Upon his arrival at Orly airport in France on Tuesday, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro pointed out that 97% of Venezuelans eat their three meals despite economic “sabotage” led by “the Right”. The expression, “the Right”, is Nicolás’s way of expressing his paranoia that all the problems are the fault of someone other than the pantomime government he is leading following the disastrous populist repression of the fool Chavez. The figure of 97% is a new line in silly statistics from Nicolás and an obvious error given the food shortages. Then again, only a repressive socialist regime would even dare to claim it followed people’s eating habits in such a detailed way.
He further outlined that socialism has been able to solve problems that capitalism has not. He did not name any of these great solutions of course.
Addressing dissenters, the Venezuelan president said, “you must accept that Venezuela is making progress in the hands of socialism; the world agrees on that.”
Nonsense will not improve Venezuela, action might – do something useful!!
Not many bloggers would want to publish criticism of their own blogs. The comment above was made about this blog, but without disputing any factual content, by someone called Eva Golinger. In case you don’t know who she is, let me introduce her as no less a person, according to Hugo Chávez, than “La Novia de Venezuela” (the darling of Venezuela) and a blogger with a Chavist point of view. If you look her up on Wikipedia, you will find the following: “A review of her first book by Veneconomy, a political and economic research publication in Venezuela, claims that Golinger manipulated sources and states that the documents she cites in the text of the book do not correspond to the footnotes in the book: “In none of the cases where she makes a specific citation of an official [U.S. government] document is there a quote affirming what she states.” Veneconomy claims that Golinger attributes quotations that do not exist. Veneconomy’s review said it found dozens of instances of what they considered sloppy work, manipulation of sources, false and chronologically inaccurate claims, and amateur historiography.”
Please feel free to draw your own conclusions about who writes nonsense!