepers because the criminals have greater ability to use and threaten violence against the shopkeeper than the reciprocal.

We can also broaden the concept by grouping the levers of coercion into different families: economic coercion, physical coercion, community coercion (shunning within a religious community, for example), … This allows us to identify the sources of power within a given society. Individuals and groups who are favorably positioned with respect to these different categories of instruments of coercion are more powerful than others.

What this account leaves out is the range of "soft" power associated with framing and ideology. This is a different avenue of social influence. It is possible to impel individuals or groups towards certain kinds of actions by shaping their beliefs and cognitive-affective frameworks. Using the media to shift the terms of debate over a policy -- taxing the rich at higher rates or providing universal health insurance -- is a way of exerting power without coercion.

A few features of "power" emerge from these observations. First, power is a relational concept. An individual possesses power over other individuals (relation 1) and does so in virtue of the relations he bears to other persons and institutions (relation 2). Second, power is the activity side of structure: structures and sets of social relations constitute the environment within which individuals are empowered to exercise power over others. The structures perdure, and individuals act within their elements to exert their will over others. And third, power is distributed over many individuals and groups within society at a time. But it is fluid and subject to fluctuations as structures and individuals change. Dick Cheney was powerful at one point in time but not at other points. And what changed was not Cheney but the levers of power and social networks to which he had access.

This seems to imply that power is not itself a "thing" within a reasonable social ontology. It is rather a relational characteristic that exists at various social locations depending on the connections those locations have to the levers of influence over individuals and groups.

(We might speculate that there is an art to exercising power that means that not everyone is equally adept at the activity. Being well situated with respect to the levers of influence is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for being powerful.)

This account lines up well with some aspects of Steven Lukes' analysis of power in his classic book, Power: A Radical View (link). It also aligns well with Michael Mann's definition of social power in The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760 and elsewhere: "My earlier work identified four primary 'sources of social power' in human societies: ideological, economic, military, and political" (Fascists, 5).

Human Rights Watch: Concentración y Abuso de Poder en la Venezuela de Chávez

Human Rights Watch

www.eldia.com

El informe Concentración y Abuso de Poder en la Venezuela de Chávez, de 133 páginas, documenta cómo la acumulación de poder en el Ejecutivo y el deterioro de las garantías de derechos humanos le han permitido al gobierno de Chávez intimidar, censurar e iniciar acciones penales contra críticos de su gestión y contra aquellos que considera opositores en una variedad de casos vinculados con el poder judicial, los medios de comunicación y la sociedad civil.

El último informe exhaustivo de Human Rights Watch sobre Venezuela, publicado en septiembre de 2008, documentó cómo habían sido menoscabadas las instituciones democráticas y las garantías de derechos humanos durante la primera década de presidencia de Chávez. Desde entonces, la situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela se ha tornado aún más precaria.

Leer el comunicado de prensa

Leer el informe

El paciente del doctor Castro

Bertrand de la Grange/

A semejanza del Cid Campeador, que ganaba batallas después de muerto, el presidente Hugo Chávez está gobernando Venezuela desde la clínica de La Habana donde sigue en estado muy grave. Pero, a diferencia del cadáver del Cid, que sus tropas subieron a un caballo para asustar a los árabes en la España del siglo XII, el presidente venezolano no aparece por ninguna parte.

Y sin embargo, asegura su delfín, "Chávez es presidente de Venezuela, ha empezado el periodo 2013-2019 y seguirá siendo presidente de nuestro país". Habla el vicepresidente Nicolás Maduro, que repite una y otra vez que él no sustituye al mandatario, sino que ejerce solo algunas de sus funciones. En una larga entrevista a la agencia de noticias española EFE, Maduro se esmera en justificar el manoseo constitucional que ha permitido mantener la ficción de que el caudillo bolivariano ejerce realmente sus funciones.

"Nuestra Constitución fue hecha en 1999, en un proceso constituyente donde participaron miles de venezolanos y se hizo en un estilo redaccional muy alejado del leguleyerismo que las elites acostumbraron en la práctica del derecho, sobre todo del derecho público y del derecho constitucional. Se hizo en un lenguaje claro, para cristianos", explica con su estilo peculiar el antiguo sindicalista del metro de Caracas. El texto era tan claro que casi todo el mundo había entendido que la ausencia de Chávez en la ceremonia de toma de posesión de su cuarto mandato presidencial, el 10 de enero, tendría consecuencias. Según la carta magna, el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, el también chavista Diosdado Cabello, asumiría el cargo durante 30 días y se encargaría de organizar nuevas elecciones.

Pues no fue así. Los chavistas, reunidos en La Habana y asesorados por los hermanos Castro, decidieron que el vicepresidente Maduro, que vivió una temporada en Cuba en su juventud, era el hombre más adecuado para asumir la "coordinación" del Gobierno. El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia ratificó la "sugerencia" sin chistar. ¿Cuáles son sus competencias? Maduro intenta escaquearse ante esa pregunta de EFE con el argumento de que la lista es demasiado "larga para una entrevista". Y termina diciendo que el papel del vicepresidente consiste a ejecutar las "ordenes […] del jefe del Estado en los momentos que está de permiso constitucional […], porque la legitimidad de mando, de conducción del Estado y de la República la tiene el comandante Hugo Chávez".

