'Christian' Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Venezuela's President Chavez

Vheadline.com ^ | 8/22/05 | staff

[Rebelbase]

hristian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club host Pat Robertson ... founder of the Christian Coalition of America has called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias.

In a direct transcript of his August 22 The 700 Club broadcast Robertson clearly says:

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... this is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen.

We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

[Coldwater Creek]

{at Robertson is not a pastor, and is not even licensed by his So. Baptist denomination to preach any longer.

[Jorge]

Whenever an issue comes up where someone points to something from the OT, such as stoning prostitutes and such, the response is that things like that were left behind because of Jesus, and his death on the cross... OK, yet, whenever some oddball like Robertson comes along with some idea like this, out comes the OT as justification. So, which is it? Either Robertson is a Hypocrite, OR you've been slacking as I haven't seen you out stoning Hookers...

What a distorted concept of the Bible and what Christ taught.

I suppose you think that because of Jesus we should let terrorists massacre our people and do NOTHING to retaliate because of we must "forgive"???

We should have allowed the BTK murderer go free because of Jesus and the NT?

Do I really have to explain these things to you?

Nice try!

[Jorge]

Whenever an issue comes up where someone points to something from the OT, such as stoning prostitutes and such, the response is that things like that were left behind because of Jesus, and his death on the cross... OK, yet, whenever some oddball like Robertson comes along with some idea like this, out comes the OT as justification. So, which is it? Either Robertson is a Hypocrite, OR you've been slacking as I haven't seen you out stoning Hookers...

What a distorted concept of the Bible and what Christ taught.

I suppose you think that because of Jesus we should let terrorists massacre our people and do NOTHING to retaliate because of we must "forgive"???

We should have allowed the BTK murderer go free because of Jesus and the NT?

Do I really have to explain these things to you?

Nice try!

[freethinker22]

Please post the link for that news report...Seriously, I'm interested.

As for the love for analogies in this thread, I present the following from the New York Times, May 4th, 1970 (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html#article):

"Four students at Kent State University, two of them women, were shot to death this afternoon by a volley of National Guard gunfire. At least 8 other students were wounded.

The burst of gunfire came about 20 minutes after the guardsmen broke up a noon rally on the Commons, a grassy campus gathering spot, by lobbing tear gas at a crowd of about 1,000 young people."

So it would have been okay if, say, Fidel Castro invoked the name of God in calling for an assassination of Nixon in 1970? Or is 14 deaths in Venenzuela okay, while 4 is acceptable?

[qam1]

Jimmy carter, is that you? "Democratically elected leader"? Yeah, just like saddam was elected.

Quote

"And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, You've got to step down,"

Pat Robertson - on Charles Taylor, Liberian president

What a freakin' hypocrite, Pat Robertson has ZERO credibility on attacking dictators because he was all buddy-buddy with old Charlie

If Pat had Gold & Diamond mines in Venezuela like he does in Liberia I'm sure he would also be all supportive of Hugo

[jdm]

Interesting related commentary:

Boycott Citgo!
The Buzz Blog ^ | 7/18/05 | Buzz Brockway

Posted on 07/18/2005 12:08:04 PM PDT by GPBurdell

I've decided to boycott Citgo gas stations. I'm not one that normally participates in boycotts, but for Citgo I'll make an exception. I not trying to start a nationwide movement, and I won't be out front of my local Citgo with a placard, I'm just making my personal decision public.

I was informed by my brother, a resident of San Francisco, that many of the leftists of that fair city only purchase gasoline from Citgo to send a message to Bush. He told me that supporting Citgo was a way to support Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strong man.

At first I doubted my brother's words. Surely Citgo was not in the pocket of Chavez? However, I did a quick Google search which led me to two pieces of information which confirmed my fears:

From the Citgo website:

CITGO is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Venezuela, through PDVSA, has made substantial investments in CITGO, allowing CITGO to grow dramatically and become a major player in the world’s energy market.

And this from commondreams.org:

Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations.

And tell your friends.

Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush."

Now Common Dreams would have you believe that Chavez is a nice little man who only wants to feed the poor but has been undermined and attacked by that vicious George W. Bush. The truth, however, is much different. Chavez is a socialist dictator who has instituted death squads, smashed those who oppose him and is attempting to foment leftists revolution in South and Central America. (for more on Hugo Chavez's reign, visit this page at Publius Pundit).

Based on all of this information, I have no choice but to no longer patronize Citgo gas stations. This will hurt, as the closest Citgo station to my house sells gasoline about $.10 cheaper than the competition, but I will not support Hugo Chavez.

[Petronski]

Don't be sophomoric. Excommunication is the procedure to FORCE an exit of the Church. People are free to leave at any time, and lots of people do. They become Protestants and agnostics and atheists and even Jews and Muslims.

If they've departed and no longer consider themselves Catholic and no longer believe Catholic teachings and no longer avail themselves of Catholic sacraments, they're NOT Catholic.

I can't tell if your error is an innocent mistake or an effort to smear the Catholic Church with all things Nazi, as though Nazism were somehow consistent with Catholic teaching and the Church approved of genocide and wars of conquest as practiced by Nazi Germany. Throw the Hitler tarbaby at the Church all you want, it won't stick and you'll only come out looking shabby.

[billbears]

No, it's bloodlust. You can justify it any way you want but pre-emptive wars have never been the standard. We have either what ifs involving WWII from the pre-emptive war crowd that have never been and could never be tested. Or we have actual historical evidence of Wilson needlessly getting this nation involved in WWI, in a war that was none of our business. How's that last 80 years of nonstop war and police actions worked out for us?

