Is Venezuela Becoming Another Vietnam?

It is becoming clear, as well as ironic, that several prominent American personalities have recently raised their voices against the United States’ support of the people of Venezuela, and the current effort to rid the nation of a dictator who has destroyed his own people. This could be construed as support for the corrupt dictatorship of Communist President Nicolás Maduro. Surprisingly, or not, one of the latest public personalities to raise concerns over the U.S. intervening in Venezuela is Tucker Carlson of Fox News. He almost seems to be on a single-handed crusade as several of his programs have taken this slant. But, it reveals much about Carlson and the “conservative rainbow.” His view is in alignment with the Libertarian realm of the Conservatives. Related: Do American Citizens’ Rights and Their Lives Matter or do Criminals’ Rights and Lives Matter More?

U.S. intervention in Venezuela

Tucker Carlson is a respected journalist, arguably respected by both those on the Right and on the Left. He normally does his homework and appears incredibly knowledgeable. He controls the boundaries of his interviews, and he is quite specific in his questioning of his television guests and the questions he asks his viewers. Yet, his views on the relationship with the United States and Venezuela echoes words which were coming out of the mouths of Leftist college professors at the time President Kennedy was attempting to help the people of Vietnam. Carlson and the ones who align with such views include both Ron and Rand Paul, and a Democrat/Progressive from Hawaii running for President of the United States: Tulsi Gabbard. It may be understandable for a Progressive, and the first Hindu elected to Congress, to oppose U.S. intervention in Venezuela because the common denominator is a pretense of concern for one’s fellow man. And if one is really clear about the Libertarian agenda of the father and son combination of Ron and Rand Paul, non-intervention and simply leaving people to fend for themselves is the mantra. To the Libertarians, for the most part, it is much more about the economics and about us as a nation unto ourselves. It is like the political equivalent of the “Me Generation,” in which I, me, mine is the mantra. Actually, isolationism is nothing new in America. It has existed since before the U.S. heeded the call to “make the world safe for democracy.” Yet, the peace professors of the 1960s and 1970s that raged against U.S. intervention in Vietnam used also the same rhetoric that is being revived today. One key question that has been revived is: “When was the last time the United States successfully meddled in the political life of another country?” There are two key words in that question. A key word is “successfully,” while the other is “meddled.” There is a simple answer to that question, for those who may be a bit older than Tucker Carlson. Many older Americans remember when the United States decided to help the nation of South Korea, under a president named Harry S. Truman. The actions by the POTUS in that time led to South Korea remaining a free nation. Leftists, however, gravitate to the Vietnam War.

---

Saul Alinsky’s tactics of marginalization

Vietnam became a fiasco and an example of a terrible way to deal with the advance of Communism into the tiny little Southeast Asian country. Nevertheless, when Harry Truman learned that the North Korean government of Kim Il Sung had launched a surprise invasion of South Korea, he decided to support United Nations’ Resolution 82, which requested troops from member nations to assist the Republic of Korea in defending its freedom. So, what was the difference? Actually, it had only been a dozen years since Harry Truman had sent U.S. troops to Korea, but the world was much different in the 1960s as compared to the 1950s - very different almost everywhere. But, one of the biggest differences was that the U.N. took action to intervene in the Korean War. The armed intervention into the Korean peninsula represented one of only possible moments in the history of the United Nations in which they fulfilled their purpose. All other global crises sadly went unattended since the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China used their veto power to deny unanimous consent to take any corrective action in global trouble spots. The U.S. has usually been isolated in many humanitarian/military efforts to thwart communist aggression or expansion. In comparing the two international conflicts, in Korea and Vietnam, they both were locations of the fight between the expansion of communism and the effort of the Free World to contain it. In the U.N. military intervention in Korea, the U.S. was part of a team of nations under the auspices of the U.N. But, the U.S. was isolated, and had to go it alone in Vietnam. Today, many Americans are familiar with Saul Alinsky’s tactics of marginalization of the enemy, but he did not invent it. He just introduced it to the Democrats, who are just now coming out of the closet to reveal that they are Socialists (an infant version of Communists). Actually, it was the Communists who effectively introduced the tactic of marginalization, and a key time of using the tactic came in the 1970s. It was used to discredit the U.S. government’s involvement in the Communist takeover of Vietnam. It was used to divide America against itself. In this day, these tactics continue to be used all over the world by Socialists/Communists. They still use the tactics of marginalization within the U.S. One would be blind to not see it in our society today.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Lies of Socialism

