Dark Washington forces never quit. Nor do media scoundrels. Chavez is fair game. Since 1999, he's been maliciously targeted and maligned. Ill or well makes no difference.

Alberto Barrera Tyszka and Cristina Macano are unapologetic. They represent neoliberal corporate views. They got feature New York Times op-ed space.

They headlined "Chavez, the missing President," saying:

Venezuela is "experiencing the very odd circumstance of being both with and without its leader; he is not here, but his voice endures."

He "gives orders and sends kisses to children. This is what his vice president says. According to the Supreme Court, the Congress cannot consider him absent, for no matter how ill he is, only Mr. Chávez himself has the authority to declare himself absent."

Fact check

Venezuela's Supreme Court said nothing of the kind. It postponed his inauguration. It did so unanimously. A future date will be named. When doesn't matter. Democracies work that way.

Popular leaders aren't unelected. Subverting them is out of the question. The will of the people matters most. Things work that way in Venezuela. Doing so mocks America's sham democracy. It exists in name only.

Venezuela's National Assembly extended Chavez's absence. It did so unanimously. When Chavez fully recovers, he'll return. Swearing in is ceremonial only.

He could do it in absentia and be inaugurated. Parliamentarians and Supreme Court justices have final say. Democratic governance matters most. Venezuela prioritize it.

Tyszka and Macano said opposition figures demand "fe de vida." They want proof he's alive. If not, it'd be public knowledge. Both writers know but didn't say.

He "controls all public powers: the legislative body, the Supreme Court, the public prosecutor's office, to say nothing of the oil industry."

From his first election, "he knew that he had not made it to the presidency in order to run a sound government. He (came) to change the course of history."

He "revived the ghost of the South American military caudillo." He "creat(ed) a new version of that traditional strongman...As president, he deftly combines power with melodrama."

Times columnists, editors, and contributors duck vital truths. They're pro-war, pro-business, pro-privilege, pro-super wealth, pro-neoliberal, anti-progressive, anti-dissent, anti-freedom, and anti-government of, by, and for everyone equitably and fairly.

Tyszka and Macano marched in lockstep. Chavez took full advantage of what he inherited, they said. An "oil boom" won him popularity.

His "21st century socialism is a populist, patronage-oriented model that depends less on ideology than" the price of crude. He "revive(d) the illusion of a sustainable society that distributes rather than creates wealth."

Doing so lets him "maintain his ironclad grip on power."

Fact check

Chavez believes all Venezuelans matter. National resources help everyone.

Venezuelans gets free education to the highest levels, quality healthcare, subsidized food and housing, land reform, respect for indigenous rights, job training, micro credit, affordable electricity and cooking gas, gasoline at 7 cents a gallon, and other social, economic, and political benefits.

Americans, Europeans, and Israelis get force-fed austerity, growing poverty, high unemployment, unaddressed homelessness and hunger, and a government beholden solely to business and privileged elitism.

Venezuela's wealth is distributed equitably. All boats are lifted. Chavez is targeted for doing the right thing. Media scoundrels assail him relentlessly.

"Venezuelans today are less poor than" earlier, admitted Tyszka and Macano. "But they are also far more dependent on the state, and more susceptible to a propaganda machine that attributes this 'miracle' to Mr. Chavez.".

Fact check

Chavez is head of state. His policy initiatives benefit everyone. He's Bolivarianism's public face. Chavismo matters. It's institutionalized.

It works. He cut poverty, increased employment, lowered inflation, bettered the lives of millions, and made Venezuela prosperous. Its economy is one of the region's most successful. Lifting all boats responsibly works that way.

Venezuelans want it no other way. Tyszka and Macano call his leadership "authoritarian" and "messianic." Proof they claim is Venezuelans saying "We are all Chavez."

He's progressive, populist and caring. Venezuelans love him for what he is and what he's done. Doing so doesn't reflect personality cultism. It's real. Western leaders can't imagine it.

Times editors deplore it. So do Tyszka and Macano. He'll "leave behind a country plagued by problems," they claim. Americans wish they had similar ones.

Don't expect Times editors or contributors to explain. According to Tyszka and Macano, "absence might be just what Hugo Chavez needs to save him from his own failure. Myths survive only when they rise above the miseries of reality."

Times editors have to explain why this type rubbish gets published. All the news fit to print is verboten. The record of the newspaper of record is self-explanatory. It's deplorable.

It substitutes managed news misinformation for truth. It prioritizes imperial and corporate interests. It spurns populist ones. It ignores Western social decay. It targets leaders for doing the right thing.

Chavez and likeminded ones shame the American way. It never was beautiful and isn't now. Don't expect Times editors or contributors to explain.

Eva Golinger interviewed Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro. She did so for Russia Today's Behind the News.

Chavez designed a Plan of the Nation, he said. It has "five historic objectives." It prioritizes "real democracy." It follows Simon Bolivar's model.

It "balance(s) respect for our region and the right to development in a world at the time of empires deeply aggressive, with great military powers."