Let the anti-capitalist illegal immigrant rot in a North Korean jail

Just a short note.

You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.

He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.

Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.

I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.

In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.

Let him rot in a commie jail!

Proof that democrats blocked reform

PROOF that the Republicans were trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac as far back as 2004, when they still had a majority, before they lost the elections and could not proceed. The Democrats resisted, clearly trying to cover for F. Mae and F. Mac.

President Clinton saying that the Democrats blocked reform when the Republicans tried to reform FMae and FMac.

Here is the video evidence:
Republicans trying to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2004, blocked by the Democrats. Hear it for yourself.

Here are the Players:
Barney Frank –D Jewish liberal, New York (In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home.)  While Frank was on the committee that was supposed to be investigating corruption, and while he was resisting the investigation and instead attacking the people trying to reform Fannie, we now know that Frank was involved in a homosexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive, Herb Moses!  

Now we know why Frank was protecting Fannie: he was "gaily" investigating a completely different "fanny" of there! 

Maxine Waters –D Black liberal, Los Angeles

Waters asked whether "U.S.-government paid or organized operatives smuggled, transported and sold {crack cocaine} to American citizens."

Also: In May 2008, Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, that if he didn't guarantee reduced gasoline prices if Congress let the oil industry drill where it wanted, she would be in favor of the government nationalizing American petroleum companies, her specific words were, "Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing...."

Corruption: Waters was named in 2005[10] and 2006[11] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son."[12] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members' financial gains.

On the LA Riots: Waters has been criticized for her comments regarding the Los Angeles riots of 1992.[13] In defense of the people that looted stores and damaged property, Waters said:

"If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion."[14] She also said it was "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice" and "The anger in my district is righteous. I'm just as angry as they are." She responded to the mass looting of Korean-owned stores by saying: "There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. They are not crooks. Everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood."

Gregory Meeks –D Black liberal, New York
Letter to FARC Leader Tirofijo: On December 20, 2007 along with 2 other US representatives (Bill Delahunt, James McGovern) Gregory W. Meeks wrote a letter thanking the head of the leftist Colombian guerilla FARC (Revolutionary army of Colombia, in Spanish) for the release of evidence that confirms the survival of several of the 45 hostages that the terrorist groups holds captive (including 3 US citizens), some of them for over a decade. The group is considered a terrorist organization by the US government and the European Union. These same Democratic members of the Democratic Black Caucus repeatedly endorsed and supported Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, especially when Chavez was befriending the FARC and involving himself in the internal Colombian affairs by trying to force himself into the negotiations for the release of the hostages. It was later discovered that Chavez had given hundreds of millions of dollars to ransom some of the hostages, and he was attempting to manipulate the political situation for his own personal glory. The Colombian military later performed a brilliant raid that set the hostages free, ending Chavez's attempt to be the gallant hero.

Most expensive tax-paid car lease in Congress: Meeks utilizes the option to use tax dollars to lease a car, for use as a member of Congress. This option does not exist for Senate members. The lease is forgone by many members of Congress, but Meeks presently holds the most expensive lease among all members. Despite having one of the most compact districts in the entire Congress, with access to public transportation, he currently uses tax dollars to lease a 2007 Lexus LS 460, at $998 per month. Meeks was unwilling to provide further comment when questioned by the New York Times, on the lease arrangement, saying "These are never lighthearted stories."

Lacy Clay –D Black Liberal, Missouri
Guilty of racial discrimination: Clay made news in early 2007 when, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (cofounded by his father), he objected to the possible inclusion of white congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee, who represents a majority black district and had made a campaign promise to attempt to become the first white member of the CBC. Although it is not part of the CBC's bylaws that members must be black, all members so far have been black.[2] He said, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.'”

