Most Venezuelans are baptised Catholics so more likely than not both Gauido and Maduro are also baptised Catholics. I have read a report of Maduro's people holding rallies outside a Catholic church during Mass and using loudspeakers to shout down the celebrant. Both Communism and Freemasonry are condemned by the Church. Neither side is good for Catholics.
The socialism/communism practised by Maduro in Venezuela by is also condemned by the Church. You have a blind spot to that and cannot seem to see the connection between the economic turmoil/collapse in Venezuela and the disastrous socialist policies practised in the Chavez/Maduro era. You cannot blame the economic collapse on sanctions/outside interference/Zionists/ or neo-cons when it is so obvious that both Chavez & Maduro's socialist policies have driven the country's economy into the ground. One cannot legislate for pure incompetence and disastrous leadership. PS - I do not support outside interference in Venezuela but feel so sorry for the poor deluded electorate who voted for Chavez/Maduro -- it was like Turkeys voting for Christmas. They voted for their own demise!! It may be appropriate to add that the Bolivarian constitution of 1999 (one of the longest in the world) with 350 articles is also at the heart of the problems as it is effectively a Marxist charter. More like Bollocks constitution in my opinion
No, I have always been cautious about any US president. They are only human and therefore, quite fallible BUT I am appreciative that I am a United States citizen and I truly appreciate the freedoms that have been afforded to me without those freedoms we would not be able to freely practice Our Faith, the Truth. On the other hand, you seem to take those freedoms for granted and you may only truly appreciate those freedoms when they are gone. It is you who have misinterpreted the situation in Venezuela, not I. Well, I know a few Venezuelans who have left the country over 10 years ago because it has been bad there for at least that long, mainly due to Chavez. I agree, "God help the Venezuelans".
I wonder if the same Catholics calling for American intervention in Venezuela would be okay with outside intervention to topple the Freemason-run Government of the United States, seeing that Freemasonry is condemened and the signs and symbols of Freemasonry are proudly displayed in the halls of American power? Trump's Neoconseravative foreign policy is as evil (actually much worse) than anything Maduro is alleged to have done, so where are all the Catholics clamouring for an intervention against the United States Government?
Why you continue to ignore the economic incompetence of Maduro is really beyond my comprehension -- perhaps, your ideological obsession with 'neo-cons' and 'Zionists' has made you blinkered to the reality of the suffering of real people in Venezuela -- You continue to perpetuate the myth that the crisis is the fault of outside interference when in reality that has but a small part to play in the economic implosion in the country. 61% of Venezuelans stated that they went to bed hungry in a survey over a 3 month period in 2017. And things have progressively got worse since then with millions fleeing across various borders to get respite -- The 'Maduro diet' as Venezuelans call it has led to a massive crisis of malnutrition -- God spare anyone from socialism as it inevitably leads to poverty for the many. I disagree with Trump's policy towards Venezuela so we are in agreement about that. But you need to face the reality that Venezuela's brand of socialism is the root cause of the present economic crisis.
I agree with much of what you say but this isn't Socialism, it's kleptocracy. Maduro and his generals have stolen, are stealing and are giving away to middle ranking military and police for their continued support, so much of the country's wealth that there isn't sufficient left to maintain the country's infrastructure, and health and education systems. While all 'socialist' leaders and their families routinely steal from the people (see the lives that the young Castro's lead), they usually do not bleed the country dry of necessities for their own survival. Chavez had the oil based resources to enrich himself and his family and cronies while managing to provide basic necessities, maintain the infrastructure and also provide good healthcare and education. Maduro was, from the start, in a much more precarious position and had to use much more of the country's resources to create and maintain support among the military, police and the financial elite. Result - malnutrition, a failed healthcare and education system, totally unreliable power provision and consequent mass flight. It is only a matter of time before he flees or the army and police give up on him even with the support of Chinese and Russian finance (which is limited by their uncertain confidence in his continued hold on the country - they want to be repaid and know that this in unlikely from any replacement).
Why you continue to ignore the Neocon-imposed economic sanctions and attempts at regime change is beyond me. As an American and Catholic I want no part with it. The economic woes in Venezuela are mostly due to the years and years of unjust economic sanctions imposed on them by Team Neocon. I am now reading that most of Venezuela is under blackout conditions due to a spohisticated cyber attack (Stuxnet-level bad) conducted a few days ago (timed just as the Freemason Guaido returned to wreak more chaos). Venezuelans are resorting to desperate measures to stay alive. In one hospital alone some 200 people died thanks to lack of electricity. Trump and those who engineered this ongoing attempt at regime change have innocent blood on their hands and must be held accountable and brought to justice.
