Posted on 01/12/2003 3:02:50 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Venezuela's embattled President Hugo Chavez issued a stern warning to his foes, insisting the armed forces were on his side and would not hesitate to intervene in defense of his revolution.
"This is the time when there is an army to battle for Venezuela," he told thousands of cheering supporters gathered in a Caracas arena.
His latest warning came as the opposition called for a march Sunday to a military complex in Caracas, even though a similar protest on January 3 ended in clashes with Chavez supporters that left two people dead and over a dozen wounded.
It also came on the heels of his threat to deploy military troops to seize any food processing plant idled by a six-week-old strike aimed at forcing him from office.
Flanked by soldiers in camouflage gear, the leftist-populist president warned that his opponents were taunting "a giant."
"The revolution will not be defeated, it will be strenghthened," the former paratrooper said of his program of social reforms his opponents claim ruined the economy and failed to improve the lot of the millions of impoverished Venezuelans.
Chavez also said that if public schools closed in support of the strike did not reopen, their directors would suffer the same fate as about 1,000 striking employees of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) fired in past weeks.
The giant state oil firm has been the main target of the strike, and gasoline shortages worsened Sunday, with motorists in Caracas waiting for hours outside service stations in the hope of getting a tankful of gas.
Imports had helped ease the shortages for about a week, but gasoline has been in increasingly short supply in recent days.
Cooking-gas supplies also were critically low, as were food staples, including flour and corn.
As Chavez spoke, his nemesis, strike leader Carlos Ortega, headed to the United States for hold talks with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and US State Department officials, according to fellow unionists.
Ortega and other strike organizers have pledged to pursue their crippling protest until Chavez is on his way out.
They have launched preparations to hold a referendum on his mandate, which ends in 2006, even though Chavez has already said he would ignore it.
Electoral authorities planned to hold the referendum on February 2, but now concede it is increasingly doubtful they will manage to stick to that date.
So far, the National Electoral Council (CNE) has not received any financing from the state, nor has it started printing ballots or recruiting volunteers.
The United States and other countries have urged the government and the opposition to seek an electoral solution to the potentially explosive crisis.
The US administration is considering the creation of a "Friends of Venezuela" group to strengthen mediation efforts by Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Cesar Gaviria.
Because it throttled petroleum shipments from the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, the strike has sent oil prices soaring in recent weeks, an issue of particular concern in the United States, which is preparing for possible war with Iraq.
But the likelihood that ministers from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' member states would decide at a meeting Sunday to boost production in order to bring prices down helped calm markets.
Both sides also have interpreted the law according to their own convenience. Dec. 15, the opposition protested furiously after Chavez declared that military officers need not obey judicial orders. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Tribunal of Justice ordered striking petroleum workers back to work a few days later, the opposition ignored the ruling. Chavez justified his instruction to the generals by saying that the president's authority superseded that of the courts.
…………….''The opposition says, `This government is so unjust we won't obey anything,''' she said. ''You're questioning the legitimacy of the government to rule.'' Indeed, the discourse of many Chavez opponents has become increasingly incendiary in recent weeks. ''We're fighting to install the rule of law,'' says constitutional attorney Luis Betancourt, who compares Venezuela under Chavez to Panama under Manuel Noriega and even Germany under the Nazis. ''In a battle, you can't respect the same rules as in a democracy.''***
Members of US Congress say Chavez Should Stay, Reuters, Jan. 9, 2003 - including Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Jesse Jackson Jnr. of Illinois, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Chavez Spokesman Re-Affirms Support for North Korea: "Model To Follow" , Militares Democraticos , Jan. 10, 2003. Chavez $1M Support for Al Qaeda Confirmed, Militares Democraticos , Jan. 9, 2003.
That was truly nauseating. But I'm a little mystified, because I didn't think members of Congress were Constitutionally entitled to dabble in foreign affairs without authorization from the State Department.
Where does the Constitution authorize a State Department?
And since when does the Executive Branch have the authority to tell either of the to co-equal branches what they may or may not do?
Say no more. They are not interested in U.S. national security or the spread of freedom and democracy.
"Where does the Constitution authorize a State Department?"
"And since when does the Executive Branch have the authority to tell either of the to co-equal branches what they may or may not do?"
And second:
Cause the constitution cleary states that only the executive branch handles foreign affairs. The state falls under the exec branch.
if you're refering to
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
A simple reading would indicate that the exclusive powers therein granted are really quite limited, and conduct of foreign affairs through treaties involves the legislative branch through "advice and consent" requiring 2/3 of the Senate.
So the argument athat ONLY the Executive is involved in foreigh affairs is incorrect on its face.
I would think that they are allowed (entitled) to express their views as members of a co-equal branch of government. They cannot understand their role as congresspeople without having the opportunity to engage others.
They are not private citizens... they are our elected representatives...
and I would expect them to balance the power of the executive branch with the power of the legislative branch.
Do you want a king?
Abstract: The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its almost 200 year history. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.
Not so. They vigorously oppose all of these things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.