Continuar leyendo en diariodecuba >>

¿Qué aprenden los chavistas de sus maestros cubanos?

Carlos Alberto Montaner

kotear.clasificados.pe

(FIRMASPRESS) En el medievo los peregrinos acudían a Santiago de Compostela, en Galicia, en busca de indulgencias para entrar directamente en el reino de los cielos sin pasar por la desagradable experiencia del purgatorio o la aburrida espera del limbo (espacio teológico, por cierto, que últimamente fue clausurado). Recorrían el famoso Camino de Santiago (unos cuantos cientos de kilómetros si se hace desde el Pirineo francés), le daban un abrazo al santo de palo y la gloria estaba asegurada.

Algo así es lo que hoy sucede con la cúpula chavista. Los peregrinos del aparato bolivariano llegan al paraíso tras recorrer el Camino de la Habana a darles un abrazo a los hermanos Castro, dos ancianos que a estas alturas de la vida también tienen cierta consistencia calcárea, o, en palabras de Agustín Lara, “alabastrina”.

¿Qué hacen chicos como Maduro, Cabello y Jaua en un sitio como ése? Obvio: van a aprender la única materia en la que Cuba es la mayor experta del planeta: supervivencia política. Los Castro, que han conseguido fracasar en todo lo concerniente a la producción de bienes y servicios, al asombroso extremo de haber liquidado la centenaria industria azucarera, han logrado, sin embargo, aferrarse al poder durante 54 años, sobreviviendo a larguísimas e inútiles guerras africanas, decenas de aventuras guerrilleras y terroristas, y a la desaparición de la URSS, padre, patrón y financista del disparate cubano.

¿Cómo lo han logrado? Esto es importante, porque ahí radica la esencia de la lección cubana a los venezolanos:

Primero, manteniendo una absoluta disciplina dentro de la estructura de poder. Sólo existen una sola cabeza, una sola voz, un solo aplauso. No puede haber disenso ni desviación. No hay espacio para vertientes. Al funcionario o dirigente que se mueva lo aplastan o lo extirpan, previa la pública demostración de que era un canalla.

Segundo, control absoluto de la maquinaria que hace las reglas (ese coro afinado que funge de parlamento) y de la institución que las aplica como les conviene a los mandatarios (el poder judicial, que es sólo una familia de verdugos obsecuentes al servicio de los gobernantes).

Tercero, control total, también, de los medios de comunicación que dan cuenta de los hechos públicos y privados. La realidad es lo que decide quien tiene encomendado describirla. Las contradicciones no existen. Una de las principales funciones del Estado es mantener oculto cualquier aspecto que desmienta el discurso o relato oficial.

Para lograr esos objetivos e inducir los comportamientos que promueven la obediencia, los soviéticos crearon un muy eficiente sistema de estabulación ciudadana.

Las personas eran colocadas en establos institucionales, clasificándolas por la edad, el género y la ocupación, siempre vigiladas por la policía política a una distancia ostensible, para hacer sentir la presión e infundir miedo. (Es muy importante que las personas sientan temor para que no se rebelen o protesten).

Al cabo de un par de generaciones ese tipo de Estado se consolida. Ha surgido “el hombre nuevo”, pero no exactamente la criatura desinteresada, solidaria y laboriosa que preveía Marx, sino un tipo inmovilizado por tres cadenas indestructibles:

La fuerza de la inercia. Las cosas se hacen así, porque siempre se han hecho de esa manera. No hay alternativa a la incomodidad que produce ese Estado torpe y burocrático.

El miedo a la represión. La cárcel, muy dura, y las ejecuciones sumarias son eficaces para inducir la obediencia. Los ciudadanos en los Estados totalitarios sólo creen en huir. Como afirma el periodista Juan Manuel Cao, el comunismo terminó con una avalancha de gente que huía, no de gente que peleaba. La docilidad es una forma de adaptación al sistema.

El síndrome de indefensión. Las personas aprenden, desde la niñez, que el régimen es imbatible, de manera que no tiene sentido oponérsele. Los padres, que quieren proteger a sus hijos, son los grandes propagadores de ese síndrome. Ellos enseñan a sus hijos a bajar la cabeza y obedecer para que no les hagan daño.

¿Qué más van a aprender los chavistas de sus maestros cubanos? Una lección estratégica clave: no es el momento de abrir otros frentes. Debe volar la paloma de la paz. A los gringos se les mandan mensajes tranquilizadores. A los grandes capitales se les asegura que no habrá mayores radicalismos. A los países del vecindario, que no deben temer la permanencia del postchavismo. A la oposición, palo y tentetieso.

Ya habrá tiempo de ajustarles las tuercas a esos enemigos naturales cuando caiga totalmente el telón de acero.

