American Empire

[00:00:00] Foreign. [00:00:10] The capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro represents a new phase in Trump's aggressive foreign policy. [00:00:18] Is he building an American empire? And should Catholics support him in this effort if he is? [00:00:24] Hello, Eric Sammons, your host, editor chief of Crisis magazine. And that's our topic for today. Before we get into it, though, a couple housekeeping notes. First is Happy Feast of the Epiphany. This is one of my favorite feast days of the year, January 6th, and I've always enjoyed it. It just the fact that it contemplates three different mysteries. The visit of the Magi to the the Infant Jesus, the baptism of our Lord, and the wedding at Cana. All three are wonderful mysteries. And so the church decided to put all three into one, which is great. Obviously the Three Kings is probably the, the main focus of today, but the others are also part of the liturgical celebration of this day. [00:01:05] Second thing I want to bring up is that thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for responding to our fundraising campaign that we did at the end of the year. Last month in December, we were hoping to raise $100,000 and we raised $110,000. At least that's my last check. I think there might be a few checks coming in or something like essentially we, we beat our goal, you beat our goal. And so I really do appreciate that. I'm not going to bug you about fundraising again until probably around May, so we can keep the lights on, we can keep doing what we're doing here. And I really do appreciate everybody who donated. I get emails during every fundraiser campaign from people who are like, I don't have much money, I can't really give. And I'm always like, just pray for us. That would be great. We really do appreciate that. And people who do give, even though they don't have a lot of money. And we appreciate that of course, as well. [00:01:52] Another thing I want to bring up is two days ago is my five year anniversary as editor of editor in Chief of Crisis magazine. It was on January 4, 2021, that I started here. And so I don't know how many podcast episodes I've done. I started them a month later, like in February of 2021. I do about 80 to 90 a year. I always want to hit a hundred some year because I do about two a week, but I don't do every two every week. [00:02:17] So I would like to hit a hundred some year, but I don't. So in five years I've probably done maybe 400 something episodes. And so thank you all for watching. [00:02:26] Also, this is our Tuesday afternoon live version of the podcast. So if you're in the live chat, please make your comments, questions and like that, and we'll address some of them at the end of the program. [00:02:38] Okay, so let's get into it, though. [00:02:42] So on Saturday, I wasn't really paying attention to news on Saturday. [00:02:45] And then on Saturday evening, I pull up YouTube to watch something and I see something about Venezuelan president arrested or captured or something like that. And I'm like, wait, what, what just happened? And so I look it up and I see that sure enough, the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted, captured, I don't know what you want to call it, and arrested and hauled off to New York, put in jail for trial. And he's already had a hearing this week. [00:03:16] And so I don't know who could, who wouldn't say this was stunned, this wasn't stunning. I mean, I found it stunning. I know that Trump has been escalating some of his talk about Venezuela recently, but I still was, I was very shocked by it. [00:03:32] I will say this before I get into some criticisms, which, you know, I'm going to have. [00:03:38] I was honestly, it was honestly impressive from a military standpoint, what they did. I do think they had inside help. I don't think it was just a matter of our boys being, you know, that good. I think they are at something like this. [00:03:54] Our military is really good. I mean, we really know what we're doing. And I was watching a video that explained kind of how it was done, all the misdirection they did and the deception and, and how they basically, you know, sent a Delta force in, but they were know, they turned off all the lights and, you know, in the city and then they, they had these bombings that were basically distractions. And then they came in and they, they grabbed him and, and his wife. And that, that is no matter what you think about the morality of it, no matter what you think about the geopolitics behind it, is pretty impressive what they were able to do, I mean, with very limited loss of life, I mean, no loss of life on our side, last I saw was about 80 people on the, on the other side were, were killed, including 32 Cubans, which is interesting. We'll talk about that in a minute. The connection with Cuba, so relative minimal loss of life. I mean, personally, I, I, I, I don't, I'm not going to cheer for any loss of life. I don't think the loss of life of a Venezuelan is, is less important. Than the loss of life of an American or a Cuban or something like that. So. But the fact is, it was impressive. And now here's the thing. [00:05:05] This is something America's very good at doing. Something like this is something we're very good at. [00:05:10] We're good at that first, okay, let's grab them and get out. Let's do a precise, surgical military operation and do it to success. We're very good at that. [00:05:21] Nation building and regime change, things that take longer time and are a little more complicated. [00:05:27] Well, our history isn't so good at