Mother says having children are biggest regret of her life!

My son Stuart was five days old when the realisation hit me like a physical blow: having a child had been the biggest mistake of my life.

Even now, 33 years on, I can still picture the scene: Stuart was asleep in his crib. He was due to be fed but hadn't yet woken. 

I heard him stir but as I looked at his round face on the brink of wakefulness, I felt no bond. No warm rush of maternal affection.

I felt completely detached from this alien being who had encroached upon my settled married life and changed it, irrevocably, for the worse.

I was 22 when I had Stuart, who was a placid and biddable baby. So, no, my feelings were not sparked by tiredness, nor by post-natal depression or even a passing spell of baby blues.

Quite simply, I had always hated the idea of motherhood. In that instant, any lingering hope that becoming a mum would cure me of my antipathy was dispelled. 

I remember asking myself, 'Is he really mine?' He could, quite literally, have been anyone's baby. Had a kind stranger offered to adopt him at that moment, I would not have objected. 

Still, I wished no harm on Stuart and invested every ounce of my energy in caring for him. Even so, I know my life would have been much happier and more fulfilled without children.

Two years and four months after Stuart was born, I had my daughter Jo. It may seem perverse that I had a second child in view of my aversion to them, but I believe it is utterly selfish to have an only one. 

I felt precisely the same indifference towards her as I had to Stuart, but I knew I would care for Jo to the best of my ability, and love her as I'd grown to love him.

Yet I dreaded her dependence; resented the time she would consume, and that like parasites, both my children would continue to take from me and give nothing meaningful back in return.

Whenever I've told friends I wished I'd never had them, they've gasped with shock. 'You can't mean that?' But, of course, I do.

To some, my life before I had the children may have seemed humdrum and my job as a typist was, it's true, not much of a career. So what was the great sacrifice, you might think? 

What I valued most in my life was time on my own; to reflect, read and enjoy my own company and peace of mind. And suddenly that peace and solitude wasn't there any more. There were two small interlopers intruding on it. And I've never got that peace back.

I don't know why I feel as I do. I'm one of five siblings and was raised in a happy family by loving parents. Dad was in the Army; Mum, whom he met while posted in Germany, brought us up in the West Midlands. 

Mum and I were close; even as an adult I could always confide in her. My childhood was very happy and conventional. Like most little girls I played with dolls. But I never recall a time when I wanted those make-believe games of motherhood to become a reality.

I know there are millions who will consider me heinously cold-blooded and unnatural, but I believe there will also be those who secretly feel the same.

It's just that I have been honest - some may contend brutally so - and admitted to my true feelings. In doing so I have broken a supposedly inviolable law of nature. What kind of mother, after all, wishes she hadn't had children?

I have never hidden the truth from my husband Tony, now 62. 

From the moment we decided we would be spending the rest of our lives together, I confessed I didn't want to start a family.

We were childhood sweethearts.  We met when I was 12 and he was 16; he was my first and only love. I was 19 when I walked up the aisle, a joyful bride anticipating a happy life with the man I adored.

But I knew even then children would be a sticking point. Tony wanted four. I didn't want any. We'd discussed the subject and I believe he thought I'd change my mind. 

I suppose he imagined, as my friends started having babies, the urge to become a mum would overwhelm me. I hoped he'd change his mind. When we married, we bought the three-bedroom house in Coventry that remains our home today. Tony pursued his passion for sports; my interests were more insular. I loved knitting, dressmaking and reading, and joined a book club.

Tony worked then, as he still does, as a pattern maker in the car industry. I was a typist in an office for a telecoms company.

After a couple of years of marriage, Tony began to ask whether I was still adamant that I didn't want children. In the end I relented because I loved him and felt it would be unfair of me to deny him the chance to be a dad.

But there were provisos: if I was going to have children I knew absolutely - illogical as it may seem in view of my feelings - that I intended to raise them myself without any help from nannies or childminders. 

This wasn't a way of assuaging my guilt, because I felt none. It was simply that, having brought them into the world, I would do my best for them.

I cannot understand mothers who insist they want children - especially those who undergo years of fertility treatment - then race back to work at the earliest opportunity after giving birth, leaving the vital job of caring for them to strangers.

