Showing posts sorted by relevance for query eva golinger. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query eva golinger. Sort by date Show all posts

23 November 2010

Los guisos de Eva Golinger

Aviso público: Toda la información que aquí publico puede ser corroborada siguiendo los links del artículo. 

Luego de matar unos tigres para Andres Izarra y la Venezuela Information Office en Washington entre el 2003 y el 2005, Eva Golinger aterrizó en Caracas, cual heroína revolucionaria, a meterse de lleno en el régimen de Hugo Chavez. Desde entonces, han ocurrido algunas hechos en la vida de Golinger que son, por decirlo de alguna forma, difíciles de explicar. Comenzaré con su cédula y numero.

Algunos artículos dicen que nació en una base militar en EEUU, otros que es oriunda de Nueva York. Lo cierto es que nació en Estados Unidos. Golinger dice que su madre, Elizabeth Calderon, es venezolana. Sin embargo, su madre también nació en los Estados Unidos, en 1941 (Nueva York). No hay registros de la madre de Golinger en Maisanta, es decir, que para el 2004, la Sra. Calderon no estaba registrada en el REP. ¿Cómo obtuvo entonces Golinger la nacionalidad venezolana, si su madre pareciera no tenerla? Golinger ha dicho que se casó con un tal Gustavo Moncada en los 90, de quien aparentemente se divorció. Si obtuvo la nacionalidad venezolana gracias a su matrimonio con Moncada, en su estadía intermitente en Venezuela entre 1993 y 1998, ¿por qué su número de cédula 21.802.149 se corresponde con cedulaciones ocurridas en 2004-2005?

Veamos lo que dice la constitución chavista al respecto, en su capitulo II sobre nacionalidad y ciudadanía:

Artículo 32. Son venezolanos y venezolanas por nacimiento:
1. Toda persona nacida en el territorio de la República.
2. Toda persona nacida en territorio extranjero, hijo o hija de padre venezolano por nacimiento y madre venezolana por nacimiento.
3. Toda persona nacida en territorio extranjero, hijo o hija de padre venezolano por nacimiento o madre venezolana por nacimiento, siempre que establezcan su residencia en el territorio de la República o declaren su voluntad de acogerse a la nacionalidad venezolana.

La sección 1 queda descartada, igual que la segunda, puesto que el padre de Golinger es norteamericano. La sección 3 parece ser la que habría permitido a la Sra. Calderon reclamar su nacionalidad venezolana, toda vez que declarase su voluntad de acogerse a la misma y establecer su residencia en Venezuela.

Artículo 33. Son venezolanos y venezolanas por naturalización:
2. Los extranjeros o extranjeras que contraigan matrimonio con venezolanas o venezolanos desde que declaren su voluntad de serlo, transcurridos por lo menos cinco años a partir de la fecha del matrimonio.

Con respecto a los artículos citados, cabe preguntar: ¿en qué fecha, amparada en qué articulo de la constitución, y cómo obtuvo Golinger su cédula?

En diciembre del 2006, apenas un año después de su arribo a Venezuela, Eva Golinger recibió a un periodista del diario El Tiempo, en su apartamento de "400 millones de bolívares... en lo alto de la urbanización La Florida." En un año, Golinger se compró, dizque con un préstamo bancario, un apartamento de 400 millones de bolívares. Según el Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales, Eva Golinger ha devengado 44.752,68 bolívares -$10,000 aproximadamente- de sueldo en los últimos 15 años en Venezuela. Este monto corresponde a cotizaciones de salarios hechas en el 2010 solamente, como indica su cuenta individual. Cabe preguntar entonces: ¿cómo una persona que en ese entonces no cotizaba salarios a la seguridad social de Venezuela pudo obtener un préstamo para adquirir un apartamento de 400 millones de bolívares, en una de las mejores zonas residenciales de Caracas? Siendo que Golinger es ciudadana americana, ¿está el Internal Revenue Service (IRS) -SENIAT de su país- al tanto del ingreso y adquisiciones en Venezuela? ¿Cómo puede Golinger justificar la compra de una propiedad tan cara? ¿Qué banco le otorgó a Golinger el préstamo? ¿A nombre de quién está registrada esa propiedad en el registro mercantil?

La asamblea chavista autorizó en febrero de este año un crédito por 13,9 millones de bolívares para la Fundación Correo del Orinoco ($3,2 millones). Cabe preguntar: ¿cuáles son los términos de dicho crédito? ¿En qué guisos está metida Eva Golinger?

20 November 2010

Sobre Eva Golinger y Hugo Chavez

La Patilla reporta que Eva Golinger "trabajó como mercenaria de Chavez en los EEUU" Para estar claros en lo que ha hecho Golinger al respecto, nótese la siguiente información. Desde su primer contacto en 2003 con diplomáticos chavistas en EEUU -Andres Izarra y Bernardo Alvarez Herrera- Eva Golinger ha incurrido en los siguientes delitos en su pais (EEUU):

1) Misrepresentation, lo cual traducido significa presentarse con falsos títulos/credenciales.

- a) Golinger hizo trabajos legales para la Venezuela Information Office en Washington en 2003, cuando en realidad fue admitida como abogado en el colegio de abogados (BAR) de Nueva York en el 2005. [ver http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200503290749 ]

- b) Golinger afirmaba en su website ser miembro de la Asociación de Abogados de Inmigración de America (AILA), lo cual es falso de acuerdo a Diane Kolbe, representante de AILA. [ver http://vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200503250937 ]

- c) Golinger afirmaba en su website que su ONG -Venezuela Solidarity Committee- tenia un estatus tributario especial [501(c)(3)] que permitiría recibir donaciones del publico en general, exentas de impuesto sobre la renta. Marilyn Baker, de la oficina del Internal Revenue Service (IRS o Seniat estadounidense) desmintió las afirmaciones de Golinger, afirmando que no existia ningún record de la Golinger en el registro de ONGs. [ver http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200503042206 ]

- d) Golinger estuvo durante años ofreciendo servicios legales de inmigración, a través de su pagina web (ver foto izquierda), en Miami Beach, Florida, sin estar registrada en el colegio de abogados (BAR) de Florida.

2) Actuar como agente foráneo en EEUU sin estar debidamente registrada ante el Departamento de Justicia (Foreign Agent Registration Unit).

- a) Golinger ha solicitado al publico estadounidense en general en su website enviar cartas a sus representantes en el Congreso, abogando posturas favorables al regimen de Hugo Chavez. [ver  http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200503042206 ]

- b) Golinger ha escrito cartas abiertas a políticos estadounidenses abogando en favor del regimen de Hugo Chavez. [ver http://www.counterpunch.org/golinger03242004.html ]

- c) Golinger ha solicitado al publico estadounidense en general organizar reuniones con la finalidad de proyectar propaganda política (película The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) favorable al regimen de Hugo Chavez. [ver  http://vcrisis.com/HowYouCanHelpVenezuela3.doc ]

- d) Golinger ha formado parte de un equipo de respuesta rápida, conformado y coordinado por la Venezuela Information Office, encargado de contrarrestar informaciones consideras negativas sobre el régimen de Hugo Chavez, publicadas en medios de comunicación estadounidense, a través de la distribución de propaganda política. [ver http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200409221543 ]

- e) Golinger ha participado como ponente en conferencias/charlas propagandísticas sobre el regimen de Hugo Chavez en suelo estadounidense. [ver http://www.aporrea.org/venezuelaexterior/n95019.html ]

3) Fraude fiscal

- a) Eva Golinger acepto donaciones del publico para financiar las actividades de la Venezuela Solidarity Committee, alegando que su ONG poseía estatus 501(c)(3). [ver http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200503042206 ]

- b) Golinger aceptó pagos de la Venezuela Information Office por concepto de servicios legales, alegando credenciales falsas. [ver http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/04/24/pol_art_25184A.shtml y http://www.analitica.com/va/politica/opinion/9512409.asp ]

- c) Siendo que Golinger es ciudadana norteamericana, es menester preguntarse si declara debidamente el ingreso que obtiene por sus actividades propagandísticas en favor del regimen de Chavez en Venezuela.

