Month: April 2018

Nicolás Maduro’s socialist dictatorship in Venezuela has overseen a 120 percent increase in the number of political prisoners in the past year, according to the legal aid group Foro Penal.

There are currently 233 political prisoners across Venezuela, mainly on crimes of “treason,” instigating anti-government protests, or the alleged use of violence or intimidation against the country’s security forces. This is a 120-percent increase from this time last year, where there were around 100 people imprisoned.

According to Foro Penal director Alfredo Romero, the government has instituted an “open door” prison policy, liberating some group of prisoners while imprisoning even more.

Nearly all of those imprisoned are dissidents against the Maduro regime, which has over the past year transformed the country into a totalitarian dictatorship where political dissent is outlawed.

Venezuelan political prisoners have previously testified to the use of torturous methods by prison authorities, which include the use of electroshock, starvation, and nude humiliation. Last year, a joint report by Foro Penal and Human Rights Watch also accused the government of feeding prisoners dishes such as “pasta with feces.”

As a result, many of the country’s elected politicians and officials—such as the rightful Mayor of Caracas Antonio Ledzema, the former Attorney General Luisa Ortega, and Venezuelan Ambassador to the United Nations Diego Arria—have exiled themselves to avoid political repression or imprisonment.

Attending the UN Human Rights Council last September, Arria testified to the use of “torture, sex crimes, and systematic murder of unarmed civilians” by the government that he said amounted to “crimes against humanity” by a tyranny run by “drug traffickers and criminals.”

Venezuela’s most recognized political prisoner is the opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who was imprisoned in 2014 on charges of organizing mass street protests against the government. He is currently living under house arrest.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Venezuelans have also fled the country to escape the high levels of political repression, as well as in search of a better life amid the country’s ongoing economic meltdown.

The high numbers political prisoners is inextricably linked to the rise of political activism as Venezuela experiences the worst humanitarian crisis in its history, with millions of people now starving and without living resources such as medicine and toiletries.

The humanitarian crisis is mainly a result of nearly two decades of socialist rule that saw excessive government spending and economic mismanagement that has led to wild levels of inflation close to 8000 percent that has rendered the country’s Bolivar currency effectively worthless.

According to a recent Reuters analysis, hyperinflation has also left the country’s once powerful banks loaded with worthless cash, worth a total of just $40 million.

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stressed on Tuesday that the key for Democrats in the 2018 midterms is to focus on the “economic instability for so many people” in the country. But an increasing number of liberals are getting concerned that the media’s and the Democrats’ focus on all things Stormy Daniels will hurt Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections.

When asked on Saturday evening if there is a “concern” or “danger” that Stormy Daniels will overshadow the Democrats’ message on the economy, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNN’s Van Jones, “absolutely.” Sanders also criticized the media, the Democrats’ tag team partner, for overplaying all things Daniels.

The Atlantic’s Ron Browstein also argued that the legacy media’s obsession with Daniels could block the party’s economic message from getting through to critical swing voters.

The left-leaning analyst noted that the “intense media attention” on Stormy Daniels “might not actually move many more voters than they already have, and the economic message pushed by Democrats—one that’s rooted, in part, in the tax bill—is having a hard time breaking through.”

He claimed Democrats would have a much easier path to taking back the House if it could also “capture at least some Republican-held seats that are more blue-collar and non-urban, in places like upstate New York, downstate Illinois, and Iowa.” More importantly, as Brownstein noted, “winning working-class voters is even more essential for Democrats in the Senate,” where the party is defending seats in states Trump won in 2016 like West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana.”

But the economic messages that can win Democrats some of these Trump voters “now rarely break through the tabloid maelstrom constantly engulfing Trump,” Brownstein argued, pointing out that is “isn’t clear that the case against Trump’s values is a winning argument in those places.”

“In other words: For a sunny outcome this fall, Democrats probably need more health care and taxes—and less Comey and Stormy,” he concluded.

Though some Democrats still want to double down on Stormy Daniels, recent polling has found that only 23 percent of Americans believe Daniels is an important issue while Trump’s support among white evangelicals has hit an all-time high.