Shakedown Crews Analysis

We can now conclude the following:

1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had abandoned previous home-ownership policy and were endorsing programs to encourage home ownership by minorities, even when they were probably financially unqualified otherwise to be given a mortgage.
2. As early as 2004 (and probably earlier), the Congress was made aware of the corrupt, illegal practices of Raynes--the black gentleman who destroyed Fannie Mae and declared that the sale of homes was so risk free that they should continue to give home ownership with as little as 2% down! Note that they even were forced to use WELFARE PAYMENTS in their calculation of income to qualify for home ownership!
3. Waters, Meeks, and Clay--all Black Democrats--were fighting hard to defend Raynes and to stifle the investigations into corruption in F. Mae and F. Mac.
4. The use of the term "political lynching" to defend Raynes was a racially loaded term, used to shut down the white Republicans and end the discussion.
5. Maxine Waters, noted for her own corruption, and noted for having defended the looting of Los Angeles by Blacks as "righteous", KNEW that the regulations had been changed to lower qualification standards so that Blacks could get mortgages, almost certainly KNEW that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being looted by Raynes (a Black executive), but must have felt that this looting was "righteous", since it benefitted her Black constituents.
6. Representative Clay was almost certainly aware of this as well. But why would he do anything to stop it? Just as how Representative Waters felt that riots and looting were justifiable and "righteous" because Blacks were angry about injustice, Clay had arrogantly declared before that there is now a "new club", to which one must be BLACK to belong. It is reasonable to conclude that this same Black outrage was used to justify the looting and pillaging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
7. Barack Obama, longtime friend of Black Liberation Theologist Reverend Wright, and longtime friend of known anti-American terrorist William Ayers, and close friend to all of these previously described villains, almost certainly shares in their sentiment that it is justifiable to loot the American economy if it benefits Blacks.
8. The origins of this problem does not lie entirely with the Democrats: Home ownership for minorities was a huge platform for Bush and the Republicans, and it is certainly to be blamed for contributing to the current crisis. Read startling details about it here.
9. These facts help to explain why Subprime Lenders appeared to target minorities.
10. But when Republicans started to see problems, and tried to investigate the fraud and suggest regulations, the Democrats blocked them--and not just any Democrats. As we've seen, their resistance was spear-headed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
11. Exactly WHEN are these representatives and executives going to get it through their heads that Social Engineering through legislation inevitably results in disasters?
12. This model is not new. It is IDENTICAL to the process put in place by President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela--another longtime friend of the Congressional Black Caucus.
13. If you want to know what awaits America, all you have to do is study what the Bolivarian Revolution did to Venezuela. It's coming to a theater near you!

Watch out America: What happened in Venezuela can happen here.

If you had asked me ten years ago if I thought that the strange, unbelievable events that happened over the past decade in Venezuela could occur in the United States, I would have said it was crazy. But having watched the events in Venezuela very carefully, and watching current events in the USA, I’m becoming deeply alarmed. In particular, I’m talking about the alarming claims of rampant voter fraud that is being reported in primarily Democrat counties in Alabama.
Before I get to what’s happening in Alabama, I need to review what we know about Venezuelan President Chavez.

It is now well known that Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez led an illegal coup attempt in 1992 that resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent, unarmed Venezuelan civilians. After his coup failed, he agreed to go on the air and call for his armed co-conspirators to stop the coup, saying “we have failed—for now”. He went to jail, and eventually the Venezuelan president pardoned him for his crimes, and he embarked on a political campaign to accomplish ‘democratically’ what he had failed to accomplish by force.

Chavez embarked on a world-wide tour to gather financial resources from Cuba, middle-eastern leaders (including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Assad), and returned to Venezuela with millions of dollars for his campaign. He won the election, and immediately started to disassemble the Venezuelan government. Within a few years, he had replaced the federal judges with sympathetic followers, dissolved the bicameral congress and replaced with a temporary body that wrote a new constitution that favored him and his party and his “Bolivarian revolution”.

