US used powerful mystery weapon that brought Venezuelan soldiers to their knees during Maduro raid: witness account

The US used a powerful mystery weapon that brought Venezuelan soldiers to their knees, “bleeding through the nose” and vomiting blood during the daring raid to capture dictator Nicolas Maduro, according to a witness account posted Saturday on X by the White House press secretary.

In a jaw-dropping interview, the guard described how American forces wiped out hundreds of fighters without losing a single soldier, using technology unlike anything he has ever seen — or heard.

“We were on guard, but suddenly all our radar systems shut down without any explanation,” the guard said. “The next thing we saw were drones, a lot of drones, flying over our positions. We didn’t know how to react.”

Moments later, a handful of helicopters appeared — “barely eight,” by his count — deploying what he estimated were just 20 US troops into the area.

But those few men, he said, came armed with something far more powerful than guns.

“They were technologically very advanced,” the guard recalled. “They didn’t look like anything we’ve fought against before.”

What ensued, he said, was not a battle, but a slaughter.

“We were hundreds, but we had no chance,” he said. “They were shooting with such precision and speed; it felt like each soldier was firing 300 rounds per minute.”

Then came the weapon that still haunts him.

“At one point, they launched something; I don’t know how to describe it,” he said. “It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside.”

Keep reading

What Israel Has to Do with the US Overthrow of Venezuela’s Government

A US invasion reveals deeper strategic goals tied to Israel’s push to weaken Iran, reshape Latin America, and consolidate control over global energy resources.

The overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro may appear to be a development that, on the face of things, has nothing to do with Israel, especially as Caracas seems too far away from Tel Aviv and its orbit. Yet, this move has a lot more to do with securing Israeli interests than meets the eye.

Following the US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its sitting President, officials in the Trump administration couldn’t wait to express their joy for Israel in such a moment.

The fragrant violation of Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter barely even registered much blowback on the international stage, although this should barely come as much of a surprise.

Within 24 hours of the operation to kidnap President Maduro, which resulted in the deaths of around 40 Venezuelans and 32 Cuban soldiers, US President Donald Trump had already let the cat out of the bag; he invaded to seize the oil. But then came a slew of other comments that obsessed over the fact that this attack on Caracas comes to the benefit of Israel.

Keep reading

Trump says US could control 55% of world’s oil

President Donald Trump has said the US would control more than half of the world’s oil production if American companies regain access to Venezuela’s petroleum industry.

Venezuela, which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, nationalized the assets of US companies in the 2000s during the presidency of socialist Hugo Chavez.

Trump cited the “unfair” nationalization as one of the reasons he sent commandos last week to abduct Chavez’s successor, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, from his compound in Caracas.

“We’re going to be working with Venezuela,” Trump said on Friday during a meeting with executives from oil giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips at the White House.

“American companies will have the opportunity to rebuild Venezuela’s energy infrastructure and eventually increase oil production to levels never seen before. When you add Venezuela and the United States together, we have 55% of the oil in the world,” he added.

Keep reading

A Lawless Presidency

The United States invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro, the domestically recognized Venezuelan president, violated the U.S. Constitution and international law.

The Constitution makes clear that only Congress can authorize a foreign invasion. In the pre-World War II era, Congress declared war on countries that attacked the U.S. or were allied with those that did, and those declarations expired upon the surrender by legal authorities in the targeted countries.

In the post-9/11 era, Congress has chosen to authorize the use of military force, without providing for a trigger that would terminate the authorization. Indeed, just last month, Congress rescinded George W. Bush-era military authorizations that had been used by Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to target groups not even in existence at the time of the authorizations.

But, as morally deficient as the authorizations were, they were at least constitutionally sound, as they were the product of presidential requests and congressional deliberations and authorizations. We now know that at least two of these were fraudulent — the administration lied to Congress and to the United Nations. But, again, at least it fomented debate and recognized its obligations under the Constitution and the U.N. Charter to seek approval before invading a foreign country.