that. And I'll talk about that in a little bit as well. So. But I do want to give credit where credit's due. The military obviously did a great job of doing what they were told to do. [00:05:39] But I do think it's stunning. I mean, I'm still going to go back to that because essentially what this was, it was the abduction of a foreign head of state. Now, I know his election is disputed by basically everybody in the Western world. [00:05:54] You know, nobody really believes that his election, I think it was the last election was in last summer was no, 2024, I think. I can't remember exactly the year. [00:06:04] Almost nobody believes that that was a legitimate election. [00:06:08] But the truth is he was the president of Venezuela. Whether or not we think the election was legitimate or not, he was recognized as the president by the people. I mean, it wasn't like they had a coup, an internal couple, or an uprising or somebody else, you know, was. Was kind of running the country separately. I know there's an opposition leader, but he was the president of Venezuela, and we unit decided to go in and abduct him and arrest him. [00:06:35] I think that's a stunning precedent, and I don't think we can underestimate what a big deal that is that they did this. I think we have to recognize there are massive consequences. I know in the neocon mine, they love focusing on what I was already talking about, which was the success of this mission. And this mission was extremely successful. [00:06:58] But we're good at, like I said, at that part. But the mission's not over and there's a lot of consequences that we're going to have to deal with beyond just, okay, we got them. [00:07:09] And so I think we just need to recognize that what a big deal this is. [00:07:15] I also want to note that this was clearly, I mean, it's not really that debatable in my mind. This was clearly a violation of just war theory and it was clearly unconstitutional. [00:07:30] I mean, first, obviously against just war theory, Now, I know that there's the whole arguments about it being it wasn't an act of war. I mean, I heard Rubio talking about this. It's and others wasn't. It was. It was a law enforcement action and therefore they didn't need to follow just war theory, I guess, or follow asking Congress ahead of time. [00:07:54] So I think that it's clear, though, against just war theory, because there was no imminent threat of attack from Venezuela. There were other options available. [00:08:05] We had. I'm not going to go real detail on this because we have an article coming out tomorrow, crisis, that, that details more how this violates just war theory. But also, I want to just say this was a violation of the Constitution. [00:08:19] I'm sorry, but it just is Orwellian to say, oh, this was just a law enforcement function. We literally had our military go into another country without invitation. That is, by the way, called an invasion, capture and abduct their head of state and then take him to our country. [00:08:42] If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is. Okay, if somebody did that to us, if some other country came in, all they did was they went and they got Trump and they got out, would we not think that's an act of war? There's not a single American who wouldn't think that's an act of war if we did that. [00:09:01] And so I don't see how you can say it's not an act of war to do this. [00:09:06] Now, I'm not saying it will turn into some major war, that all of a sudden we're going to be boots on the ground for decades or anything like that. I'm just simply saying that single act was an act of war and therefore it needs congressional approval. Now, here's the thing. I know nobody cares. [00:09:23] Nobody cares about the whole. I mean, the only people who care are the opposition party. [00:09:28] When Democrats are in office and they do something like this, Republicans say it's unconstitutional. When Republicans are in office and do something like this, Democrats say it's unconstitutional. But ultimately neither of them care. They don't care, and the average American doesn't care. But I do think it's important that we recognize this was an unconstitutional act. You did. You do need congressional approval for something like this. And there's a reason you need congressional approval because it prevents crazy presidents doing crazy things. I'm not saying Trump is crazy. Well, Trump is a little crazy, but not even in always the bad way. [00:10:03] But the fact is, is that having this authority to do something like this without congressional approval. There's a reason you need congressional approval because it does slow you down. People are like, oh, you got to act. You got to act in emergency situations. This was not an emergency situation. [00:10:20] There's no way you could call this an emergency situation where they had to capture Maduro without congressional approval. [00:10:27] And so I just think that clearly it's unconstitutional. I mean, calling it something like a law enforcement action function does not make it so. [00:10:36] It's honestly, it's a little bit like the whole leftists. We just shape reality based on language, the whole trans phenomenon. I say I'm a woman, therefore I'm a woman. [00:10:47] I say it's just a fetus, therefore it's not. It's not an abortion. I say it's a law enforcement function, therefore it's not an act of war. [00:10:55] I mean, you don't look at just the language. I don't care if Trump and Rubio and others say it's a law enforcement function. You have to look at actually what happened. And it clearly was more than