He then took complete control of the electoral council (Venezuela’s electoral system is completely centralized—a model that former US President Carter has said he’d like to emulate), and in every electoral process from that point forward, there were rampant charges of electoral fraud. Opposition candidates were harassed, beaten, arrested and threatened with impunity. Chavez supporters attacked opposition rallies en masse, resulting in many injuries and even deaths.

But what is very alarming is that entire electoral mechanism was undermined in a way that permanently disadvantaged the opposition parties. Millions of dollars of state funds found their way into pro-Chavez parties, rallies, and bought support around the country. People were paid to be bused to pro-Chavez rallies and show support for him, giving the impression to the world that his support was massive and popular. Voters were paid to cast votes for him, and there were many cases of intimidation against anyone who showed a proclivity to vote against him.
Chavez made it clear that he was willing to use the ever increasing petroleum revenue to fund his personal revolution, and that a top priority for Venezuela was to achieve the election—in the USA—of a “Bolivarian president”. This notion was mocked and laughed at as the ramblings of a Latin American madman.

However, over the next few years, a frightening pattern was revealed. Socialist parties across the Americas, from Mexico to Argentina and including many countries in between, were accused by their opponents of illegally and covertly receiving large sums of money from the Venezuelan government, in order to support the leftist causes and outspend their “neo-liberal” opponents. Chavez donated millions of dollars of petroleum to Sandinista candidates in Nicaragua, so that they could provide cheap fuel to their supporters—a way of demonstrating how supporting socialists would result in handouts for the poor. Chavez built housing in the districts of socialist candidates in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Bolivia, helping increase the popularity of the socialists. This pattern repeated itself in numerous countries, while the outcry of opposition leaders was ignored.

Following this pattern, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Argentina and Nicaragua all turned to the left. There is a life and death struggle still going on in El Salvador and Panama.
The most telling turn of events occurred in Argentina, when it was discovered that high-level Venezuelan officials had funneled large sums of money into Argentina to covertly fund the election campaign of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner—the wife of former socialist president Nestor Kirchner. The Kirchners were very vocal supporters of Chavez. Small wonder, when one considers how Chavez single-handedly (without the approval of the Venezuelan people) decided to buy Argentina’s multi-billion dollar debt to the World Bank. No one has yet been able to demonstrate how this purchase benefitted the Venezuelan people or economy, but it was clear that it supported Chavez: the Kirchners gained temporary popularity in Argentina and in turn showed him undying loyalty, defending his “revolution” in every forum of world government.

The way the money was funneled into the various countries is extremely important to understand. Chavez has always been savvy enough to maintain “plausible deniability”. That is to say, he might outwardly say that he wants to support the leftist parties in a country, but wouldn’t outwardly give the money to them. Instead, what has been learned is that the money often came directly from the coffers of the state-controlled Petroleum of Venezuela (Pdvsa), and was delivered secretly by private individuals contracted by government officials, who carried the money into the country under the guise of business discussions about oil leases and other convenient distractions. Unfortunately for Chavez, some of those suitcases of money were captured, and the whole plot was discovered.

At other times, the Circulos Bolivarianos, or “Bolivarian Circles”, were employed to this end. The Bolivarian Circles are a loosely organized system of community groups throughout the world, which claim to support underprivileged populations and provide a number of services. But they are alleged to be deeply involved in funneling money to opposition groups, to help organize and fund protest marches, even trigger riots.

In other cases, support was given as gifts of the Venezuelan government to its favored opposition leaders. This didn’t just happen in the backwaters of Latin American countries. Chavez gave cheap heating oil to the constituents of Democrat leaders in Boston and New York. He also tried to sway Native American populations in the USA with similar tactics, by donating gas or heating oil or other support.

Over the past few years, Chavez has received many visits from any number of American leaders, not to mention socialist Hollywood elite. Various members of the African National Congress have visited him, giving the impression that they not only support Chavez, but are expecting some return of favors.

Which brings me now to the events in Alabama.

