[View Article at Source]Claims that Caracas poses a military threat to the American homeland are demonstrably false. The post Congress Must Invoke War Powers Act to Stop War with Venezuela appeared first…

[View Article at Source]The new National Security Strategy outlines a realist case for pursuing strategic stability with Russia. The post Why Trump Seeks a Swift End to the Ukraine War appeared first…

25 years after it was published.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Politics ‘Explain to Us Why We Kill People Who Are Not Armed’ Sen. Rand Paul gets to the moral heart of the Venezuela pressure campaign. In September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a strike on a vessel suspected of carrying drugs from Venezuela. That strike left two men clinging to a capsized boat. So a second strike was ordered—one that Hegseth says didn’t come from him, and that President Trump says he wouldn’t have ordered—that killed the surviving men. The legality of any of these strikes is hotly debated. The second strike on the vessel in September in particular has heightened further questions about potential war crimes. Many in Washington, including some Republicans, are questioning this. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had questions: “If they’re armed, show us how they’re armed. If they’re not armed, explain to us why we kill people who are not armed.” There have been no reports to this writer’s knowledge that the men were armed. The Wall Street Journal reported that military official Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who purportedly gave the order, believed there were other “enemy” vessels nearby and the surviving men were suspected of communicating with them. In his briefing with lawmakers on Thursday, Bradley reportedly said that the survivors did not appear to have radios or means of communication. Even if they did have radios, might their top concern have been not drowning and calling for rescue? What kind of “war” is this, exactly? Paul wondered the same, “So we usually think of war, we think of those people taking up arms and they may kill our soldiers, so we kill them first, that’s war. But these people, we haven’t been told if they have arms. Two of them they killed in the water, but two of them they scooped up, and did they arrest them for drugs and get drugs that were floating around in the sea? Did they look for arms? No, they just released them and said, go back to your home country, which really wasn’t Venezuela, it was Colombia and Ecuador.” If these two men weren’t taken out by U.S. forces, it is not inconceivable they would be walking around as free men today. Can this administration or any other simply declare that foreign actors are drug dealers or terrorists—or the combo “narcoterrorists”—and bomb them indiscriminately? The Obama administration certainly thought so. Is Commander-in-Chief Trump simply doing the same? Paul emphasized the problem with that: “So I think this whole thing is a terrible situation. But we as a country should not be so easygoing as to say, well, an accusation is enough. We sometimes make mistakes. Even in our country, even when we’re very, very careful, the DNA Innocence Project found that there were people in jail in our country with full due process, but we made a mistake. They’ve been in jail for 20 years.” “Do we really think blowing up boats without any kind of process?” the senator asked. “We got records from the Coast Guard yesterday that we released, of boats stopped off of Venezuela before we had this new policy. So we’ve had an interdiction policy for 100 years probably, where we interdict people on the open seas, and the Coast Guard does it. The Coast Guard statistics say that of boats off Venezuela, 21 percent of those boats didn’t have drugs.” This would mean almost a quarter of the suspected drug boats the Coast Guard encounters are not drug boats—a significant number. Paul was befuddled by others’ reasoning on this. “And it’s amazing to listen to some of the support for this,” he said. “It’s like, well, 79 percent is pretty good. It’s like, really?” “You’d kill 21 percent innocent people just because, well, the majority of them must be drug dealers, so we’re fine,” he lamented. “No, that’s not very thoughtful. It’s actually an extraordinary, reprehensible position.” The contrast between the message Paul is trying to convey on this issue versus what some of his MAGA critics perceive about his position was seen through an X exchange over the weekend.  