A (0:00)

Foreign. Welcome to Kibby at Liberty. Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. I want to do something a little bit different today. I don't have a fully prepared show and obviously I don't have a guest. I'm going to do this solo. But I wanted to get some things off my chest about the government's, the U.S. government's actions in Venezuela. It is just a couple days since Nicolas Maduro was militarily extracted from Caracas and brought back to the United States along with his wife. A number of people were killed in that military operation. The Trump administration, of course, is calling this a legal action and not a military action. I think that's a wild stretch, a rhetorical stretch that really doesn't bear much debate at all. It was a military action. It was not approved by Congress. And from my perspective, as sort of a lifelong libertarian, non interventionist, I'm both a realist and a non interventionist when it comes to foreign policy because I don't think we have the right to invade other countries who have not physically attack the United States. And I also think, practically speaking, it never works out very well. Military intervention, nation building, regime change, all of this is kind of a form of central planning. I've talked about this in the past. It's a way that our government, particularly the military industrial complex and the intelligence agencies, really believe that they could redesign some faraway culture from the top down and magically create freedom loving democracy. And it has never worked. So naturally I am skeptical of what happened in Venezuela. It's more complicated because myself and Free the people have been very involved in exposing the human crimes committed by Nicolas Maduro and the Maduro regime, an illegitimate regime by any measure, Hugo Chavez before him. And I want to get into some of this stuff and sort of give people my perspective. But I'll lead by saying I realize that my position is wildly unpopular with almost everybody because when we have a great victory like perp walking Nicolas Maduro, that socialist monster, extracting him and bringing him to justice, everybody gets excited. Everybody's like, america F. Yeah, this is how it should be. But that's like Groundhog Day for me because I go all the way back, probably earlier, but I vividly remember being a young policy analyst in Washington, D.C. during the Gulf War. I realize none of you are old enough to remember the Gulf War, but everything you need to know about the Gulf War is captured in the Bick Lebowski this aggression will not stand, man. Which is a direct quote from George H.W. bush when he rationalized U.S. involvement in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. And I was one of those pacifist libertarians that said, this is bad. This will turn out poorly. And I think in hindsight, as is always the case, I was right. And almost everybody in Washington, D.C. including a major libertarian publication that rejected my critique of the Gulf War, even though it had been commissioned, everybody was on board because it was great. We were going to make peace great again. So this has always been the case. It was true during the invasion of Afghanistan. I was one of the few voices, at least in Washington, D.C. but I think in America generally, that said, this is going to go badly. This is not our business. Even Afghanistan, but certainly regime change in Iraq. And of course, Libya, which more conservatives were on board criticizing regime change in Libya because it wasn't our guy doing it. Syria as well. I guess we're sort of on board with that one, simply because our guy ultimately made that happen. Being sarcastic, I was against that one. As Thomas Massie loves to say, I'm already against the next war. Now, this view gets trashed quite a bit as naive at best. And I want to dig through that and try to argue why it's neither naive nor impractical to be skeptical of endless war, even for the best of intentions. And I will accept, for purposes of this conversation, that the intentions of the Trump administration were the best. And maybe I have some evidence to the contrary to that as well. But here's what President Trump said right after the successful operation in Venezuela. Late last night and early today, at my direction, the United States armed forces conducted an extraordinary military operation, a spectacular assault. Notice those words, military operation and spectacular assault. These are contrary to everything that Marco Rubio and the Justice Department has been framing around this action ever since. So sometimes Trump has the. The virtue and perhaps the liability of the people that have to clean up after him for speaking the actual truth of what happened. It was a military operation. The quote goes on. The oil business in Venezuela has been a bust. We're going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country. So, according to the president, in his own words, this is about oil, and this is about American oil companies going in and getting that oil flowing again. He goes on to say, quote, we want peace, liberty, and justice for the great people of Venezuela. This partnership of Venezuela with the United States of America will make the people of Venezuela rich, independent, and safe. And then he just throws this in there. We are going to run the country. We, the United States are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition. Now, that statement seems fairly straightforward to me, and a lot of people are criticizing the likely suspects that agree with my position. Congressman Thomas Massie, Senator Rand Paul, Ron Paul has been