Yet more news from the left's favorite son Chavez (oh wait, maybe that's Castro)

So, the administration is "giving in" to Iran by possibly taking the requirement to stop nuclear enrichment off the table before we talk with them, sat around and let North Korea launch a missile we knew could reach U.S. shores (if N.K. so chose), having the Congressional Black Caucus leaders cozy up to Castro and then using a blatantly political move of removing travel and money restrictions to Cuban Americans while leaving them in place for the rest of us which serves only as a political move to try to get Cuban American votes away from the Republican party since it leaves the general embargo in place but let's them violate it freely. I'm not arguing for or against any of these things here. Anyone who knows me probably can figure out my positions here, but I did want to point out a pattern that seems to suggest that in world politics, at least where it doesn't involve terrorists, the current administration and Congress seem very happy with the prospect of giving in to our long time enemies or simply just letting them do what they want. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. Now today, and only on Fox News for some reason comes another story about that crazy strongman in Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez. This is a man who has railed against Bush and has even spoken out against the new administration. Who has used fear and bullying tactics to drive his opposition into hiding and achieve President for life status, who has suppressed freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association and who knows what else. And why? This is all done in the name of his personal socialist revolution. He admits as much. So, what have Americans done about all of this? Contrary to Chavez's claims, we've done absolutely nothing. Oh wait, that isn't true, is it. Sean Penn has visited Chavez twice. Joe Kennedy went to Venezuela and criticized our President in a hostile nation. Sure, he has freedom of speech and all, but it is simply bad form to criticize your own country and President while visiting a foreign, hostile nation. Actually, it is poor taste for the Dixie Chicks to alienate their primary audience by doing it in Europe (amongst our friends) but quite another to do it in a blatantly and openly hostile nation like Venezuela. That's just treasonous, if you really want my opinion. So what does that make Kennedy and Penn? Well, except for Joe Kennedy, there haven't been a lot of political visitors to Chavez. Maybe they get it? Probably not. However, there have been a lot of high profile visitors other than Penn. They include: Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and Danny Glover. These three went to visit him because? I don't know. The story on Campbell clearly showed she was enamored with his "programs for the poor". Do I believe they are traitors? No, but they are stupid. Why you ask? What none of these people seem to realize is that these dictators, Chavez and in the past or even present (see Democratic black caucus)Castro, aren't these great revolutionary leaders that they portray themselves as. They are self absorbed, callous, evil tyrants who want nothing more than to reshape their country, or the world if they could, in their own image. So, when these people go visit them, they are shown only what Chavez and Castro want them to see and nothing more. It would be like my visiting Brazil, hanging out in downtown Brasilia for a few days and hobknobbing with the big whigs and then coming home and talking about how wonderfully things are going there. I'd be an idiot. Well, these people are not intentionally being treasonous, but they are stupid enough to allow themselves to be used by evil men for nefarious purposes. Travelling to visit Chavez doesn't make them look good, at least not to those of us with a brain, it only allows Chavez the opportunity to hold these idiots up as shining examples of Americans who believe in him. Right, just like Lindbergh believed in Hitler or any other examples of early 20th century fascists who supported Hitler or Mussolini. At least until they discovered what Hitlerism really was. Hint, it wasn't fascism but fascism facilitated it. At any rate, socialism leads to one thing. Tyranny. I, for one, am not interested Mr. President.