Self-identified “MAGA 100%” X user “Chicago1Ray” shared a video of authorities boarding a boat that definitely looked like drug smuggling. “What do you think (Rand Paul) is gonna say when he sees this.. he’s tagged… there’s only one way to find out…so you know what to do,” he wrote, seeming to want his nearly half million followers to retweet his post. The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf pounced. “I suspect Rand Paul would say that this video illustrates our ability to interdict drugs lawfully without any need to kill anyone and shows that mistake prone extrajudicial killings are not just illegal and immoral but also unnecessary to the mission.” Pretty much. This September event of so much controversy was one of more than 20 such strikes, which have killed over 80 people, carried out by the Trump administration. The administration and many Republicans are defending these types of attacks, while most Democrats and a minority of Republicans are questioning the legality and morality of the attacks. Congress has not been consulted on these attacks. Nor do they even necessarily fall under the two decade old AUMF (authorization for the use of military force) that was supposed to apply to the War on Terror after 9/11. As the Republican Congressman Thomas Massie told The American Conservative last week, “Congress hasn’t even declared a Global War on Narco Terrorism, yet, right? That doesn’t exist.” Ideally, America is supposed to be better than this. In late October, TAC’s George O’Neill, Jr. noted the naked immorality on display: “Of course, the laws of man are not the only impediment to killing suspected narco-traffickers who may, for all we know, in many cases be simple fishermen.” “In addition to the aforementioned prohibitions, the killing of people without any due process is completely contrary to the core beliefs of Christianity and the Christian nation in which we grew up,” he wrote. “It should be stopped immediately and completely.” Does the United States now openly murder foreigners who appear unarmed and don’t seem to be at war with us? It’s a good question, and an imperative one. The post ‘Explain to Us Why We Kill People Who Are Not Armed’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Congress Must Invoke War Powers Act to Stop War with Venezuela Claims that Caracas poses a military threat to the American homeland are demonstrably false. Credit: image via Shutterstock Current Venezuela discourse within the Trump administration is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Fox News are beating the drums of war, perpetuating falsehoods that grossly exaggerate Venezuela’s threat to the U.S. Over the last few weeks, inaccurate claims that Caracas bears responsibility for America’s fentanyl crisis, supplies Hamas with uranium, or directly conspires against America with Iran and Hezbollah have become the new “Saddam has WMDs” deception to justify a sham war and regime change in Venezuela. The constant peddling of such claims is slowly being normalized within the public psyche and has laid the groundwork for a series of extralegal military operations off Venezuela’s coastal waters under the guise of counter-narcoterrorism operations. Guardrails are needed, and fast. If Congress does not immediately assert its rightful authority, under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, to stop the escalating intervention, then the United States risks following the same dark path that laid the groundwork for the horrific invasion of Iraq. A few days ago, a group of mostly House Democrats introduced a War Powers resolution to prevent unauthorized U.S. military action in Venezuela. That should not be viewed as a symbolic gesture, but a legitimate step toward emergency constitutional intervention. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 exists for this exact reason: to prevent U.S. presidents from unilaterally declaring war by imposing a series of congressional oversight mechanisms designed to prevent conflict and add transparency to the deliberation process. It also stipulates “the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action” and prohibits the use of the armed forces in such an action for more than 60 days (or up to 90 days with a withdrawal period) unless Congress has approved the action or issued a declaration of war. Unfortunately, the War Powers Resolution, since being enshrined into U.S. law, has yet to prevent U.S. military operations or war. Given the number of bungled foreign policy decisions the United States has made in that time, now would be a great time for Congress to assert its authority over war-making and establish a new precedent within the executive branch’s strategic calculus going forward.  A true War Powers process would force the administration to back its claims. Congress could vet the veracity of the evidence and likely counter these claims with indisputable evidence that we all know is being ignored. In effect, invoking the War Powers Resolution would usher in much needed transparency to prove key points that would prevent Venezuela from becoming Iraq 2.0: Venezuela is not driving the fentanyl crisis, does not possess or transfer nuclear material to Hamas, and does not pose a military threat to the United States. Consider first the faux fentanyl claims. The White House claims or strongly implies that Venezuela is behind major fentanyl trafficking into the United States and has used this point to justify its military strikes on small boats off the coast of Venezuela. A War Powers investigation would show that the DEA pinpointed Mexican cartels, with chemical components originating from China, as the main perpetrators behind the trafficking of illicit fentanyl into the United States. Simply put, fentanyl does not come from Venezuela. The claim that Caracas is transferring nuclear material and/or knowhow to Hamas is equally without merit. The pro-war Rep. Maria Salazar (R-FL) appeared on Fox News and stated that Nicolás Maduro is supplying uranium to Hamas and other armed groups in the Middle East. But the fact is that Venezuela does not even have a nuclear weapons program.  