
	by Mike Whitney
	January 22, 2011
	from 
	GlobalResearch Website
 
	
	His enemies call him a tyrant and a dictator, 
	but he is neither. 
	
	 
	
	Hugo Chavez is a tireless champion of the poor and a 
	committed christian socialist. The only difference between Chavez's type of 
	christianity and Barack Obama's, is that Chavez walks the walk.
	
	For example, on Tuesday, Chavez used his powers under the new "enabling 
	laws" to enact the "Law for Dignified Refuge" a presidential decree that 
	mandates "dignified and humane" housing for all Venezuelans. The Venezuelan 
	parliament approved the controversial (and temporary) enabling laws because 
	the country faced an unprecedented housing crisis due to the massive floods 
	in December.
	
	More than 125,000 people lost their homes in the disaster requiring a speedy 
	response from the government. 
	
	 
	
	Chavez swung into action immediately turning 
	the presidential palace into a homeless shelter and initiating a campaign to 
	construct permanent housing for the victims. Now he has pushed through 
	landmark legislation that will legally require the government to help the 
	homeless.
	
	Contrast Chavez's response to Obama's during the 
	
	BP oil spill, where BP was 
	allowed to wreak havoc on the environment and destroy people's livelihood 
	without any consequences. In fact, Obama even provided cover for the oil 
	giant by appearing in public relations "I feel your pain" photo-ops on a 
	beach in Louisiana that were intended to divert public rage away from BP. 
	
	
	 
	
	So, now the fishing and shrimping industries are devastated, sensitive 
	estuaries and ecosystems have been destroyed, the level of toxins in the 
	bloodstreams of people living in the region have skyrocketed and - worst of 
	all - BP has gotten off Scot-free. Thanks, Barack.
	
	Now imagine what would have happened if Chavez had been in charge. 
	
	 
	
	BP's 
	stateside operations would have been shut down, their assets would have been 
	seized, and Tony Hayward and his buddies would have been thrown in the 
	hoosegow. 
	
	 
	
	Got a problem with that?
	
	Last week, while Obama was singing the praises of "deregulation" on the 
	editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal,
	
		
		".. the rules have gotten out of 
	balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business - burdens that have stifled 
	innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs",
	
	
	...and first 
	lady, Michelle Obama was hawking "healthy foods" for food behemoth Walmart 
	in the national media, Chavez was busy transforming shelters into 
	“institutions of the state” to make sure that people had a place to stay 
	while they get back on their feet again.
	
	The new law stipulates that these people be provided with food and medical 
	assistance (Venezuela has universal health care) as well as "scholarships, 
	pensions and special allotments of resources" depending on their needs.
	
	The new state facilities that are being set up by Chavez will focus 
	primarily on,
	
		
		"the most vulnerable population; the children, adolescents, 
	seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant women.”
“It’s not a question of the government wanting to do this or not,” said 
	Chavez. “It is now a legal obligation.”
		
		(venezuelanalysis.com)
	
	
	Right on. And how has Washington reacted to Chavez's emergency programs and 
	new laws? 
	
	 
	
	Here's an excerpt from a recent article by ex-pat 
	Eva Golinger 
	that sums it up pretty well:
	
		
		"This week, (Venezuelan) opposition leaders will meet with their 
	counterparts in Washington. They have already said their mission is to seek 
	more aid to help remove President Chavez from power. 
		 
		
		Unfortunately, their 
	undemocratic actions have already been welcomed in the US Capitol. 
	
		 
		
		Representative Connie Mack (R-FL), now head of the House Sub-Committee on 
	Foreign Relations for the Western Hemisphere, announced on the first day of 
	Congress that his one goal this year is to place Venezuela on the list of 
	"state sponsors of terrorism". 
		 
		
		And Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 
	(R-FL), now head of the House Foreign Relations Committee, has backed that 
	objective, even going as far as to publicly state she would welcome the 
	"assassination of Fidel Castro or any other repressive leader" such as Hugo 
	Chavez." 
		
		("Setting the Record Straight on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez", Eva Golinger, Global Research)
	
	
	Surprised? Don't be. 
	
	 
	
	Any foreign leader who attempts to control his 
	country's resources, improve human rights, or distribute the nation's wealth 
	more equally among its people, is the de facto enemy of the United States. 
	
	
	 
	
	People thought that things might  
	change 
	under Obama, but they were wrong. 
	
	 
	
	
	
	 
	
	He's as bad 
	as Bush.