The South Vietnam flag symbolizes where we came from and our fight for a free society.

 

1. The Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom flag has a long historical and cultural significance to the Vietnamese people tracing back to at least 1890.
2. The Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom flag is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the members of the Vietnamese communities as an inseparable symbol of identity, liberty, pride and unity.
3. The Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom flag has been recognized as the symbol of the Vietnamese communities across our nation in 20 states, 7 counties and 85 cities.
4.   Showing respect to the South Vietnam flag also means that we honor and recognize the contributions and sacrifices of the thousands of Veterans of Vietnam War for our nation.

What would Americans do if an anti-democratic force conquered Washington, D.C., and forced us to renounce Old Glory? Think about it. Our identity as a nation is so defined by the Stars and Stripes, we’d probably fight until the end for our right to pledge allegiance to a flag that represents freedom and democracy.

Vietnamese people in the United States don’t have to imagine what it’s like to lose their country and its symbol of independence.


 Just as the Jewish people will never forget the Holocaust and Japanese Americans know the pain of being sent off to concentration camps during World War II, Vietnamese Americans have a responsibility to preserve our legacy as survivors of a war that claimed more than 1 million civilians. In the fight for South Vietnam and its flag, some 58,000 American service members also died along with more than 200,000 South Vietnamese soldiers.

 

 IF YOU LOVE VIETNAM AND THE VIETNAMESE, PLEASE FIND TIME TO LEARN ABOUT OUR HISTORY FROM HONEST FRIENDS AND VOICES

- Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 1 of 6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9yg9uv0SXU

- Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 2 of 6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N2m3yJ4HZ0

- Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 3 of 6 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpRVnv663MI

    - Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 4 of 6 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xMCRr6wQ5M

  - Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 5 of 6 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKhMFviUCLU

  - Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 6a of 6 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBdh19BalQk

  - Prof. Stephen Young , A History Of Vietnam Lecture Series Part 6b of 6 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_19wOql184E

Ambassador Ted Osius: " Please don't let me stand near your yellow and three red stripes flag, I"ll loose my job ! "

 
Mr. Osisus is afraid that the communist Vietnam will "disqualify" him .  so sad... ! Ted does not speak Vietnamese well, but he can understand Vietnamese perfectly. With this Youtube, many Vietnamese hope that Ted will watch it to see how they think about him.

From real clip that can be viewed on youtube, the picture above is one of the latest crimes of the Vietnamese communist. It  shows the scene of a Vietnamese women was crushed after trying to push away a ground utility vehicle by a state run construction company from leveling down her farm land. 
It had happened about two weeks before the day "human rights activist" Ted Osius made his comment about the Vietnam Flag in Orange County in July, 2015 . And, also, about one week before Mr. Obama greeted the leader of communist Vietnam party in his White House's Oval Office .  How could you ? How could you Mr. Obama and Mr. Osius ignored these crimes ??? How could you ?.......... 

How Hanoi Buys Influence in Washington, D.C.