very powerful on this. If you watch his show, Marjorie Taylor Greene, we'll get into some of those quotes in a second. But everybody is attacking anybody that's calling this a regime change, war or military action. And it so obviously is. Now, you can quibble with regime change. And this is a legitimate point that, you know, extracting Maduro. My friend Thor Halvorson makes this point. Extracting Maduro in no way changes anything about Venezuela, because there is the entire infrastructure, the goon squad and all of the generals and the military and the gangs and the vested interests and the people feeding off of the wealth of the Venezuelan people, the things that have kept Maduro in power for way too long, all of that still exists. And the Trump administration has said that it is the vice president, the socialist vice president. I forget her name at the moment, but she is in charge until there can be a new election. Well, I guess we're in charge, but she's in charge. I don't know how that works out. Well, she don't like us and she ain't legitimate. And she has already said, wait for it. The imperialist Americans, the gringos, are trying to mess with Venezuelan sovereignty yet again, A story that Hugo Chavez rode to power when he first transitioned Venezuela into what would become a socialist hellhole. So it's not at all clear exactly how that's all going to work. And that's the point. Doing the military action, as clean as it was and as quick as it was, is the beginning of a process that potentially has no end. Maybe magically we get to peace and freedom and democracy, peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela. As President Trump says, maybe that's what happens. And I for one, sure as hell hope that's what happens. But history suggests that it's messy at best. And all of our efforts to centrally plan the Venezuelan economy from outside, from the U.S. i guess we're going to send Marco Rubio down there and run the place. Maybe it'll stop starting wars here if we do that. I don't know. But maybe we're going to send Marco Rubio to run that country. As if he would know anything about the insanely complex social and political and corrupt infrastructure currently in place in Venezuela. Maybe he does. Color me skeptical. So I've been one of these lone voices and I'm sure a lot of you guys watching this agree with me. So we're sort of the part of the remnant who are going to blow the whistle on potential mistakes moving forward and criticize the fact that President Trump clearly didn't have the constitutional authority to do this. It doesn't matter that other presidents have not had the constitutional authority to do what they did. Every time we trample the constitutional prerogative of Congress to declare war, it just opens that window wider and wider. And I for one don't want to be part of that. But, you know, we're used to getting beat up. But there are some brave souls in the broader media sphere and in Congress that I want to talk about. I noticed I'm a big fan of Kat Timf, who's on Gutfeld. She's the resident libertarian. On Gutfeld, she's always been that way. She's always been a clear spokesperson for the non interventionist, skeptical of foreign nation building perspective. And she said on Gutfeld either that night or the next night, I don't know what the date is. I think this was probably on the 4th. Let me get this straight. We go to a country, we capture their leader, we bomb it, and then we say we run this country now. And that's not war? Well, of course it's war. The only reason I quote her is apparently she's getting the crap kicked out of her by the Fox News audience, which has been nurtured and fed and developed with an endless pro war narrative for as long as I can remember, but certainly since Tucker Carlson and before him, Glenn Beck left. It's all war, all the time. Every war is a good idea. America is always winning. Forget the cost, forget the unintended consequences. That's where they're at. So Kat Timpf went on Fox News on the most popular show on Fox News, I believe Gutfeld and argued with Greg about that. It was a good conversation. But apparently social media is just tearing her to shreds. We'll see how she does. Maybe with any luck, she might be liberated from Fox News so she can become the next Megyn Kelly, which is a perfect segue to the second quote. I shared a video from Megyn Kelly, who had been a Fox News anchor for I think 13 years. And she was sort of, she was talking on her show about what she would have known to say had she still been on Fox News because it would have been expected everyone to say Nicolas Maduro, bad US Military action's good, everything's great. Moving on. So cheerleading, as she said. And she came out and said she asked about her sons almost of military draft age, and she asked about the other sons and daughters of Americans, whether or not a regime change, war was in their interests. She says, quote, I've been burned too many times to mindlessly cheerlead regime chains in Venezuela. Not that taking out Nicolas Maduro's a bad thing. I wish the people of Venezuela would have done this a decade ago. There's a lot of reasons why that didn't happen. Not that he's a good guy, not that he should be in any way defended. Not that you couldn't even get some visceral joy watching him being perp walked out of there. But maybe, just maybe, think about what's going to happen now and whether or not American interests will be furthered, whether or not the safety and freedom and prosperity of the Venezuelan people will be furthered. I know we're not allowed to ask questions, but these are questions I'm going to ask. And of course, Thomas Massie, regular on this show, one of the very few Liberty first members of Congress, he gave this barn burner of a speech on the House floor. Probably quite lonely on the House floor on this subject right now. If the president believes military action against Venezuela is justified and needed, he need he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America. Let's be honest about likely outcomes. Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria? Previous presidents told us to go to war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Now it's the same playbook, except we're told drugs are the weapons of mass destruction. If it were about drugs, we'd bomb Mexico or China or Colombia and the president would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. This is about oil and regime change. And he goes on. And it's a great statement. I should add this because we'll get back to this today. This is Massie speaking again today. We're told to place our hopes in other exiled figures, Edmundo Gonzalez and Maria Corina Machado. I wish them well. I do. But Congress should not express moral sympathy in the form of a blank check for military escalation in American lives. So Rand Paul has made similar statements. He intends to to, if he has not already, to vote for a resolution demanding that the Trump administration get congressional approval for any war activities in Venezuela. I wish I'd say that everywhere, but apparently in Venezuela, the Democrats have suddenly rediscovered the Constitution, bless their hearts, and they're suddenly wanting to reassert their war powers simply because they don't like President Trump. But good for them that those roles will be reversed the next time we have a Democrat in the White House, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has come out, she's now a former member of Congress, but she had been speaking up quite vociferously about regime change and foreign intervention and why all of this was sort of anti maga, anti America first, and undermines the priorities of the coalition that got President Trump elected. She says that the operation in Venezuela is part of the same Washington playbook involving regime change that Americans are sick and tired of, that it primarily serves big corporations, big banks and oil executives rather than US Interests. I want to get back to that part as well. What is the role of the financial sector, the banks, oil companies, hedge funds, all of these people that appear to have their fingers in the pie when it comes to rebuilding a brave new Venezuela. But before I go on, I want to mention, and I mentioned this at the beginning of this, but if you go to freethepeople.org and type in the search engine Venezuela, you will see just how much work we have done over the last nine, 10 years. I think it's been some of the very first video content we did was criticizing the and Chavez takeover of Venezuela, the imposition of more and more extreme socialist policies, the violent takeover of Nicolas Maduro in the wake of Hugo Chavez's death, and the insanely violent human rights violating, starvation inducing, complete lack of rule of law regime that is the Nicolas Maduro regime. We have documented all of this thinking. Specifically, one of our most popular deadly isms was about the rise of Hugo Chavez and the economic devastation and cultural devastation that it created. Maduro had a Marxist professor from Spain, of course, who was his economic adviser. I don't know if he still is. I suspect he's been dealt with because he was a disaster. But at the time, Nicolas Maduro called him the Jesus of Economics. And the Jesus of Economics was the guy that decided that all of those starving moms crossing over that bridge to get to Colombia to buy groceries, that it was better for the socialist experiment to block that bridge so that moms couldn't get food. Because his theory as a good Marxist was not that the socialist system was failing the people, not that they couldn't create food, not that they couldn't take care of themselves, but that the capitalist corruption of Markets and prices and goods, somehow was destroying that brave socialist experiment. So in that most virtuous of socialist policies, they stopped moms from feeding their kids. It got so bad. There was a feature article in the New York Times that really, really touched me deeply at the time. It got so bad that the Venezuelans who had so prospered under the oil wealth in the pre Maduro years. I'm sorry, in the pre Chavez years, the early years of Chavez, when the economy was booming and the oil was flowing, there was a boom in pet ownership in Venezuela. So most Venezuelan families had a pet dog. Well, by the time Nicolas Maduro's policies kicked in, they had to debate whether or not they disappeared. The dog, the family dog, part of the family, or fed their kids with that dog. That's how bad it got. So don't misunderstand anything I'm saying as suggesting anything other than Nicolas Maduro is a monster. He's got blood on his hands, extrajudicial killings, he jails his political prisoners, and much like Mao and the Great Leap Forward, he just starved a lot of his people. That's why there's so much exodus, there's so much refugees and immigrants, illegal and otherwise, pushing on our southern border. Because you can't live in Venezuela today, not if you have a brain in your head, not if you love your kids. So that leads us up to this, and we should talk about Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado. You've probably never heard this name. You might remember that there was a dispute about whether or not President Trump deserved the Nobel