How (not to) Break Political Dynasties

Why Nations Fail

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson

In the previous post we documented some facts about the political dynasties of the Philippines. Our discussion of the Marcos regime further showed that ranting — and doing next to nothing — about the problems of oligarchs and political dynasties has a long history in the Philippines. After 1986 and the return to democracy the 1987 Philippine Constitution introduced various changes aimed at decreasing the power of political dynasties. For example, Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution included a clause stating:

The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

However, after 25 years, a dynasty-controlled congress has failed to pass legislation providing a definition of “political dynasty,” so this constitutional ban remains vacuous. Most importantly, the 1987 Constitution introduced term limits for all elected offices. Senators can only be elected to two consecutive 6-year terms while congressmen, governors and all other local officials can only be elected to three consecutive 3-year terms. Some political analysts and scholars were optimistic that these constitutional provisions would open the political system to greater competition. For example, Alfred McCoy, in his book An Anarchy of Families stated:

Aquino’s Constitutional Commission adopted articles designed to break, for all time, the influence of political dynasties through both universal term limits and a specific prohibition on relatives (…) holding any public office. 

Other scholars argue that term limits, de facto, rob the electorate of a meaningful say in who does and does not belong in office.

But did term limits really have the effect of removing the power of dynasties over politics in the Philippines? This question was investigated by Pablo Querubín in his paper “Political Reform and Elite Persistence: Term Limits and Political Dynasties in the Philippines”. Though the idea that term limits can break dynasties is at first appealing, when you think about it, you’ll realize that it might in ractice encounter problems. Remember we pointed out that in many provinces there was a governor and congress-person from the same family. Maybe if they both faced term limits they could just switch jobs? In fact, that is exactly what happened in many cases. For example, in the province of Camiguin the congressman Pedro Romualdo faced a term limit in 1998 after serving for 3 consecutive terms. In response he successfully ran for governor while his son Jurdin Romualdo took his seat in congress. After both served three consecutive terms in their new positions, they swapped. In 2007 Pedro went back to being congressman, while Jurdin became governor. In Camiguin, not only did the term limits not stop dynastic control, they brought another member of the family into politics who might not otherwise have been there. 

As Pablo Querubín shows, this “Alternating Offices” strategy is not the only response that dynasties have formulated to deal with term limits. Another is the “Benchwarmer” strategy. In Cebu City, for example, when Antonio Cuenco faced a congressional term limit in 1998, his wife Nancy Cuenco took over for one term. In 2001 Antonio was back as congressman. 

  

Term limits are inducing dynasties to bring new members into politics also seems common. Take the situation in Bukidnon province. In 1998 the sitting congressman Jose Zubiri Jr. faced a term limit. He was replaced by his son Juan. Jose switched to Governor in 2001. When Juan hit a term limit in 2007, he switched to the Senate and was replaced by his younger brother Jose Zubiri III. In 2010 Jose senior faced a term limit as Governor but what could he do with his two sons in the Senate and Congress and not yet term limited? No problem, he successfully ran for vice Governor.

An interesting feature of the political system in the Philippines is that people have no problem in running for lesser offices after they have been term limited. In Davao City, for example, crime busting mayor Rodrigo Duterte was term limited in 2010. He switched to vice Mayor and was replaced as Mayor by his daughter Sarah.

Are these isolated examples or do they represent the general pattern? In fact what Pablo Querubín’s research shows is that term limits in the Philippines did not influence the probability that the same family controls a particular political office: if in one period a particular family was Governor, the fact that there was a term limit for Governor had no impact to the probability that the Governor in the future would be from that family, relative to the previous regime without term limits.

So much for easy solutions for breaking the power of political dynasties…

Maduro nombra canciller de Venezuela a Elias Jaua

TVMartiNoticias

Adán Chávez fue ratificado en la Comisión de Transferencia de Competencias al Poder Popular

 EFE

el "bro" para legitimizar y darle brillo y esplendor a las manipulaciones.

---------------------------- 

El gobernador del estado Barinas, Adán Chávez, fue ratificado como coordinador de la Comisión de Transferencia de Competencias al Poder Popular, adscrita al Consejo Federal de Gobierno, instalado este martes en Caracas.

El vicepresidente de la República, Nicolás Maduro, detalló que esta comisión ya ha avanzado en una serie de proyectos que deben ser revisados. La idea es que en las próximas reuniones ya tengan algunas decisiones relacionadas con la transferencia de competencias al poder popular.

El secretario de la comisión será Freddy Rodríguez, alcalde del municipio Plaza del estado Miranda, además la integran los ministros del Trabajo, María Cristina Iglesias; de las Comunas, Isis Ochoa; de los Pueblos Indígenas, Aloha Núñez; de la Mujer, Nancy Pérez; y de Educación Superior, Yadira Córdova.