I can't honestly believe that anyone, especially a so-called Christian pastor, would advocate assasination of anyone. A wrong will never create a right.

[HawaiianGecko]

	"The Monroe Doctrine is a warning against meddling by anyone from outside the hemisphere. In this case, it is applicable toward Chinese influence over the Chavez regime."   The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed that the Americas should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. It further stated the United States' intention to stay neutral in European wars and in wars between European powers and their colonies but to consider any new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States. The first use of the yet unnamed doctrine was in 1836, when Americans objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe Doctrine. On December 2, 1845, US President James Polk announced to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West (see Manifest Destiny). In 1852 some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to argue for forcefully removing the Spanish out of Cuba. Between 1864 and 1867, Napoleon III set up a puppet regime in Mexico, and Americans proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine" (See Maximilian Affair). This was the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine". In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. will not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another. In 1895, the Olney interpretation (also known as Olney Declaration) was United States Secretary of State Richard Olney's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine when a border dispute occurred between British Guiana and Venezuela. Olney claimed that the Monroe Doctrine gave the United States authority to mediate border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Olney extended the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, which had previously stated merely that the Western Hemisphere was closed to European colonization. The Drago Doctrine was announced in 1902 by the Foreign Minister of Argentina. Extending the Monroe Doctrine, it set forth the policy that no European power could use force against an American nation to collect debt. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This is the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1930 the Clark Memorandum was released, concluding that the Doctrine did not give the United States any right to intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary. Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927) Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949) Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975). Joel S. Poetker The Monroe Doctrine Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc, (1967). Donald Dozer The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance New York: Knopf (1965).

!

 

 

"The Monroe Doctrine is a warning against meddling by anyone from outside the hemisphere. In this case, it is applicable toward Chinese influence over the Chavez regime."
 

The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed that the Americas should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. It further stated the United States' intention to stay neutral in European wars and in wars between European powers and their colonies but to consider any new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States.

The first use of the yet unnamed doctrine was in 1836, when Americans objected to Britain's alliance with Texas on the principle of the Monroe Doctrine.

On December 2, 1845, US President James Polk announced to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West (see Manifest Destiny).

In 1852 some politicians used the principle of the Monroe Doctrine to argue for forcefully removing the Spanish out of Cuba.

Between 1864 and 1867, Napoleon III set up a puppet regime in Mexico, and Americans proclaimed this as a violation of "The Doctrine" (See Maximilian Affair). This was the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "Doctrine".

In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant extended the Monroe Doctrine, saying that the U.S. will not tolerate a colony being transferred from one European country to another.

In 1895, the Olney interpretation (also known as Olney Declaration) was United States Secretary of State Richard Olney's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine when a border dispute occurred between British Guiana and Venezuela. Olney claimed that the Monroe Doctrine gave the United States authority to mediate border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Olney extended the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, which had previously stated merely that the Western Hemisphere was closed to European colonization.

The Drago Doctrine was announced in 1902 by the Foreign Minister of Argentina. Extending the Monroe Doctrine, it set forth the policy that no European power could use force against an American nation to collect debt.

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America. This is the largest extension that has ever been added to the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1930 the Clark Memorandum was released, concluding that the Doctrine did not give the United States any right to intervene in Latin American affairs when the region was not threatened by Old World powers, thereby reversing the Roosevelt Corollary.

• Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823-1826 (1927)
• Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949)
• Ernest R. May, The Making of the Monroe Doctrine (1975).
• Joel S. Poetker The Monroe Doctrine Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc, (1967).
• Donald Dozer The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance New York: Knopf (1965).

 

 

[Young Scholar]

Well he does have a J.D. from Yale, so his political/legal talents are do doubt formidable. Really, they shouldn't be exclusive. Perhaps, as a practicing pastor, one should refrain from some aspects of politics, but it would be fine if a former pastor were to become a politician of such virtue that he would not tarnish the image of the Church.

[Coldwater Creek]

After the first Gulf War, Pat said that Bush had made a mistake in not cutting the snake's (Saddam) head off, and that we would just have to back and do it later. He was right.

Chavez and Venezuela are most dangerous to our world society.

This is a haven for Islamist.

We will be very sorry if something is not done to stop this despot.

[scott says]

"America is not Israel, fool"

Are you familiar with the House of Israel and the House of Judah?

[Coldwater Creek]

Citgo is usually higher in my part of the country anyway, but thanks for the info.

[Young Scholar]

That is unlikely; however, it is very likely there would have been, perhaps, a few "accidents," followed by suitable changes in the Vatican.

[Coldwater Creek]

Pat Robertson is not a pastor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is a TV talk show host, a businessman with a law degree. His father was also either a congressman or senator.

[muawiyah]

OK, so they do ~ let's see a cite ~ not disputing you, but when was it made "official", to wit: "Adolph Hitler is no longer a Catholic in good standing".

If he'd been Amish I'd ask the same question.

[Stellar Dendrite]

Right on Pat!!!

[beavus]

Great Scot!! Can it be that I agree with, gulp, Pat Robertson?

[Burr5]

Is a man "not-of-the-cloth", like me, way off base too when I agree with him?

[muawiyah]

Since I'm not trying to "smear the church", your question is irrelevant.

Why do you think it's a "smear" when it was Hitler's own family that had him baptised. Blame them, not the Pope.