Venezuela to seek legal action against Robertson

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2886425.htm

CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug 28 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government would take legal action against Pat Robertson and potentially seek his extradition after the U.S. evangelist called for Washington to assassinate the South American leader.

Robertson, who later apologized for the remark, said he was expressing his frustration with Chavez's constant accusations against the administration of President George W. Bush.

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States ... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism." Chavez said in a televised speech.

[msongs]

1. at last someone with the guts to do what should be done!!! nt

[Judi Lynn]

2. They'd have a lot of American support, if they did.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a ground swell moving against these monsters? If only!

From the article:

He said Venezuela could seek Robertson's extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act.

More power to the Venezuelan government, just as it exists NOW.

[Cha]

7. I can see bolton

having to use his time and energy trying to save patwah's bacon when he could be bellowing for a War on Iran.

[icymist]

61. Here, Here! Viva De Chavez! n/t

[despairing optimist]

71. Nah, he's too busy beating his staplers into bunker busters

to bother with Robertson. Pat's too low a calling at this point in Bolton's career.

[NVMojo]

3. I wish I could do something to help the guy kick BUSH'S ASS!!!

[Cha]

4. Tough Shit, patwah..you

called for an assassination of a leader of a foreign country on your national fucking devil show..you can't apologize and make it all go away.

bush is the aggressor, you dumbshit.

[calimary]

92. And pat robertson is A DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

This isn't just possible legal action. It's a PUBLIC SERVICE!!!!!

One less Domestic Terrorist in our midst? That alone would make us safer than anything bushie/cheney/rummy/condi would flatter themselves thinking they've done.

[phiddle]

5. Brilliant, Hugo---

flipping George Bush's war on terror back on him, and exposing the whole thing for the rotten sham that it is.

[Cha]

10. It is Brilliant!

:toast: to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela!

And a BIG Thumbsdown :thumbsdown: to bush

[riverwalker]

6. you can have him

"He said Venezuela could seek Robertson's extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act."

I bet ol' Pat is squeezing his eyes so tight in "prayer" that his eyeballs have popped.

[Robeson]

8. Can we donate to a Venezuelan Legal Fund for this?....

...I'd give to that one.

[getmeouttahere]

21. Absolutamente!

Viva Chavez!

Well, there's always...

www.handsoffvenezuela.org

[Olney Blue]

9. Believers everywhere, please send your donations to the Reverend..

NOW, so that he can build a hidey hole in his back yard!

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Good, get that f*&ker Roberson outa here!

[Old and In the Way]

12. Nothing would please me more.....

than to see that christofascist extradited to stand trial on terrorism.

[cal04]

13. LOL Chavez you Rock!

"We could offer him free psychiatric treatment ... but he could be a lost case" Chavez said sarcastically of Robertson and controversial statements the conservative commentator has made in the past.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBDB8U3YCE.html

[Larkspur]

14. I love Hugo!!! He's a leader with backbone and cajones!!

I hope he can tie Bolton up in knots so that he doesn't have time to forment war against Iran or that he spills the beans on the true intentions of Bush's reasons for wanting Bolton at the UN.

[Panda1]

15. Go Chavez!

Good for him. Robertson is a terrorist. If a Catholic Venezuelan priest called for the assassination of a US official they'd be in jail. Even if he "apologized" later after denying he'd said it.

[TaleWgnDg]

16. Hey, Chavez, wanna hire Atty John Dean? . . . take a look . . .

.
Hey, Chavez, wanna hire Atty John Dean? . . . take a look . . .

Was Pat Robertson's Call For Assassination Of A Foreign Leader A Crime?
Had He Been a Democrat, He'd Probably Be Hiring A Criminal Attorney

by (Attorney) John W. Dean (former counsel to Richard M. Nixon)

Friday, Aug. 26, 2005

On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion "Pat" Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

More specifically, Robertson said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination," referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, "but if he (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

"We have the ability to take him out," Robertson continued, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

. . . snip . . .

The Broad Federal "Threat Attempt" Prohibition Vis-à-vis Foreign Leaders

Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully -- (1) … threatens … a foreign official …, (2) attempts to… threaten … a foreign official … shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

. . . snip . . .

The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison For Threats to Kidnap or Injure

It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphases added.)

. . . more . . . http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20050826.html

(hypertext links, emphasis, underscore, some bold-faced type removed by TaleWgnDg)
.

.

[Gregorian]

20. Thanks. I was looking for that .

Didn't Ann Coulter pull the very same stunt with respect to Clinton? Who knows what justice will bring...