Why have them at all if you don't want to bring them up, or can't afford to? And why pretend you wanted them if you have no intention of raising them? This hypocrisy is, in my view, far more pernicious and difficult to fathom than my own admission that my life would have been better without children. 

And here, perhaps, is the nub of it: I would not take on the job of motherhood and do it half-heartedly. Unlike so many would-be mums I thought hard about the responsibilities of my role, and, I believe, if more women did before rushing heedlessly into it, they might share my reservations.

I was acutely aware that a child would usurp my independence and drain my finances. I felt no excitement as my due date approached. I had no compulsion to fill the nursery with toys, nor did I read parenting manuals or swap tips with friends. I focused on enjoying the last months of my freedom.

Tony and I had a strong marriage - after 37 years, we still do - and I did not dread the effect of the baby on our relationship. Sure enough, we maintained an active and fulfilling sex life and made a date night each Friday when Tony's parents babysat. 

However, I did dread the encroachment of this demanding little being on my own independence.
So, in May 1979, Stuart was born, blue in the face as the cord was wrapped round his neck. While other mothers would be frantic with worry, I remained calm when the doctor whisked him away. I sent Tony back to work and for the next four hours I waited without any apprehension.

I did not really think about Stuart at all, until Tony returned after work and asked where he was.
He was fine, of course, but when they wheeled him back into the ward I did not experience that sudden leap of the heart that new mums are expected to feel. Instead I sat down with a cup of tea and thought bleakly, 'What have I done?' 

Back home, I resolved to breastfeed. I knew it would be best for Stuart and I think every mother should do it. But even during this intimate act, that elusive bond failed to form.

Stuart fed voraciously, every two hours. He seemed almost permanently attached to me, but the proximity of this suckling infant did not make me feel maternal. 

I never wanted to hurt Stuart - I only wanted him to prosper and thrive. There is no doubt I grew to love him very much, and indeed still do. But I always wished I had never had him. 

I told Tony, but if he was concerned, he didn't show it. He just said, 'Well we have him now. There's nothing we can do about it. You just have to get on with it as best you can.'

And that's exactly what I did. I believe I was a good mum, but never a doting one. When Stuart was three weeks old, I pushed him in his pram to the shops for the first time with our red setter Amber in tow. Outside the baker's I tethered the dog to the pram and left Stuart outside with Amber while I bought a loaf and cakes.

It was not until I got home, made myself a cup of tea and started eating my cake, that I realised something was amiss. My dog wasn't there waiting for her usual titbit. 

So the first thought that impinged on me was: where is Amber? I missed the dog before it even occurred to me that I'd left Stuart outside the shop.

I can't say, even then, that I was worried. I just rang the baker to check Stuart and the dog were still outside, retrieved them and came home.

At the baby clinic, other mums compared their babies' weight and boasted about milestones they'd reached, but I was not remotely interested in such inconsequential matters, so I only went to the clinic once. When people peered into Stuart's pram to coo over him and tell me what a lovely little chap he was, I thought, 'That's not true.' He was not a beautiful baby.

Meanwhile, Tony discharged his duties as a dad brilliantly. He helped with the nappies, bathed Stuart, and when we were out, it was Daddy he went to for comfort if he fell.

Then, when Stuart was 18 months, we planned the second baby I'd promised to have. But I felt no more thrilled by the prospect of becoming a mum again than I did first time around. When Jo was born in August 1981, I remember how joyously Tony and his family greeted the news that I'd had a little girl. 

I did not share their jubilation. But there was nothing for it but to get on with the job of bringing her up.

I did this diligently, but it was Tony who was the effusive and demonstrative Dad.

He loved the children to distraction, and as soon as they were old enough, he took them to the sports club where Stuart became an accomplished footballer. Jo tagged along too and it became something of a joke that she even asked her dad to take her when she wanted to go to the loo.

We created a routine where I ran the home, and when Tony was off work he looked after the kids. And I jealously guarded my time free of the children.

On our summer holidays, Tony and I had our rigidly defined roles. I did not look after the children when he was around. So as they played football, sat glued to the Grand Prix or watched the golf, I would creep back to our chalet and immerse myself in a good book. Other mums were running around like headless chickens after their children, but in our household Tony took that role. 