The Charter is a treaty, drafted by U.S. officials in the aftermath of World War II and ratified by the Senate. Under the Constitution, treaties are, like the Constitution itself, the supreme law of the land.

President Donald Trump violated his sworn and paramount obligations to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when he ordered his invasion of Venezuela without congressional authorization and when he attacked a member state of the U.N. without U.N. authorization.

James Madison himself argued at the Constitutional Convention that if a president could both declare war and wage war, he’d be a prince; not unlike the British monarch from whose authority the 13 colonies had just seceded. And the American drafters of the U.N. Charter, indeed American senators who voted to ratify it, understood that its very purpose was to prevent unlawful and morally unjustified attacks by one member nation upon another.

When he was asked after the troops had seized President Maduro why the administration had not complied with the Constitution and sought congressional approval for the invasion, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave laughable answers. First, he said the Maduro extraction was not an invasion. OK, an armada of ships, assault helicopters, hundreds of troops, 80 deaths and two kidnappings in a foreign land is not an invasion, but the sale of cocaine to willing American buyers is?

Then he said Congress cannot be trusted. Congress is a coequal branch of the federal government — under the Constitution, the first among equals.

Then he said that the Trump administration faced an emergency. Federal law defines an emergency as a sudden and unexpected event likely to have a deleterious effect on national security or economic prosperity. There was no emergency last weekend.

Why is it wrong for the president to violate the Constitution?

For starters, he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend it. It is the source of his governmental powers. The Supreme Court has ruled that all federal power comes from the Constitution and from nowhere else. This is manifested in the 10th Amendment, which commands that governmental powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government do not lie dormant awaiting a federal capture, rather they remain in the people or the states. This is at least the Madisonian view of constitutional government.

Its opposite is the Wilsonian view — after that pseudo-constitutional law professor in the White House, Woodrow Wilson — which holds that the federal government can address any national problem, foreign or domestic, for which it has sufficient political support, except for the express prohibitions imposed upon it in the Constitution. Sadly, every president since Wilson has been a Wilsonian.

Keep reading

Germany’s Globalist President Says US “Destroying World Order”

The EU’s increasingly unpopular, globalist political class is crashing out after President Donald Trump ordered the US to withdraw from a wide array of international organizations tied to climate policy, gender ideology, and what his administration has labeled “woke global governance.”

The decision has triggered an unusually emotional response from EU leaders who appear to view American disengagement as an existential threat to their failed globalist project.

Germany’s Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier accused the United States of “destroying the world order,” language typically reserved for adversarial powers rather than NATO allies. Speaking at a symposium marking his 70th birthday, Steinmeier warned that the global system was descending into lawlessness.

Steinmeier claims the US has committed a “breach of values” comparable to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Without naming Trump directly in some remarks, he nevertheless made clear that the Trump administration’s assertive foreign policy and rejection of multilateral, liberal-globalism represented, in his view, a historic rupture.

Steinmeier went further, painting a bleak picture of a world ruled by “unscrupulous” powers seizing territory and resources. Critics noted the irony of Germany lecturing others on restraint while quietly calling for a massive military buildup of its own.
Despite holding a largely ceremonial office, Steinmeier’s comments carry weight within Germany and the EU. He used the occasion to urge Berlin to eliminate military “deficits” and ensure that Germany is taken seriously as a hard-power actor in an increasingly competitive world.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration confirmed that the US will no longer participate in or fund multiple UN-affiliated bodies, including the UN Population Fund, UN Women, international climate negotiation frameworks, and various democracy-promotion initiatives.

Officials framed the move—its withdrawal from the 66 international—as a recalibration of American foreign policy away from left-liberal ideological activism and toward national interest.

Keep reading

Trump Says He Expects To ‘Run’ Venezuela for Years

President Trump has told The New York Times that he expects to “run” Venezuela for many years following the US attack on Caracas to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

By “running” Venezuela, the president appears to mean controlling its oil industry and getting access to the country’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world, for more American companies.

“We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” he told the paper. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”

When asked how long he expects the US to remain Venezuela’s “political overlord,” three months, six months, or a year, the president said, “I would say much longer.”