According to the investigations of the Alabama Attorney General Troy King and the US Justice Department, a number of counties, whose local governments lean heavily Democrat, have been caught in a massive voter fraud scheme. The details that are being released are somewhat meager and unsatisfying. But in an interview on Fox news, AG King explained that they have discovered a pattern of vote-buying in these counties, the voters being offered between $50 and $100 to vote Democrat. What’s more, while his investigators attempted to gather information on the case, local officials in these counties actually arrested the Alabama state investigators for “harassment” of the voters who apparently accepted the bribes. King stated that he had to go to court to get his own investigators released from jail!

The method is extremely clear: the Democrat party has been encouraging its constituents to vote early via absentee ballots. This method was promoted heavily ever since the 2000 election, in which the vote was disputed in Florida, and the Democrats tried to claim that electronic voting machines were rigged by the Republicans to throw the election. So they have instead tried to get their constituents to vote by absentee ballots because—in their words—it would provide a paper trail in case of a future, contested election.

In Alabama, a number of these counties—which apparently are also predominantly black—have suddenly revealed some disturbing irregularities that suggest that something very odd is occurring. In Perry County, for example, the average number of absentee ballots cast in previous elections was close to one percent. Now, that has grown to nearly twenty five percent.
It is too early to tell exactly what is happening, but to me it’s very frightening. Where is this money coming from? Why are local officials trying to impede the investigations? Could the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who visited Chavez on private business, be at all related to the sudden appearance of money throughout mostly black precincts throughout the South?

And, since Chavez repeatedly stated that he trying to get a socialist elected in the United States, could his have anything to do with the presidential campaign of Senator Obama? Could there be a reason why Obama was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his campaign, while none of the other candidates could come close? Could this be the reason why Obama refused to accept public financing--contracting his previous promise to do so?

It’s far from unprecedented for the Democrats to receive illegal funds from overseas—after all, this was exactly what President Clinton did when he accepted millions of dollars from the Chinese.

So, perhaps my speculations are not too hair-brained. Only time will tell.

Obama/Richardson negotiate with Chavez

I chuckle when I remember how—when I first considered starting a blog—I worried I wouldn’t have much to talk about. A week into this and I have to be very selective about the topics I want to tackle. There just isn’t enough time.

I’ve been really concerned for a long time about the influence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in American politics. I have good reason to be concerned.

Chavez announced, early in his Presidential career, that one of his top objectives is to get a “Bolivarian” president elected to the Whitehouse. For those who don’t know, Simon Bolivar was the great liberator of Venezuela, and Chavez has hijacked his venerable memory and uses him as his principle mascot. Thus, Chavez’s neo-Marxist movement is called the “Bolivarian Revolution”. A “Bolivarian”, thanks to the Chavista perversion of the name, is a person who sympathizes with leftist (communist/socialist) ideologies. So Chavez was essentially announcing his intention of helping install a socialist government in the USA.

Golly, gee, I must be an alarmist. Right? We, the GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, have nothing to worry about from tiny little countries like Venezuela (or Iran, or Iraq…isn’t that what Obama said?).

When I hear this statement, I shudder. It is the height of arrogance to look down at nations like Venezuela or Iran and say, “that’s a tiny little nation, what can they do?”

Look at the level of disruption caused by a tiny little nation called Viet Nam back in the ‘60s. Look at how much negative and long-lasting influence a tiny and poor nation called Cuba has had in our hemisphere. Look at how the influence and strategic assistance of Fidel Castro helped launch the career of Chavez. Look how the meddling and interference of Chavez has implanted socialist governments in Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Panama, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and how they are trying to do the same in Mexico, Chile, and Peru.