We shared many happy times together; I did everything a good mother is supposed to. We had bucket-and-spade holidays on the Isle of Wight; there were endless sports events in which the children shone. I'm sure they would agree that they always felt secure and loved.

It was not that I seethed each day with resentment towards my children; more that I felt oppressed by my constant responsibility for them. Young children prevent you from being spontaneous; every outing becomes an expedition. If you take your job as a parent seriously, you always put their needs before your own.

Having children consigns you to an endless existence of shelling out financially and emotionally, with little or no return. It puts a terrible strain on your marriage and is perennially exhausting. And your job is never done. 

I know my life with Tony would have been so much happier without children, less complicated and more carefree.

I don't believe either that Stuart or Jo sensed any coolness on my part, although Jo once said, 'You never tell me you love me, Mum.' And I didn't, it's true. But I reassured Jo that I did love her. She and Stuart just accepted that I wasn't demonstrative. 

They grew, too, into well-adjusted adults. Stuart, 33, works in telecoms engineering as a supervisor. 

He is married to Lisa, 37, a bank supervisor, and they have two lovely children. But before Stuart announced that he was to become a dad, he asked me if I'd like to become a granny. And I told him quite emphatically that I wouldn't: I didn't want my new-found freedom to be usurped by years of babysitting.

My controversial views didn't shock him. He has always known I am forthright; he knows, too, having got my two grandchildren, I would knuckle down to my grandmotherly duties and acquit myself well.

Jo, 31, shares my opinion about motherhood: she has never wanted children; perhaps my views have shaped hers. 

It is her tragedy that eight years ago she developed multiple sclerosis and had to give up her job as a chef. She is now bed-bound and lives with Tony and me.

I am her full-time carer and if I could have MS instead of her, I gladly would. She knows I would do anything to relieve her suffering and that I will care for her as long as I am able. I am 57 now and as I approach old age, I have an ever-more dependent daughter.

Yet I would cut off my right arm if she or Stuart needed it. 

And that, maybe, is the paradox. I am a conscientious and caring parent - yet perhaps I would have resented my children less had I not been.

Boko Haram: Amnesty plan suffers setback!

Nigeria:

The Amnesty panel constituted on Wednesday by the Federal Government yesterday suffered another major setback as President of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, SCSN, Dr. Ibrahim Datti Ahmed, turned down his appointment.

His rejection brings to two the number of persons that had pulled out of the committee.

 The President of the Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria, CRCN, , had on Wednesday rejected his nomination to the committee. Instead, he put forward the names of three persons through which the government could reach out to the sect leaders for dialogue.

Ahmed said he rejected the offer as a result of the bitter experience he had with the government when he voluntarily tried to mediate between the authorities and members of the Islamic sect.

He said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, Hausa Service, monitored in Kaduna yesterday that the alleged insincerity of the government led to the breakdown of peace talks with the insurgents about one and a half years ago when he initiated dialogue with the aggrieved sect members. Ahmed also faulted the composition of the amnesty committee, saying that its Chairman, who is the Minister of Special Duties, Kabiru Taminu Turaki, and the secretary, also a government official, would not feed the government with the correct information but report only what it wanted to hear.

He said: “Previously, I made such moves twice and it wasn’t the government that asked me to do that and we had reached a stage where, had the government agreed with what we got, what we resolved with the sect members called Boko Haram, by now we would have forgotten everything; Nigeria would have witnessed peace by now.

“When we told the government everything we discussed with them and the agreement we had which were not difficult to do, that first of all, if the dialogue was truly genuine, their wives and children that were unjustly detained should be released because they had not committed any crime.

“We advised the government on that, we said even if you continue to detain them there was no gain in doing so. The government said they will release them but did not.

“They will feed the government with what the government wants to know and we would be in trouble with the ordinary Nigerians.

The minister and secretary will take lies to the government and we would be left quarrelling with young Nigerians, young enough to be our children.”

He reiterated that from his previous experience with the government, they were just telling lies because “during the previous attempt, it was so successful but the government caused everything to crumble like a pack of cards.”

Ahmed added: “It was just like we were going to have a peaceful resolution the next day and what the government should have done was not something difficult, just to release their wives and reduce the tension in Yobe and Borno states and stop persecuting the people there .