that. [00:11:05] I also think just. [00:11:08] I honestly don't understand the idea of how a federal court in New York has, has some type of jurisdiction in this area to, to do this. [00:11:18] I mean, okay, he was charged on four counts. Narco terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices. [00:11:31] Let me just look at those last two. [00:11:35] How is it against American law for a foreign head of state to possess machine guns and destructive devices? [00:11:42] I'm assuming every single head of state in the world possesses machine guns in their army at least, and destructive devices. How is that against American law? [00:11:55] And honestly, I just don't see how. [00:11:57] I mean, just. They're throwing stuff against the wall. I'm going to talk about the narco capital terrorist thing, actually, I'll just talk about that now. [00:12:05] I honestly think the narco terrorist thing is a smoke screen. It's window dressing. It's not why they did this. I'm not saying there aren't drugs coming from Venezuela into America. I am saying, no, that's not the reason they did this, because they actually had a whole pivot here. They first were trying to act like it was fentanyl coming in because fentanyl is a real problem in our country. [00:12:24] They're talking about fentanyl coming in from Venezuela, but it really wasn't. [00:12:28] Public data shows that's not where fentanyl was coming from. [00:12:32] And if you're really going to attack other countries, narco terrorists, I mean, Mexico, Colombia are higher on the list. And we'll get to a moment, maybe they will do that as well. [00:12:42] But it's just the idea that this is somehow, you know, stop just to stop drugs and that Maduro was just basically a drug lord that we captured. [00:12:51] It's strange credulity, to be honest. I honestly don't think anybody seriously believes that. And even the people saying it don't believe that. If you look at the indictment, a lot of it's a propaganda joke. A lot of the indictments, just a propaganda joke. Now, I want to be clear about something. I'm not a fan of Maduro. I'm not saying he's some saint. I'm not saying he's a good ruler. I'm saying, in fact, I would claim he's an awful ruler. But guess what? There's lots of awful rulers in the world. We're not capturing all of them and arresting them and throwing them in court in New York. [00:13:20] So I just, I think the narco terrorism thing is just a joke also. I just reckon we have to recognize again the precedent this sets. [00:13:29] How is this that much different than what Putin did in Ukraine, for example? [00:13:34] Actually, Putin had far more justification to invade Ukraine than we do to go into Venezuela, frankly. [00:13:43] And if, like, for example, if Putin had sent the troops in, they just captured Zelensky and arrested him and brought him over, you don't think we'd be crying foul and talking about how what awful person Putin is, yet he'd be more justified doing that than we did to capture Maduro. [00:13:59] In fact, I saw where the former president of Russia, oh, what's his name, starts with an M. Anyway, he's a big, big wig in Russia still. He said perhaps the head of Germany or the head of Ukraine could be abducted. And he referenced this action. [00:14:18] I mean, how would we like it if they, if a special forces of Russia went in and abducted the head of Russia, I'm sorry, the head of Ukraine or of Germany, we'd all declare an act of war. In fact, if they did that to Germany, I think every single person would say that's a violation of NATO treaty and therefore we are justified to attack Russia. [00:14:41] They would see the abduction of a head of a NATO country as an act of war and therefore a hostile action. Therefore it would trigger, what is it, clause 5 or whatever it is, the one that says, you know, that we would, we would respond. [00:15:01] And the fact is, what this really does, it makes something very clear that was kind of true already, but now it's Obvious. And that is there is no such thing as a rules based international order. There's been this fiction for a long time that there's rules based on international order, that we have these international courts, international or we follow these, you know, countries follow these certain rules. [00:15:23] The fact is it's a great power world. That's what it is. I'm not even saying one's better than the other. I'm simply saying the reality of what's on the ground, the reality is the great powers do what they want. And the great power, the greatest power is of course, America. China is a great power. Russia is a great power. [00:15:40] I'm not sure if I'd call any other country a great power. [00:15:43] But the fact is we can do what we want. [00:15:47] And there's really going to be, no, nobody's going to attack us for it. There's going to be consequences. Nobody's going to attack us for it. And so this is something that we need to recognize in this action by Trump to abduct Maduro, that yes, it was very successful in the short term, but there are many, many consequences to it that we have to recognize. And yes, as a Catholic, I get a little obsessive about this people. I know people have criticized me for this, but I am a little obsessive about just war theory. I know it's not followed by almost anybody today, but I do think as Catholics, we should cling to it because I do think it's like a guiding force to let us know whether or not inaction is moral or not, that it cuts through the propaganda. That's what it really does better. Anything. Just war theory cuts through propaganda because every military action by a country