I don't doubt what they have told you. The point I am trying to make is that Maduro being bad doesn't make Guaido good. Better than Maduro (or Chavez) is a very low bar, and just because the US and EU have chosen to support Guaido doesn't mean that he will be good for Venezuela in the long term. I also think it very possible that if overt foreign intervention forces Maduro out of office, more than a few of his supporters will resort to terrorism, becoming self proclaimed "freedom fighters" struggling against American aggressive interference in their country. From the very little I know about it, Guaido seems to have appeared out of nowhere. I find that strange and more than a little suspicious. But, as I have said more than once, I know very little about Venezuela.
The Catholics calling for American intervention are seeing reports of Venezuelans starving and are hearing their calls for help from the US or any other government willing to help them get out of the mess they are in. Hard to blame them for supporting the man being presented as the only real alternative to Maduro. We really don't know enough about the situation. My instinct is for non-intervention and to let Venezuelans oust Maduro. He won't last long if enough Venezuelans turn against him. Intervention would be warranted if he were conducting a campaign of wholesale murder of his people, but I don't think he has been accused of that. He might well resort to those tactics if he gets desperate enough although the military and police might be reluctant to go along with such tactics especially if they fear US military intervention. What surprises me is that Catholics would show any support for a Communist government because we know full well that Communism always results in suppression of religion, especially when the religion is Catholicism.
"Communist" gets thrown around rather loosely these days. Maduro is not a Communist. A Nationalist, yes. Some sort of Socialist - perhaps, but even "socialist" gets thrown around loosely. I've heard Neocons and other Establishment commentators label Catholics espousing Distributism and limits on unrestrained Capitalism as "Socialists.". To your point of Catholics defending intervention in Venezuela for humanitarian reasons. This fails the stink test for a few reasons. For one, the Neocons are no better (if not worse) than Maduro. Second, the interventionists are unjustly intervening and lying about their true motives, as evidenced by the fact that they support the brutal tryants in Saudi Arabia and support their war against Yemen - where thosands are starving and continue to starve to death - all while crying crocodile tears for Venezuela. Third, the man chosen (not elected by Venezuelans) to replace Maduro is a lawless, illegitimate, Freemason.
Steve -- he leads the United Socialist party of Venezuela - his party brought in the Bolivarian/marxist constitution in 1999 so they have clearly socialist underpinnings. It is socialism that brought the country to its knees under Chavez. He called it a socialist revolution. It may be that Maduro was in a difficult position and may have had to adjust accordingly but the country was brought to it's knees by the implementing an expensive welfare system based on left wing ideology. China had to adjust it's communism to allow free market capitalism and I would argue socialism always is a reptile changing shapes to adjust to prevailing conditions. So likewise in Venezuela. If in doubt read about the 1999 Bolivarian constitution -- it has socialist/marxist underpinnings. Chavez and Castro were allies so you know people by their friends!
Richard wrote 'The economic woes in Venezuela are mostly due to the years and years of unjust economic sanctions imposed on them by Team Neocon'. This is a false argument and a false narrative. I am very disappointed in your response Richard. You have stated you are a seeker of truth. Yet you continue to spout ideological opinions. Sanctions are not the main reason why the economy is in tatters - The problems really started under Chavez who typically as a socialist spent more that was earned and somehow managed to squander huge amounts of oil money on whimsy projects aimed at creating a socialist utopia. When Chavez came to power he increased state control over the oil industry to get his hands on its coffers -- GDP rose from $117.1 billion in 2000 to $140.2 billion in 2005. Chavez squandered the money on massive welfare --- Share of gross domestic product (GDP) on social spending has increased from 7.83 percent to 14.69 percent Subsidized grocery stores that serviced 13 million people medical care provided by Cuban doctors via free clinics in slums, reaching 18 million people, nearly 70 percent of the population; spending on access to higher education for the poor and working class special affirmative action programs for indigenous people Increased the minimum wage to the highest in Latin America at $286 per month Shortened the workweek from forty to thirty-six hours Land reform (in effect land theft by forcing landlords to sell at below value prices) shifting 8.8 million acres to poor families Government seed money increased the number of cooperative enterprises from fewer than 800 to 181,00 The case is overwhelming that Chavez's implementation of an over arching welfare system based on socialist ideology brought the country to it's knees. Yes, the recent sanctions do not help but the damage was mainly self-inflicted. I have based my argument on the facts Richard.