4) Violación a prohibición de viajar a Cuba de ciudadanos estadounidenses.

- a) Golinger podría haber violado regulaciones estadounidenses al viajar a Cuba en 2005 a presentar su libro "El Codigo Chavez" [ver
 http://www.cubahora.cu/index.php?tpl=buscar/ver-not_buscar.tpl.html&newsid_obj_id=1006939 y regulaciones para viajeros norteamericanos a Cuba http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/cuba.txt ]

26 September 2010

26S en la BBC

Esta tarde recibí una llamada de Martin Vennard, quien me preguntó si podía comentar sobre las elecciones legislativas en Venezuela para la BBC World Service, a lo cual accedí. Inicialmente hablamos un poco de la situación del país en general, y luego conversamos sobre lo que sería el formato del programa, llamado Newshour. Cuando me comentó que si quería participar en un programa en el cual la contraparte, es decir la representación del chavismo, seria Richard Gott, le dije claramente que no entendía la relevancia de mantener una discusión sobre la política de mi país con un inglés -apólogo ademas de Chavez- que no tiene ni voz, ni voto, en el acontecer de Venezuela.

Debo admitir que Martin entendió mi opinion al respecto, y me llamó un rato mas tarde para decirme que si quería participar en el programa con Eva Golinger como contraparte, a lo cual le respondí que estaría encantado de hacerlo. Me pidió que me limitase a discutir el tema a debatir, léase las elecciones, y a no incurrir en ataques personales, con lo cual estuve de acuerdo.

Y como de discutir el tema se trata, este es un resumen de lo que recuerdo haber dicho:

  • Sobre mi opinión al respecto de la participación de la oposición en estas elecciones, en contraste con el dizque boicot del 2005: dije que lo del 2005 debía ponerse en contexto, por cuanto la realización de una elección ficticia en Fila de Mariches, ante observadores internacionales, había demostrado que el secreto del voto estaba comprometido, y por ello la oposición decidió retirarse en masa, y dejarle el campo libre a Chavez. Agregué que, indudablemente, la participación esta vez representaría un cambio, por cuanto cualquier escaño ganado es uno que no se ha tenido por cinco años. En este punto, recuerdo haber comentado algo sobre la necesidad de participar, y de no ceder espacios, palabras mas o menos.
  • Sobre los puntos en los que la oposición había centrado la campaña -inseguridad, desempleo, apagones, etc.,- en lugar de la campaña anti-americanista del chavismo: comenté que, afortunadamente, la oposición se había concentrado esta vez en los asuntos que afectan a la población a diario, en lugar de ponerse en un toma y daca con el chavismo sobre temas absurdos e inexistentes.
  • Sobre la cantidad de escaños que la oposición podría ganar hoy: respondí que un tercio, lo suficiente como para tener representatividad en un marco donde el chavismo continuará haciendo lo que le da la gana, sin necesidad de sentarse a negociar con la oposición.
Luego vino la intervención de Eva Golinger, a quien presentaron como abogada defensora de los derechos humanos (?). Golinger dijo que el sistema utilizado esta vez es el mismo que el del 2005, cuya seguridad nunca ha estado en duda (?), el mejor del mundo (?), el cual ha sido validado por todas las comisiones de observadores electorales que han visitado el país. Golinger añadió que la jornada estaba transcurriendo con toda normalidad, que la participación era masiva, y que habían 165 observadores internacionales monitoreando las elecciones hoy. No quiso opinar sobre mi predicción, con respecto al numero de escaños que obtendría la oposición.

Debo admitir, que no pude aguantarme un "eso no es cierto", cuando Golinger dijo que la seguridad de las maquinitas Smartmatic nunca había estado en duda.  Uno de los miembros del equipo me recordó que habíamos acordado que no podría rebatir los comentarios de Golinger. Fair enough. Y como de lo que se trata es de discutir el tema, y no a los ponentes, quisiera hacerle unas preguntas a Eva Golinger: 
  1. ¿quiénes son esos 165 observadores internacionales? 
  2. ¿Viene alguno de ellos en representación oficial de la Union Europea, la Organización de los Estados Americanos, o el Centro Carter?
  3. ¿Qué autoridad en la materia ha dicho que las maquinitas de Smartmatic son "el mejor sistema del mundo"?
  4. ¿Por qué el CNE no invitó esta vez a la Union Europea, OEA o Centro Carter a avalar los resultados producidos por el dizque "mejor sistema de votacion del mundo"?
  5. ¿Cuántas de las recomendaciones hechas al CNE por las comisiones de observación electorales internacionales han sido implementadas?
Invito públicamente a Golinger a que discutamos el tema.

UPDATE: mis comentarios, y los de Eva Golinger, pueden escucharse siguiendo este link.

6 February 2011

The New York Times does Eva Golinger

Eva is moving up in the revolutionary world. The New York Times, bastion of liberalism, has published a profile of Eva Golinger. As Daniel argues, why would the New York Times consider worthy ceding a piece of its publication's real state to a non entity, such as Eva Golinger? My view is that, if anything, the NYT, and Reuters before that, are simply setting the record straight on Eva, which is something I started doing in 2003. She's gaining notoriety. She's travelling with Chavez now. She's even going to have her own programme, in that beacon of "objective" journalism, which is Putin-controlled Russia Today. Both articles present her as editor of officially-funded Correo del Orinoco. Simon Romero's article in the NYT goes even further, and refers to her as "one of the most prominent fixtures of Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex."

As her idol, to whom she owes a lavish lifestyle and everything she's got, Golinger really is her own worst enemy. One only has to see the zeal with which she defends Chavez to realise that objectivity, respect for rule of law and human rights aren't values Golinger holds dear. The peculiarly funny thing is that Golinger resents being defined as a propagandist, which is effectively what she is. In that regard, the NYT is to be applauded. As Larry Rohter did with Oliver Stone's propagandistic film and his officially-funded sources, now Simon Romero's article has "outed" Eva Golinger, in The New York Times no less!

27 March 2013

Los Guisos de Eva Golinger: Parte II


Londres - El 23 de noviembre de 2010, publiqué un articulo titulado "Los Guisos de Eva Golinger", en el cual exponía a la gringa tarifada esa en todo su corrupto esplendor revolucionario.

Ha pasado un tiempo desde entonces, durante el cual he sabido que la Golinger se regresó a su país (EEUU) a dar a luz a un hijo, ya que supuestamente su vida corría peligro en la Venezuela Bolivariana de su amado líder, protector y benefactor. Supe también que Russia Today, el TELESUR de Vladimir Putin, la había contratado para un programa de televisión. También me dijeron las malas lenguas que el canal de Putin estaba corriendo con todos los gastos de la Golinger en Nueva York.

