Skip to content

2014 Elections

Venezuelans Rally To Protect Their Government From US Interference

January 6, 2025 Margaret Flowers, Clearing the FOG. , , ,
On January 10, President Maduro will be inaugurated and begin his third term in office. This follows a turbulent July election, which a US-backed opposition attempted to disrupt through violence, cyber attacks and allegations of fraud. Venezuelans mobilized successfully to thwart that effort but the United States continues to intervene through mercenaries, growing regional militarization and claims that the US-backed candidate, currently living in asylum in Spain, is the recognized president of Venezuela. Clearing the FOG speaks with Leonardo Flores of the Venezuela Solidarity Network about Venezuelans' preparations to protect their country and their gains made under the Bolivarian revolution.

Venezuela: Far-Right’s ‘Great International Protest’ Fails

August 18, 2024 Orinoco Tribune. , , ,
Caracas and several cities in Venezuela witnessed a new round of demonstrations supporting the Bolivarian Revolution as well as a few small far-right demonstrations called by those who got defeated in the presidential elections held on July 28 but claim victory nonetheless. The low turnout in the opposition demonstrations contrast sharply with their claim of having received 7.3 million of votes in the presidential elections. The “massive” march promised by the far right for this Saturday, August 17, was a clear failure. The call for protests was unable to attract large crowds in Caracas and other cities as planned, despite the calls of María Corina Machado and an army of influencers and paid journalists on social media platforms asking Venezuelans to join the marches.

How Supreme Court Made U.S. Government Illegitimate

June 6, 2014 Dennis Trainor Jr, www.PopularResistance.org , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McCutcheon V. FEC, the court struck down a limit on how much cash an individual could give to all federal candidates during an election cycle. In the 5-4 decision, the majority of justices on the Roberts court ruled that individuals could buy elections. Or, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts,  “government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.” In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Bryer, did not hold back in voicing the disgust felt by an overwhelming majority of Americans (if not by a majority of Supreme Court Justices) in writing that the majority’s “legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.”