[TaleWgnDg]

23. Coulter is a spineless whimp, a gutless wonder making

big bucks writing books and opening her yap on teevee as a boneheaded talkinghead. No big deal. As for any threats that she may have made directed at Clinton? Quite honestly, I don't bother w/ her since she's such trash. So, I couldn't tell you, sorry.

[WhiteTara]

90. wasn't she dropped from an Arizona paper

today because even the conservatives thought she was shrill and irrelevant? Can't find the link just now, sorry.

[WhiteTara]

89. thanks for posting that

:kick:

[TaleWgnDg]

91. You're welcome, and no I don't know who fired Clouter

as you said but I, too, recall that someone did. However, more should fire that vitriolic hypocrite.

[Jade Fox]

17. Nice to know someone has the guts to fight.

If only he were a Democrat......

[wli]

18. If only our Dems were as brave. n/t

[samsingh]

19. good for him

the roosters are coming home to roost.

[leesa]

22. Excellent! Perhaps one of these belligerent loudmouths will stop

and think before they spew their hate next time. Any takers for Ann Coulter?

[Mabus]

24. Now if Sweden will do the same thing with Phelps

we could reduce the number of radical American clerics by two.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

30. That would be sweet!

:D

[belle]

45. Given a choice, I'd rather have Robertson ah, "taken out"

...of the public eye, that is.

Phelps is an evil abusive motherfucker and it'd be great if he ended up in a Swedish prison (pref. isolation), but at the end of the day, Robertson causes a lot more damage to a lot more people.

not that I'm saying it's for lack of trying on Phelps' part, mind you. but at least he doesn't have his own television empire.

[Mabus]

80. Agreed

Robertson's evil is world-wide and Pat's got a large following. Phelps has his family and..., I guess that's it.

[1932]

25. Now Robertson will have to get lawyered up like all Clinton's friends.

[1932]

26. ...and, like Kissinger, he'll have to think twice before travelling abroad

He wouldn't want to travel to a country which might think that Venezuela should get its day in court to address these statements.

[mitchum]

27. Viva Chavez

I love the man

[Up2Late]

28. Excellent! I say lock up that Christian Terrorist!

Send him to GTMO! It's like a Beach Resort, Right? At least that's what the V.P. and the ReThugs in Congress say.

[goforit]

44. Yah , lol,Put him in the same cell with Judith Miller.

[tridim]

29. Can Bush pardon Robertson?

And if so, will he? Pardoning a terrorist is probably a bad political move.

[mtnester]

59. Not for international crimes, or crimes he was charged with in another

country...

please please PLEASE oh God it would be poetic justice to see his ass changed, extradited, handcuffed and tried on live TV for this.

God, you KNOW you want to do this...let it happen PLEASE

[IChing]

31. I wish someone in our party would demand that federal law be enforced

against Robertson

From John Dean:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully -- (1) … threatens … a foreign official …, (2) attempts to… threaten … a foreign official … shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson "attempted" to threaten President Chavez.

[onenote]

51. I can and do doubt that Robertson violated this law

You said no one can doubt that Robertson "threatened" Chavez. Well, as much as I despise Robertson, I'm one who doubts that Robertson could be convicted of making a threat for expressing the opinion (Robertson's words: "I think") that the US government should assasinate Chavez. If Robertson had said "I'm gonna get Chavez" or "I'm looking for someone to kill Chavez" -- that would be a threat. But that's not what he said and, in this instance I have to go with my belief in free speech over my desire to see Robertson roast in hell.

In any event, by the way, the provision you cite (112(b)), applies to threats, etc. directed at a "foreign official" or an "official guest". Those terms have the meaning given them in 18 USC 1116 (see 112(c). And to come within the definition of those terms in 18 USC 1116, Chavez would have to be "in the United States". In other words, 112(b) doesn't reach threats, etc. directed at foreign leaders when they are not in the US.

onenote

[genius]

32. Let's all call our leaders and demand Pat's extradition.

I nominated this for greatest.

[mogster]

33. Well, he IS a religious extremist

And perhaps a terrorist.

It seems only fair that he should be extradited.

But the US society should jail this bugger - he attacked fellow Americans during a crisis, right after 911.

[TankLV]

87. "Radical Cleric".

Of the American Christian Talban.

[Xithras]

34. I can't believe what I'm reading here

Are you people kidding me? What he said is perfectly legal in the US...there's a world of legal difference between saying that someone SHOULD be dead, and actually threatening to kill them. What Robertson said was idiotic, but not illegal.