posted by Greg Rushford
on August 4, 2015

 U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrives in Hanoi this Thursday for a two-day visit. Expect much talk of how the United States and Vietnam have been developing closer security and economic ties — and how Vietnam’s praiseworthy “progress” in improving its human-rights record is making this possible. Hopefully, Vietnam’s feared Ministry of Public Security will be on better behavior this week than back in May. Then, Kerry’s top human-rights advisor, Tom Malinowski, held what he characterized as “productive” meetings in Hanoi with senior Vietnamese officials. On May 11, two days after Malinowski’s visit, thugs wielding metal pipes bloodied a courageous Vietnamese political dissident named Anh Chi. Malinowski deplored the incident, while still insisting that Vietnam has been making commendable “progress” on human rights.
Kerry’s Aug. 6-8 trip comes on the heels of a successful visit to Washington last month by Nguyen Phu Trong, the general secretary of the Communist Party. Trong had a “productive” meeting with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on July 7, after which the two leaders issued a joint “vision” statement that said each country recognized the importance of protecting human rights. The next day, Trong made a major speech at an influential U.S. think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (better known by its acronym, CSIS). “Protecting and promoting human rights is the main objective of our development,” Trong declared. “We want to ensure, promote and protect the rights of all people in Vietnam.”
Well, maybe not all. Once again, a familiar pattern emerged: Shortly before Trong’s speech before a CSIS audience of mainly well-connected Washington insiders, there was another ugly incident behind the scenes. The incident illustrates what’s really going on when American and Vietnamese officials praise Vietnam’s “demonstrable” human-rights progress. Moreover, the CSIS embarrassment offers a glimpse into how the Communist Party has been quietly buying influence to advance its foreign policy agenda in Washington — a sophisticated lobby campaign that appears to be working. Hanoi, it appears, has learned that in Washington, money talks.
But that’s getting ahead of this story, which begins with Trong’s July 8 historic speech — the first-ever such appearance for a senior Communist Party leader — at CSIS’ gleaming modern headquarters a few blocks from the White House. As the secretary general was preparing to speak about his deep interest in protecting human rights, Vietnamese security officials were quietly demonstrating otherwise, even on American soil. It seems that Hanoi’s intelligence operatives had a file on one of the invited CSIS guests — like Anh Chi, another enemy of the state.
Persona Non Grata
When Dr. Binh T. Nguyen, a prominent Vietnamese-born physician (and an American citizen) showed up to hear the secretary general’s speech, she was informed that she was persona non grata.
Binh, an invited guest, cleared CSIS security at the entrance, as she had on several previous occasions. But when she went upstairs to join the audience, a CSIS senior fellow was waiting. Murray Hiebert, accompanied by a CSIS security guard, insisted that Binh leave the premises. An obviously uncomfortable Hiebert explained that he was so sorry, but the communist security operatives simply would not permit Binh to hear Trong’s speech. The apologetic Hiebert told Dr. Binh that he had tried his best to reason with the Vietnamese security officials, but to no avail. They were not interested in negotiating, and were adamant that Binh would not be allowed to hear Trong’s speech, Hiebert related.
Hiebert apologized sincerely to Binh, admitting that it was wrong for CSIS to have given into the pressure. Ejecting her had ruined the event for him, Hiebert told the doctor. I spoke with Binh twice, for nearly an hour, going over the facts carefully, in great detail. Subsequently I was able to substantiate that the doctor’s account was the same as how Hiebert explained the incident to one of his colleagues at CSIS, Benjamin Contreras, the program director for CSIS’ Southeast Studies section.
Dr. Binh told me that Hiebert was characteristically polite. Still, it was intimidating that he had a guard with him to make sure she left the premises, the doctor added. Binh said she does not seek publicity, and looked forward to being invited to future CSIS events. She asked not to be quoted directly in this article.
The Canadian-born Hiebert, 66, is a soft-spoken former journalist with the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Wall Street Journal. He is perhaps the last person one would expect would get caught up in a dubious human-rights episode. In 1999, Hiebert, then the Review’s Kuala Lumpur bureau chief, was jailed for writing an article that raised disturbing questions about the integrity of Malaysian courts. Even though his report was accurate, Hiebert was convicted of “scandalizing” the judiciary, and spent a month in a Malaysian jail.
At CSIS, Hiebert has spoken out against human rights practices in Thailand and Malaysia. Hiebert notes that he approved several recent blogs written for CSIS by respected Vietnam watchers that have been critical of Vietnamese human-rights practices, including curbs on the media. But at the same time, Hiebert seems to have become careful not to cause too much offense to authorities in Hanoi. He co-authored a 2014 study, for example, that treated Vietnam’s human-rights practices rather gently, while not being entirely forthcoming about the fact that the Vietnamese government had paid for it (more on that later in this article).
CSIS Gives Its Side of the Story
Hiebert declined to be interviewed, but he did answer some (but far from all) questions that were submitted in writing — until a CSIS public-relations spokesman sent me an e-mail saying that he had advised Hiebert to cut off the communications.
Hiebert’s written responses did not directly dispute Dr. Binh’s account about what happened. But he attempted to minimize the incident, not mentioning the main human-rights point: how he had been pressured by the Vietnamese security officials to escort Binh from the building, and that did so, knowing that it was wrong for CSIS to give into such pressure.
The CSIS spokesman, H. Andrew Schwartz, first claimed that “Murray’s side of the story is quite different from what you have recounted.” But Schwartz had no further response after being informed that Dr. Binh’s account was, word-for-word, the same as Hiebert had related to his CSIS colleague, Benjamin Contreras. (Schwartz was formerly a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known for its hard-nosed dealings with inquiring reporters. Before that, Schwartz was a producer for Fox News.)
While acknowledging that Dr. Binh had indeed been an invited guest, Hiebert seemed to brush off the incident as a sort-of bureaucratic snafu. “No one makes decisions about who attends events at CSIS but CSIS,” Hiebert wrote. “Dr. Binh was not on the initial RSVP list…CSIS made a mistake by allowing her to RSVP late to the event when the registration process had already been closed.” But Binh should have been allowed to attend, Hiebert agreed.