“The government said it was going to do that but it did not. It is the same government, it was the same Jonathan and his representative and we are the same people, nothing has changed.”

Meanwhile, the Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, yesterday appealed to the Islamic sect to accept the Federal Government’s amnesty committee as the initiative faces imminent collapse.

However, the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, in 19 northern states and Abuja called on President Goodluck Jonathan not to use the taxpayers’ money for amnesty, saying it had no faith in the committee.

In a telephone interview with National Mirror, the Northern CAN’s Public Relations Officer, Mr. Sunday Oibe, said the amnesty game being played by the government and the Boko Haram would be exposed soon.

CAN said: “Shehu Sani, who is a member of the committee, we read in a newspaper that he rejected the offer.

“We, Northern Christians have no faith in that committee. We can’t support Boko Haram who killed us, we know amnesty will not work.

“We are telling President Jonathan not to use Nigeria collective money for amnesty. We don’t believe in amnesty. Our stand against it still stands.”

But ACF spokesman, Mr. Anthony Sani, expressed support for the government’s action.

He said: “The setting up of the committee on amnesty by the Federal Government is a welcome development because it demonstrates the commitment of the government to pursue the amnesty option to its logical conclusion.

“We commend the government for such consciously directed efforts. We appeal to insurgents and all Nigerians to cooperate with the government so that Nigeria can make violence history.”

Sani in rejecting his appointment to the amnesty committee had named a freelance journalist, Ahmed Salkida; one Hamza Idris and Barrister Mustapha Zanna as those who could reach out to Boko Haram leaders on amnesty.

Sani said Boko Haram might also reject the composition of the committee.

He had said: “There is every likelyhood that the insurgents will reject and condemn this committee irrespective of whether I am part of it or not because they were not consulted and they don’t have any of their input in the committee.”

But former governor of old Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, called on Nigerians to support the government’s amnesty committee for peace and stability.

Musa said: “The Boko Haram committee set up by the Federal Government is in order and commendable. We can’t have a perfect committee under this condition but one thing is for peace to reign and let’s give it the benefit of doubt.

“Nigerians should support the committee. We should also encourage government, Boko Haram and the committee.”

Pakistan ex-President Musharraf under house arrest!

A Pakistani judge placed former president and army chief Pervez Musharraf under house arrest on Friday in the boldest step yet by the country's courts against senior military officers long deemed untouchable by the law.

Police escorted Musharraf from the courtroom to his residence on the edge of Islamabad where he must remain for two days ahead of a hearing over allegations he unlawfully detained judges during a 2007 showdown with the judiciary.

Ramping up pressure on the former paratrooper who seized power in a coup in 1999 and resigned in 2008, the judge ordered the case be heard in an anti-terrorism court on the grounds that detaining judges could be considered an attack on the state.

Naveed Malik, a lawyer who was present at the hearing, said the retired general had voluntarily presented himself at the court and had asked to be detained at his home rather than go to jail.

"Now the police have to present him before the anti-terrorism court in two day's time," Malik told reporters outside the court.

One of Musharraf's lawyers said he would file a petition to overturn the arrest order at the Supreme Court later on Friday.

The spectacle of a man who once embodied the army's control over Pakistan being humbled by a court was a potent symbol of the way power dynamics have shifted. General elections to be held in Pakistan next month will be the first transition between elected civilian-led governments.

Musharraf returned to Pakistan after almost four years of self-imposed exile last month to stand in the polls but he was disqualified by election officials.

While the sight of a former army commander being arrested is sure to rankle some in the military, who see the armed forces as the only reliable guarantor of Pakistan's stability, Musharraf's ill-starred return has also bemused some former comrades.

"I don't think the army was in favor of him returning and tried to dissuade him," said General Hamid Khan, a former senior army commander. "But he decided to come, and now he has to face this. The army is staying out of it."

However, the order to place Musharraf under house arrest was surprising in a nation that has been ruled by the military for more than half of its 66 years as an independent nation and where the army's writ is almost never questioned even by civilian governments.

It was also a turning of the tables by a judiciary whose senior members themselves faced detention while Musharraf was in power.

Musharraf is accused of violating the constitution by placing judges under house arrest during the 2007 confrontation with the judiciary, when he sacked the chief justice and lawyers fought running battles with police. He has also been accused of treason for his decision to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule.