To support his extradition is basically supporting the idea that American citizens within the US can be prosecuted for breaking the laws of countries they've never visited. I don't really give a damn if what he said is illegal in Venezuela, because it's perfectly legal here. If he'd travelled to Venezuela and said it, the story would be different...but he didn't.

Folks, if this flies, we should all run and hide...we're all breaking the laws of at least a dozen countries just by discussing politics on the Internet. Our support of minority parties and opposition to our government violates the laws of at least a dozen more, and will get us executed in China.

Within the borders of the United States, the only laws that matter are our own.

[mogster]

36. Well

> Within the borders of the United States, the only laws that matter are our own.

Unfortunately, this also goes for the rest of the world. The US laws are global, the protection Am. citizens are given from same doesn't apply to non-Americans.

Reason: People like Robertson are given every opportunity to tweak the minds of simpletons not able to make an independent judgment on such statements. Subsequently, they vote an extremist into the WH, which again transgresses against intnl. law and...

You see where this is leading?

[ima_sinnic]

37. it appears that John Dean, Nixon's former counsel, disagrees w/you

. . . But did Robertson's communication "contain" a "threat" to "kidnap" or "injure" Chavez?

First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to "take him out," especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered.

As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

Does Robertson's Threat Count As A "True Threat"? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does . . .

Here is how the Fourth Circuit -- as it explained in the Draby case -- views threats under this statute: "Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication."

This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not "mean" to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not "feel threatened," that is not the end of the story. . . .

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html

and personally, I'd take Dean's word for it over anonymous armchair quarterbacking internet postings

[Xithras]

58. He's deliberately obfuscating.

What he says is true, but the "recipient" of that particular statement was the US government (reread Robertsons quote...he didn't say that anyone should take out Chavez, but specifically that the US government should to it). To prove a threat, you'd have to prove that Robertsons statement had the power to cause the government to carry out his will. While I agree that Robertson and his Christian Taliban have way too much sway over the Republican party, I don't think we've yet devolved to the point where Robertson is dictating our foreign assassination policy.

Without court provable evidence that Robertsons statement could have reasonably been expected to spur Bush into attempting an assasination, you have no threat. Without a threat, no laws have been violated.

BTW, this is the last post I'm putting up to defend Robertson. The legalities are clear enough to anyone willing to put their bias aside long enough to look at them (I'm a scientist...facts trump feelings, even when the facts are to your detriment). Anyone willing to take an objective look at his statements and THE LAW can see it, but apparently standing up to a DU lynch mob is futile. You're free to believe whatever you want and support his extradition in whatever ways you feel are neccesary, but remember that any precedent set now can be easily turned back on us. If what Robertson said can be construed as a "threat", then we've gone a lot further down the road to 1984 than even I'd realized. Talk about your thoughtcrimes...

[1932]

64. The US doesn't assassinate heads of state. Roberston was saying

someone should, and he probably meant black ops.

Roberston is a Republican politician who ran for president, and he is the CEO of a media empire with business interests in many areas and has tentacles that spread around the globe. He has dealt with RW dictators in Africa who use force to achieve their financial ends.

Chavez is right to think that this could be something more than someon expressing their first amendment right to express their beliefs.

At the very least, it'd be nice for Venezuela to get their day in court with Robertson so we could work through the arguments and establish some precedents about what the corporatocracy is allowed to do in terms of promotiing fascism, even if it results in Robertson getting off without any punishment.

Don't you agree?

[Pab Sungenis]

74. One question about Pat's liability.

Was Henry II guilty of the murder of Thomas a Beckett? According to history, he held himself liable and made penance to the Pope for the crime.

And all he did was yell "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Pat was even more explicit in his statements than Henry was.

[onenote]

67. if John Dean is your lawyer, get a money back guarantee

As much as I admire JD for dropping the dime on Nixon, he fails miserably in his legal analysis. To give the most obvious example, he notes that Congress "intended" for the bar on threatening foreign officials to apply only to the US, but then suggests that there would be a sweet irony in the Fourth Circuit adopting, as it traditionally does, a strict constructionist approach that only looks at the statute language, and does not consider Congress' intent. Only problem...the statute expressly states that the term "foreign official" has the meaning given that term in another provision of law (sec 1116) and that provision, on its face, limits the definition of foreign official to someone who is "in the United States". So Dean's analysis fails. Similarly, his examples of a "true threat" do not involve a situation where someone expressed the opinion that a third party (i.e., the US govt) should harm someone.

onenote

[amber dog democrat]

38. I think this IS illeagal and

I would not be surprised if the CBN finds some challenges at the FCC for their license renewel. Its hard to argue Roberts comments are in line with the " public interest, convenience and necessity " .
Broadcasters get shut down for this kind of invective - and rightfully so.

