Hugo Chavez is History's Greatest Monster

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has had to have some boogieman somewhere in the world, mostly to justify it's foreign policy.

In the early days of the Cold War, you had Stalin and Mao, both of whom were more than adequate to the task of scaring Americans stupid. Both were, after all, unparalleled mass murderers that were armed with nuclear weapons. Stalin had claimed half of Europe as his own and Mao's Korean intervention (although provoked) cost thousands of American servicemen their lives.

But most of the folks that the National Security Council wanted to scare the shit out everybody with came from Third World shitholes and were singularly incapable of inflicting much harm on the United States at all. None of them were nice people - although, they were about as bad as most of America's closest allies at the time - but none of them were, in the opinion of most serious experts, much of a threat. But that didn't stop American presidents from regularly comparing them to Hitler, often

Having said that, they often caused American administrations to do impossibly counter-productive, damaging and stupid things. Since the Republican blogosphere and a goodly portion of the mainstream media has recently been obsessed with playing "What Would Ronald Reagan Do", I'd like to use as an example something that President Reagan actually did do. It involves one Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista National Liberation Front.

The Marxist Sandinistas deposed the vicious regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in July of 1979, greatly displeasing the United States. The Carter administration, however, decided that most Americans couldn't find Nicaragua on a map and left it at that. The incoming Reagan administration had very different ideas.

Beginning in 1981, President Reagan authorized the CIA to finance, arm and train the Contra rebels opposing the Sandinista. That was supposedly stopped when Congress passed the Boland Amendment in December of 1982. Reagan ignored the law and solicited contributions from private citizens and, among others, Israel and Saudi Arabia. In itself, this was an impeachable offence that was later compounded by the diversion of profits from the illegal arms sales to Iran to the Contras. Collectively, the actions became known as the Iran-Contra Affair, and if Americans were serious about their own Constitution, Reagan would have been removed from office over it.

People like The Washington Post's Marc Thiessen like to do public victory laps and declare that the United States "removed" the Sandinista's. And that's true, insofar as Ortega called elections that he lost seven years after the Boland Amendment was passed and three years after Iran-Contra was exposed.

What people like Thiessen don't tell you is that the Sandinistas, with Ortega heading them and with former Contra support, were freely elected in November, 2006. They remain in power to this day. It turns out that these things rarely work out as planned, but that's not stopping Thiessen from recommending the very same thing in Libya, although I should point out that number of U.S laws that he wants to see broken this time remains unknown.

But this little essay really isn't about Daniel Ortega or even U.S foreign policy. It's about monsters and more importantly, titties. Although
I'm celebrated the world over as a vagina man, fantabulous funbags are pretty important to me as well. I learned as a child the importance of being a well-rounded individual and have strived toward it ever since.

It is because of this that I have reconsidered my views on another target of American foreign policy and the fuckhead Republican blogosphere.
You see, I never regarded Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as anything more than a clown, and a particularly doughy one at that. He didn't even have the fun hobbies that made Manuel Noriega such a celebrated bad guy. I was therefore of the opinion that the second Bush administration demonized him simply out of boredom, which is interesting in that that demonetization began in the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

But, as sometimes happens, I was wrong. Not only is Chavez a wretched personage and a blight on humanity. He is perhaps history's greatest monster and we would do well to be without him spiritually befouling us another day.

Hugo Chavez has had enough of “monstrous” breasts.

In his latest televised address, the Venezuelan leader condemned his nations’ love with plastic surgery, adding that breast augmentations “did not square well with his revolutionary priorities.”

Chavez called it a “monstrous thing” to see women with little financial resources spending their savings on larger breasts and condemned doctors who “convince some women that if they don’t have some big bosoms, they should feel bad.”

Venezuela is home to the highest number of plastic surgeries in the world per capita with 40,000 women a year undergoing breast enlargements, according to the Venezuelan Society of Plastic Surgeons.

“It is painful to see girls or women that may not have sufficient resources for housing, to accommodate housing for the children, [to buy] clothes, who are looking to see how to do an operation on the breasts,” Chavez said in his speech.

Now I remember why I despise Marxism so! In fairness, I really haven't had to confront the issue in quite some time because, unlike Glenn Beck, I really don't see a parallel between Van Jones and Zhou Enlai. When Russia, China and Vietnam are became more hyper-capitalist than the United States, I thought it was a fair assumption that the threat of international communism had passed.

Again, my bad.

The Chavez regime is attacking the very idea of monstrous knockers and this is a clear assault on everything I hold dear. When nation-states interfere with the right to posses and wield gigantic jugs, it is something that I'm not sure my way of life can survive. I am, if nothing else, a small-government conservative, after all.

It appears that el presidente has an even more pitiable working knowledge of both economics and life itself than I had previously thought. How else does one reasonably expect "girls or women that may not have sufficient resources for housing" to acquire those resources? By getting big, fat titties, that's fucking how!

I've known any number of women with formidable bosoms in my day, and I can report that each of them have had no shortage of men wanting to provide them with free housing. It's a well-known economic model and it rarely fails the women in question. Whenever it does fail them, another gentleman caller will house her and her knockers. And that, Hugo, is the way God fucking planned it. But atheistic communism blinds people to life's simplest realities, which is why it has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This is nothing less than an attack on economic opportunity for Venezuelan women and, as the blogosphere's most revered feminist thinker, I won't stand for it and neither should you.

I'm not man that's afraid to admit when he's wrong, and that's what I'm doing right here and now. I was wrong and Pat Robertson was right. Hugo Chavez has to be assassinated. There's just no reasonable alternative to that now. If you merely depose him in a coup, he returns like a cockroach.

He has to be killed and I think that Sofia Vergara should be the one to do the killing. She speaks the language, would blend in better than any schmuck from Langley, and has a crystal clear motive: she knows the power of a well-stocked brassiere and the riches it can bring.

This might be the single most important issue confronting humanity today. I didn't want any of you wondering where I stood on it.

"All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing." That's just as true today as it was when Larry Flynt first said it, lo those many years ago.