is justified by that country. Hitler was justifying what he did, Stalin justified what he did. And yes, Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, all of them, they justify what they do. And it sounds great to a certain number of people. But just war theory, what does it cuts through that propaganda and says, okay, let's look at the facts on the ground, not what's said, but what's done. [00:17:01] And by just war theory, there's no question this action violates that. So even if you're an American Catholic who thinks that yes, this was, this is a good thing for our country and helps our country, and you can think that, I mean, that's a prudential decision and calculation. [00:17:16] You can't say it was moral. You just can't say it was moral. Sometimes people do countries and people do immoral things that end up with good consequences. That's the world we live in. I mean, let's not act like we live in some fictional fantasy world where every time you do something bad, only bad things result. Everything you do something good, only good things result. No, sometimes you do something good and bad things result. Sometimes you do something bad and good things result. [00:17:40] So I don't think good things are going to result from this long term, but regardless, the action itself is immoral. Now, I mean, really, what we're now, what we kind of are already phasing into is who's running Venezuela, who's in charge now? Trump immediately said, basically, the US Is running it. [00:18:01] Then Rubio walked that back on Sunday and said, no, we're not running the country. But then Trump doubled down. When he's asked again, he's like, no, we're running it. We're running the country. And he's basically told the acting, the interim president, who was the vice president, Rodriguez, he's told her basically in so many words, you either play ball or we'll do it to you. [00:18:22] Either play ball or we're going to abduct you or do something even worse. I think he threatened something worse to her. Now, Trump is very much a man who makes threats now. He also backs them up enough that they're real. He doesn't bluff. I mean, he will say. He will say things that he won't necessarily do, but he does enough of them that people are wise to listen. If he threatens you with something, you know, there's a chance he will actually do it. And so right now, basically, what he's saying is, is like, we're going to call the shots in Venezuela. We're going to decide what to do. [00:18:56] And so, in a sense, this is almost like a regime change that isn't in the sense that you still have the same party in charge. I mean, this vice president was the vice president under Maduro. She's aligned with him. She condemned the attack, the abduction. [00:19:10] Yet what the Trump administration is trying to do is say, okay, you're going to be the one who plays ball. Which I think there's a certain. I also want to give credit here. There's a certain political brilliance to that. Trump immediately undercut the opposition leader. I didn't write down her name, but she's the opposition leader. And it was kind of thought, okay, she would be the one who would take over after. By the way, I have. I'm over a lingering cold, and so I apologize if I end up having to blow my nose or anything like that, because I got the Lingering effects of it. Right now, I'm better. But anyway, people thought she would be the one charged, but she's not. I mean, Trump basically undercut her. And. And they've indicated they're gonna. They're gonna have the vice president, the interim president, basically be an American puppet. And that's an interesting situation because it's not a. I mean, is a regime change kind of in that you got rid of the head of state, but you basically replaced him with the second command. So is it really regime change? I mean, I think that's what they're trying to avoid is a complete and utter regime change where you bring troops on the ground. Now, Trump has said he would bring troops on the ground, which I will say categorically would be disastrous. Just recent history tells us that. [00:20:22] But ultimately, I think what they're trying to do is they're trying to make Venezuela into the image they want without a explicit regime change. And we'll see how successful that is. I mean, we know how successful that's been in other countries we've tried similar things to, and that is not at all, but we'll see about this one. [00:20:41] I also think that there's no question that this is an attack on Venezuelan sovereignty. Pope Leo actually brought this up kind of obliquely when he. When he mentioned praying for Venezuela was respecting sovereignty. I mean, there's no question this is a rejection of sovereignty of Venezuela. Even if you keep that vice president, the interim president, in charge, and you're telling her what to do, obviously that's. That's a violation of sovereignty. [00:21:09] What this leads to is some other questions in my mind. And it's kind of the title of this podcast was American Empire. And that is, what are Trump's overall goals? [00:21:20] What is the overall goals of the Trump administration when it comes to expanding our reach and our dominance and our influence around the world? [00:21:28] Because we know, like with Venezuela, it was very quickly, like, after Venezuela, after we abducted Maduro, basically the heads of Colombia, Cuba and Mexico all basically condemned it. And Trump basically said, you're next if you don't watch it. [00:21:44] And so I think we have to take that seriously. I know, like I said, I know he blusters sometimes, but his bluster