Continuar leyendo en lapatilla >>

Estado Mayor de Cubazuela se reune en La Habana

no hay fotos pues el coma-andante en jefe -el kubano- se las gasto todas para la foto con la cristina. quizas alguien se sorprenda que miguel diaz-canel no estuviera en el encuentro; no le toca, su mision era ir al mitin caraqueno y dar el discursito con voz atragantada que le encomendaron. 

---------------------------- 

cubamatinal.es

Desde el Granma

El líder de la Revolución Cubana, compañero Fidel Castro Ruz, y el Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros, General de Ejército Raúl Castro Ruz, se reunieron este domingo con el Vicepresidente Ejecutivo y Canciller de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, quien se encuentra de visita en nuestro país junto a otros dirigentes venezolanos.

Durante los encuentros, se analizaron los exitosos resultados de la Reunión Extraordinaria de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores de Petrocaribe-ALBA, recientemente realizada en Caracas, y las perspectivas promisorias de estos solidarios esquemas de integración.
En los intercambios, caracterizados por la calidez y la hermandad, se abordaron otros aspectos de la alianza estratégica entre ambos países.
De manera particular, la delegación manifestó su gratitud por la declaración del gobierno cubano de que cualquier ataque contra Venezuela será considerado como si fuera a nuestra Patria, como expresó el vicepresidente del Consejo de Ministros Miguel Díaz-Canel en el acto de apoyo a Venezuela y al Presidente Chávez el 10 de enero.
El compañero Nicolás Maduro transmitió el profundo agradecimiento del pueblo venezolano por las esmeradas atenciones que el equipo médico, Fidel y Raúl han brindado al Presidente Chávez en el proceso de recuperación de su salud, y los sentimientos de solidaridad y cariño expresados por los cubanos.

Por la parte venezolana participaron Diosdado Cabello, Presidente de la Asamblea Nacional y Primer Vicepresidente del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela; Rafael Ramírez, vicepresidente del Gobierno y Ministro de Petróleo y Minería y Cilia Flores, Procuradora General de la República, todos integrantes de la Dirección Nacional del PSUV. Se encontraban presentes, además, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba, y Rogelio Polanco Fuentes, Embajador de nuestro país en Venezuela.

Venezuela's Coup Made in Cuba

ver  Departió Raúl con importantes dirigentes venezolanos >>
-----------------
capitolhillcubans

By Dr. Carlos Ponce in Fox News Latino:

Venezuela's Coup Made in Cuba

Almost a month after his last public appearance and from his surgery to continue the treatment against an aggressive cancer, Hugo Chávez remains in intensive care in Cuba with multiple respiratory, abdominal and infectious complications.

Chávez never delegated power to his Vice President Nicolas Maduro, he only obtained a temporary permit to travel to Cuba, but he supposedly remained in total control of the presidency. Nobody knows the true extent of such delegation of duties or if Chávez is actually awake or has been in coma all this time.

The information provided by the regime has been more than contradictory. The only source of information has been the social media. If Chávez has been in a coma all this time, then we have been in the presence of people who usurped power and they have been running an illegal government.

Hugo Chávez was aware of the potential complications of this new surgery and he clearly said that in case he became unable to take oath on January 10th, or in case of his death, his chosen one to run for president was Nicolás Maduro.

And the Constitution in Venezuela is clear: the mandate began on January 10th, 2007 and ends January 10th, 2013, and if the elected president can’t take the oath that day the Assembly’s President assumes power temporarily and calls for new elections within a maximum of 30 days.

But for Cuba, which receives more than $10 billion a year plus other benefits from Venezuela, this is not acceptable. Fidel and Raúl Castro have been close friends and supporters of Chávez's regime for economic reasons. Thanks to Hugo Chávez and his fake revolution, the Cuban dictatorial regime has been able to survive this past decade. For Castro’s regime, the future of Chávez will also mark Cuba’s future.

The Castro brothers have become the conciliators and advisors of the two most powerful acolytes of Chávez as well as of some fractions from the military. Castro has been coordinating the meetings among Diosdado Cabello, the president of Venezuelan National Assembly, Vice President Maduro, Chávez’s family and some sectors of the military.

They also initiated an international lobby with Brazil and other countries to gather support for their plans on Venezuela. They have developed the thesis of the “continuation” of the government: for them the re-election of Chávez last October was just a confirmation or referendum of his regime, and for that reason he doesn’t need to be inaugurated or take the presidential oath.

Venezuela is far from been a democratic country. Hugo Chávez has been ruling the country in an authoritarian and abusive way, and the only quasi democratic side to it was that periodical general elections. Without those elections the country becomes a dictatorship. Neither Maduro nor Cabello were elected.

Chávez transformed Venezuela in his big circus but now the clowns have taken control of the circus. We don't know if they are keeping Chavez artificially alive just to keep control of the country; only an independent medical board can determine his current condition.