He also faces a raft of other legal challenges, including allegations that he failed to provide adequate security to prevent the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007.

Boston bombings: FBI appeals for help finding two suspects!

Federal investigators issued an urgent appeal Thursday for the public's assistance in identifying two suspects in the Boston Marathon attacks Monday. The two were seen on local surveillance camera carrying backpacks near the sites just minutes before two bomb devices were detonated.

Boston FBI chief Richard DesLauriers said the young men — identified as "Suspect 1'' and "Suspect 2'' were the only people authorities were seeking in connection with the blasts, which left three dead and 176 others wounded near the finish line of Monday's race.

Suspect 1 was wearing a black cap, khaki pants, sunglasses and slip-on dress shoes.

Suspect 2 was wearing a white cap backward, jeans and gray hoodie sweatshirt with a black jacket over it. He is also seen casually walking down a busy sidewalk with a pack that investigators believe was set down near the site of the second explosion.

killer pictured walking calmly away from scene

Man survives Boston bombs and Texas explosion!

People keep asking Joe Berti if he feels unlucky.

A bomb exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon seconds after Berti finished the race. Two days later, he was in Texas when he saw a fertiliser plant explode.

"I was just like, 'I can't believe this!'" said Berti, who said he had never witnessed an explosion before. Then he thought: "I just want to get out of here and get away from all these explosions."



Images from Texas gas explosion:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer killed in campus shooting!

A police officer for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been shot and killed at the campus outside of Boston, authorities said today. No arrests had been made and a manhunt was on for the shooter.

The officer was responding to report of a disturbance last night when he was shot multiple times, according to a statement from the Middlesex District Attorney's office and Cambridge police. It said there were no other victims. 

MIT said on its website that police were sweeping the campus in Cambridge and urged people to remain indoors until further notice. People were urged to stay away from the Stata Building, a mixed use building with faculty offices, classrooms and a common area. 

The shooting came little more than three days after the twin bombings on the Boston Marathon that killed three people, wounded more than 180 others and led to an increase in security across the city. 

The shooting took place about 10.30pm local time outside an MIT building, according to state police spokesman Dave Procopio. 

The officer, who was not immediately identified, was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead from his wounds. 

Tensions mount after tight Venezuelan vote; government says 7 killed in post-election violence!

Venezuela's president-elect blamed the opposition Tuesday for seven deaths and 61 injuries that the government claims have occurred in disturbances protesting his election, and he accused the U.S. of organizing the unrest.

Opposition candidate Henrique Capriles later accused the government of being behind the violence.

Maduro's accusation against Washington came after the U.S. State Department said it would not recognize the results of Sunday's unexpectedly close election without the vote-by-vote recount being demanded by Capriles.

"The (U.S.) embassy has financed and led all these violent acts," President-elect Nicolas Maduro, the chosen heir of the late Hugo Chavez, said during a televised meeting at the headquarters of the state oil company.

Earlier, he said he would not allow an opposition protest march called for Wednesday in Caracas, saying Capriles was "responsible for the dead we are mourning" from violence during protests across the country.

Maduro then summoned his own supporters to take to the streets Wednesday in the capital, raising the possibility of a confrontation with anti-government protesters.

But Capriles called off the planned opposition march. "Whoever goes out into the street tomorrow is playing the government's game," he said. "The government wants there to be deaths in the country."

He said the accusation by officials that he is mounting an attempt to overthrow the socialist government is a smoke screen to divert attention from demands for a recount.

"I want to ask Mr. Maduro to calm down a bit. I think he's sort of going crazy," Capriles said at a news conference.

According to the regime-friendly National Electoral Council, which quickly certified Maduro's election Monday, he defeated Capriles by 262,000 votes out of 14.9 million ballots cast. Capriles has charged that Chavistas stole the election.

Outside the capital, a march to demand a recount turned violent in the capital of Barinas,the home state of Chavez. Police fired tear gas and plastic bullets at protesters heeding Capriles' call for protests by marching on the provincial headquarters of the electoral council. Opposition leaders reported 30 arrests. There were no immediate reports of injuries.

Barinas Gov. Adan Chavez is a brother of Hugo Chavez, the charismatic but divisive Venezuelan leader who succumbed to cancer March 5 after 14 years as president.