Lo cierto del caso es que mas allá de los rumores y chismes encontré hoy en la base de datos de propiedades de Nueva York, que la Golinger se compró un apartamento en Brooklyn, por $372.000. El registro da cuenta de la transacción el 9 de noviembre de 2010, a las 5:23 PM.

Para el momento de la publicación de la primera parte de esta serie, Golinger llevaba algunos años ya trabajando en Venezuela, a tiempo completo, como propagandista del régimen del difunto caudillo, y para aquel momento había devengado, según el IVSS, BsF 44.752. Es menester recordar que ya en aquella fecha Golinger había admitido haberse comprado un apartamento en la Alta Florida en Caracas, valorado en 400 millones de Bolívares. Imaginen, estimados lectores, mi sorpresa, cuando me entero que además del apartamento en Caracas, resulta que la Golinger se compró otro, en Nueva York.

Por tanto, la pregunta es muy sencilla: de dónde sacó $372.000 para pagar un piso en Nueva York, si para la fecha lo que llevaba cotizado era BsF 44.752, es decir, unos $10.000?

La propaganda desde luego que da para todo, por cuanto Golinger ha cotizado hasta hoy, según el IVSS, BsF 208.787,07, lo cual al cambio actual son unos $33.000.

Como se explica que un ingreso de $33.000 dé para pagar hipotecas de 400 millones de Bolívares en Caracas y además pagar $372.000 de contado por un apartamento en Nueva York?

4 February 2010

Eva Golinger gets $3.2 million from Chavez regime

Here's an admission: I find absolutely fascinating, in this global climate of unemployment, economic hardship, etc., that someone like Eva Golinger finds herself thriving in Venezuela. For various reasons, but principal of which that Venezuela is not in a position to be wasting money in harebrained ideas. Golinger, whose professional life in her country (USA) ran a rather brief course, until I exposed her as having cheated the IRS and the American public, has just been awarded by Venezuela's Congress some $3.2 million to increase distribution of a propaganda rag she's just launched, called Correo del Orinoco.

I expect fanatics to take whatever Golinger publishes there as the fountain of ultimate truth, however one would think that in light of the enormous problems currently affecting all Venezuelans, $3.2 million could be better spent. Surely a sign of Chavez's sheer irresponsibility, and of the independence of Golinger, in case she ever enjoyed benefit of doubt. Perhaps the IRS should send Golinger a few questions?

UPDATE: Eva Golinger says I am "tweeting lies" (Eva did not like my comments so her tweets are protected now, but here's a link for future reference). I suggested to her to take it with Chavez's information sources:


















Original source, Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias: http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=218666&lee=3

More evidence below:
















Original source, Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela: http://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24064&Itemid=78

21 November 2010

Eva Golinger continúa violando leyes de EEUU y Venezuela

El lenguaje que utiliza 'la novia de Venezuela' -según Hugo Chavez- deja mucho que desear. Ayer publiqué un articulo sobre los delitos que Eva Golinger habría cometido en su país, EEUU. Como es de esperar en estos tiempos de fervor y fanatismo revolucionarios, Golinger respondió con acusaciones infundadas, a través de Twitter.

Golinger afirma ser abogada, y respetar y conocer las leyes. En este sentido cabe preguntarse, las leyes de qué país conoce Golinger, las del suyo (EEUU), o las de Venezuela? Golinger dice no haber violado ninguna ley en ninguna parte. No obstante, tanto en su país, EEUU, como en Venezuela, existen leyes que prohiben expresamente  la difamación. No es entonces correcto afirmar que Eva Golinger continúa violando las leyes de su país, y las leyes de Venezuela? No es acaso correcto afirmar, que hacer graves acusaciones públicamente, sin tener evidencia para sustentarlas, es un delito penado tanto en EEUU como en Venezuela? Puede alguien tomar en serio a una profesional del derecho, dizque conocedora y respetuosa de las leyes, que se expresa de esa manera?

28 April 2005

The Sins of Eva Golinger in the Big Apple: Alleged Charges of Fraud and Illegally Practicing Law in the U.S.A.

By Roberto Giusti | El Universal

Caracas 24 April 2005 | A young Venezuelan of British and Basque ancestry, Aleksander Boyd has done everything in his life: from being a small-scale miner in the jungles of Venezuela's Guayana region to becoming a “balsero del aire” (a person who boards a plane, instead of a boat or raft, to get away from Chávez). A geologist graduated from the University of London, for the last couple of years he has been coordinating an NGO (Proveo) headquartered in London, whose goals are rooted in counteracting the Chavista government’s information campaign overseas.

For that purpose, and with the help of 1,700 activists who, he assures, are spread throughout the world, he pursues an intense activity in “defense of democracy,” by means of his English and Spanish-language web page, and follows up on the propagandistic activities of the officialdom, one of whose props, attorney Eva Golinger, he alleges, has committed felonies in the United States.

RG: Do you consider Eva Golinger's allegations in her book, The Chávez Code, concerning United States intervention in the events of April 11, to be false?

AB: They are not false as pertains to the knowledge which the Government of the United States had about what was happening in Venezuela. What I do consider tendentious are her allegations concerning funds delivered to different parties and NGO’s. Those donations were made by the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID, organizations of a bipartisan nature and therefore are not illegal. Furthermore, the view that the funds received were for attempting the overthrow of the Chávez government is completely false.

RG: It is possible that you are right in that sense, but she presents declassified documents in which she proves there was knowledge on the part of United States diplomatic authorities of what was going to occur on April 11.

AB: Yes. Those documents she presents as being secret are really in the public domain and, therefore, any person can access them. If they were secret, she would not have been able to reveal them, for the simple reason that she would have been denied access to them. She obtains them through the Freedom of Information Act, a law promulgated by the Government of the United States. And, making use of this law, she had access to that documentation. Nothing extraordinary happened there.

RG: Public or private, those documents give an account of certain information in the hands of the United States Embassy in Caracas about what was being prepared.

AB: It seems the United States knew what was happening. At some point there were even communications taking place between the United States ambassador and some people in the Government, as well as people of the opposition. Now, I don’t think that they knew, a priori, what was going to happen and how it would happen.

RG: Having information about a plan is one thing, and participating in that plan is another thing.

AB: Exactly.

RG: Now, according to Golinger, the Government of the United States was implicated in the conspiracy.

AB: I don’t believe they were involved in any way.

RG: Nevertheless, Golinger quotes an alleged declassified cable message, whose copy does not appear in the book, wherein an official of the Embassy states that Carmona “is the right man for the right moment…”

AB: I have read various versions to that effect and, as for Carmona, I believe that he had the nerve to capitalize on a tremendously chaotic situation to satisfy his personal aspirations to become president. I don’t believe he had been pre-selected by the United States; nothing more, nothing less.

RG: But there stand Golinger and her book broadcasting that message everywhere.

AB: The Venezuelan Government is waging a strong campaign of disinformation and political propaganda abroad. They have allocated large sums towards these ends and Golinger is one of the key elements in this campaign. She was giving legal advice to the Venezuelan Information Office (VIO) in Washington when she hadn’t yet been admitted to the Bar Association as an attorney. She charged money for her services without meeting this requirement, and that is a felony.

RG: Did she work for that office as a lawyer or as an employee performing information and communication tasks?