Prize over her. But she has been the opposition leader leader against the Maduro regime, and her party effectively won the last election, which by all accounts, by all monitoring groups, human rights groups, was stolen from her proxy candidate. The guy I mentioned earlier, Edmundo Gonzalez, the only reason he was running is that the Maduro regime prohibited her. They, they used the courts to disqualify her for running for office. She would have won. By all accounts, Gonzalez won, but the Maduro regime just kept power. So you have this potential of a leader that is legitimate, that has the support of the people. And I know of her. I don't think I've ever met her, but I know of her because she has been involved with a group that I think a lot of called the Atlas Network. So by all accounts, she is pro market, pro freedom, pro civil liberties, and potentially quite an important upgrade. Now when it getsit gets interesting, because President Trump, oddly, has said about her in the last couple days, I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn't have the support within or the respect within or the respect within the country. She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect. Well, I wonder how he knows that, and I wonder who's feeding him that line. There's also been several articles in, of course, the Deep State's favorite newspapers of record, the New York Times, reiterating that the experts in our government determined that she was not ready to government, that she didn't have a strong transition plan, yada, yada, yada. And there was even an article in today's Washington Post, I believe, that suggested that Trump would never give her the job. As if it's President Trump's right or job or power to choose the next leader of Venezuela. But he wouldn't give her the job because she didn't politely decline the Nobel Prize so that he could win it. I think that's just trash talk that showed up in the Washington Post. I have no idea who leaked that. It's probably the neoconservatives, the very same guys like Lindsey Graham that, that are now apparently Trump's best friends when it comes to foreign policy. But she would be, as far as we know, and keep in mind, I don't know anything. You probably know less than anything about what a proper transition would look like in Venezuela. But there is anyone with legitimacy who could actually seek out the kinds of reforms that would make Venezuela not a socialist hellhole, actually friendly to production of its vast natural resources, particularly oil. It'd probably be hurt, but for some reason, the Deep State operatives driving the leaking machine and trying to create a narrative are saying that she's not the one is the Marxist vice president who's currently illegitimately in power, the one. I don't know, maybe. Maybe they think they can buy her. Maybe they think of her more as an asset that can be controlled. And that gets into a whole history there that I want to get into in a minute. And this will be the first time ever that I have favorably quoted George H.W. bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell. If some of you, if you're old enough, you might remember that he was one of the lone voices in the Bush administration pushing back against regime change in Iraq, which ultimately had to happen under his son's presidency, not his. And Colin Powell argued, you break it, you own it. So we have probably broken Venezuela. So that means that it's going to be on the United States now to make sure that this turns out Better otherwise. It may well be that the Venezuelan people, who by most accounts forget those fake videos on X, but by most accounts, a lot of Venezuelans are very happy right now because Maduro was a monster and they paid that price more than any of us can even imagine. So there's a lot of happiness right now. But happiness doesn't feed your family. Happiness doesn't solve the insane destruction that has been caused by this 20 plus year experiment in socialism in Venezuela that's made it such a poor country. You break it, you own it. We're going to talk more about the various components of how we got here and where we're going to end up with my friend Thor Halvorson, who runs the Human Rights Foundation. And Thor is a Venezuelan refugee. I call him a refugee more than an expat because he cannot go back to Venezuela. He would be murdered by the Maduro regime in a heartbeat. He has a lot to say about all of this. And he, like many of my Latin American liberty friends, actually think that Trump did the right thing. And they couldn't be more joyful that Nicolas Maduro is in a jail cell right now. I get that emotionally, I totally get that. But he's going to talk to me about all of the competing interests at play as to who takes over. And is a takeover by better forces, by more legitimate forces even possible in Venezuela is good reason to believe that. We got a long way to go. This gets to a point I'm looking for someone else. I think I've identified some people who can speak with authority about the CIA's history of meddling in Venezuela, Latin America generally, and not just the CIA, the usaid, the infamous usaid, all of these other military and intelligence operations that have been monkeying with regime change subversively for at least since the 1940s and surely before that as well. And it's important to know that there's a long history of the United States either explicitly or secretly backing some really bad authoritarian regimes. I mean, typically it'd be characterized as sort of a right wing authoritarian against a left wing Marxist authoritarian. And we've done a lot of that over the years and we prefer