It seems militarism and violence are genetic based off of the most recent statements from Nicolas Maduro Guerra, son of Venezuelan “President” Nicolas Maduro.
According to Politico, Maduro Guerra “threatened to ‘take the White House’ with guns”:
[I]f President Donald Trump followed through with a military intervention in the country, a possibility he said he would not rule out on Friday.
“If the U.S. soils the homeland, the rifles would come to New York and take the White House,” Maduro Guerra said according to reports from Venezuelan media…
Nicolas Madura Guerra’s comments were in response to President Trump calling a military intervention in Venezuela an “option.”
The Week reported on President Trump’s statements. He told the press:
“We have many options for” dealing with the ongoing political unrest in Venezuela, President Trump said Friday. “I am not going to rule out a military option,” he added, noting the United States has “troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away” and “Venezuela is not very far away.”
The Pentagon has not yet received orders, according to the Department of Defense.
Venezuela has been in crisis since “a wave of anti-government protests and dozens of people have been killed in protest-related violence since April.”
Why is Venezuela so divided? According to BBC News:
Venezuela is split into Chavistas, the name given to the followers of the socialist policies of the late President Hugo Chavez, and those who cannot wait to see an end to the 18 years in power of his United Socialist Party (PSUV).
After the socialist leader died in 2013, Nicolas Maduro, also of the PSUV, was elected president on a promise to continue Mr Chavez’s policies.
Chavistas praise the two men for using Venezuela’s oil riches to markedly reduce inequality and for lifting many Venezuelans out of poverty.
But the opposition says that since the PSUV came to power in 1999, the socialist party has eroded Venezuela’s democratic institutions and mismanaged its economy.
Chavistas in turn accuse the opposition of being elitist and of exploiting poor Venezuelans to increase their own riches.
They also allege that opposition leaders are in the pay of the United States, a country with which Venezuela has had fraught relations in recent years.
Couple this with Maduro’s fledgeling popularity (he isn’t as charismatic as his predecessor) and falling oil prices (which comprise the majority of Venezuelan wealth) and that forces “the government to curtail its social programmes,leading to an erosion of support among its core backers.”
And, as opposition grows, the Maduro government becomes more uncomfortable and silences protestors.
These protestors, many of whom have been jailed and killed, are demanding general elections in 2017 and a release of all political prisoners.
I find it very interesting that liberals constantly critique President Trump’s “America first” strategy–suggesting its selfish center and neglect for humanitarian crises around the world.
Yet, when terror, blood, and oppression ravage the streets in Venezuela and Trump responds, those same liberals roll their eyes, call Trump a war mongerer, and add this to his list of ‘many liberal sins’.