The Obama administration recently called Venezuela an "Extraordinary Threat" and it may be but not for the reasons given by the administration. The reason Venezuela has been a threat to the U.S. is that ever since Hugo Chavez was elected he made it a top priority of his government to offer Central and South America as well as Caribbean countries (mainly Cuba) an alternative to the hegemonic North, mostly the U.S.

Without the exploitation (some would call it raping) of the South the North could never have become so affluent. U.S. corporations have made billions at the expense of Latin countries and in the process have decimated lands of Indigenous People throughout the continent, many times fighting law suits intended to make those companies pay for cleaning up their mess.

Chavez used his country's oil wealth to help establish alternative financing to the World Bank and I.M.F. The thought that Latin America could become independent of U.S. influence deeply troubled the powers in the U.S. government and in corporate offices throughout the United States.

And as far as the Obama administration being concerned about human rights abuses in Venezuela it should be but the abuses have been of the wealthy Venezuelans not getting wealthier. I find it extremely hypocritical of the U.S. to worry about human rights abuses in one country when it is not at all concerned about abuses in countries that we need as allies, such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel and many more.

President Maduro of Venezuela accused the United States of meddling in its affairs and trying to promote regime change as it has done in countless countries around the world going back many years. He is absolutely correct to worry about that issue if you only look back to 2002 when the U.S. backed a very short lived coup against Chavez.

At a recent press briefing State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki outright lied when she was questioned by reporter Matt Lee about the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries. She said "As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support political transitions by non constitutional means." Mr. Lee then asked what her definition of "long standing" was and she of course evaded the question.

Here are only the well known and well documented interferences that Ms. Psaki did not refer to:

1953 U.S. and Britain foment and successfully cause a coup that deposes democratically elected President Mossaddeq of Iran and installs the puppet Shah.

1954 U.S. backed military again supports a coup that unseats President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala.

1973 U.S. supports the Chilean military which not only deposes democratically elected President Salvador Allende but kills him in the process and installs dictator Pinochet.

2002 Supports a coup against Chavez which is over in a matter of hours because of the huge outpouring of support by a majority of the Venezuelan people.

2004 United States illegally kidnaps President Aristide of Haiti and flies him to South Africa where he remains for several years.

2007 A failed coup supported again by the U.S. against the Laotian government.

2011 Did not engage in the coup against Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives, but recognized the illegal replacement government because corporate America was threatened by President Nasheed's extreme stance on Climate Change.

This list does not even include the many, many, many attempts to not only remove Fidel Castro but to assassinate him.

And shall we talk about Iraq? What was that all about? And Vietnam as well. I would call those two disastrous wars extreme interference.

Our worldwide hypocrisy is staggering when you think that no matter how despotic a leader is if he is an asset to the United States and United States business we willingly turn a blind eye when it comes to human rights but if a country seeks independence from the U.S. and god forbid facilitates other countries to do the same, we then vilify the leaders of those countries and usually cry human rights abuses.

Fortunately in this age of instant communication the U.S. cannot get away with as much skulduggery as it has in the past. There is a saying in many countries that the only reason there has never been a coup in America is that there is no American embassy here.