often has bite with it as well. [00:21:52] And so what I see, this seems to be a evolution of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, if you remember, has been around for 200 years. James Monroe, PRESIDENT, the idea that basically European powers, Asian powers, don't mess with the Western Hemisphere, just don't mess with it. Leave it alone. And you'll be fine. If any foreign power outside this hemisphere tries to come in and tries to affect, you know, influence control countries in the Western Hemisphere, we're not gonna, we're not going to allow it. And there's a good reason for that. The Monroe Doctrine has a lot of, to say for it. The truth is we don't allow a Monroe Doctrine for anybody else. I mean, that's the whole part of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was they felt their sphere of influence was getting, was, was weakening. And right around them, people, countries were getting taken over by what they considered opposing powers. [00:22:53] We don't want China to have too much influence in Asia. [00:22:57] So it's clear we're not really a fan of the Monroe Doctrine for others, but we want for ourselves. And I think it's fine to have it. I'm not against the Monroe Doctrine at all. Excuse me, I gotta blow my nose here. [00:23:08] But the fact is this is more than the Monroe Doctrine, this is an expansion of it. So not only are we saying that other countries can't come in and influence these countries, we're saying we are going to control all of these countries. By the way, those who are just joining. I'm not crying because I'm so sad about this. I'm crying because, like I said, this cold. I knew this was going to kick in right in the middle of the podcast because it's happened in the past two days anyway. The idea, we're basically saying, not just stay out of the hemisphere, other foreign countries, we're going to actually control every country in this hemisphere. That's an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. It's much more aggressive than anything Monroe had in mind. But now we're even going beyond that to Greenland. I mean, literally the day we, we take over, you know, we abduct the head of Venezuela, we then go and Trump says we need Greenland. He explicitly says it. [00:24:06] Steve Miller, the advisor to Trump, his wife posted an image of Greenland draped in American flag with the caption, soon, meaning Greenland's going to become American soon. [00:24:21] And in fact, Steve Miller himself said, yes, it is the policy of this government that we need to take over Greenland. He just said that. I think that was today or yesterday, that it's not. They're not joking around. They really are working to take over Greenland. [00:24:36] Now, let's be clear about this. Greenland is run by Denmark. I mean, it's, that's not the right way to say it, but the point is it's part of Denmark for all intents and purposes. It's part of Denmark. [00:24:50] Denmark is a founding member of NATO. [00:24:53] NATO has a treaty that if any country in NATO is attacked, taken over, whatever, all the other countries have to respond. Well, what happens when a country, NATO, does that to another country in NATO? And that would be the case in this situation. [00:25:08] In fact, the prime minister of Denmark said, if America takes over Greenland, then NATO's finished. Now, honestly, I would cheer at NATO being finished. I'm no fan of NATO. I think NATO should be shut down. I don't think NATO should exist. [00:25:24] But it's just an interesting dynamic. Now, there's no question controlling Greenland could be beneficial to American interests. I'm not claiming that it's like just some weird thing that, you know, some fetish that, that Trump has and there's no reason behind it. But can we morally take it over? I don't see how you could ever argue that. [00:25:44] I mean, I'd be open to like, if Greenland decided to do an election, some type of referendum where they said, hey, do you want America to take over the country? If they voted yes, okay, then, now we have a different story. [00:25:57] But that's not even been on the table at this point. All it is is just simply Trump wants Greenland as part of America. And so Trump's going to have Greenland as part of America. And so this is an ever expanding empire. And I mean, like I said, from a geopolitical viewpoint, there are some benefits to all of these actions. But here's the thing. [00:26:19] It just. As Catholics, we have to look a little bit beyond our nationalistic view. I mean, I'm America First. I actually don't think these actions are very much America First. But even if they were, it's America first, but it's actually Catholic first, it's Catholic first, America Second really is what my own personal views are. [00:26:40] And so I'm not going to support an action of America that goes against Catholicism, against Catholic moral teaching, just because I think it might help America. [00:26:49] I don't think it's going to help America. [00:26:51] And I'll talk about that in a second. But I want to get right now, though, to Rubio's role. Marco Rubio. His career has been as a neocon. [00:27:01] His career has been as somebody who very much supported foreign interventionalism. When he was selected, I was not as Secretary of State. I was not happy. I thought he did a pretty good job at first, but I was not too happy. I remember arguing with a few people about this because I just like his history is a neocon. That's the last Thing we need as Secretary of State. [00:27:19] Also, he's Cuban. He's got the Cuban connection. And I think he very much has from day one, wanted