Doesn’t Stephen Miller’s Might Makes Right Invite Encourage Violent Countermeasures?

Doesn’t Stephen Miller’s Might Makes Right statement Invite/Encourage Violent Countermeasures?

“The oil is ours!” What is the obvious impact of heralding US bully tactics as our “Donroe” Doctrine right?

“Let me, if you give me the floor for 30 seconds, let me tell you what we are doing here, Jake. The United States, this is sort of foundational, the United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower… It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us, to hoard weapons from our adversaries, to be able to be positioned as an asset against the United States, rather than on behalf of the United States. Sovereign countries should be able to do what they want to do. The Monroe Doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine and the Trump Doctrine is all about securing the national interests of America.” Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN, January 5th.

"[The Democrats] had the worst president, did the worst job. They have the worst policy… We have to even run against these people… I won't say cancel the election; they should cancel the election… Because the fake news will say, 'He wants the elections canceled. He's a dictator.'… There's gonna be a constitutional movement." 

 Donald Trump addressing congressional Republicans gathered at the Kennedy Center, December 6th

Even as the Secretary General of the UN, and the ambassadors of many nations attending UN meetings are challenging the US arrest and capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the Trump administration was engaged in global saber-rattling against Iran, Cuba, Greenland and any other nation that might choose to defy us. The official Chinese line was to decry the military “kidnapping,” but their local press was laughing it up: that unilateral US assault literally, reflecting Trump’s historically dyslexic effort to reshape the world in accordance with 18th and 19th century spheres of influence, clearly gave China a greenlight to take Taiwan.

Putin muttered about the illegal nab of a foreign head of state, preceded by a US statement that the US would help itself to the major assets of that nation… but clearly he was overjoyed that Trump seem to follow, and hence legitimize, Russia’s war to annex Ukraine… and even happier that Trump was effectively threatening a NATO founder, Denmark, over the US’ possibly taking over Denmark’s territory, Greenland, in the name of US security and his Donroe doctrine. While I personally feel that this headline-grabber is more of a distraction – Cuba is a more likely “next” target (which has been a priority for Cuban Americans for 65 years… and Marco Rubio had held that belief for his entire political life) – Trump’s cabinet seems to enjoy watching foreign leaders squirm at Trump’s global aspirations.

There is no way in heaven or hell that US oil companies are going to dance into repairing the severely decimated and dilapidated Venezuelan oil fields, refineries and transportation facilities. Venezuelan oil is thick, heavy and dirty, in need of multistep refining to give it value. It will take at least a decade to restore production even close to levels of two decades ago… plus tens of billions of dollars and a recruitment of all those discharged experts, long gone. All this in a country that is unstable with a terrible track record in the oil industry. But if the oil companies won’t take that risk… Trump is already hinting that the US government will backstop those investments in some manner (listen, taxpayers!).

In the meantime, the Trump administration has sidestepped the legality of his capture of a head of state under a criminal indictment for drug trafficking. And indeed, corrupt Maduro gives even scum a bad name. But even if this ruse holds firm, is there a US or international legal basis for taking over another country, against its will, assuming control of its administration, and declaring its most valuable resources to be the property of the invading nation? There’s no question that those aspects of US policy violate several provisions of international law, even defying the UN Charter itself. The Trump gas light team, under chief gas lighter AG Pam Bondi, has couched this entire affair as mere criminal enforcement. Good luck with that lie.

But Trump’s overuse of the word “war,” and his dedication to regime change (actually, so far, just leadership change), assuming the right to “run’ the country and take ownership and control of all Venezuelan oil seems to rise a tad above that legal justification. If this is not a war – “we’re not at war with Venezuela” – even though it sure has most of the hallmarks of a war, then is it the kind of military action that may not require Congress to exercise its exclusive constitutional war power… but may still run afoul of a post-Vietnam statute:

“The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's ‘statutory authorization’, or in case of ‘a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces’…

“The bill had bipartisan support and was co-sponsored by a number of U.S. military veterans. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.” Wikipedia. Trump said he didn’t think he needed to do that because it was executing an arrest warrant… and besides, he did not want to risk leaks of the attack from members of Congress. It’s clear that Trump violated that statute.

Despite his touting a most successful presidency, an effective GOP-dominated Congress, he railed at the traditional trend of the party of a winning president traditionally losing the immediately following midterms. As the above quote suggests, as his effort to gerrymander a midterm victory prove, Trump believes his policies have been so successful, these elections are unnecessary and counterproductive. In any full and fair election, as his dropping approval poll numbers suggest (tied very much to the fate of the GOP), Trump will be lame duck president under every definition of that term… he does not like it… and seems to be willing to do anything to “guarantee the results” if he cannot stop the election.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if the Epstein scandal and his adventurism into foreign conflicts to date are not enough, affordability is no longer an issue and immigration cruelty is now OK, maybe Trump de facto invasion of Venezuela will piss off enough Americans, even his MAGA base, to shove him out of power!