The alternatives for Chávez’s cronies are five: 1) Accept the impossibility for Chávez to return to power and call for an election in 30 days. In this case they may have a good chance to win due to the Chávez’s influence and memory, as well as the drama that would surround such an election; 2) Reduce Chávez’s sedation and mobilize the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal to inaugurate the new term in Cuba; 3) Keep control of the government by force;  4) Convince some members of the opposition of a transition regime; 5) The unconstitutional an undemocratic interpretation of the Constitution that would allow them to give Chávez a special permit of 90 days, renewable, to delay the inauguration.

They need the time to consolidate their power without Chávez and to buy more time in control of the institutions and cash flow, so they can also project themselves as the continuation of Hugo Chávez revolution. They also need more time for the campaign and to create the image of a possible government without Chávez but with Chávez ideals.

For the opposition, an election in 30 days will be a major tragedy because they don’t have a clear candidate. Even though the “Mesa de Unidad” has been playing an extraordinary role creating a coordinated effort among numerous opposition groups and parties, their ideological differences and their mutual suspiciousness are still a great challenge.

Sadly, Venezuela will face a major political, economic, institutional and social crisis in the upcoming months. Several countries and groups will try to control the game, but now it is a Pandora box, anything can happen.

If the democratic opposition begins to change Cuba’s game and become more active in developing alternatives and implementing a democratic fight, as well as implementing some strategic planning, the game can change in favor of recovering democracy in Venezuela.

We're now one step closer to America's coming civil war

foxnews

ozarkteaparty.com

By Arthur Herman 

The New Year has started with a monstrosity of a budget deal, one that proves that neither political party, Democrats or Republicans, is really serious about controlling the growth of big government.

But soap opera dramatics about fiscal "cliffs" and sequestration shouldn’t deflect from where President Obama is really taking this country. Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal a few days before Christmas:

“Thousands of people in several Argentine cities ransacked supermarkets for a second day in the latest challenge to President Chistina Kirchner, who is struggling to revive a weak economy...In the central city Rosario, two people were killed during the incidents and 137 people arrested.

Washington's Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom

“The violence puts Mrs. Kirchner in a difficult position as the poor are [her] core constituents...Her government spends billions of dollars a year to help low income families, including free health care...[Yet] Argentine activists who claim to represent the poor traditionally block access to supermarkets in the month of December to demand free food and other items...The latest events were some of the worst acts of looting and vandalism in years.... Local media showed dozens of men, women, and children hauling away televisions, refrigerators, and food.”

Some have said my warnings about a coming civil war between makers and takers are exaggerated. It’s true that Argentina’s politicians have been waging class warfare since Juan and Eva Peron–and they aren’t fazed when it turns bloody. Obama and the Democrats are relative newcomers to the game. But Argentina reveals who really suffers when those who create a nation’s wealth get mugged by those who spend it–as just happened this week in Washington.

It’s the poor and the middle class, the very ones big government says it’s trying to protect.

And sadly that’s where Mitt Romney had it wrong.

That 47 percent of Americans who get unemployment benefits, Social Security disability checks, Medicare and Medicaid, and government student loans, aren’t the real takers. Like the rioters in Rosario, they’re just pawns in a perennial battle between those who see wealth and prosperity as something created by hard work, ingenuity, and innovation in a free market system–or something to be doled out by government.

Experience teaches that those who believe in free markets are right. The November election and the budget deal, however, show that the other side is winning, and winning big.

Since 1970, America’s public sector has exploded as a percentage of GDP, rising to almost 25% last year. While the national unemployment rate hovers at the 8% mark, government worker unemployment rate is a cozy 3.8%. Sixteen percent of America’s workforce now work for government. By the time the Obama administration ends, we won’t be that far away from Argentina’s 21 percent.

Yet as an economic and social enterprise, government creates nothing.

Far from adding to people’s standard of living, government is the number one cause of poverty in this country. It forces those who depend on its largesse to live hand to mouth, with no time or money to plan for the future. They become unable to fend for themselves---and increasingly resentful of those who can.

When the economy tanks and the government checks have to shrink, their only alternative is to take to the streets. That’s what happening in Argentina, and in Greece; and that’s where the growth of government is taking us here, as this current budget deal increases handouts–and more and more Americans are finding that an unemployment or Social Security disability check is their only life line.

Washington’s Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom–and the road to Rosario.

How far down that road depends on how our private sector rallies in 2013 after two numbing defeats, first on November 7 and then on Capitol Hill this week.

It needs to explain to that 47 percent that when big government wins, we all lose–and that this nation won’t survive if it does.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/03/were-now-one-step-closer-to-america-coming-civil-war/#ixzz2HplyFyvw

America is watching 'War of the Roses' 2013-style starring Obama and Boehner

foxnews

Painting by Henry Payne in 1908 [Wikipedia]

By Liz Peek 

The most famous talked-about couple in Washington needs serious therapy. No, not Michelle and Barack – I’m talking about the  President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

Watching those two guide the country through difficult times is like witnessing "The War of the Roses" – the film variety. 