to overthrow the Cuban government, have a regime change in Cuba. And I think this action in Venezuela is the first step towards that. Not the first step, but a step towards that. [00:27:37] There is a tight relationship between Cuba and venezuela. [00:27:42] I mean, 32 Cubans were killed in this abduction capture of Maduro. Well, that tells me there are at least 32 Cubans were very close to Maduro, clearly. And it's well known that Cuba has many advisors high up in the Venezuelan government. [00:28:02] And on the flip side, it's also well known that Venezuela supplies oil for basically cheaper, free to Cuba to keep its economy going, something that America does not like. And so if we cut off that connection and Cuba no longer gets that oil, what's going to happen to Cuba? It very well might have an internal regime change. It might, you know, cause the overthrow of its government. It might bring it down. [00:28:29] And so this might be, this action of capturing Maduro might also be basically a step towards the goal of neocons for 60 years, which is the overthrow of the, the, the communist kind of communist these days, Cuban government. This is something we've wanted for a very long time. [00:28:53] But you know, if, if Trump is talking about taking over Greenland, why not take over Cuba? Cuba's closer. It might not have as much strategic importance, but he might do that. [00:29:05] Here's the thing, though. All this is, it ultimately is regime building. What they say, no matter how much they deny. It's regime change, it's nation building, it's regime change in name building. And those things always have unintended consequences. Never as easy as that first initial view and first initial action. I mean, that's the thing is, like I said, America's great. That first initial military action. [00:29:31] We kick. You know what? We kick butt. Try to keep this a family podcast. [00:29:37] We kick butt. But when it comes to the long term, not so much. Like, so it's possible this is going to work out. Venezuela is going to be better off and our relationship can be better off. [00:29:49] But color me skeptical. [00:29:51] I just, I've seen too many times where these promises happen, where, oh, if we just take over, if we just get rid of Saddam Hussein, Iraq will be a paradise. It will be so much better for so many people. [00:30:03] If we just get rid of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya would be so much better. Overthrow Syria, you know, the leadership of Syria, it'll be so much better. Are those places better I would argue. No, I would argue Iraq and Libya both are probably worse than they were. They're definitely not better than they were. [00:30:21] I mean, for Christians. Ask Christians in Iraq, are they better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein? [00:30:27] I mean, Saddam Hussein was a monster. [00:30:31] But better than the monster, you know, and have some little control over versus the monster, you don't know. That could be far worse. And so we don't know what's going to happen to Venezuela. We don't know how this is, how the, what the reaction is going to be. Okay, another break to blow my nose. Excuse me. [00:30:50] I was really hoping I'd make it through the podcast without having to do this. I thought maybe I could go a half hour, but obviously not. [00:30:56] So finally though, I just want to kind of talk about why is Trump doing this? Why ultimately is Trump doing this? I want to note that just last week on the podcast, last week I was praising Trump for all the good stuff he's been doing, how he's turned things around in many ways. I mean, he's attacked woke immigration, things like that. The truth is, as much as people might not think this, I want Trump to succeed. I am not anti Trump. I was eight years ago, wherever it was, nine years ago, 10 years ago, but I'm not anti Trump, I'm pro Trump. I want him to succeed. [00:31:28] Which means when I think he does something stupid, I am going to bring it up. I am going to call him out on it. [00:31:35] The fact is, actions like this are not what he ran on. It's not what we voted for. We voted for Trump. Not at least most of us. In fact, I went back and I looked. I remember. Let me go check. [00:31:47] Trump barely mentioned Venezuela during the campaign. And when he did, he was only talking about criminal immigrants that were coming from there. He wasn't talking about drugs. And we've shut down the border, so that ain't happening anymore. He never talked about the drugs coming from Venezuela during the campaign. He talked about only the criminals, immigrant, illegal immigrants coming in. [00:32:07] In fact, at one point he praised Venezuela being safer than America and even joked, maybe not joked, that he might flee there if the 2000, if the election, presidential election didn't go his way. Like if it goes south and there's some shenanigans, he might flee there to be safer. [00:32:20] And his general stance during the election was against foreign internationalism. Now, I'm not saying he was some like Ron Paul, non internationalist. He never was that. He's never claimed to be that. But generally the feeling was okay, he's not going to get us into new wars. He's not going to. [00:32:39] In fact, that was a promise he's not going to get. You know, Trump didn't start any wars. We heard in the first term implying, okay, he's not going to start any wars. Well, I didn't realize what he meant was we're just going to call it something else. [00:32:50] We're still going to do these things. We're just going to call it a non war war, a law enforcement