Trump has threatened to attack Venezuela again and potentially send troops, but declined to say what sort of situation could lead to that. “I wouldn’t want to tell you that,” he said.

Trump and his top officials have said that the US will be controlling Venezuela’s oil sales and will start by acquiring 30 million to 50 million barrels. However, Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, has framed the deal as a routine sale of oil to the US, similar to its dealings with Chevron, which continues to operate in the country.

Trump insisted to the Times that Venezuela’s government, which is currently led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s vice president, is “giving us everything that we feel is necessary.”

Rodriguez has said that no “foreign agent” is running Venezuela and has maintained that Maduro is the rightful president and must be released by the US. “Today, more than ever, the Bolivarian political forces stand firm and united to guarantee the stability of our nation,” she said in a post on Telegram on Thursday.

“Together with the Great Patriotic Pole Simón Bolívar (GPPSB), we have reviewed and cohesively adopted three lines of action: the release of our heroes, President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores; preserving peace and stability throughout the national territory; and consolidating governance for the benefit of our people,” she added.

Keep reading

Oil Companies Are Key Partners in Trump’s Imperial Plans for Latin America

For months, U.S. President Donald Trump proclaimed that his pressure campaign against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, backed by dozens of illegal killings through drone strikes, was about fighting drugs and cartels. But at his press conference after the U.S. abduction of Maduro, Trump couldn’t stop talking about oil.

“We’re gonna take back the oil,” Trump brazenly said. “Very large United States oil companies” will “go in” and “spend billions of dollars,” he promised. “We’re gonna be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

All told, Trump uttered the word “oil” at least 20 times during the press conference. Oil company stocks — ExxonMobil, Halliburton, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Phillips 66 — surged the following day, with Chevron, the only major U.S. oil corporation with a current foothold in Venezuela, seeing its share value jump more than 5 percent.

Further demonstrating the administration’s drug accusations to be mere propaganda, the Justice Department recently dropped its longstanding claim that Maduro was the head of “Cartel de los Soles,” implicitly conceding that it is indeed not a drug cartel but a slang term referring to political officials who have become corrupted by drug money.

The Trump administration’s barefaced imperial grab for Venezuela’s oil is fraught with challenges, and it’s far too early to predict what will happen. But its abduction of Maduro and effort to gain control over Venezuela’s oil industry aligns with the administration’s openly stated vision of reasserting undisputed political and economic hegemony across the Americas and the Caribbean, including control over natural resources and trade routes, through gunboat diplomacy backed by military threats. In doing so, Trump is looking to corporate allies like Chevron, which could stand to benefit handsomely from his administration’s action — though this is far from guaranteed.

Keep reading

President Trump Withdraws U.S. from 66 International Organizations — Here’s the Full List

President Trump just signed a proclamation withdrawing the United States from dozens of foreign organizations.

These include over 30 United Nations entities, as well as dozens of other international groups that do not serve American interests.

Here’s the full list of all the organizations President Trump just pulled us out of:

Non-UN Organizations
• 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact
• Colombo Plan Council
• Commission for Environmental Cooperation
• Education Cannot Wait
• European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats
• Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories
• Freedom Online Coalition
• Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund
• Global Counterterrorism Forum
• Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
• Global Forum on Migration and Development
• Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
• Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals & Sustainable Development
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services
• International Centre for the Study of the Preservation & Restoration of Cultural Property
• International Cotton Advisory Committee
• International Development Law Organization
• International Energy Forum
• International Federation of Arts Councils & Culture Agencies
• International Institute for Democracy & Electoral Assistance
• International Institute for Justice & the Rule of Law
• International Lead & Zinc Study Group
• International Renewable Energy Agency
• International Solar Alliance
• International Tropical Timber Organization
• International Union for Conservation of Nature
• Pan American Institute of Geography & History
• Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation
• Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy in Asia
• Regional Cooperation Council
• Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
• Science & Technology Center in Ukraine
• Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
• Venice Commission (Council of Europe)