Unfortunately, instead of the relatively trivial matter of managing household finances, our elected leaders need to come together on solving our country’s dire fiscal problems. Most immediately, they need to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

As with many troubled couples, these two cannot agree on money matters. Like a wife ignorant of the family’s finances, Obama wants ever more and ultimately ruinous spending. Boehner is the stern husband trying to talk sense.   

As with many troubled couples, these two cannot agree on money matters. Like a wife ignorant of the family’s finances, Obama wants ever more and ultimately ruinous spending. Boehner is the stern husband trying to talk sense.   

Beyond philosophical disagreements, and adding to their inability to function well together, Messrs. Obama and Boehner do not appear to have a high regard for each other. This is disastrous in marriage, and in politics. In "Blink," author Malcolm Gladwell introduces psychologist John Gottman, who claims that after only fifteen minutes of observing a couple, he can predict with 90% accuracy their chance of a successful marriage. (Really, I’ve always wondered why don't more young hopefuls don’t sign up for this?)

What are the signals? He ascribes most marital failures to the presence of four behaviors: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism and contempt. 

It is hard to come up with four words that more appropriately describe the relationship between the House Speaker and the president, who have regularly indulged in angry phone calls, pouting and blame-throwing. There is one reaction, though, that is determining, and that is contempt. As Gottman explains, “...if I speak from a superior plane, that’s far more damaging, and contempt is any statement from a higher level.”

Does anyone doubt that President Obama speaks from a higher plane? That he is dismissive of John Boehner?  Do we imagine that John Boehner is enthralled with the president? 

The Speaker reported recently that Obama told him, “we don’t have a spending problem.” Boehner was not only exasperated, he was also incredulous. After four years of trillion-dollar deficits on his watch, after suffering the first U.S. credit downgrade in generations, having been on the receiving end of stern warnings from the IMF of the sort usually reserved for countries like Zambia, and with every reasoned analysis projecting fiscal Armageddon if Medicare is not brought to heel, how could the president not recognize the urgency of bringing long-term entitlements spending under control?

Boehner’s explanation is that President Obama is “so ideological himself”, as he told the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore, and that he is “unwilling to take on the left wing of his own party.” It’s hard to say which the Speaker considers worse.

When Boehner tried to press his concern about excessive U.S. spending, Obama reportedly replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”  How very Marie Antoinette.

As in most marital spats, there are hints of affections straying. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has played, perhaps, the “other woman”, to pursue this analogy. Christie was charged with introducing candidate Mitt Romney at the GOP convention -- perhaps the most important speech at the Republican gathering –- testament to his stature in the party. 

He spent that coveted spot mainly talking about himself, and giving but mildly enthusiastic support for his party’s hopeful, planting seeds of doubt in the minds of some that he was the GOP’s best bet for 2016. However, his standing took an even greater hit when he bear-hugged (literally and figuratively) President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Coming as it did just before the election, the Sandy love-fest, and Christie, are blamed for boosting Obama’s image at a critical moment.

More recently, Christie savagely criticized the Speaker’s failure to ram through the relief bill so needed by New Jersey and other states badly damaged by the hurricane. Christie’s attack, on the heels of the dalliance with Obama, has helped dim the public’s view of Boehner, further trimming his negotiating ability.

The Speaker Boehner has determined that he will forgo any more closed-door negotiations with the president, considering them “futile.” The president, in return, has vowed not to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. More and more Obama has turned to executive orders to carry out his agenda – including most recently threatening to use that means to enact gun controls. The relationship, as poor as it was, appears to be on the skids. This is not entirely good news for the country.  

Is it time to bring in marriage counselors? One team that might help the fractious twosome is former Senators Simpson and Bowles. This bipartisan duo, after all, was asked by President Obama to come up with a long-term plan for putting our nation’s finances in order. They did a bang-up job of putting everything on the table, and proposing measures that both right and left found odious. That was the virtue of their plan, which remains the best blueprint – or at least the most intelligent starting point -- for putting our house in order. 

Numerous House Republicans in the past couple of days have proposed taking up the Simpson-Bowles plan; Texas Representative Steve Stockman has said he would introduce it as a bill in the House. Unfortunately, Obama dismissed the plan as readily as a shopaholic housewife scorns a budget; the plan was DOA.

Indeed, it is of course not just DC’s most talked-about visible power twosome duo that is having difficulties. The entire extended body politic -- GOP and Dems alike – cannot communicate.They talk right by each other on important matters like reining in our spiraling entitlements obligations, how we are going to rebuild our outdated infrastructure, the best way to rationalize our immigration system and improve our public schools, how to simplify and improve our tax code, how to reboot job creation and make sure our institutions are protected from cyberthreats. 

We have real problems, and a legislative body – and White House – that seems unable to get the nation’s business done. As a result, Americans are ever more anxious about our future. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. Sadly for the country, Beltway insiders have apparently taken a vow of chastity.  

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/11/watching-obama-and-boehner-is-like-watching-war-roses-2013/#ixzz2HpkXxtHq

El golpe constitucional en Venezuela

¿Cuando se va a morir Hugo Chávez Frías?

y subcastro que piensa de todo esto?