AB: She gave legal advice to the VIO in the year 2003 and charged professional fees without being a member of the Bar Association. That is a felony. She alleges that her work was supervised by another lawyer; it has not been possible to determine who he or she is and where this supposed lawyer is. Therefore, I assume that she at least incurred upon the felony of misrepresentation, that is to say, of falsely presenting herself or alleging to have credentials which did not exist at the time. During investigations which I conducted, a posteriori, I discovered that she was admitted to the New York State Court System in the year 2005, that is to say, two years after having performed those services. Those are details which the United States authorities will have to investigate well in order to determine whether or not there were any criminal liabilities.

RG: Do you know Ms Golinger personally?

AB: No. I have maintained some electronic correspondence with her. Owing to Orlando Ochoa Terán’s publication in El Universal that she had received a couple of checks from the VIO office, it drew my attention to the fact that up until that point she had been maintaining an independent stance.

RG: Independent with respect to whom?

AB: She had been saying that she had nothing to do with the Government of Venezuela and then it made me very curious that she admitted having received those payments from the Government. Thus, there was indeed a connection, which is very unbecoming about her integrity as a person, as a professional, and as an activist. If, while abroad, you identify yourself as someone who supports Chávez’s revolution, that is fine, but if you identify yourself as being an independent and elsewhere it is discovered that you are receiving money from the Government, you lose whatever credibility you might otherwise have.

RG: That is to say, up until that point she was a disinterested activist who simply was working for love of the revolution.

AB: Only after Ochoa Terán made the allegation did she publicly admit having received payments from the Government.

RG: What specific tasks does she perform as an attorney?

AB: She is part of an 'urgent response team' created by the VIO. This team is made up of writers, academics, members of think tanks, whose job it is to counterattack editorials unfavorable to the government of Chávez. Thus, when some daily publishes negative opinions, a mechanism is set in motion, whereby dozens of persons write to the editors of the dailies, as readers, under the cloak of independent innocence, aiming to refute points of view presented in the articles or editorials. They never admit that they have written their emails at the express request of the Venezuelan Information Office.

RG: How do you know it’s the way you say it is?

AB: A while ago I wrote an article describing how, following a very harsh editorial in the Washington Post against Chávez, an employee of the VIO had sent 32 emails to an equal number of persons, asking them to voice their complaint to the newspaper's editor. The same thing happened in December with the Los Angeles Times. Thus, you never know when the editor of any one of these newspapers is going to decide to publish one of those messages without mentioning, because he or she does not know, the link which exists between and among all these people. What we have here is not a spontaneous act, but rather an order promptly obeyed.

RG: How do you know in such great detail that the VIO forwarded instructions to 32 persons?

AB: Because there is a requirement that all that information about Venezuela and the VIO, which I have published, be reported to the Foreign Agent Registration Unit of the Department of Justice. It is therefore a public matter and they are obligated to turn in information about their daily activities, about people with whom they maintain contacts, and about solicitations presented to them. That is how we are able to know that the VIO contacted many members of Congress before they went to Venezuela. The same thing happened with members of the Trans Africa Forum and Danny Glover. They pave the way and then send these people over on guided tours.

RG: Seen that way, that is nothing peculiar.

AB: Yes, it seems soft and naïve, but when these people go to Venezuela they only go to places determined by the Government and they see people assigned to them. Then they go back to the United States, having been converted into propagandists for the Chávez government. Thus, there is nothing genuine or spontaneous about that.

RG: It seems that there is little they can do in the face of the public opinion matrix present in the United States concerning the government of Chávez.

AB: Indeed. I don't think they have been successful. Not among liberals, not among conservatives, not among Democrats, nor among Republicans.

"She Solicited Funds Claiming False Tax-Exempt Status"

“In New York Eva Golinger founded an NGO, the Venezuela Solidarity Committee , which solicited public donations through her web page VenezuelaFoia.info. But the funny thing about the whole matter was she publicly alleged that the donations were exempt from income taxes because her NGO had received tax exemption under 501 C3, which exempted tax payers. I contacted U.S. tax authorities and we discovered that Golinger's NGO was not registered to accept contributions and therefore was not exempt from paying income tax on such receipts. That is also a felony, because in the United States one is not allowed to solicit funds from the public while claiming a false tax exempt status.

RG: In other words, it's a fraud.

AB: It is a fraud. She admits having received small donations, which didn’t amount to much. But those small donations were obtained by means of false affirmations concerning their tax status.

RG: Are you implying that Eva Golinger is a delinquent?

AB: I would not say that Golinger is a delinquent, however she has accepted, illegally, contributions based on false premises about the tax status of her NGO.

RG: Don’t you represent, for the opposition, what Golinger does for the Government? Aren’t you, on balance, an overseas propagandist for the opposition?

AB: I don’t consider myself to be a propagandist of the opposition, because I have no ties with any of those parties, nor have I ever had any. Nor have I received from the opposition help similar to what Golinger has received from the Government. As I already told you, she has been paid with official funds and recently published a book at whose launching were present the highest personalities of the Government, except president Chávez. She calls the President´s Sunday radio program and the microphones are made available to her. She thus has a very special connection with the regime, something I absolutely do not have with the Venezuelan opposition.

RG: Then what is your interest in all of this?

AB: I am an average citizen who is simply fed up with things as they are happening in my country and that has led me to take an active role. Not so much in politics, but more in providing information, from my point of view, which perhaps might not be impartial, about what is happening in Venezuela. But I am not financed by anybody. Many have accused me of receiving money from the opposition or from the Government of the United States.

RG: But you must be earning your living from some source.

AB: If, as they say, I were so subsidized, I would be a millionaire. But the truth is I work in a self-employed capacity and have a very small business importing natural and organic products from Latin America, specifically from Argentina and from the Dominican Republic. That is my source of income and nothing more.

Pots and Pans at Oxford

"It all began on the 17th of October of 2002, during a visit by president Chávez to Oxford University. At that time I was studying Geology at the University of London and when I found out that the President would give a talk on human rights I was really steamed and told myself that I should be there to make the truth be know, at least my truth".

"I got in touch with the organizers of the talk, asked them for an admission ticket, which they never gave me, and when I showed up at the venue they denied me admission. There, in the company of a friend from New Zealand, I decided to initiate a protest. It was then that the members of the presidential entourage began to film me and to insult me. Then other Venezuelans, who had gone to protest, showed up, people I didn't know at the time".

"The chavistas invited us to exchange punches, and at that point Roy Chaderton, Tarek William Saab and Rafael Ramírez approached the area where we were banging pots and pans. Tarek William approached me and in a throaty voice, with his face inches from mine, offered to smash my face in. That is what ultimately led me to found an NGO, to create a web page in English, and to involve myself in political activism. I finished my studies in Geology, wanting to work for PdVSA but, for now, I believe that would be impossible."

Translation by W.K.

29 March 2005

And so Eva Golinger strikes back...

London 29.03.05 | Not two hours have come to pass since the posting of my latest article on Eva Golinger's false claims for yet another hate message to arrive in my inbox. Here's what she had to say this time:


Mr. Boyd, your ridiculous ranting yet again proves shallow and false, yet you try with all your conviction to make yourself sound believable and capable. The truth is, were I to have violated any laws in the State of New York, the appropriate authorities would have made sure to resolve the matter. You have no understanding of US regulations, the difference between state and federal law, court divisions, bar associations, etc., nor even how our legal system functions. That being said, you once again are proved wrong, completely and utterly incorrect. You believe yourself capable of interpreting laws and statutes, yet you couldn't even finish a university education! You believe your research to be all-incompensing and you are blinded by its second-rate results. You hold yourself out fraudulently to be a law student, but you haven't the brains or the capacity to even begin to understand any legal system or process. Face it Boyd, you are a complete failure in life, which is why you have become absolutely obsessed with me and others who you resent. Look at what you do all day - you write absurd articles trying to harrass and discredit people you don't even know, and you participate in vulgar, offensive and derrogatory blog conversations in cyberspace with faceless names. You are so utterly out of touch with Venezuela that every single prediction you have made has proved wrong.