function or whatever. [00:32:57] And the fact is, Americans are against what he did, at least initially. [00:33:01] A, a poll done like the next day basically said that only 39% of Americans responded favorably. When asked, do you approve or disapprove? How Trump is responding is handling Venezuela, 46% express disapproval. [00:33:17] But what I thought was interesting is younger people were particularly unhappy about Trump's actions. Only 19% of 18 to 29 year olds approve the President's policies in this area. A sharp contrast with the 50% of 65 year and older Americans who support Trump's approach to the country, which is very true. I mean, boomers love their wars, let's be honest. I mean, as much as they protest against Vietnam, they turned on dime and decided we're going to support every other war. I don't know if it's their guilt over what, protesting Vietnam or what. But younger Americans, they, they're, they don't want this. You know why? Because it doesn't help them any. [00:33:54] At least they can't see how it helps them. [00:33:57] It doesn't help them pay their mortgage, it doesn't help them pay for college, it doesn't help them pay for eggs, it doesn't help them get a job, compete against AI or anything like that. None of this helps them. And so they're frankly, they're like, why are you focusing on this, spending so much time and resources on this crap when we got real problems here? Again, it's not helping against the fentanyl crisis. [00:34:18] And so I can see why young people are more against this than older people are. Because older people are fine. [00:34:27] People over 65, I'm not saying all of them are, but generally speaking, people over 65, they're doing well compared to maybe a 20 something year old. [00:34:35] And I, so I ask again, why is Trump doing this? Let's be honest, Trump acts, at least from the outside, erratically at times. [00:34:45] Perhaps this is on purpose. I do think he likes to act erratically on purpose, which means it's not really erratic, but appears erratic just to Keep people on their toes. [00:34:55] I also think it's possible, and I heard this from multiple people, that's why I'm bringing this up. [00:35:01] It's possible as he gets older, he's almost 80 now, that he is just acting more radically, that he just is not completely as with it as he has been in the past. I'm not saying he's Biden level. I'm not even claiming, I think that. I'm not sure what I think about that. I just know it was interesting. I talked to a number of people in the past few days about this and more than one, a few of them all brought up. They're worried that Trump is getting old and starting to act erratically. Just kind of getting a little crazy. [00:35:32] Clearly we have to acknowledge why Trump is doing this has to be related to Venezuelan oil. I mean, just acting like that's not part of the equation is just being naive or stupid. I don't know which one. [00:35:44] Perhaps he thinks, though, this is a way to combat the affordability crisis by getting the oil flowing from Venezuela cheaper. I assume it would be cheaper. [00:35:56] Perhaps he thinks this will help bring down prices. It's possible. [00:36:01] I also think that one thing a friend of mine mentioned was it's possible there's a neocon wormtongue in the administration. Maybe it's Susan Wiles or whatever her name is. [00:36:12] Basically somebody who has been whispering in King Theodore's ear, in President Trump's ear, and leading him down this path. I mean, there's no question he is not the same person he was during the campaign. Maybe he was faking it during the campaign, but during the campaign he was on podcasts, he was speaking to groups of people that he doesn't normally speak to. [00:36:35] And now he's just like a Fox News junkie. He's just basically following the Fox News neocon line. And so I just wonder if this focus on foreign relations so much and like, seems to want to build an American empire, which has been the goal neocons for decades now. [00:36:55] And this, you know, antagonism towards Cuba, which I think this is all part of, I just wonder if there's some worm tongues or worm tongue in the administration that are affecting him. I don't know, I, I think we'll just have to wait and see. Again, I'm not going to say that it's guaranteed that this action will cause death and destruction, devastation for decades or anything like that. It's not, I'm not saying it's like Afghanistan or Iraq or anything like that, or Libya But I am saying I know the track record. [00:37:24] I know a few things. The things I do know, it violates just war theory, it violates the American Constitution and history, recent history. Shown these type of actions usually end up making things worse rather than better. [00:37:39] So I kind of leave it at that. Okay, let me look at the live chat. I appreciate people joining in. Okay. R. Skim it says, thanks for your input. Always enjoy your take. Blow my nose again. [00:37:50] I pray that Donald Trump will do something here in the LA area on voting fraud and use of our money. I think the two events are connected. Yeah, I agree. I'm kind of like a little bit surprised at how much Trump seems to be avoiding domestic policy and really focusing on foreign policy when she was clearly elected. More on the domestic policy, but we'll see. Okay, Anna Kate says I'm stuck at the intersection of what Trump did was clearly objectively wrong. And watching the most annoying people on the left freak out about it is objectively funny. You know something, Anna Kate, you're absolutely right. There is something to that. And I'll be the first