The fact is; Chavez has immense financial resources at his disposal. And, contrary to the ranting and raving of leftists, the United States did not use its incredible power and wealth to bully and buy out the governments of small nations in the Americas—or to be more accurate, not to the full extent that is often purported. The USA does have and use influence, but a number of US laws prevented directly influencing the politics within our neighbors. That is to say, the activities of US citizens is curtailed so that they cannot bribe, blackmail, or otherwise directly “purchase the favors” of foreign governments.

I’m not saying that there are no corrupt individuals out there, but as a matter of policy and official behavior, it is a no-no.


Chavez, on the other hand, has directly influenced elections in multiple countries (see the list above). The most notorious cases involve money funneled directly into Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina, in order to finance the campaigns of Chavez’s socialist friends. In Ecuador, I have good reason to believe that Chavez bribed the military to overthrow the government of Lucio Gutierrez (I’ll post a detailed story about why I believe this to be true), and in Argentina, an alert (and rather beautiful) Airport security guard captured a suitcase with money smuggled by Venezuelan agents into Argentina with the purpost of secretly financing the presidential campaign of Kristina Fernandez de Kircher.

So as I watch Obama’s election campaign and see how he has miraculously collected hundreds of millions of dollars, out-raising even the famous Clintons by a factor of ten to one, I can’t help but wonder: where is all that money coming from?

Now I hear that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (who is a rumored possible Vice Presidential candidate for Obama) has gone (quietly) to Venezuela to talk to Chavez about releasing the US hostages...and Chavez then makes this demand.

According to a respected Venezuelan journalist, Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, June 6 2008 (I’ve included the Spanish text of his article below), Richardson and Chavez discussed in detail how to leverage Chavez’s influence with the FARC in order to obtain the strategic release of three American contractors that have been held by the FARC for a number of years. They hope that the FARC will be willing to show a “good will gesture” for Obama during the election year, and release the hostages in an arrangement that simulates the infamous arrangements between former President Reagan and the Iranian revolutionaries who had taken American hostages at the Embassy, in what is commonly called the October Surprise Theory.

Let’s be clear: this sort of “good will” gesture is never done out of good will alone. Reagan was alleged to have agreed to give Iran weapons and to unfreeze their assets.

So, you have to wonder what sort of quid pro quo is being promised by Obama and Richardson. Could it have something to do with pulling support away from Colombian President Uribe? Or might it suggest that they would take pressure off Chavez?

Without any doubt, there is a lot of politics going on here, and you can bet that Obama/Richardson are promising to support and defend Chavez if he helps them with a November surprise to release the hostages.

Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, RUNRUNES

REHENES GRINGOS: La visita del gobernador de Nuevo México -ex precandidato del partido demócrata, ex secretario de Energía en el gobierno de Bill Clinton y quien apoya prominentemente al ya candidato Barack Obama- al presidente Chávez para conversar sobre la suerte de los tres contratistas estadounidenses secuestrados por las FARC desde hace unos años y que tuvo ribetes novelescos. Por un lado el gobernador, amigo de Alí Rodríguez cuando éste era ministro de petróleo, trajo un guante de beisbol firmado por algún integrante del equipo de Colorado y en su conversación en español abordó temas de mutuo interés. Chávez le pidió que le informara en detalle del proceso electoral norteamericano y le asegurara que el Partido Republicano no tenía posibilidades de ganar en noviembre. El caso de los rehenes fue abordado y el venezolano le explicó su problema con Uribe y el tema del intercambio humanitario. Chávez le confirmó que él siempre había estado buscando la liberación de esos contratistas. Allí se asomó la posibilidad (todo esto antes de los últimos acontecimientos negativos para los guerrilleros) de que la guerrilla tenga un gesto de buena voluntadpara con el candidato demócrata -bien cuando sea nombrado en la convención de Denver o si llegara a ser electo Presidente- liberando a los tres ciudadanos gringos. Nada de hacerle un favor a Bush por parte de ellos. Se copiarían la situación vivida por Jimmy Carter con los rehenes estadounidenses en Irán que no fueron liberados sino al minuto después de juramentado Ronald Reagan como presidente. Richardson está buscando ser designado secretario de Estado en un eventual gobierno de Obama. Lo que quedó claro para el gobernador es que el presidente venezolano, dentro de su permanente doble lenguaje, sí está interesado en solucionar ese caso. Para las FARC estos tres secuestrados han sido un perfecto paraguas protector para evitar incursiones del Ejército colombiano que los ha tenido cercados en dos oportunidades, pero por no arriesgar las vidas del trío se han replegado. Sigue insistiendo...