You are unworthy of my time and energy and are nothing more than an incompetent failure, with no job and no education, but rather a person who enjoys threatening and harrassing others apparently more than spending time with his own children. How terribly sad and pitiful.

Eva Golinger
Attorney at Law
Abogada
www.evagolinger.com

This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please return it to sender and discard the message immediately.

In the meanwhile Diane Kolbe sent this:

Dear Sir:

Ms. Eva Golinger is not now and has never been a member of American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

Sincerely,

Diane Kolbe, AILA
dkolbe@aila.org

7 January 2011

En el jardin de Eva Golinger, el crimen paga por ahora...

Lo dicho, sólo en la Venezuela chavista, donde la mediocridad, la falta de criterio, y la voluntaria abyección son los valores más preciados, puede una persona tan deficiente como Eva Golinger alcanzar posiciones de relativa importancia. Eva se ha dado a la tarea de promover desde su púlpito ciertas medidas que dificultan el legitimo trabajo de ONGs venezolanas. La reciente ley que prohibe a las ONGs aceptar donaciones de entidades foráneas es un ejemplo de ello. Sumida en su colorada monotonía, Eva no desea reconocer que la ley que ahora propone habría privado a su "amado, imprescidible, incansable y único Comandante Presidente Hugo Chávez" del 1,5 millones de dólares recibidos del BBVA (ver pag. 5 y 7), cuando los dineros de Venezuela no estaban a la disposición del caudillo comunista por allá en 1999.

11 January 2011

El caso Eva Golinger

Algunos dirán que dedico demasiados artículos a Eva Golinger, la dizque 'novia de Venezuela.' Al respecto dire que es difícil contenerme, ya que Eva es como un filón que llega al centro de la irracionalidad chavista, como una veta que no se acaba, una fuente inagotable de sandeces, de estupideces, de afirmaciones que dicen más de la falta de consideración que le tiene Eva a su propia reputación y credibilidad, que cualquier otra cosa. La ultima, es un articulo (que no tiene desperdicio, publicado en uno de los medios alternativos que financia el régimen) aclarándole al mundo, que Hugo Chavez no es un dictador, ni Venezuela una dictadura. El diccionario de la Real Academia Española define dictadura como: "Gobierno que en un país impone su autoridad violando la legislación anteriormente vigente." Dictador significa, según dicho diccionario: "En la época moderna, persona que se arroga o recibe todos los poderes políticos extraordinarios y los ejerce sin limitación jurídica" o "Persona que abusa de su autoridad o trata con dureza a los demás." Chavez no es nada de eso vale!  Entiendanlo bien, apreciados lectores, compatriotas venezolanos. Venezuela no es una dictadura, ni Chavez dictador, nos lo dice, no mejor dicho, nos lo garantiza, Eva Golinger: empleada de Chavez, apóloga profesional al servicio del regimen. No hay más nada que hablar. Ni diccionarios que consultar. Ya la gringa Eva nos dijo, a todos los que tenemos ojos, pero no podemos ver, y oídos, pero no podemos escuchar, que la vaina no es dictadura. Listo. A dormir todos tranquilos, y a vivir en paz se ha dicho. Ya Eva aclaro la dudas sobre el asunto, ella es la que sabe.

6 March 2011

Mark Weisbrot: Hugo Chavez's last propagandist standing

Mark Weisbrot in Caracas, fawning over Hugo Chavez and his 
Hollywood apologist Sean Penn. Photo source AP.
We already know that propaganda agents of Hugo Chavez resent being identified as such. From Gregory Wilpert, a once so called German - American independent scholar who was 'conducting research' in Venezuela, to Eva Golinger, who went fresh out of college in the USA to publish propaganda books in Cuba owing to her fanatic apologising for Chavez, these supporters of Hugo Chavez, are a bunch of foreign radical leftists that saw a window of opportunity with the Chavez regime, and are handsomely profiting from it. While in Venezuela, Wilpert married with Chavez's current consul in New York, therefore he's living a diplomat lifestyle at the Venezuelan taxpayer expense, and Golinger is becoming a household name as an 'advocate for social justice' in Russia, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Venezuela, for which she's getting princely sums. Unfortunately, for Wilpert, Golinger et al, the international media is no longer buying their line, or that of their paymaster. From Human Rights Watch, to the New York Times, fewer and fewer leftists are prepared to throw their lot behind Chavez.

24 November 2010

El discurso de Eva Golinger

Horror. Asco. Sorpresa. Arrechera. Vergüenza. Pena. Odio. Venganza... Sentimientos que definen lo que la Venezuela no chavista -que es mayoría- sintió ayer cuando vió, o escuchó, a la norteamericana Eva Golinger dirigirse al pais en cadena nacional, desde una asamblea nacional copada de los más altos personeros del chavismo, incluido el lider supremo. Golinger ha llegado al olimpo revolucionario. No cabe duda.

Admito que no me extrañó su discurso, o que se le haya dado tal tribuna. No  abrigo ninguno de los sentimientos mencionados. Dirán que estoy loco. Ido. Desconectado. Ya lo sé. Me permito decir sin embargo, que no se puede esperar otra cosa de una asamblea dirigida por un personaje tan deficiente como Cilia Flores. No se puede esperar otra cosa, cuando el líder supremo es Hugo Chavez, por cuanto Chavez, quien demuestra el más absoluto desprecio por el criterio individual, sólo puede ser líder supremo entre deficientes. Ultimadamente, un dizque líder supremo que sigue al pie de la letra las ordenes de Fidel Castro ni siquiera merece llamarse líder.

Por ello, no hay que arrecharse. Como se dice en inglés "let's keep the eye on the ball", es decir, no perdamos de vista el objetivo, que no es otro que el rescate de nuestro país en el 2012. Dejemos que los deficientes sigan vitoreando a su lider, que sigan ovacionando en pie, que sigan demostrando su fervor y fanatismo revolucionarios. Es más, unamonos al coro aclamador, aupemos a los deficientes, clamemos por más promociones de colaboradores de las FARC a dirigir la Fuerza Armada Nacional, por más naturalizaciones de terroristas de ETA, por más apoyo y cobertura a los apólogos foráneos. Debemos coadyuvar a convertir este espacio de tiempo que nos separa del 2012 en la fiesta inolvidable del chavismo. Para que al concluir no quepa la menor duda, que el único lugar apto para los deficientes es la cárcel, el psiquiátrico, o el exilio.

Los que estaban en la asamblea ayer no representan a Venezuela. Son minoría. Saben que les queda poco tiempo, y precisamente por que lo saben aceleran su radicalización, ya que sólo así podrán mantenerse en el poder. Chavez necesita a Golinger, y a Rangel Silva, y a Cilia Flores, y a Isaias Rodriguez, y a Jorge Rodriguez, y a Arturo Cubillas, y a Andres Izarra... es decir Chavez necesita, más que nunca, a los incondicionales, a los que están dispuestos a empeñar su futuro y su libertad. Pero, ¿cuántos son, 50, 100, 1.000? ¿Cuántos están verdaderamente dispuestos a seguir al pie de la letra el cántico "Patria, Socialismo..." y morir por Chavez? Sabemos que el propio caudillo no arriesga el pellejo por nadie, por ello Manuel Caballero lo llama el "Héroe del Museo Militar." Lo cojonudo del asunto es que los deficientes también lo saben, y créanme cuando les digo que todas esas demostraciones fundamentalistas son pura paja.