Here is part of an article from 2007 from International Socialist Review A hardcore socialist is debating what kind of socialism is practised by Chavez -- there are many variants of socialism but they all work on the same premise of the need for over arching welfare state -- Chavez clearly saw himself as a socialist and a revolutionary and his allies were socialist regimes! Where is Venezuela going? By Lee Suustar The Cuban-Venezuelan economic relationship is significant. Venezuela supplies Cuba with upwards of 90,000 barrels of oil per day at subsidized prices in return for the services of 20,000 doctors and other medical personnel. “The increase in daily oil imports allowed Castro in May of 2005 to double the minimum wage for 1.6 million workers, raise pensions for the elderly and deliver cooking appliances to poor Cubans. Reforms have been possible due to increases in oil revenue—but will this add up to revolution? The question remains as to whether, and how, this “socialism in distribution,” as Prashad put it, can be transformed into the direct rule of the working class. To assess this possibility, it’s necessary to review Venezuela’s economic policy.“Bolivarian” internationalism Chávez’s Venezuela is often compared to Castro’s Cuba by supporters and enemies of both. The two countries have, of course, forged a close alliance via the oil-for-doctors arrangement and by jointly forging opposition to U.S. imperial aims in Latin America. Castro’s association with the Venezuelan “revolutionary process” has rehabilitated Cuba’s revolutionary credentials more than fifteen years after the collapse of the USSR forced the country into prolonged economic crisis and political isolation. In the last years, Castro has reemerged as the grand old man of the Latin American Left, an adviser to Chávez, Evo Morales in Bolívia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Chávez’s attempts to form Bolivarian Circles (which never took off) recalls Cuba’s Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, and Chavez’s PSUV initiative invites comparisons to the merger of Castro’s July 26th Movement and other socialist organizations to eventually form the Cuban Communist Party. Making an alliance with Cuba, however, has not led Chávez to copy Castro’s bureaucratic state-capitalist economic model that was derived from Stalinism in the Soviet Union. That system could work as long as the Cuban economy was functioning as part of a large political and economic bloc dominated by Moscow; without that alliance, the country has been forced to reintroduce the market and private investment, deepening the inequalities that had already emerged under the “socialist” economy. While there are Castroist elements around Chávez who favor a hard turn toward state capitalism, Venezuela is hardly likely, or willing, to move in this direction, writes Latin America analyst Hampden Macbeth: Despite appearances to the contrary, Chávez and Castro differ on several critical ideological issues. Castro believes in traditional “real socialism,” in which the economy is controlled by the state and it exerts a strong influence over the economic affairs of its citizens and foreign trade. However, Chávez thinks “real socialism’s” time has passed, saying: “[w]e have to re-invent socialism. It can be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition,” with this being seen as “new socialism.” One manner in which “new socialists” differentiate themselves from “real socialists” is that they are significantly more tolerant of private economic enterprise and considerably more experimental in the approaches they are willing to take to achieve their socialist goals. Evidence suggests that Latin America might be returning to its traditional “mixed economy” where an important role is assigned both to the public and private sectors.