Democrats need to get it right on Chavez

For over six years, the Florida-based non-profit organization, Free Venezuela, Inc. worked to complete its mission of educating the American public and elected officials about the ongoing socio-political crisis in Venezuela. Six years ago, our warnings that Hugo Chavez posed a real and present danger to the National Security of the United States, and to regional stability and development, were met with skepticism.

But time proved us correct.

One would have to be living in a cave to not be aware of the multiple and serious international complaints against the government of Hugo Chavez, its expansionist policies, repeated interventions in the internal affairs of surrounding sovereign nations, weapons accumulation, ties to terrorist and violent revolutionary groups, and other threatening actions and policies.

During the height of the 2004 Presidential campaign, Free Venezuelan leadership analyzed the positions of the candidates (George Bush and John Kerry) with regard to their positions on the looming crisis in Venezuela, and made friendly contacts within both camps, in order to ensure that the candidates were fully informed about the situation and hopefully would include the crisis in their policy statements.

To our great pleasure, the Kerry campaign responded by publishing a very brave statement that criticized many of the Chavez regime’s most nefarious actions and let it be known that, were he elected, John Kerry would keep a close watch on the developing situation. This comment was widely commented on by the Hispanic population in Florida. After all, Chavez’s policies have direct and dire implications for not just the Venezuelan community, but for Colombians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, and—most importantly considering their numbers as voters in Florida—the Cubans. It highlighted the Bush administrations lack of leadership in the hemisphere. And it also sent a very powerful signal directly to Hugo Chavez: Americans of both parties see through the propaganda, and recognize that the Chavez policies are destructive to region stability.

Looking forward

As the 2008 elections loom near, Republican Presidential John McCain has taken a hard line against Cuba and Venezuela.
Arizona Senator has called Cuba "a national security threat," adding that "as president, I will not passively await the long overdue demise of the Castro dictatorship ... The Cuban people have waited long enough." He is an adamant supporter of Colombia’s President Uribe, who has enjoyed striking successes in his long battle against the FARC terrorists, and whose economy is expanding healthily thanks to trade agreements with the USA.

This stance is arguably the right position. Quite distressingly, the Democratic leadership embodied by the two frontrunners, Senators Clinton and Obama, initially made very lackluster statements to the effect that they would be willing to meet with Chavez either without conditions, or with only some pre-conditions. There has been very little willingness to confront the Chavez regime for its roll-back of constitutional protections, meddling in the affairs of other nations, questionable alliances with powers hostile to the United States, massive weapons purchases, etc.

Now that Senator Obama has apparently acquired the official candidacy for the Democrats, he has now begun to take a more hard line position on Venezuela. He is in a very weak position, however. His longstanding pacifist policies make any hawkish stance seem to be worthless saber-rattling.

Obama’s weak and waffling positions reinforce the stereotype that the Democratic leadership is lacking clarity, conviction, and spine.

How can the Democratic leadership claim to have international diplomatic skills and yet be so glaringly unaware of the dangers that are lurking in our own hemisphere? They should not be afraid to criticize Chavez’s policies, since by doing so they would be the good company of so many current and former heads of state. Even his some of his former international allies, Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil) have joined the chorus, with President Lula Da Silva stating that “it is a danger for Brazil and for Latin America for there to be a military power installed in the continent. An arms race would oblige us to divert funds from social spending to ensure military balance.”