Vendrán más provocaciones, más peines, más trapos rojos. No importa. No debe importar. Nuestro objetivo sigue siendo rescatar a Venezuela de manos del crimen organizado y el terrorismo.

Somos mayoría. Somos decencia. Somos el futuro de Venezuela. Venezuela necesita gente recta, firme, unida en torno a ideales de justicia, libertad y democracia.

5 March 2005

Chavez's chief apologist in the U.S. exposed as a fraud

Comment: the following is well worth a read to understand the “integrity” of Chavez’s lobby apparatus in the U.S. Alek Boyd, from vcrisis.com exposes the regime’s chief apologist in the U.S. as the fraud she’s always been. The Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, and lobby firm Patton Boggs, come up with people like Eva Golinger to prove to the common folk of Venezuela (and the U.S.) that there is wide support for Chavez’s cause in the U.S and that the Bush administration is up to no good in Venezuela. This sort of disingenuous PR campaign has worked for others in the past, but Eva Golinger, a rather frequent “phone-in” guest in Chavez’s “Alo Presidente” is a testament to the mediocrity of those charged with developing U.S. based propaganda. After reading Alek’s superb sleuth piece, one would assume that Ms. Golinger will have a fun time filing her income taxes this coming April. PMB

15 November 2009

US DoS examining Hugo Chavez's diplomats

Well, well. It seems that, at last, US media and authorities are catching up with some indisputable facts about Hugo Chavez's diplomats in the USA. The Miami Herald reports today that Martin Sanchez, Venezuela's Consul in San Francisco (previously in Chicago), has drawn the attention of the US State Department, for his link to Aporrea.org, a site he created in 2003, that regularly publishes antisemitic views, and has called supporters of Hugo Chavez to identify, challenge and denounce in public Venezuelan Jews.

But there's more about Sanchez. As I relayed to Ed Lasky from the American Thinker, there is no evidence in Venezuelan Official Gazette (where diplomatic appointments need be published to become legal) of Martin Sanchez having been appointed as Consul in Chicago, or in San Francisco. Therefore on what visa is he in the US, on a tourist visa or on a diplomatic one? If on a diplomatic one, and considering that there is no evidence confirming him as such in Venezuela's official gazette, isn't that misrepresentation?

This is of course no news to me, for I have been reporting about Martin Sanchez meteoric rise since, erm, November 2004. That's five years ago, so there's no point in rehashing old news. However, now that US authorities have been alerted by the Anti-Defamation League, it would be worth mentioning another apologist of Hugo Chavez, colleague of Martin Sanchez in Venezuelanalysis.com, married to Chavez's Consul in New York city, and involved in spreading the chavista gospel in US academia: Gregory Wilpert, a.k.a Greg Wilpert. Wilpert was seen very close to Noam Chomsky, during his last visit to Venezuela, and was instrumental in the propaganda letter sent by academics-for-Chavez to Human Rights Watch. Wilpert, a German-American, and probably Venezuelan, national, is very active in the distribution of propaganda in the US, yet he is not registered with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit of the US Department of Justice, as he should.

Wilpert has also misrepresented himself in communications with Human Rights Watch. Ernesto Mora, Media Relations Manager of Brooklyn College, in reply to my questioning about Wilpert's credentials replied in August:
Alek, We are in receipt of your email requesting more information on Prof. Gregory Wilpert. Professor Wilpert does not work at the Brooklyn College campus but for the Worker Education program.
This was confirmed by Professor and Chairperson Sally Bermanzhon, who wrote also in August:
Gregory Wilpert was hired in spring 2008 as an adjunct at the Grad Ctr for Worker Education located at 25 Broadway in Manhattan.
So then again, as in the case of fraudster Eva Golinger, we see how chavista agents lie about their credentials, and act with absolute freedom and impunity, while in clear violation to US legislation.

Update 26 November 2009: Gregory Wilpert has written to let me, and my readers, know that he has not misrepresented himself. His 'clarification' follows:
Just to let you and your readers know: To say that I work for Brooklyn College is not a misrepresentation. The Graduate Center for Worker Education is a part of Brooklyn College. My department chair is Sally Bermazohn, of BC's department of Political Science. The people you spoke to merely clarified that the physical location where I teach is not in the Brooklyn College campus, but I am still am employee of CUNY's Brooklyn College. The only reason I do not provide the full name of where I teach is that it's awfully long: Brooklyn College's Graduate Center for Worker Education.
Frankly, I don't know where to begin. Gregory Wilpert is yet to admit that he is married to a chavista official (Carol Delgado de Wilpert, Hugo Chavez's Consul in NY). Gregory Wilpert is yet to admit that he edits a website created by a chavista official (Martin Sanchez, Hugo Chavez Consul in San Francisco, formerly in Chicago). Gregory Wilpert is yet to admit that said website is funded with Venezuelan public money. Gregory Wilpert is yet to admit that he acts as a propaganda agent for Hugo Chavez in US soil. Gregory Wilpert is yet to admit that every single one of his opinions, with regards to Venezuela, is compromised by his marital and professional relations.

Gregory Wilpert wrote to me once saying he was doing what he did "because he believed in it". At my repeated questioning of his true motives, he is a German-American after all, he kept mum about his personal and professional relations with the Chavez regime. That to me is indicative of utter intellectual dishonesty. Besides, I still fail to understand why is it so difficult for these bloody advocates of Chavez to admit their relations to their paymaster, lest of course to maintain a pretence of independence and individuality in order to lend credibility to their propaganda. Were HRW to receive a letter from a bunch of people that, having no official relation to Chavez, are protesting a report that exposes the gross human rights violations that take place in Venezuela, it would surely address it on its merits, as it has done. But that wasn't a letter written out of genuine concern, it was a concerted effort led by propaganda agents, such as Gregory Wilpert, similar to the many instances whereby "upset readers" would write letters to editors of media outlets to criticise coverage, when in fact it was a response to emails sent from the Venezuela Information Office to its "rapid action" team, instructing to do so.

These people are very vocal in their support, but they will deny to the death, unless evidence pops up, that they are in any manner related to Hugo Chavez's regime. This has been the case with Eva Golinger, Michael Shellenberger and his sidekick Ted Norhaus, Roy Carson, Eric Wingerter and all of the propagandists of the now defunct Venezuela Information Office, Ken Livingstone (until evidence emerged that he was working as a consultant for Hugo Chavez), Calvin Tucker, Mark Weisbrot, Joe Kennedy, Sean Penn (until he admitted that he traveled around in PDVSA planes), mind you, all of them deny having anything to do with Chavez, yet the evidence shows that they have all, in one way or another, benefitted from Venezuelan taxpayers money, be it plane rides, salaries, expenses-paid trips, hospitality, funds, donations, energy deals, publishing, publicity, etc.

Is it fear to demonstrate friendship, admiration, and support to a man that calls terrorist Carlos The Jackal a national hero? Is it fear to the maxim "guilty by association" or "tell me who your friends are..."? Do these people dread the conclusions that any rational individual would arrive at, upon discovering their fanaticism about a warmongering, militaristic dictator that supports and befriends terrorists and rogues, has run Venezuela to the ground, and takes his cues from one of the world's most brutal dictators?