Yes, "Communist" does get thrown around a lot these days, as does "Fascist". Knowing so little about Venezuela, I did a little research - Wikipedia being the source because I have neither the time nor inclination to read tomes about Venezuela. "Bolivarism" being a term often used in connection with Venezuela, I looked up Simon Bolivar. "Enlightened" Simon Bolivar joined the Freemasons in Spain, was a Master Mason and member of the Knights Templar along with other South American revolutionary leaders of the rebellion against Spanish rule in South America. Bolivar certainly wasn't anti-US - quite the contrary. As I read about these masonic movements or rebellions against the prevailing establishment I get the impression that they tend to lead to further violent confrontations with the revolutionaries turning on each other. Eventually the fractures lead to some groups leaning further and further left in the form or socialism or communism while others lean further and further to the right in the form of varying degrees of a kind of elitist, greedy capitalism, all of them adopting to a greater or lesser degree the characteristics of the authorities they originally opposed and all of them retaining the kind of values which lead to broken families. They're all bound to fail eventually because stable families are the lynch pin of any stable society. It just takes longer for some than others. It seems that Chavez and Maduro have taken their version of Bolivarism (Freemasonry) down the socialist/communist route. (Even in the Soviet Union days, I think the Russians described themselves as socialists on the path to their communist ideal). A description of the Chavez Bolivarism describes it as Bolivar's ideas with a mix of Marxism. Apparently, Karl Marx didn't have a high opinion of Simon Bolivar so perhaps Chavez thought that he had hit upon the ideal with a combination of what he considered the best of both Bolivar and Marx. I looked up Juan Guaido. Guaido first got involved in political activism as a student leader in the Jesuit university in Caracas. He did a post-grad course in the US at George Washington University. Shortly afterwards he founded the Popular Will political party with Leopoldo Lopez. Guaido's wife is a journalist - something of an advantage for politicians these days. Seems that Guaido is really a protege of Leopoldo Lopez who is probably the real danger to Maduro and will likely become president at some time in the future if someone doesn't kill him. He is currently under house arrest. Leopoldo Lopez. We're not dealing with muck here. Lopez is the g-g-g nephew of Simon Bolivar and comes from a very influential political family in Venezuela. His mother has strong media connections and his cousin is the extremely well connected film producer Thor Halvorrsen, President of the Human Rights Foundation. His early education was in a private, secular school founded by a Venezuelan doctor, revolutionary and politician. From there Lopez was a boarder at the exclusive Hun Princeton Academy in the US. He qualified in Economics and Sociology at the selective (Anglican) Kenyon College, founded by Rev. Philander Chase, Grand Chaplain to the Grand Lodge of Ohio. He got a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He worked for the Venezuelan State-owned Petroleum company as an analyst and consultant. He was also a Professor in the Economics Department of the same Jesuit University where Guaido began his student activism. He co-founded the Political Will party with Guaido after he left the previous party he had co-founded because it wasn't sufficiently left-wing. It appears that Lopez is no stranger to attempting to effect regime change between elections. He is reported as believing that "demonstrations can prompt a change of government" - something he seems to have in common with anti-Trump demonstrators. Looks like it's Lopez rather than Guaido who is Maduro's real opposition. There have been some attempts on his life, and his bodyguard was shot and killed during one such attempt. The Guaido/Lopez political party is a member of the Socialist International assocation. The Chavez/Maduro party is not a member, although that could be because they are too nationalistic for Socialist Inernational. There has been a split in Socialist International led by the German Social Democratic Party which broke away and set up a new group called the Progressive Alliance because of "Socialist International's admittance and continuing inclusion of undemocratic political movements into the organization". Having read all that, I'm more convinced than ever that Venezuela's main players are nothing more than strands of Freemasonry, and Venezuela is in a lose-lose situation no matter which side comes out on top. It's a real mess. Maduro isn't only supported by Cuba. He can also boast of support from Iran and Turkey. God help the poor Venezuelans.
One thing Catholic Prophesy speaks of is widespread Global Revolutions which will bring down Government after Government after Government. For instance before the Invasion of Europe by Russia and Islam that there will be a Revolution in France and Italy which will open the door. I wonder if this is what is meant? We see the same kind of thing in Haiti at the moment. Absolute chaos. No winners at all. I wonder if these events are accidents are are they planned? If countries fail then Globalists can take over to, 'Save', them. A recipe for the anti Christ. Things are very,very, bad indeed you know when Missionaries are forced to flee. They are usually the very,very last to go.
Globally, there are so many governments in chaso. It does seem prime for many to be taken over. Maria Esperanza having said that it all begins with Venezuela does give me pause....she does lend a lot of credibility to the possibility that things are moving in a prophetic direction. This combined with church events makes one feel that it’s just a matter of time. I’d no idea that Haiti was as bad as it is....gosh those poor people. We have no idea how good we have it....But for how much longer....?
Yes poor people. One thing about them they have just woken up to the lie that everyone is good, well meaning and well behaved. It's only society that forces people to be, 'Good'. Prayers for the poor people of Haiti, Venezuala and the Congo this morning at mass. It's not wonder at mass we pray for peace so often in the Liturgy. We pray for peace over and over and over again. I can see why. As it is written, 'Those who do not Fear God will Learn to Fear men'.
