Tag: donald trump

Details revealed of Trump-approved covert action plan for Venezuela

US President Donald Trump has greenlighted additional measures to pressure Venezuela and prepare for a potential broader military campaign, including covert CIA operations targeting President Nicolas Maduro’s government, the New York Times has reported, citing US officials. 

At the same time, Trump has approved a new round of back-channel negotiations that reportedly led to the Venezuelan president offering to step down after a delay of several years – a proposal the White House rejected, the outlet said on Monday. 

The Pentagon has deployed warships to the Caribbean and has carried out controversial strikes on small boats it claims are involved in drug smuggling from Venezuela. The White House maintains that Maduro is an illegitimate, cartel-linked ruler, fueling speculation that direct military action might be imminent. Maduro has denied the drug trafficking allegations and warned the US against launching “a crazy war.”

According to the NYT, while Trump has not yet deployed combat forces to Venezuela, Washington’s next steps could involve “sabotage or some sort of cyber, psychological, or information operations” aimed at increasing pressure on the Maduro government. 

Keep reading

On the ‘Legitimate Authority to Kill’

“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025

As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.

An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.

The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.

Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.

Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.

As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.

It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.

Keep reading

Trump Suggests Airstrikes On Cartels In Mexico, Colombia: ‘Okay With Me’

President Donald Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office on Monday that potential military strikes in Mexico to disrupt the drug trade would be “okay with me”.

He expressed rare openness to direct Pentagon action inside America’s neighbor to the immediate south, at a moment of ongoing deadly drone strikes on alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela. This is sure to turn US-Mexico relations in a more negative direction, but Trump doesn’t seem overly concerned with this as he ramps up the pressure, also on Colombia.

He said he’d be willing to do this to prevent drugs from entering the United States, and further he’d be proud to “knock out” cocaine factories in Colombia.

On Colombia, where the president, his family and top officials have recently been hit with US sanctions, Trump said as follows:

“Colombia has cocaine factories where they make cocaine. Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally. I didn’t say I’m doing it, but I would be proud to do it because we’re going to save millions of lives by doing it.”

This renewed war on drugs rhetoric has been met with immense controversy, including among some US Congress members who demand a Congressional vote before war is declared on Venezuela or any other sovereign Latin American country.

But the administration has also been utilizing ‘terrorism’ labels to justify strikes, which up to now has included targeting over twenty alleged drug boats and killing some 80 people.

Keep reading

Trump Offers Lifeline To UK ‘Thought Criminals’

The Trump White House is mulling political asylum for British free speech activists branded “thought criminals” under Keir Starmer’s regime, in one example offering refugee status to those prosecuted for silent protests outside abortion clinics as well as expressing online dissent.

The transatlantic intervention, said to be largely influenced by Elon Musk continually pointing to cases of the UK punishing people for “thought crimes,” signals America’s readiness to shield allies from creeping authoritarianism.

Administration insiders are intently exploring the option of offering visas and refugee status, focusing on figures like Livia Tossici-Bolt, prosecuted in March 2023 for holding a sign near a Bournemouth abortion clinic reading “Here to talk if you want,” and Adam Smith Connor, convicted for a vigil outside Poole Magistrates Court.

A source close to the process called the plan “serious,” noting officials are “beginning to consider” extending protections to gender critical activists, immigration critics, and even pro-abortion campaigners hit with “thought crimes.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Ploy at the UN Is American Imperialism Masquerading as a Peace Process

The Trump administration is pushing an Israeli-crafted resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) this week aimed at eliminating the possibility of a State of Palestine. The resolution does three things. It establishes US political control over Gaza. It separates Gaza from the rest of Palestine. And it allows the US, and therefore Israel, to determine the timeline for Israel’s supposed withdrawal from Gaza – which would mean: never.

This is imperialism masquerading as a peace process. In and of itself it’s no surprise. Israel runs US foreign policy in the Middle East. What is a surprise is that the US and Israel might just get away with this travesty unless the world speaks up with urgency and indignation.

The draft UNSC resolution would establish a US-UK-dominated Board of Peace, chaired by none other than Donald Trump himself, and endowed with sweeping powers over Gaza’s governance, borders, reconstruction, and security. This resolution would sideline the State of Palestine and condition any transfer of authority to the Palestinians on the indulgence of the Board of Peace.

This would be an overt return to the British Mandate of 100 years ago, with the only change being that the US would hold the mandate rather than Britain. If it weren’t so utterly tragic, it would be laughable. As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Yes, the proposal is farce, yet Israel’s genocide is not. It is tragedy of the first order.

Incredibly, according to the draft resolution, the Board of Peace would be granted sovereign powers in Gaza. Palestinian sovereignty is left to the discretion of the Board, which alone would decide when Palestinians are “ready” to govern themselves – perhaps in another 100 years? Even military security is subordinated to the Board, and the envisioned forces would answer not to the UN Security Council or to the Palestinian people, but to the Board’s “strategic guidance.”