[amber dog democrat]

39. VIVA CHEVEZ !!!

Hell, I'd vote for him too. I can't help but wonder if Pat Robertson's remarks are not mirrored by the Bush Adm. We have a long history of " taking out " poplular leaders in foreign countries.

[leesa]

42. You are wrong. He called for the assassination of a head of state

Chavez has legal recourse. Perhaps you should get out more so you might notice there's a whole world outside our borders.

[Xithras]

56. Legally, that world is irrelevant.

In the US, the constitution trumps international law. Even if it didn't, there's nothing illegal about saying that someone should be dead...even if that someone is the head of a nation. People say it about Mugabe, Castro, and dozens of other world leaders all the time, and people in other nations say it about Bush. There is nothing illegal about believing, and stating, that the world would be a better place if certain people were removed from it.

It was crass, distasteful, ignorant, and bigoted, but it was LEGAL.

[1932]

66. Uhm, you couldn't be more wrong. Legally, international law is equal to

US law. When the US signs on to a treaty, it's the law of the land.

People who have power don't go arround the airwaves promoting the assassination of foreign heads of state, and if someone did it about the President in the US, they'd go to jail. And if someone did it in a foreign country, they'd probably have to suffer the legal ramifications too.

Hell, we bombed Iraq because we thought their was evidend that people there were thinking about assassinating GHWB in Kuwait during Clinton's first term.

My opinion is that I don't know if it was legal until I hear the full argument. Although I'd be surprised if it happened, I'd love to hear Venezueal and Robertson argue this one out in a court of law. It would probably set a valuable precendent regardless of the outcome.

[belle]

46. Relax, it won't fly. What *I'm* hoping, anyway, is...

that sufficient noise will be enough to convince Robertson's local channels and sponsors to drop his hateomerical from the airwaves. it's *way* past time.

[Xithras]

55. Now THAT'S something we can ALL hope for!

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I still don't like the precedent.

[LivingInTheBubble]

48. What would have happened if he said the same thing about Bush? NT

[1932]

68. Didn't Clinton send some missiles into Iraq because they talked about...

assassinating GHWB when GHWB was no longer president?

Obviously we take the same thing very seriously.

And Chavez wanting to settle this in a court of law is a huge step forward if you ask me.

[atreides1]

50. Why the US has done it

Then how do we justify the extradition of members of the Colombian Drug Cartels, who while breaking the laws of the U.S., have for the
most part never even entered the country.

How do we justify the imprisonment of "enemy combatants" who were fighting against invaders of their country, what U.S. laws did they
break?

Currently a British citizen is being considered for extradition to the US, for breaking laws. If the Brits can extradite one of their own citizens to the US, then it shouldn't be that big of a deal
to extradite Robertson to Venzuela.

Unfortunately what you say about the only laws that matter within the
borders of the U.S. isn't true. The U.S. by signing on to treaties
with other countries has opened the door to something like this, and now the U.S. has to shit or get off the pot.

By the way your last paragraph is incorrect, Robertson threatened soemone, here in the U.S. even that's against the law. As for the
other examples that comes under the laws of the US, and those are the ones that apply within our borders.

[Xithras]

54. Treaties are different

Yes, we can have people extradited if they break a law covered by a foreign treaty or attack something in the US from a foreign country (like hackers), but neither of those applies in this case.

As for the rest of it, look up the definition of "threatened", and reread his statement.

[onenote]

53. well put xithras

I'm with you. I think Robertson's a nutjob, but he didn't break the law. Not only was his statment not a "threat" as that term generally is understood, the specific provision of US law that addresses threats made against foreign officials only applies if the foreign official is in the US at the time.

onenote

[icymist]

63. Bullshit! Talking politics and threatening assignation is not the same.

Let's look at what Robertson said:
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination," referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, "but if he (Chavez) thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Clearly Robertson is advocating that the US government assassinate a foreign Head Of State. Take into account that Robertson's father mentored Prescott Bush in the Senate and heads the Christian Coalition, a political group that HIGHLY influences the Bush administration.... This is a genuine threat on the life of the President of another Sovereign government.

[Xithras]

70. You would have to prove that influence

Which may be easier said than done. As stated elsewhere, you'd have to prove that Robertsons statements could reasonably be expected to change the behavior or motivate the US government to assassinate a foreign leader. That would be very hard to prove in court.