2 October 2005

Dan Burnett: an unregistered Chavez's agent ensconced in Columbia University

London 27.09.05 | Often I have argued that internet is the true revolution. Thanks to the increasing interconnections of advanced societies one can effectively investigate loads of things. My interest, as readers of this site may have come to realize, is to uncover the duplicitous and sometimes outright illegal nature of those who, from afar, pontificate about the benefits of the criminal experiment that Hugo Chavez is forcing on Venezuela. Not one of these armchair revolutionaries would put up for one second with the things they argue Venezuelans must withstand. Richard Gott -a traitor to his own country, Eva Golinger -just as much, Ignacio Ramonet, Greg Wilpert, Justin Delacour, Mark Weisbrot, Jesse Jackson, Danny Glover, Deborah James, Dawn Gable, Bill Fletcher... all these people share the characteristic of being non-Venezuelan sycophants of a thuggish and gullible ignorant, just because every so often he utters his anti-imperialist nonsense. The prospects of profiting from the Chavez 'revolution' are just too good to let pass.

The newcomer in the gang of brown-nosers is one Dan Burnett (a.k.a. Daniel Burnett). This chap works at Columbia University's Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health in the Center for Community Health and Education. He has a managerial role there as assistant director [1], although a search for "dan burnett" in the directory of Columbia University [2] returns the following details:

Name: Daniel Burnett
Title: Administrator-Family Medicine
Dept: Family Crisis Intervention Ctr, NewYork-Presbyterian Healthcare Medical Centers
Mail: Center for Community Hlth & Ed ACNC 180
Phone: +1 212-304-5243
UNI: db341
E-mail: burnett@nyp.org

This Burnett character hides behind a pseudonym known as OW and has his own blog (http://oilwars.blogspot.com), where he feverishly spins the Venezuelan truth and disseminates propaganda, although its reach, as its readership, is very limited. For that reason some of his articles have been reprinted by none other than chavista anglophone spin HQ, otherwise known as Venezuelanalysis.com. What concerns me in this instance is that this individual seems not to be registered with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit -just like la Golinger, perhaps the VIO fillings of this semester will prove differently. However his connections to Venezuelan diplomatic personnel ought not to be taken lightly. On Tuesday, June 28, 2005 in a post entitled "Posada Update XI" [3, I have saved a copy 'OW', no need to delete...] Burnett posted on his blog this two pictures:

The above begs for the question: how come an employee of Columbia University (a family medicine administrator) -in whose job description, one should think, does not figure the spreading of propaganda in favour of a neo communist thug, has got such a close relationship with Venezuelan diplomats either in DC or New York or Chicago, that the latter think worthwhile to share and pass confidential information and pictures regarding matters of State? These two photos never made it to the MSM, how come Burnett not only got them but wrote a post on the topic with the pictures before anyone else?

But it does not stop there. Seeking to dupe readers into the belief that his 'fact based blog' is somewhat more trustworthy than others Burnett has alleged that he is Venezuelan. Furthermore his appalling command of the Spanish language in comment sections of other pro-Chavez blogs took away the fig leaf and when confronted with respect to his fake identity he wrote [4]:

and Boyd (aka T1, aka P2) I should make a proposition. If you figure out who I am I'll buy you a plane ticket to Caracas. Shit from London thats expensive.

Well let us see whether cocky Burnett makes his promise good for I could certainly use a plane ticket to Caracas!! Although being a chavista I doubt he will keep up his word. Oh almost forgot, how do I know that OW is Daniel Burnett? I just wrote him a message entitled "Who do you think you are kidding?" and the thick bastard took the bait [5].

The exchange if readers would care to read is enclosed. Please note that all quoted messages from Burnett have been sent from the same Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center's server (tw112fdale.cpmc.columbia.edu). How's that for misuse of resources?

Subject: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: A. Boyd
Date: 27.09.05, 12:38
To: petrowars@yahoo.com

"Es cierto que VTV no debería ser un canal de promoción del gobierno, porque aunque les duela, esa no era la función de VTV."

y porque no existian los jose mora's del mundo cuando Marta Colomina estaba en VTV?

Y cuando ella estaba botado de televen...

ya que no pueden hablar de la economia o politica enfocan en chismes

oilwars.blogspot.com

By ow, at 7:48 PM

"Mal argumento ese de la Colomina. ¿Por qué la botaron de Televen? No fue por presión gubernamental?"

Mire este, botan sus propria talibanes y echan la culpa al gobierno!!!! Seguramente nos va a decir que los officiales golpistas tenian que irse de Plaza Francia por culpa del gobierno tambien. Increible.

Los oppositores que cerraron a Catia TV y que defenden los mentiras que sale dia tras dia de sus "medios" no teine nada a decirnos.

By ow, at 11:20 PM

If the above were not enough evidence of your non-Venezuelan origin, why you keep lying about it? What's the aim, to counteract the local bloggers pretending you're also local?

Subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: petrowars@yahoo.com
Date: 27.09.05, 14:21
To: A. Boyd

And where have I claimed to be Venezuelan ( except maybe once when I was having a hysterical discussion with someone named just noticing over the originan of some pictures I posted)? Ever think of a non-Venezuelan living in Venezuela? There aren't any of those are there? :lol:
FYI:
When you surf with the ananymouse it does hide your IP. But when you post comments your true IP comes through. Interesting glitch in that system and thats how I know its you.

Subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: A. Boyd
Date: 27.09.05, 14:40
To: petrowars@yahoo.com

Burnett, as I commented on Luigi's blog the other day, unlike you, I do not need to hide my identity. Everyone knows who I am, where to find me and what do I stand for.

Subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: petrowars@yahoo.com
Date: 27.09.05, 14:47
To: A. Boyd

I don't know, Carlos Herrera sure seemed to have you shitting in your pants a little while back.
And, uh, why don't you e-mail this burnett person and ask him if he is running Oil Wars.
Its apparent why others stopped wasting time with you a while ago.

Subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: A. Boyd
Date: 27.09.05, 15:09
To: petrowars@yahoo.com

Burnett, Carlos Herrera doesn't even exist, it's just a fake identity of Roy Carson pretty much as this OW is of you. Chavistas tend to 'stop wasting time with' me because I have a knack for uncovering their farcical double standards and, more importantly, their source of income. Now will you come clean on it or will I have to investigate you too?

Subject: Re: Who do you think you are kidding?
From: petrowars@yahoo.com
Date: 27.09.05, 14:47
To: A. Boyd

"Carlos Herrera doesn't even exist" never met the guy. But given your cluelessness about me I'm not inclined to take your word for it. Investigate away. Anyways, no more time to waste with this nonsense. I have posts to write.

End of exchange

Now Burnett, you have got my address, haven't you? I would like to visit relatives in Venezuela in the first week of December, so please make necessary arrangements for it. Would you care to tell me who will pay for my ticket; will it be you, Columbia University or Venezuela's Embassies in the USA? One can only hope that Columbia University will deal with this fascist -if in doubt just visit the comments in his blog, the same way as NY's Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District has been dealing with tax fraudster Eva Golinger.

3 July 2011

Eva Golinger does a Johann Hari on Noam Chomsky

Chavez propagandist @evagolinger has pulled a Johann Hari on Noam Chomsky. The sweetheart of the Cuban - Venezuelan eunuch dictators, has published in her Correo del Orinoco a word-by-word literal translation of the email Chomsky sent me last night.