A variety of people, ranging from political centrists to conservatives, have increasingly looked with skepticism on the supposedly unbiased “fact-checkers” at Snopes, as the outlet has long displayed a decidedly left-leaning bias in its pronouncements of what is true and false.

The suspicion that Snopes has a heavy liberal bias just received a significant boost in the case of the outlet’s take on California Assembly Bill 2943. The law, currently working its way through the state legislature, would prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts” — referred to by the left as “gay conversion therapy” — on any resident in the state by any other resident if any sort of monetary transaction or exchange of goods or services is involved.

The bill cites numerous studies claiming to prove that SOCE doesn’t work and actually does more psychological harm than good for gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. The legislation outlaws SOCE, calling it a deceptive and “unlawful business practice.”

As noted by Snopes, the bill’s opponents argue a literal and logical reading of the bill would lead one to believe that the law would effectively prohibit the sale of Bibles in the state, as the Holy Word of God obviously declares homosexuality to be a sin and urges individuals not to engage in such behavior.

Of course, Snopes dismissed that worry out of hand and declared it not just “false,” but “demonstrably and clearly false” as the bill makes no mention of the Bible, Christianity or any religion at all.

However, in a story exposing Snopes as a “sneaky liar” in regard to its coverage of the California bill,  The Federalist pointed out the outlet was at best being disingenuous, and at worst outright lying with its assessment of the concerns surrounding the law. Indeed, the broad wording of the legislation would certainly lend itself to the worrisome interpretation.

Snopes argued that the law would only apply to “mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation.” A previous state law that banned SOCE on minors under the age of 18 did the same thing. But even Snopes admitted in its dismissal that AB 2943 “also appears to prohibit SOCE from being performed by any individual, not just by mental health providers.”

A logical reading would lead one to presume that the new law could be applied to any pastor, Bible study leader or member of a church-affiliated organization with a focus on serving and counseling LGBT individuals, if any sort of monetary transaction or exchange occurred.

Furthermore, Snopes was compelled to add, “The Assembly Judiciary Committee’s analysis notes it is not clear whether the text of A.B. 2943 would amount to a blanket prohibition on any and all SOCE.”

“It does not apply to the sale of books or any other kind of goods, and it does not prevent anyone from speaking or writing on the subject of conversion therapy in any forum,” insisted Anthony Samson, a Sacramento attorney and policy adviser.

But for those who haven’t been paying attention lately, “unclear” meanings in legislation tend to leave doors open for laws to be used in unanticipated ways — such as banning the sale of a Bible both because of its anti-homosexuality message and how that message could be used to “change an individual’s sexual orientation.”

The Federalist also pointed out Snopes declared it “clear” that the “bill does not seek to outlaw all religious or moral instruction regarding sexuality and sexual orientation.” Emphasis on the word “all,” which could be construed as meaning the bill might seek to outlaw “some or most” religious or moral instruction in regard to sexual orientation.

It was further noted that there is no sort of religious exemption in the bill and the wording of the proposed law seems to apply a blanket prohibition upon “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions” or “sexual orientation.”

RELATED: Watch What Happens When These College Kids Learn Obama Sent Troops to Border, Too

Thus, sharing what the Gospel has to say about the sin of homosexuality or that Christ can save one from a life of such sin would be outlawed if any sort of monetary transaction were involved at any point.

As The Federalist wrote, “Selling religious or secular books (pamphlets, videos, audios, etc.), holding conferences, teaching courses in a college or seminary where tuition is paid, giving a speech at a paid venue, counseling people for a fee, or perhaps even posting online articles in a site that requires a paid subscription, in which it is asserted (in whole or part) that it is morally wrong for people to engage in homosexual practice or identify as ‘gay’ or ‘transgender, all could be treated as a violation of California Assembly Bill 2943.”

What this bill in essence boils down to is an attempt by California Democrats to criminalize “orthodox Christian beliefs” about morality and sexuality, whether such an outcome was intended or was merely a pleasant — for them — and unintended consequence.

Snopes would have everyone believe that there is nothing to fear from this particular piece of legislation, but logic and reason would dictate otherwise.

Let this serve as an object lesson on why “fact-checkers” these days aren’t to be completely trusted and their assessments of what is true or false should be taken with a grain of salt.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!