--------------------------------- 

runrun/Victor A Casado

Hugo Chávez Frías no se va a morir cuando la gente quiera o cuando digan los medicos. Se va a morir -en mi opinión- cuando este bien estructurado el Plan de Sucesión:

1. Que Diosdado sea reelecto en la Asamblea (Etapa cumplida).

2. Que el TSJ emita su opinion en el sentido de que HCF se podra “juramentar” cuando el quiera (Etapa cumplida).

3. Que las FAN presenten al PSUV (Diosdado y Maduro) el plan de contingencia necesario para garantizar la paz ciudadana ante una eventual crisis. (Etapa por cumplirse)

4. Que las Milicias esten debidamente preparadas para responder ante un eventual enfrentamiento con opositores.(Etapa por cumplirse).

5. Que los duros del Chavismo (Disodado y Maduro) tengan cuadrado y acordado la distribucion del poder.

6. Que HCF haya resuelto y dejado sus cosas personales y financieras bien arregladas.

Cuando todo lo anterior ocurra, entonces daran la noticia y sabremos si Chavez esta muerto, conectado o vivo (pero incapacitado para asumir la Presidencia).

O'Reilly: Are we seeing President Obama's big power grab?

Hugo Chavez’s Disastrous Legacy

frontpagemag

By Ruth King

A phony revolution may nonetheless be a durable one. If the Venezuelans who go to the polls give Chávez what he wants, they are likely to discover a paradox: They can bring about dictatorship through democracy, but not the reverse.”

Steve Chapman, November 2007 

It appears that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez will soon slip the mortal coil. Latin America’s history is replete with dictators who promise hope and change and reform, get elected and systematically abuse their power. Peron of Argentina, Pinochet of Chile, Stroessner of Paraguay, Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador, and Anastasio Somoza Garcia of Nicaragua were corrupt, authoritarian, and brutal with dissidents but their ambitions were contained within their borders.

Fidel Castro is an exception whose armies were proxies for his Soviet sponsors as far afield as Africa and who provoked one of the major confrontations of the Cold War in 1962 by conspiring with the Soviets to place nuclear missiles ninety miles from our shores.

Hugo Chavez avers that his role models are Fidel Castro and his terrorist henchman Che Guevara and views himself as a “socialist revolutionary.” In 2009 he declared himself the leader of “The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas,” whose other charter members are Bolivia’s President Evo Morales and Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa. As for capitalism, he can be quite blunt: In 2005 he stated on his weekly radio show: “I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”

Venezuela and Ecuador control huge oil reserves and are on again/off again the only non-Muslem members of OPEC and enthusiastic proponents of energy blackmail and price manipulations. The clown Evo Morales loves hawking cocaine and boasting that Che Guevara the hero of the Bolivarian stooges died in Bolivia. He could be dismissed were it not for the fact that Bolivia has the world’s largest lithium and tin deposits. All three enjoy goading America with effusive praise for Iran’s mullahs, the Kims of North Korea, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and assorted terrorist clones of Al Qaeda.

In spite of an abundance of vital energy resources, Chavez will leave a devastated economy plagued by shortages of all staples including food, a state-controlled media, a judiciary stacked with his cronies, a total absence of civil liberties, and one of the highest violent crime rates in the hemisphere. Venezuela’s citizens, who vested so much hope in the change that he promised, are in a living hell where homes and property have been expropriated and “redistributions” have reduced productivity and incentive. A bottle of water costs more than a gallon of gasoline, but cars are run-down hulks. Dissidence and any parody of his government are punishable by jail.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have assiduously avoided harsh criticism of Chavez. In 2009 both endorsed Chavez’s support for the deposed Honduran dictator Zelaya, ousted by the citizens for his abuse of power and efforts to reverse civil rights and the constitution. Although Chavez did voice support for Obama during the recent election, he has vented his anti-American spleen by mocking Hillary Clinton as a “blonde Condoleeza Rice” who thinks she “owns South America.” Furthermore, he has praised Wikileaks and Julian Assange for their “bravery” in confronting the United States, “a failed state.” He continually praises Ahmadinejad who has made several visits to Venezuela, staunchly defended Muammar Gaddafi and as late as October 12, 2012 he extolled the praises of Bashar Assad and accused the US of fomenting unrest in the Middle East, particularly in Syria.: “This is a crisis that has been planned and provoked … Syria is a sovereign nation. This crisis has a single cause: the world has entered into a new era of imperialism. It’s madness. The US government has been among the most irresponsible. I hope Obama rethinks this.”

Notwithstanding his outrageous abuse and oppression, he maintains a cult in the West. In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted eleventh in the list of “Heroes of our time” and in 2006 he was Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year.”

Although he is reviled by much of the civilized world, he has a large coterie of Hollywood celebrity fans: Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Courtney Love, Kevin Spacey, Harry Belafonte and the “esteemed historian” Oliver Stone. This is pretty much the same crowd that idolizes Che Guevara.

Who is Hugo Chavez?

