Reply #50: Summermoondancer, you sound like the far right nutters who claim that Obama

[Peace Patriot]

isn't a U.S. citizen. Your allegations are wild, off the charts, and wholly without foundation. But I am becoming more interested in your views. I was put off and bored at first--because I've heard it all here at DU. But now you're teaching me what the people of Latin America are dealing with, in their amazing and largely successful efforts to establish democracy, good government and social justice. They are dealing with rightwing nutters who simply cannot accommodate themselves to the facts--for instance, that Venezuela has the most transparent election system in the western hemisphere--far, FAR more transparent than our own. Either that, or they are just cynical liars. With you--because of the way your write--I think it's blindness, rather than maliciousness.

Did you know that our own FDR ran for and won four terms in office? The rightwing called him a "dictator," too--because he helped the poor with the "New Deal." If you are interested in facts, you can easily find out that Hugo Chavez is doing nothing more and nothing less than that--a "New Deal" for the poor majority of Venezuela. And that poor majority just voted overwhelmingly, in a transparent election, to lift terms limits on the president and other offices, so Chavez and others can run for office again--not seize office, get re-elected. It's no different than here, prior to the 1950s, when the Republicans rammed through a term limit on the president, so that there could be no "New Deal" here ever again. That was their motive. No more FDRs! Our own Founders considered terms limits undemocratic, because they felt that the people should be able to elect whomever they want and need in public office.

Chavez hasn't "seized the newspapers, television stations, and radio." That is simply untrue. He denied a TV broadcast license renewal to ONE TV station, RCTV--an event that occurs routinely in other democratic countries. The airwaves are public property, and the government regulates their use. That is true here; that is true in Venezuela; that is true in most countries. RCTV was an active participant in the 2002 rightwing coup attempt. That is way more justification for denying them a license renewal than has occurred in other countries. Chavez had a right to do it, under the law, and plenty of cause to do it. And Venezuela is still replete with rightwing broadcasters on TV and radio (approx. 75% are rightwing, in some estimates I've seen), and at least half the newspapers are rightwing. You simply don't know what you are talking about. That's what I mean by "wild."

As for "private property," governments condemn peoples' "private property" and take it, all the time, in many countries, for various government projects (roads, baseball stadiums, and here for mere allegations of drug trafficking). Generally--as in Venezuela--compensation is paid. There has not been a single instance of the Chavez government taking anyone's private property without due process and without compensation. Venezuela has a huge problem of food insecurity, inflicted on the Chavez government by previous rightwing government mismanagement and malfeasance. They are trying to correct the problem by finding fallow farm lands and putting them back into food production, with a very intelligent, well thought out land reform program, that is in fact highly respectful of the Venezuelan Constitution's protection of private property. The Chavez government has been scrupulous about this--almost to a fault.

I don't know much about Zelaya, but if he is following the Venezuelan model, he won't be violating anyone's rights, or doing anything unfair or illegal. Venezuela's land reform program is not "communistic." They turn title of the government lands that they have restored to food production over to the families and farmer coops who produce the food, after a 5 year trial period. This is not centralized farming--a la Russia, China or Cuba. It is DE-centralized. And it is creating more private property. But perhaps you are talking about Exxon Mobil's property? Is that what you mean, in the sentence, "They don´t believe in taking people´s private property and making it government"? The "property" of a bloated monster like Exxon Mobil? Corporate "property"? What kind of property are you talking about?

As for multinational corporations, or absentee landlords of vast ranch estates that are not being farmed, while people starve--I believe in the sovereignty of the people. Corporations are mere business consortiums that do not have the rights of an individual person. They operate in a country only with the permission of the people of the country. This is theoretically true here, since corporations must be chartered. We have let our rights over corporations atrophy, but theoretically we can still pull their charters, dismantle them and seize their assets for the common good. That is democracy, not communism. It is our right as a sovereign people. Vast single individual landowners are a somewhat different matter, but I would say that national security is primary in the case of a country that is importing most of its food, and cannot sustain itself, while vast tracks of farmable land lay fallow, as real estate speculation or for whatever purpose. The breakup of large estates is justifiable in that situation--and, once again, Venezuela pays compensation, although they haven't done much private estate breakup. It's almost all been fallow government land, which has now become, or soon will become, the private property of the farmers (in small, food-producing land holdings).

I urge you to do some research on these issues before forming your opinions and expressing them at a forum where many people do their homework and know what they are talking about. You are just coming off as ignorant--so ignorant that it is a revelation to read your posts.