Every false claim made about Venezuela recalls the cherry-picked intelligence used to manufacture consent for the Iraq war by depicting Saddam Hussein as being in cahoots with terrorists and possessing weapons of mass destruction. Rubio, for example, has been pontificating about Maduro’s alleged ties to Iran and Hezbollah. The secretary of state hasn’t provided any evidence that Maduro’s regime is conspiring with Iranian and Hezbollah forces to threaten the U.S. What we do know, however, is that Rubio is one of the most hawkish forces within the Trump administration and has been one of the biggest proponents for regime change in Venezuela. Rubio is not the only figure in the administration who would be curbed by a War Powers Resolution. Over the last few months, the U.S. has carried out over 22 military strikes off the coast of Latin America, killing 86 people in what it deems counter narco-terror operations. Hegseth has reportedly been the one of the main architects of these strikes, including the ones on boats off the Venezuelan coast, drawing the ire of Congress in the process. The strikes have prompted many to assert the possibility that the U.S. may have violated both U.S. and international maritime law.   One reason Republican lawmakers should support a War Powers resolution to stop intervention in Venezuela is that the White House unilaterally declaring war against Caracas is antithetical to the “America First” movement. Seventy percent of Americans oppose a war with Venezuela, and Americans would rather see their tax dollars spent on reviving the American Dream and improving the quality of life in the United States, rather than fueling the military-industrial complex. If Congress fails to invoke War Powers—or if Trump subsequently ignores such an invocation—this would be a continued betrayal of the ideals that the president has long championed. Even more so, an unnecessary war against Venezuela runs counter to Trump’s electoral promise, emphasized in his second inaugural address, that he would be a peacemaker. Over the last year, this pledge has been strained in the Middle East. The United States continues to be attached at the hip to Israel, which has now expanded its military operations from the West Bank and Gaza into Syria and South Lebanon, all while possibly gearing up for round two with Iran. Moreover, the U.S. has repeatedly bombed Somalia under Trump. What exactly has the U.S. gained from all of this? Nothing that benefits ordinary Americans. Now, more than ever, the United States needs the War Powers Resolution as a constraining mechanism against forces who do not prioritize American interests, constitutional principles, or global stability. The post Congress Must Invoke War Powers Act to Stop War with Venezuela appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Why Trump Seeks a Swift End to the Ukraine War The new National Security Strategy outlines a realist case for pursuing strategic stability with Russia. (Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images) The publication of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has, predictably, ignited a firestorm through the corridors of power in Kiev and European capitals, while Moscow welcomed it. The document’s stark language, declaring an urgent priority to end the war in Ukraine, has been met with a mixture of outrage and denial from transatlantic elites. What these reactions reveal is a fundamental clash between entrenched transatlantic idealism and a resurgent American realism. For one thing, the strategy is clear evidence that President Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan on Ukraine is not an aberration nor is it the product of his special envoy Steve Witkoff being unwittingly manipulated by Russian diplomats—a notion that has spawned absurd theories claiming the plan was “made in Moscow.” It is the logical, hard-nosed implementation of a new strategic doctrine that places American interests first and demands a return to realism in Europe. For too long, U.S. policy has been driven by a moralistic ideology that subordinates national interest to the unrealizable goal of a total Ukrainian victory. The new NSS represents a decisive break from this approach. It grounds American foreign policy in the unvarnished realities of power, risk, and strategic focus. The implications for the Ukraine war are clear: Washington’s goal is no longer to fuel an indefinite proxy conflict, but to compel a negotiated peace and restore a balance of power that prevents a catastrophic direct clash between nuclear powers.The 2025 NSS is built on the foundational principle of “America First” for which Trump received a clear democratic mandate. It explicitly states that the United States is no longer “propping up the entire world order like Atlas” and that its rich and capable allies must take primary responsibility for their own regions and defense. This declaration is not rhetorical or philosophical; it is a directive for the entire U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Applied to Europe, this logic yields several non-negotiable conclusions that directly shape the Ukraine endgame. First, ending the war is a primary U.S. interest to prevent an unintended, and potentially catastrophic escalation with Russia involving a possible nuclear standoff down the road.  