United Nations Organizations
• UN Department of Economic & Social Affairs
• ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Africa
• ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America & the Caribbean
• ECOSOC — Economic & Social Commission for Asia & the Pacific
• ECOSOC — Economic & Social Commission for Western Asia
• International Law Commission
• International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals
• International Trade Centre
• Office of the Special Adviser on Africa
• SRSG for Children in Armed Conflict
• SRSG on Sexual Violence in Conflict
• SRSG on Violence Against Children
• Peacebuilding Commission
• Peacebuilding Fund
• Permanent Forum on People of African Descent
• UN Alliance of Civilizations
• UN-REDD Programme
• UN Conference on Trade & Development
• UN Democracy Fund
• UN Energy
• UN Women
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
• UN Human Settlements Programme
• UN Institute for Training & Research
• UN Oceans
• UN Population Fund
• UN Register of Conventional Arms
• UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination
• UN System Staff College
• UN Water
• UN University

Keep reading

Roy Cohn: From ‘Red Scare’ Prosecutor to Donald Trump’s Mentor

There are certain behind-the-scenes figures in American politics who, like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, seem to turn up everywhere. One of the most notorious is Roy Cohn, a man whose influence spans several decades of hot button issues, Republican politicians and LGBT history.

Cohn was a prosecutor in the Rosenberg spy trial, chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, a close friend to Nancy Reagan and a personal lawyer for Donald Trump. He was also a closeted gay man who helped purge suspected gay and lesbian employees from the government. Cohn died from AIDS-related complications in 1986, and afterwards was portrayed in the 1990s Broadway play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.

McCarthyism and the Lavender Scare

Roy Cohn entered the spotlight early. At age 23, he was a prosecutor on the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were convicted of espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union in 1951 and executed by electric chair two years later. This gained him attention from two fervent anti-communists: longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Cohn became chief counsel to McCarthy as well as a chief architect of what we now call “McCarthyism”—the interrogation and purging of federal employees based on McCarthy’s unsupported claim that the government was filled with communists. In addition to this very public Second Red Scare, Cohn and McCarthy also led the less-public Lavender Scare against federal employees suspected of being gay.

It’s unknown how many employees the Lavender Scare forced out between the late ‘40s and early ‘60s, but the number is likely in the thousands. Like communists, McCarthy considered gay people security risks because of their supposed mental instability.

“In lavender Washington, Cohn was known as both a closeted homosexual and homophobic, among those leading the charge against supposedly gay witnesses who he and others believed should lose their government jobs because they were ‘security risks,’” writes journalist Marie Brenner in Vanity Fair.

Keep reading

Danish Defense Ministry: We’ll “Shoot First and Ask Questions Later” If US Invades Greenland

Denmark’s political and military establishment has dusted off a Cold War–era rule, with the Defense Ministry on Wednesday announcing that if foreign troops land on Danish territory, soldiers are to open fire immediately, without waiting for orders.

The revelation comes as tensions between Copenhagen and Washington have reached a fever pitch over renewed signals from the Trump administration that Greenland’s status is no longer a closed question.

Denmark’s defense ministry confirmed to Berlingske, a center-Right Danish newspaper, that a 1952 order remains active, requiring Danish forces to counterattack any invading power at once, even if no formal declaration of war has been issued. In simple terms, it is a shoot-first, ask questions later doctrine.

The timing of the disclosure isn’t an accident. President Donald Trump and senior figures in his administration have once again raised the possibility of bringing Greenland under American control, arguing that the Arctic island is pivotal to American security in an era of growing Chinese and Russian activity.

Trump’s position has predictably sent shockwaves throughout Europe’s establishment political class, which has long assumed American protection would remain unconditional and unquestioned. Denmark, which administers Greenland as part of its kingdom, insists the territory is “not for sale,” yet has little to no independent capacity to defend it without US military might.

The contradiction has not gone unnoticed. For decades, Copenhagen has relied on the threat of American forces to secure Greenland while simultaneously asserting full sovereignty over it. Now, faced with an increasingly assertive America that is openly reassessing its interests, Danish leaders appear rattled.

Keep reading