puppets. This has never been about democracy. It's never been about freedom. It's about money and power and control. And keep that in mind as we think about these things, that how you unwind all this and how you would get to a legitimate Venezuelan outcome is pushing against the grain of everything we know about everything. And you've heard me talk about this a million times. When you think about any public policy intervention, maybe it's about ending poverty, maybe it's about making health care more affordable, maybe it's about making Venezuela more democratic and more free. Whatever the stated goal is in that policy, you have to think about two things. It's very simple, but very profound. You have to think about in some incentives, meaning the web of financial interests, who wins, who loses, who might profit, who might suffer. Anytime you make a public policy change. And if you're going to trade out the Maduro regime for a democratically elected pro market president with the popular support of the people, you're talking about fundamental disruption of everything. Not just the drug cartels, the oil industry and people that hold the sovereign debt, the players that made very risky bets on Venezuelan sovereign debt in hopes that somebody like the United States would bail them out. That's the game they play. And they have a very strong interest in all, all of this. But this argument that somehow Venezuelan oil was stolen from us. Ron Paul made this argument quite succinctly. And clearly, if US Corporations want to go into these countries, and they do, they go in all the time. If there's oil, if there's money and wealth and profits to be extracted, they will go into almost any country, try to work with that government, that regime, that economic system, and sort of do the economic calculus and figure out, well, how risky is it going to be? What are the chances that some tin pot dictator steals my stuff? Well, they run those numbers, they make those risks, and then they immediately invest more in politics, particularly in the politics of foreign policy, in hopes that they can socialize the risk and privatize the profits. It's crony capitalism. It's the incredibly corrupt relationship between big government and big business. We talk about it a lot on this show that really drives foreign policy as well. And a fun fact I learned today is that in the 1970s, specifically 1996, President Carlos Andres Perez nationalized Venezuela's oil industry in the 1970s. And keep in mind that this president was one of our guys. This was a US sanctioned president who proceeded to impose this nationalization of the industry and turned Exxon Mobil and Shell into something called Petroleos de Venezuela, a national energy company. And apparently we signed off on this and these oil companies cut a deal that they thought was fair compensation for the book value of their companies at the time. There's that later on, Hugo Chavez, a lot of American companies had gone back in, particularly Exxon Mobil had gone back in to do production deals with the Chavez regime. The socialist Chavez regime. And he eventually changed the terms of those agreements. They bailed, they refused the terms of those agreements, and in the process lost their infrastructure. But you could argue that the infrastructure was built primarily by American companies, the ways of extracting oil from the ground. But as Thomas Massie points out, it's not American oil, Venezuelan oil. It's literally in Venezuelan ground. So you can't say that it's American oil. You can say that the socialist regime, not the Maduro regime, by the way, the Chavez regime, and before that, the Peres presidency. I don't know what kind of guy he was, but let's say he was a legitimate president. I don't know. That ship passed long time ago. We've never done anything about it. And no doubt we'll go back in when the opportunity arises and do all that. I want to find an expert that can get into this, and I've groked it quite a bit, and there's a lot of interesting data here, but there's a lot of evidence that the CIA and other military elements of the American military industrial complex were instrumental, inadvertently instrumental, in creating the narrative that got Hugo Chavez elected, or I should say reelected, because he was temporarily ousted from a military couple. But then he ran as a Democrat and by all accounts won that election legitimately. And get this, he ran against American imperialism. And every Venezuelan knew that it was true because the Americans had been in there putting in puppet leaders that they hoped would be kinder and more cooperative and make better deals for American interests, all the while creating this narrative that capitalism is bad, that American cooperation is bad, that we simply can't be trusted. And this is where Hugo Chavez got a great deal of his grassroots power. And he didn't start off as a radical socialist. He was in his heart, but he didn't really run that way. He ran against American intervention in the Venezuelan economy and with some legitimacy. So think about how we move forward, and I'll wrap up here, because I want to bring in some people that really know what they're talking about to kind of document this. But think about the interests that are actually driving American foreign policy in Venezuela. Is it about liberty and prosperity for the people of Venezuela? I'm sorry, I don't believe that. I think it's real politic. I think there's interests, and one of those interests was pointed out by Thomas Massie. Go down this rabbit hole, this process of stealing American oil infrastructure in Venezuela under, at some point, this