The tactic is being used in the U.S. with regard to the horrors of what is happening in the nation of Venezuela. Some of Tucker Carlson’s “cutting edge” information is coming from a journalist who writes for Russia Today (RT), a Russian government subsidized “news” outlet. Or should it be labeled “fake news.” In reality, today, a political cancer has consumed Venezuela. Such a cancer is Communism born from Socialism. Venezuela used to be one of the most prosperous nations in South America. However, it was infected by Fidel Castro and the Communism of Cuba. In fact, the “Bolivarian Revolution” initiated by Hugo Chavez was fueled by the Communist government of Cuba. The “Bolivarian Diaspora,” recognized by numerous observers as the largest recorded refugee crisis in the Americas is reality. It is larger than the Cuban exodus as a direct result of Castro’s Communist Revolution. Even President Obama indirectly, or directly encouraged the disaster of the current events in Venezuela, but that was a different tactic. President Obama can be seen as either a useful idiot, a socialist sympathizer, or an outright communist-styled globalist modeled within the shadows of George Soros. In April of 2009, at the beginning of his presidency, he assured the world that he had “seen positive signs from both Cuba and Venezuela” during a four-day trip to Central America. The real question would be: signs of what? To a Socialist, the Communist Revolution in Cuba is wonderful. To a Socialist, Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela is wonderful. One interesting point about Obama in relation to this is that when he spoke to the Cuban people in March of 2016, during the U.S. elections, he called it a “measure of the progress of democracy” that a Democrat-Socialist was running in that campaign. The hard truth is that it is the common people who suffer in Socialist or Communist revolutions because it is they who are lured first by the lies of Socialism. Then they realize, if there is no real submission to the government, real Communist control kicks in. It has in Venezuela. Those poor people of that nation are experiencing a nightmare. Yet, another question that should be asked is whether the people of Venezuela are not worthy of help from their neighbors. Were the people of Vietnam unworthy of help from the only nation that decided to help people fight Communism? Were the people of Vietnam less worthy of assistance than the people of South Korea?

---

The willingness of the U.S. government to fight for freedom around the world is a blessing and a curse

One incredible irony is that the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing during the time that John Kennedy was trying to help the people of Vietnam. Were the people of Vietnam less worthy of true civil rights and genuine freedom than the disenfranchised black citizens of the Deep South? Is not the freedom of all mankind a worthy endeavor? The cause of freedom was what the bold American colonists were willing to die for during our War for Independence. The cause of freedom was the essential effort of the American Civil War, and those Union soldiers who died provided the U.S. with a “new birth of freedom,” according to Abraham Lincoln. And they did not die in vain. The willingness of the U.S. government to fight for freedom around the world is a blessing and a curse. But those who are fundamentally concerned with only taking care of the U.S. for the sake of the U.S. are ignoring the role the nation took upon itself at its inception. Granted, much has changed from that time to this, but once again America needs to pick up the mantle of freedom, and to renew the leadership to fight for freedom for the sake of the entire world. The cause of Freedom and Liberty for all has consistently been the prime cause for which the United States exists. God can no longer be tolerant of tyranny by any name under the sun. America made a genuine covenant in the Declaration of Independence to secure and ensure inalienable rights given by God for all the people of the planet. America will be continually challenged to fulfill it.