The interventionist policies of Chávez government has had nefarious impacts on numerous nations in the hemisphere. From Ecuador to Mexico, Bolivia to Argentina, and especially in neighboring Colombia, there is a growing outcry that Chávez has illicitly funneled millions of dollars into those nations to influence elections and strengthen leftist groups across the region.
In the most recent and most infamous case, the FBI has concrete evidence that the Chávez government covertly funneled large sums of money into Argentina to influence the election of Kristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The implications are frightening: the Castro-Chávez axis is using Venezuelan petro-dollars to destabilize the region and influence elections. In December, 2007, Chávez even had the temerity to threaten creating a “violent revolution” in Bolivia if the opposition there did not quit battling President Evo Morales.

The Democrats, who should be publicly laying claim to a long heritage of Diplomatic leadership in the Americas, are instead abdicating this leadership role to the more belligerent Republican Party. The Democrats must find a way to stand strong on international issues of national security and regional stability, but do so in a way that differentiates them from the more bellicose Republicans.

A proposal to the Democratic Leadership

So what can the Democrats do that will achieve the goals of 1) gathering Latino Votes to their party, 2) demonstrate consistency in their philosophy and policy, 3) showcase their resolve in tough international issues and diplomatic skills?

The solution is by taking an international leadership stance that offers a roadmap to actionable diplomatic solutions, which embodies the Democratic traditions, rather than bellicose saber rattling, which has typified the Republican approach.

Step One: Lead in the world bodies.

In keeping with the traditional Democratic philosophies to avoid violent conflict by allowing established world bodies to settle disputes and put constructive pressure on potentially dangerous governments, the Democratic presidential candidates should write a joint statement calling on the Organization of American States to hold an emergency session and consider applying the OAS Charter to the Venezuelan crisis.

A number of Latin American leaders have stated their frustration with the lack of action from the OAS. Most recently Bolivian ex-President Jorge Quiroga stated that Chavez has the majority of OAS member states under his control thanks to his use of petroleum as a weapon, and that the OAS is not living up to its mission.

Step Two: Involve former heads of state to create a strong, international approach with experienced, respected Latin American leaders.

Democrats should organize an international forum of former and current Latin American Presidents to air their complaints about the policies of the Chavez regime and to highlight their concerns about the consequences of the policies, as well as to propose legal, peaceful and diplomatic solutions.

Suggested participants; Arias (Costa Rica), Uribe (Colombia), Gutiérrez (Ecuador), Quiroga (Bolivia), Lagos (Chile), García (Perú), Toledo (Perú), Saca (El Salvador), and Aznar (Spain), Zapatero (Spain) and Da Silva (Brazil).

Step Three: Call for a study of the increasing regional militarization and imbalance and seek active policies to reverse the trend.

A number of Latin American Presidents, from Uribe in Colombia to Lula da Silva in Brazil, have remarked that they are concerned about the Venezuelan military buildup. Huge arms purchases from Russia, China, Belarus, and other nations should concern all Americans. Make policy proposals that would help neighboring nations correct the military imbalance that is being created.

Step Four: Take a leadership role in supporting the Venezuelan civil society that is attempting to defend its space within the society and guarantee the continuance of liberty and human rights.
The Democrats should request testimony before congress from independent organizations to provide unbiased reports about human rights violations, state sanctioned acts of violence, assaults on freedom of expression and the free press, and other undemocratic irregularities.

The Democrats could also propose a change in immigration policy to provide Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who are fleeing the increasing political repression, social chaos and violence in their nation.

Step Five: Call for investigations of the consistent and repeated accusations that the Venezuelan electronic electoral system has been rigged to allow the Central Government to control election results.

In conclusion

Up until now, the republican administration has neglected the situation, but the aggressive comments from McCain suggest that he may make it an election issue to highlight Obama's lack of experience.

The Democrats have got to find a way to appear to lead on these issues. Up until now, they have not been able to figure out what to do.