Here's what Chomsky sent me:

The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive.  The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest.  Both however omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one, which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s.  And much else.

Here's what Golinger propaganda rag published in Spanish:

“La versión de The Guardian, como lo había previsto, es muy engañosa. El artículo en The New York Times es más preciso. Ambos omiten algo que destaqué bastante: que las críticas del gobierno de EE.UU. o de cualquier persona que apoya sus acciones no pueden ser tomadas en serio, considerando que Washington tiene un historial mucho peor y no tiene ninguna de las auténticas preocupaciones que Venezuela se enfrenta. El caso (del soldado Bradley) Manning, por decir uno, es mucho peor que el de la jueza Afiuni”.

This is getting funnier by the minute. Or are we to think that the world's most admired and influential leftist intellectual -what an oxymoron- fires the same replies to every request for comment, a la Red Ed Miliband?

6 July 2011

Message to Chomsky lovers visiting this blog [Updated]

The last few days were a bit hectic. Noam Chomsky, renowned apologist of Hugo Chavez, said to The Guardian's Rory Carroll that Hugo Chavez is carrying out an "assault" on democracy. Nothing controversial there, any observer with a minimum of objectivity and independence is aware of the dictatorial little project that the Venezuelan caudillo is carrying out. But of course, it was a shock to me, given the source of the criticism: i.e. Chomsky. So I sent him an email, which became a rather interesting exchange, for Chomsky replied to me accusing The Guardian of "extreme dishonesty". Again, nothing new there, unless you are an objectivity-impaired radical communist that continues to admire Castro, Chavez, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their cheerleader Chomsky.

Eva Golinger, described by the New York Times, a paper Chomsky seems to respect, as "one of the most prominent fixtures of Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex", plagiarised in her State-funded rag, without attribution, a literal translation of my correspondence with Chomsky, stressing that Chomsky had been misinterpreted. Given how high in the chavista propaganda apparatus Golinger works, the news were reprinted in Venezuelan State media. So The Guardian had to react, and it did, by publishing the whole interview transcript. In the paragraphs preceding the transcript, I am referred to as a blogger, instead of by name. It could well be because I have had my run-ins with The Guardian in the past, due to its, erm, extreme dishonesty.

But then, Chavez apologists and outfits run by blinkered people, are using my correspondence with Chomsky, without attribution. One would think that so fresh after the Johann Hari fiasco, leftists would avoid "pulling a Hari", i.e. plagiarise. But no, the message just doesn't seem to have sunk in. Worse still, these people  would like us to believe that the world's most respected intellectual replies to all manner of different questions with exactly the same words. Like Ed Miliband. Some are even accusing me of things I haven't done, without using my name. I wonder why that is.

So here's a message: if you are one of those that come to this page to try and use my arguments against me, at least, have the decency of referring to me correctly. The name is Alek Boyd, not some obscure blogger that gets a kick out of impersonating an Arab gay woman. If you are going to accuse me of things, have at least the decency of backing your spurious bullshit with verifiable evidence, if you can find it. Here's looking at you Media Lens*. Own up. Have courage of conviction. The best thing you lot could do though, is stay as far away as possible from issues, i.e. Venezuela, about which your arrogance, racism and ignorance are not the most salient characteristics of your arguments.

* Media Lens has falsely accused me of things they can not prove. By pressing the link, the message I sent them can be read. However, please note that they haven't posted my message in the article in question "'Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela", but in a message board. So I've sent another email, to see whether they  practice what they preach and demand from others:

From: Alek Boyd alek.boyd@gmail.com
Date: 6 July 2011 17:20:45 GMT+01:00
To: editor@medialens.org
Subject: PS: 'Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela

Dear Editors,

Further to my previous communication, which you have published in another page (message board) rather than in the article referred to, I find extremely dishonest that you would not include it in the article in question. Had I had any desire in engaging in Media Lens' message board, I would have already done it.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my original message, unedited, is posted at the bottom of the article, like you have done with your communications with Rory Carroll, since you have referred to me inappropriately and falsely.

Cordially,
Alek Boyd

Update: I've just notice that the piece from Media Lens "'Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela" has been posted in Chomsky.info, which is Noam Chomsky's official website. That would not be an issue, of course, if either Media Lens or Chomsky had had the intellectual honesty of admitting that my correspondence with Chomsky has been used, without clear attribution, as if Chomsky had replied to all "Activists and bloggers" requesting explanations from him with exactly the same words. Media Lens, and Chomsky, lead readers to conclude that Chomsky prepared a set of answers, presumably to completely different questions, and sent those to friends and foes alike around the world. Media Lens, and Chomsky, claim that to "a question" from Chavez apologist Joe Emersberger, Chomsky reply was:

'The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington's far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one [Manning is the alleged source for huge amounts of restricted material passed on to WikiLeaks], which is much worse than Judge Afiuni's. And much else. [content in brackets added by Media Lens and/or Chomsky]

Chomsky's reply to my question:

The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive.  The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest.  Both however omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one, which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s.  And much else.

That's how "honest" the Left's most "influential intellectual" really is.

26 September 2009

And this is how Venezuela's caudillo deals with independent press



See how Eva Golinger gets all worked up in the background: you have made it to revolutionary Olympus Eva, well done!!

10 February 2010

More on Hugo Chavez in Wikipedia

Wikipedia is often criticised as unreliable. However noble the original idea of Jimbo Wales, re anyone's ability to contribute and build the largest online encyclopaedia, it remains a fact that is prone to attract, well, anyone willing to add a point of view on a given topic. As Venezuelans are only painfully aware, Hugo Chavez has been attempting to rewrite history, building this notion that, before him, the country was almost uninhabitable, owing to the excesses of a political class that behaved worse than Roman emperors. Needless to say that such simplistic and misinformed notion can only be the product of an utterly ignorant mind. However, there are those who are willing, for ideological and financial reasons, to buy into Chavez's revisionism. These true believers command an editorial power within Wikipedia, in entries related to Chavez or Venezuela, that proves critics' point regarding the encyclopaedia's unreliability. There are many examples that demonstrate that Wikipedia has become, for all intents and purpose, another propaganda outlet of Chavez's growing media empire. Be it the Venezuela Information Office, Eva Golinger, Mark Weisbrot, or Venezuelanalysis, chavista editors have succeeded in deleting information that, while perfectly sourced according to Wikipedia's editorial policy, does not comply with the version officially promoted by the Chavez regime. A perfect showcase of  double speak and circularity of argumentation of these editors can be seen in a very long discussion related to Venezuelanalysis, posted in its Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

But then, it is worth pondering upon the reasons why propagandistic views of totally obscure editors, whose credentials no one knows for certain, can be imposed in Wikipedia entries, as opposed to verifiable facts published by truly reputable sources. With regards to Venezuelanalysis in particular, a site officially funded and run by chavista fundamentalists, readers are meant to take views of its editor as valid counter arguments, for instance, to reports produced after two years of research by Human Rights Watch. Only true believers will give any consideration to such untenable positions. However, more disturbing still, is to realise that one of the two editors (other being Rd232) who patrol and protect Chavez entries in the English Wikipedia, known as JRSP, has in the past edited out factual information from Gustavo Cisneros' Wikipedia entry. Tellingly, editors that safeguard Chavez image, also look after Cisneros and terrorist and assassin Rodriguez Chacín Wikipedia entries. Surely, a reliably chavista encyclopaedia!