Hugo Rafael Chavez was born in 1954 in a town named Sabaneta to Hugo and Elena Frias, schoolteachers. His father was black of African descent and his mother white of Spanish descent. At an early age he was sent to live with his paternal grandmother Rosa Chavez, who ushered him through his elementary education.

After completing high school he enrolled in the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences, graduated with a degree in Arts and Science and the rather unimpressive rank of sub-lieutenant. After a brief period in Caracas University he returned to the active military where he served for 17 years with many posts and staff positions including teaching at the Academy of Military Sciences. His academic records and transcripts, including enrollment forms from university, are unavailable — lost, it seems.

He was a fairly gifted athlete who excelled in baseball, but was more well known for long speeches denouncing endemic fraud and corruption in government. He established a leftist, quasi-Marxist, crackpot Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement known as MBR.

In 1992 Chavez and his revolutionary cohorts, planned a military coup d’etat to oust then-President Carlos Perez, admittedly a thief and tyrant. It was a tactical failure which resulted in his arrest and jail sentence of two years.

In 1994 he was officially pardoned and emerged from jail defiant and determined to resume his political ambitions. He named his party the “Fifth Republic Movement” and four years later, after years on the stump and on soapboxes, he began the quest for national election.

The voters’ distrust of the government made his promises of reform, fundamental change, a renewed economy and an end to corruption, tyranny and bribery appealing to a desperate population.

Although he was far behind in the polls in early 1998, by December of that year he won 56% of the vote and became Venezuela’s President. While there were some credible accusations of voter intimidation and fraud, no recount took place. A widely hailed assembly drafted a constitution which stipulated term limits, a right to recall legislators, including the president, who were guilty of malfeasance with a petition from at least 20% of the population, established a merit based judiciary, and a group of “public defenders” to monitor government abuses.

Within half a year he dismissed all judges and public defenders and replaced them with his cronies. Term limits and all restraints, as well as the right to petition, were abolished. He embarked on a system of redistribution which implemented absolute government control on communications, media, industry, energy, utilities, and construction materials.

In 2002 an attempted coup against him was put down within 48 hours and in 2004 a petition against him signed by millions of citizens was dismissed by his highest court.

His “Bolivarian Circles,” a group of community organizers, routinely extort taxes and bribes for spurious neighborhood projects, mass mobilization of voters, and so-called “basic projects” which include spying on citizens.

In 2006 Jimmy Carter certified his re-election in spite of major irregularities, fraud, coercion, and intimidation which targeted all dissidents, particularly the “Tascon List” of all those who had petitioned for his ouster in 2004.

To keep up his love affair with Iran, Chavez indulges in hysterical anti-Israel rants which stop just short of calling for genocide. To prove his fealty to the Mullahs, he torments the Jewish community with vandalism, threats and vicious attacks. Ahmadinejad calls his pal “a champion and leader in the international struggle against imperialism.”

In October 2012 his campaign manifesto, as printed in campaign flyers, had not changed very much and listed his “five great historic objectives”:

One: “Defend, expand and consolidate national independence.”

Two: “Continue building Bolivarian socialism of the 21st century as an alternative to destructive and savage capitalism.”

Three: “Make Venezuela an economic, social and political power within the growing power of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Four: “Develop a new international geopolitics forming a multicentric and pluripolar world to achieve equilibrium in the universe and guarantee planetary peace.”

Five: “Preserve life on the planet and save the human species.”

He won and it is not likely he will make it to his inauguration.

Who will replace him and can Venezuela be saved? It’s anyone’s guess. Only one thing is sure. The leftist media will extol him and maybe his Hollywood pals will make a movie “The Bolivarian Diaries.”

Maduro: "Juramos absoluta lealtad a los valores de la patria y a Chávez "

remake del discurso de fidel en el entierro de las victimas de la explosion del barco la coubre. totalitarismo y chivatismo en su variante post chavista.

Capriles acepta el circo constitucional chavista

el flaco capriles que acepto inmediatamente los resultados electorales que proclamaron vencedor a chavez, ademas de otras 'coincidencias' con los atropellos de letrina de barrio marginal del chavismo, si no es chavista ya, sabe donde se le chupa el rabo a la jutia.

martinoticias

El líder opositor venezolano, Henrique Capriles, aceptó el miércoles la sentencia "vinculante" del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, TSJ, avalando que Hugo Chávez continúe en la presidencia y su gobierno en ejercicio, a pesar de no jurar el jueves como está previsto.

Capriles insistió en que ni Maduro ni el resto del gobierno fueron elegidos y destacó que las "instancias no deben responder a los intereses de un partido", en alusión al Tribunal Supremo de Justicia.

Pero a la vez exigió al gobierno que deje de estar "paralizado" y retome las tareas de dirigir el país.

Capriles, gobernador del estado de Miranda, perdió las elecciones contra Chávez en las presidenciales del 7 de octubre. 

Presidenta del TSJ: "No es necesaria una nueva toma de posesión de Chavez"