Second, Europe must stand on its own feet, meaning reduced U.S. military presence and aid and a push for greater European self-reliance. Third, NATO expansion is finished. The strategy aims to end the perception of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance and also to prevent such expansion in reality. This conclusion is directly linked to the war in Ukraine as Moscow clearly saw Ukraine’s potential membership in a hostile military alliance as a casus belli. Fourth, strategic stability with Russia must be restored, recognizing the futility and danger of a permanent—and escalating—state of hostility with a nuclear-armed great power. These are not isolated points but parts of an integrated framework. The strategy criticizes European officials for harboring “unrealistic expectations” about the war, noting that while a significant majority of Europeans want peace, their desires are not reflected in official policy. In short, Washington is now committed to imposing strategic reality on allies whom it sees as having lost touch with it.Within this strategic context, Trump’s 28-point peace framework is revealed for what it truly is: a pragmatic tool of American statecraft. When your overriding goal is to end a war swiftly, diplomacy inevitably focuses pressure on the party over which you have the most leverage. Not only does Russia hold the military initiative on the ground, but the U.S. has few remaining non-escalatory tools to pressure Moscow. Conversely, Washington possesses immense and direct leverage over Kiev.Therefore, a strategy aimed at a rapid conclusion logically leads to pressing Ukraine for concessions. The elements of the Trump plan—territorial adjustments, a formal bar on NATO membership for Kiev, restrictions on the Ukrainian military, and a prohibition on seizing Moscow’s sovereign assets—are not a Russian “wish list” but calculated compromises designed to create a deal the Kremlin might accept. They align perfectly with the NSS objectives of halting NATO expansion and de-escalating tensions with Russia. The administration’s resolve on these points is evident, as officials have signaled an intent to press ahead on key provisions despite European and Ukrainian protests. Furthermore, the strategy’s emphasis on avoiding long-term entanglements makes it highly unlikely the U.S. will offer Kiev robust security guarantees that could chain America to a future conflict. The goal is to extricate the U.S. from the crisis, not to assume a new, open-ended commitment.The path charted by the NSS will not be smooth. A powerful, bipartisan faction of the Washington establishment—including figures from the former Trump administration like Mike Pompeo—remains committed to sabotaging any peace deal, branding realism as appeasement. These war hawks, some with troubling financial ties to the defense industry, are conducting a rearguard action through media leaks and political pressure. However, the publication of the new NSS alters this political battlefield. It is the foundational document that guides the executive branch. Career officials at the State Department and in embassies worldwide are now duty-bound to align their actions with its goals, regardless of personal views. With a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress, the administration possesses significant political capital to execute this vision, at least in the near term. The ultimate question is whether Moscow will find the terms on offer sufficient. The Kremlin has indicated disagreements with some points. Yet the new U.S. strategy demonstrates a sober understanding of power dynamics: Russia’s battlefield position grants it negotiating strength. If the initial offer proves insufficient, the logic of the NSS suggests Washington may be prepared to increase pressure on Kiev and Europe, or offer further assurances to Moscow, to achieve its paramount objective of ending the war.  The onus, however, is also on Russian President Vladimir Putin not to overplay his hand. The strategy represents a rare window of opportunity for Moscow; seizing it would require foresight to move toward a stable, if wary, relationship with the United States.  The era of America underwriting Europe’s security fantasies is over. The new National Security Strategy demands a peace in Ukraine that serves American interests—prioritizing stability over maximalist justice, de-escalation over moral posturing, and the hard work of diplomacy over the seductive folly of endless war. It is a difficult but necessary correction, one that offers the only plausible path to saving what remains of Ukrainian sovereignty while averting a far wider, and potentially civilization-ending, disaster. The post Why Trump Seeks a Swift End to the Ukraine War appeared first on The American Conservative.

Churchill’s Dire Warning Rings Again—This Time for America

How Trump Can Help Accelerate Argentina's Economic Comeback