The US-Israel resolution is being put forward precisely because the rest of the world – other than Israel and the US – has woken up to two facts. First, Israel is committing genocide, a reality witnessed every day in Gaza and the West Bank, where innocent Palestinians are murdered to the satisfaction of the Israel Defense Forces and the illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Second, Palestine is a state, albeit one whose sovereignty remains obstructed by the US, which uses its veto in the UNSC to block Palestine’s permanent UN membership. At the UN this past July and then again in September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Palestine’s statehood, a fact that put the Israel-US Zionist lobby into overdrive, resulting in the current draft resolution.

For Israel to accomplish its goal of Greater Israel, the US is pursuing a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, squeezing Arab and Islamic states with threats and inducements. When other countries resist the US-Israel demands, they are cut off from critical technologies, lose access to World Bank and IMF financing, and suffer Israeli bombing, even in countries with US military bases present. The US offers no real protection; rather, it orchestrates a protection racket, extracting concessions from countries wherever US leverage exists. This extortion will continue until the global community stands up to such tactics and insists upon genuine Palestinian sovereignty and US and Israeli adherence to international law.

Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond. Israel and the US are currently at war, overtly or covertly, across the Horn of Africa (Libya, Sudan, Somalia), the Eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria), the Gulf region (Yemen), and Western Asia (Iraq, Iran).

Keep reading

The Media Panics After Trump Calls for the Release of Epstein Files

On Sunday night, President Donald Trump turned the tables on the Democrats, who spent four years under Joe Biden doing nothing about the Epstein files, by calling for them to be released.

“House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

Now the liberal media is struggling to come to grips with this development, as this completely blows up the narrative they’ve been pushing. On CNN Monday morning, John Berman pushed the narrative that Trump’s actions signal a waning influence over the GOP.

Republican strategist Melik Abdul didn’t buy that argument one bit.

“I think what the frustration that Donald Trump and many people — even like me — who have been critical of Donald Trump at times — we realize that this is an effort — this whole Epstein effort is an effort to really prosecute Donald Trump in the court of public opinion,” Abdul stated bluntly.

He continued dismantling the narrative by pointing out an inconvenient truth that CNN clearly didn’t want to hear: “There is not a single shred of evidence that links Donald Trump to a single crime. Not a victim, not a court case links Donald Trump to a crime. And I know that the media itself is aware of that, but the more you keep talking about it over and over again, linking Donald Trump to something potentially nefarious, that actually gets the news cycle going.”

He added, “But everyone knows that there is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime, but I am glad that he ended up in this same space.”

Christine Quinn, president and CEO of WIN and former New York City Council speaker, attempted to deflect. “This isn’t about Donald Trump. We don’t know what’s in those files. He’s created the belief that there is something about him in there because he won’t release them,” she insisted before trying to pivot.

Keep reading

Trump Administration Sees Marijuana As A ‘Hazard,’ Federal Prosecutor Says, Drawing Criticism From Lawmakers And Advocates

Lawmakers and advocates are pushing back after a U.S. attorney announced his office will be aggressively prosecuting cannabis possession and use offenses on federal lands, stating that it’s the administration’s position that “marijuana use is a public safety hazard.”

U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming Darin Smith caught some by surprise on Thursday after his office said it would be “rigorously” prosecuting cannabis cases, while citing a recent reversal of previously unpublicized Biden-era marijuana enforcement guidance that deprioritized such action.

“Marijuana possession remains a federal crime in the United States, irrespective of varying state laws,” Smith said. “The detrimental effects of drugs on our society are undeniable, and I am committed to using every prosecutorial tool available to hold offenders accountable.”

He doubled down on that position in comments to WyoFile, telling the local outlet: “This administration thinks that marijuana use is a public safety hazard and this office is going to uphold the law and ensure safety and security of the public within our jurisdiction.”

Marijuana Moment reached out to the White House for clarification on President Donald Trump’s position on cannabis, but a representative did not provide comment by the time of publication.

While questions remain as to the specifics of both the Biden- and Trump-related marijuana prosecutorial guidance actions, the federal attorney’s message has added to the uncertainty around how the current administration views its enforcement role as federal and state cannabis laws continue to conflict.

U.S. Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, told Marijuana Moment that simple cannabis possession “is not a threat to public safety, and it is ridiculous to justify the prosecution of individuals with an outdated law that does not reflect the current use of cannabis in the United States”

“The federal government needs to catch up to the states, recognize the legitimate industry that has emerged, dismantle the stigma surrounding the plant, and reform its outdated scheduling of marijuana as a dangerous drug,” she said.

Keep reading

US Takes Out Drug Boat in Caribbean Sea Under Newly Unveiled “Operation Southern Spear” as White House Plans to Continue Strikes

The US military on Saturday executed another strike on a drug trafficking vessel operated by narcoterrorists under the new Operation Southern Spear program, the US Southern Command announced on Sunday. 

On Nov. 15, at the direction of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization. Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics. Three male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed. The vessel was trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific and was struck in international waters,” US South Com said in an X post.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Operation Southern Spear at the direction of President Donald Trump on Thursday.