In a separate televised broadcast, Justice Minister Nestor Reverol accused Capriles of numerous crimes, including insurrection and civil disobedience.

It was part of a drumbeat of attacks by government officials who have been alleging since Monday that Capriles is plotting a coup.

Chief prosecutor Luisa Ortega said 135 people had been detained in protests, presumably on Monday, when Capriles' supporters protested in Caracas and other cities, including Merida and Maracay.

Reverol said one death involved a man in the capital who he charged was shot by opposition supporters. He said other shooting deaths, in the states of Sucre, Tachira and Zulia, were being investigated.

Capriles issued a message on Twitter blaming the government and Maduro for any violence.

"The illegitimate one and his government ordered that there be violence to avoid counting the votes," Capriles tweeted. "They are responsible!"

On Monday, thousands of students briefly clashed with National Guard troops who fired tear gas and plastic bullets while people across the nation banged on pots and pans to demand a recount.

Late Monday, Maduro announced he had met with a newly created "anti-coup" command at the military museum that holds Chavez's remains.

He accused opposition protesters of attacking government clinics and the house of electoral council President Tibisay Lucena, without offering details.

Security analyst Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America said the tensions increased chances the government might arrest opposition leaders, although he wondered whether security forces would comply with a wave of arrest orders.

He said he was more concerned about "mob violence against opposition figures, and perhaps pro-government ones, too."

Pro-government motorcycle gangs, some of them armed, have in the past threatened and attacked opposition activists.

Serious questions were raised about Maduro's ability to lead after he squandered a double-digit lead in the race despite an outpouring of sympathy for his party following Chavez's death.

Government leaders and military leaders have closed ranks around him.

A hint of discontent did emerge, however, in two Twitter messages by Diosdado Cabello, the National Assembly president who many consider Maduro's chief rival within the "Chavismo" movement.

In the first, he called for a "profound self-criticism" within Chavista ranks. In the second, he wrote: "We should look for our faults under the rocks if we have to."

Diego Moya-Ocampos, an analyst with the London-based consulting firm IHS Global Insight, said members of the ruling socialist party "realize that Maduro is not the man to guarantee continuity of the Chavista movement."

Cabello expressed disbelief at Capriles' strong showing, asking why "sectors of the poor population would vote for their exploiters of old."

That might not be such a mystery.

Among Venezuela's problems are crumbling infrastructure, frequent blackouts, persistent shortages of food and medicine, and double-digit inflation. The nonprofit Venezuelan Violence Observatory estimates Venezuela's homicide rate last year was 73 per 100,000 people, among the world's worst.

With such a narrow victory, Maduro has little political capital to make the difficult choices some of those problems require, said Risa Grais-Targow, Latin America analyst for the Eurasia Group.

Price and currency controls imposed under Chavez have failed to stem inflation or the flight of dollars and are strangling private firms. But lifting them abruptly could bring economic turmoil and hurt the poor.

Grais-Targow said Maduro will likely focus instead on expanding the myriad of social programs that cemented Chavez's popularity. But that has become increasingly difficult to balance with the need to spend money on redressing Venezuela's other problems.

The state-oil company that gave billions of dollars to fund social programs is saddled with mounting debt and declining profits. Critics say the company has failed to invest in boosting oil production, which has fallen for years even though Venezuela has the world's biggest oil reserves.

Maduro's narrow victory has given him little ability to maintain unity in a movement held together largely by loyalty to the charismatic Chavez.

Its factions include former soldiers like Cabello who joined Chavez in a failed 1992 coup. Maduro comes from the ranks of leftist political and labor groups that united to help elect Chavez president in 1998. Chavez's relatives, led by brother Adan, form another bloc.

"His legitimacy comes from the fact that Chavez named him as his successor and other factions were forced to accept it," said Grais-Targow. "But he faces this landscape where the other main figure, Diosdado Cabello, could elevate his role and have more power. There are also governors who have bases of support and could pose challenges."

Still, for now, the powerful state political apparatus built by Chavez is standing with Maduro.

Four of the five directors of the National Electoral Council are pro-government. The Supreme Court is stacked with Chavista sympathizers as are lower courts. The National Assembly is also controlled by Chavistas.