nationalized oil industry, before Chavez, I believe, acquired Citgo as American production facilities to somehow process and distribute Venezuelan oil. Somewhere along the way, US Courts seized Citgo assets in the US and it was put up for auction. And I'm probably butchering this story, but that's generally what happened. And this guy named Paul Singer, who loves to do distressed asset acquisition, that's his whole model and he's a multi billionaire. He got Citgo for not pennies on a dollar, but for less than half of the money market value of what Citgo was valued at. And if in fact the Trump policy is successful, he stands to double his money, maybe make about $13 billion on this very risky, highly speculative play that he made to acquire Citgo, because it could end up being worth nothing. Should the wrong people be in charge of Venezuela? Should the wrong policies be implemented in Venezuela? Should we not have the kind of cooperation that would let American corporations maybe run roughshod over the interests of the Venezuelan people? You know, however that plays out. Well, it so happens some of you might recognize this name. Paul Singer is the guy that has put over a million dollars in the super PAC to take out non interventionist, principled, non interventionist Thomas Massie in his Republican primary in Kentucky, by far the biggest donor. Everyone talks about Miriam Adelson, but it's really Paul Singer. That's the guy that's pumping that money into that system. Well, is he interested in freedom and democracy? No, he's interested in making as much money as he can on this risky bet that he made. So you'll hear a lot in the coming days about oil companies, about bondholders, about. About banks that have various interests in how it turns out in Venezuela. That's what the fight is about. And I think that's where all the trash talking of Maria, I got to memorize her name, Maria Corina Machado. Where the trash talking about her is that she's not a reliable asset. She's someone that actually believes something. She's actually someone with apparently some legitimacy amongst the Venezuelan people. Well, she might not play ball. She might not produce the outcomes we need. And that's what we have to watch moving forward. If you actually want the right thing to happen in Venezuela for the Venezuelan people, if you actually believe that socialism should be replaced with markets and that freedom and democracy should replace the violent gangs that keep Maduro in power. It can't just be about money and special interests. One of the reasons why regime change always fails. Remember what I said? Incentives and knowledge. You have to have the right incentives. If your incentive is to Maximize profits so that fat cats and oil companies make out. Well, that may not bethat might be the opposite of leading to freedom in Venezuela. You might get Hugo Chavez on steroids instead of Maria Corina Machado. It's a great name too, and I really don't even know that much about her. It just seems to me that the trash talking of her by these unnamed Trump administration officials and other intelligence officials means that they'd rather deal with the devil than see real reform in that country. So final thought. Paul Singer really stands to profit many billions should we get the right policies in post Maduro, Venezuela, he has put a million dollars in a super PAC to take out Thomas Massie, one of the only members remaining members of the House, who is critical principally of regime change wars, including in Venezuela. And to put the cherry on top of that. Sunday, you can check it out. Can't remember the guy's name. Thomas Massie's primary opponent out of the gate criticizing Thomas Massie for criticizing President Trump on Venezuela and full throated endorsement of regime change in Venezuela. I'm sure it's a coincidence. I'm sure that there's not a bunch of powerful interests at play that will undermine this regime change war just the same way it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria. But these are the kinds of things we should think about now. I probably won't spend much more time talking about the constitutionality of congressional war powers. I think we all probably agree on that subject. But it's also not that important in the sense that Trump has done what he's done. And I guess it's important in the sense that we should push back in hopes that he doesn't do it in all these other countries he's now listing off. But the more important question is now that we have broken Venezuela, we own it. And if you don't want another 20 year military engagement, thousands of Americans lives at stake, trillions of dollars of American treasure at stake, we should at least call out truth to power and ensure that we're not looking for a puppet Marxist who with enough payola might pretend that she's doing the things that we want to do. We want a legitimate leader and a light hand that doesn't involve central planning, it doesn't involve feathering our own nest. It just means getting out of the way in hopes that freedom can take hold in that country. I realize that sounds wildly naive and if you want to clip this in a couple weeks and prove to me what an idiot I am, but that to me is a path forward. As I've said several times, I'm going to find people of various perspectives with a lot more knowledge about Venezuela and foreign policy and the history of the CIA to hopefully fill in these gaps. And here's hoping that this is the last regime change war we have to talk about until we get to the bottom of this one. Thank you. Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about Free the people, go to freethepeople.org.