“Led by Joint Task Force Southern Spear and @SOUTHCOM, this mission defends our Homeland, removes narco-terrorists from our Hemisphere, and secures our Homeland from the drugs that are killing our people. The Western Hemisphere is America’s neighborhood – and we will protect it,” he said on X.

Keep reading

Tucker Misses the Mark – There’s NO Physical Evidence Crooks Attempted to Assassinate Anyone

Two days ago, Tucker Carlson released a thirty-minute video accusing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of lying to the American people about the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump and reporting “that day Thomas Crooks came within a quarter inch of destroying this country and, yet, a year and a half later we still almost nothing about him or why he did it.”  Frankly, more is expected of someone of Carlson’s caliber of journalist.

The fact is, Tucker Carlson has no basis for reporting that Thomas Crooks attempted to kill anyone.

There has been no physical evidence provided by the FBI, Pennsylvania State Police, Butler Police, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Congressional Committees, the Butler, PA Coroner or the Allegheny County Coroner.

While Carlson focuses on proving the FBI lied about Crooks not having any online presence, AbleChild would argue that, while interesting, knowing what Crooks posted online two years before the assassination attempt still does not provide any proof that Crooks was the shooter.

To legitimately convict Thomas Matthew Crooks of attempting to kill Donald Trump and being responsible for the death of Corey Comperatore, much more solid evidence is needed, beginning with the FBI’s ballistics report. It was reported by the Congressional Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump that the projectile recovered from the roof of the AGR building next to Crooks, that “although a microscopic comparison was inconclusive, the grooves on the fragment were consistent with the rifling characteristics of test rounds fired through the Secret Service rifle.” “Consistent with?” That’s not a match. The FBI is merely suggesting that the grooves of the fragment were “consistent.” The microscopic comparison either shows that the grooves of the recovered projectile match the barrel of the sniper’s weapon or they don’t.

Further, the FBI also would have conducted DNA and fingerprint analysis on the alleged weapon and any other evidence found on the alleged shooter’s body or the roof of the AGR building. However, there are obvious problems with the chain of custody of any evidence collected from the roof of the AGR building. Recall that the alleged shooter’s body laid on the roof of the AGR building the entire night until 6:30 a.m. the following morning when the Butler Coroner, William Young, finally decided to perform his death investigation.

Who had control of the AGR building during the evening hours after the 6:23 p.m. shooting until 6:30 a.m. the following morning? This is no minor issue as the body and evidence could have been tampered with during that 12-hour timespan. Plus, why was this information not important for Carlson to mention?

Of course, other issues make it ironic that Carlson, like so many others, is convinced that Crooks was the shooter even though there is no physical evidence that has been made publicly available to support this conclusion, beginning with the destruction of Crooks body within days of autopsy.

AbleChild would argue that the Allegheny County Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy of the alleged gunman failed to adequately test of psychiatric drug use of the alleged shooter, rather only testing for “alcohol and drugs of abuse.” Why? Why in such an important case would the medical examiner fail to test for prescription mind-altering drugs, especially in light of the family’s mental health background?

More interesting is that the Medical Examiner does not reveal how he identified that the body being autopsied was that of Thomas Matthew Crooks. The only accompanying evidence was “a clear plastic bag containing medium length brown hair (submitted as evidence).”

Did Butler County Coroner, William Young, provide that bag of hair? Who knows? Young has never made public his investigative notes. In fact, it is anyone’s guess how Young identified Crooks as the body lying on the roof. Having Young’s investigative notes would be extremely helpful, especially having any information as to why the coroner was turned away from the AGR building on the evening of July 13th and forced to leave the body on the roof all night before identification could be made.

At the end of the day, Carlson’s video about the FBI’s mistakes regarding Crooks’ online presence, while interesting, doesn’t get us to the point of who pulled the trigger.

If there is chastising to be done, it should be about the FBI’s refusal to release its investigation, along with all physical evidence reports. The same can be said about the Pennsylvania State Police Report. Why have these reports been withheld?

Keep reading

US senator accuses Trump of ‘silence’ on huge Ukraine corruption scandal

US Senator Rand Paul has accused President Donald Trump of staying silent on a major corruption scandal involving a close associate of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.

Last week, Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies alleged that Timur Mindich, Zelensky’s former longtime business partner, led a scheme that siphoned $100 million in kickbacks from contracts with the country’s nuclear power operator Energoatom, which depends on foreign aid. Two government ministers have since resigned, while Mindich fled the country to evade arrest.

“Remember when the Ukraine first Uniparty opposed my call for an Investigator General for Ukraine? Trump silent on $100M Ukraine corruption scandal resignations,” Paul wrote on X on Saturday, commenting on a news story about the affair.

Paul, who frequently attacks what he calls “wasteful spending” of American taxpayers’ money on foreign projects, has repeatedly pushed for a watchdog to supervise funds directed to Ukraine “in order to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Keep reading