to admit that. That there is something. I mean, I do think what Trump did was objectively wrong, morally speaking. But I also think that watching the worst people on the left just go crazy, there is a certain fun to that. So I, I get it. [00:38:40] James Martinelli says the Venezuelans here in Miami are rejoicing. Yeah, I saw a number of Venezuelans in America who rejoicing. I also though this was not put on Fox News and other places, I also saw Venezuelans in America that were upset about it. [00:38:52] So probably more for it than against it. Because if you're in America, as in Venezuela, you. You fled from the country, you escaped. Clearly you think it's not going well and you want it to change so you can go back or your family members back there, things will be better. So it's not surprising they would be supportive of it. [00:39:09] Michael Petek says whether Maduro was the lawful president of Venezuela is precisely what is an issue. [00:39:14] Perhaps. [00:39:16] But that's not what the indictment's on, is it? [00:39:18] That's not what the indictment's on. We're not. We did not capture him based upon whether or not he's the lawful president of Venezuela. And the fact is, it's none of our damn business. [00:39:31] Ultimately, it's not our business. [00:39:33] In the article tomorrow that's going to run Crisis, the analogy was made, which I really liked. [00:39:37] Many people think that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020. [00:39:44] For those of you who think that? I don't think that necessarily. I suspect it might be true. But if you think that if China came in and abducted Biden because of that, would you be okay with that? Well, he wasn't the lawful president of the United States, so that was good that they did that. No, you would think it's an act of war and you would be ticked off and you want us to attack China and you'd be right to do so. [00:40:09] So whether Maduro was lawful president, Venezuela is not what is at issue. If it was, that would have been the indictment. [00:40:16] That would have been what had, you know, been the reason they went in. That's not even the reason they went in. They just use that as a cover. [00:40:23] So. Yeah, I disagree with that one. Okay. Irish Papist 83 says the debate between Dr. Fesser and Matt Walsh about international law is interesting. I think Fester clearly makes a more convincing argument from a Catholic perspective. I did not see that. I assume that was on X or something. I am 100% with Dr. Fesser when it comes to issues of, like, just war theory. And I'm 100% against Matt Walsh on this stuff. I like Matt Walsh a lot. I think he is so good on a number of issues, but on something like this, he's terrible. He's terrible. He falls into the neocon, like, kind of the neocon cheering points that really are just not. Not accurate. So Dr. Fesser, he's very smart. Edward Fesser, he's very smart. He knows his stuff. He knows his. And he knows things like Catholic justice, war theory, way better than Matt Walsh does. Way better than I do. But, yeah. So I have not seen a debate, but I go with Dr. Fester. I'm sure Elizabeth says Mexico president is a communist, Socialist. Yes. Okay, what is your point? [00:41:24] Are we. Are we supposed to abduct her too? [00:41:27] I mean, here's the thing. There are bad leaders all around the world. There are many countries that have leaders that sink the. The head. The prime minister of United Kingdom's awful. Should we go abduct him? [00:41:38] I mean, here's the thing. That's the neocon lie. That is the neocon lie that we. That all of a sudden, because another country has a bad leader, we have a right to go in and basically take over the country or a right to abduct him or overthrow him or whatever. [00:41:55] That is not Catholic social teaching. That is not just war theory. That just because a leader of another country is somebody we don't like and they might be truly awful, we can't just do that. [00:42:08] Okay, I don't know how I pronounce this username, but Folo Fuss says Maga has become an evil Bronze Age pagan movement in Kapow with the Catholic faith, the pejor, the performative jingoism, is disgraceful. Disgraceful. Okay, I don't. I don't say it that strongly. [00:42:23] I don't say it that strongly. I don't. I think it's too broad of a brush to say MAGA is an evil Bronze Age pagan movement incompatible with Catholic faith. That being said, I do understand what you're saying here. I do. I am. I am disappointed at how much Maga will just go along with Trump no matter what. He. All he could give, any reason. [00:42:44] In fact, when I told my wife about this, about the. The abduction, she's like, what are people saying to support him? Like, how. Because she couldn't understand how he could support it, she's like. I'm like. And I said, honestly, they just believe whatever he says, no matter what he says. [00:42:58] And so of course they support him because they're just going to believe the lies. So, yeah, again, I won't go as far as you and saying MAGA has become an evil Bronze Age pagan movement in compatible with Catholic faith, but I do like saying it. You notice I said that three times now. [00:43:12] But it is performative jingoism and it is disgraceful. I wouldn't paint that broad of a brush as saying all of Mag is like that. But I. I understand your point. [00:43:23] Okay, I'm going to stop here because I think my head's about to explode with all the. My. My remnants of my cold. So I want to stop while I'm ahead. So I appreciate everybody. Join the chat. Until next time, everybody. God love you. And remember the po.