[1932]

77. Or maybe it wouldn't be hard to prove.

The guy is head of powerful corporation, ran for prez, and has the ear of Republicans in government.

This isn't some average joe who said something in a bar. This is a guy with real power making real threats in a medium -- the MSM -- which he controls.

I think if you look at other places where he might have meddled in US government policy to achieve corporate profits and power, you might see that there's actually a history of him getting what he wants.

At the least, it would be interesting to hear this case fully argued in a court of law.

[maddezmom]

35. Chavez threatens UN complaint, if no action against Robertson

CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has warned he will lodge a complaint against the United States at the United Nations and other international bodies if the US government fails to act against television evangelist Pat Robertson, who has called for Chavez's assassination.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and Organization of American States to denounce the US government," the Venezuelan leader said Sunday as he addressed participants at talks on a social charter for the Americas.

He added he believed that by failing to act against Robertson, the United States was "giving protection to a terrorist, who is demanding the assassination of a legitimate president."

Robertson caused a diplomatic stir last Monday when he said on the air that if Chavez believed the United States was trying to kill him, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/wl_afp/venezuelauschavezrobertson

[CanonRay]

40. I'm glad THEY are doing something...

because the powers that be in this country just seem to want it to go away.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

41. Bravo, Hugo !! n/t

[goforit]

43. Robertson's views death for those who critizise Bush?

Ahhhh.....He is treasonist for going against our most
prized FREEDOM,
.....freedom of Speech.

[LeftyElvis]

47. Ron Kuby

said this morning that nothing can be done.

[meganmonkey]

49. LMAO

This is so funny. I mean, I know it is serious too, but I just love that Chavez is starting to smack the US around a little.

:rofl:

[arwalden]

52. Fuckin-A!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
:bounce:

[Megahurtz]

57. Viva Chavez!

:thumbsup:

[pberq]

60. Go Hugo!

This guy is one of the heroes of our time.

Who says there isn't a such thing as karma?

[novak goes postal]

62. Oh this is great...

What a great twist to the story to say nothing of the irony.....

[chomskysright]

65. KICK! Viva Chavez!

[bejammin075]

69. TAKE HIM OOT!

As Robertson says. Is he Canadian? WTF is that accent?

[Judi Lynn]

72. I think it's an affectation. I'm sure he has always been an American.

He has his own accent. Maybe his own zip-code, too.

[shadowknows69]

78. Clearly its the accent of the Holy Spirit

:eyes:

[neuvocat]

73. Way to piss off Latin America, Pat.

You're a dumb-shit.

[stepnw1f]

75. You Can Have the Thief

Actually he's an enemy to our Constitution.

[shadowknows69]

76. Flame away but

I think Venezuela should pay Robertson the same respect he would to Chavez. BANG. One shot, one kill.

[ozone_man]

81. No flame,

we've just got to beat them at their own game. Robertson and Bush are terrorists, so treat them as such. Show what poor representatives of "Christian ideals" that they are. The whole world is listening and these guys are making a mockery of our country.

[rmgarrette64]

82. Curious

I think Venezuela should pay Robertson the same respect he would to Chavez. BANG. One shot, one kill.


I am curious. For those who agree with Chavez' position - that Robertson should face extradition as a terrorist, do you think that Shadowknows69 should face prosecution under the same theory?

Why or why not?

RM Garrett

[shadowknows69]

84. Good point but...

Pat Robertson, while being a public figure, is not the leader of a sovereign nation. So, I am merely wishing doom upon a private citizen of my home country which has civil and maybe legal penalties if Mr Robertson chooses to pursue them against me I suppose. Sorry if these bloodthirsty idiots rub off on me sometimes. I was just expressing how I might feel if I were Mr Chavez. and had easy access to experienced south american assassins.

[TankLV]

88. Can't disagree with you there.

I'm sure hope something is in the works.

After all, patsy has given it an official OK.

Nobody could blame them if they did!

[Joanne98]

79. I love Hugo Chavez!

[NeoConsSuck]

83. In a global popularity contest

Chavez would wipe up the floor against the chimp. The chimp's only followers now are freeptards and holy rollers.

Hey Bush, what happened to all that political capital? LOL!

[NJCher]

85. whether the suit is won or not doesn't matter to me

The idea that Pat Robertson will spend many a sleepless night over this is enough for me.




Cher

[Chovexani]

86. Me too

I want to see that evil old fuck sweat.

When are we going to start doing something about the Radical Christian Clerics in this country?