
Loading summary
A
In the wake of President Trump's capturing Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, politicians are coming out of the woodwork to criticize the military action as unprecedented and illegal. Kamala Harris, the Democrat presidential nominee who lost to Trump, came out within hours to call the arrest of Maduro unlawful. A tough argument to make when Harris own administration attempted the exact same policy a year earlier and even offered 25 million bucks to anyone who could help them do it. Maybe. Maybe Trump should call her up and try to claim his reward. In terms of law, not only had there been a warrant for Maduro's arrest for over five years, not only did Venezuela steal American property and traffic drugs to the United states, but over 50 countries in the international community had not even recognized Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela after he stole the Venezuelan presidential election. Just about any way you slice it, the arrest was lawful and publicly defended, at least for a while, by both Republican and Democrat administrations. But how about the other claim that Trump's intervention in Venezuela was unprecedented? It was an unprecedented military action, and.
B
This operation was flat out illegal.
A
This is not a win for the American people. I don't know if any of those Democrats are history buffs. I suspect they're not. But when we examine the claim that Trump's action in Venezuela was unprecedented, we find a lot of precedent. By my count, since the Mexican American War in 1846, the total number of US interventions in Latin America has been 88, which is, coincidentally, the number of minutes which elapsed from the time the US Troops reached Maduro's palace to the time they had completely evacuated the country. Pretty impressive. In the middle to late 19th century alone, the United States military intervened in Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua again, and Cuba. But it wasn't until the 20th century that we really got involved, intervening in Guyana, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, Argentina, Paraguay, and Grenada twice respectively, in Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, and Chile, three times in Haiti, five times each in El Salvador and Bolivia, six times each in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, seven times in Cuba, ten times in Honduras, and a whopping dozen times in poor old Panama, even if you only count the successful operations that led to a change in regime. Since 1906, the US has helped to swap out governments in Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic again, Brazil, the Dominican Republic again, Bolivia, Chile, Grenada, Panama, and Haiti again. Turn ahead to our own century, and we help to overthrow regimes in Haiti again. That's the last one for now. And Honduras in 2009. And then, most recently, we arrive at the unprecedented action in Venezuela, which is unprecedented only in its efficiency, its legal predicate, and in how successfully it was carried out.
B
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national Red Tag Sales event going on right now through January 25th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at incredible pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red Tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton difference. Tap your screen now or visit Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.
Theme:
Michael Knowles dissects the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro. He addresses critics—primarily Democrats—who label the action as "unprecedented" and "illegal," while highlighting the long history of American interventions in Latin America. Knowles delivers a fast-paced historical rundown to challenge claims of illegality and uniqueness regarding this action.
Criticism from Opponents
“Kamala Harris… called the arrest of Maduro unlawful. A tough argument to make when Harris’ own administration attempted the exact same policy a year earlier…” (00:11)
Legality Discussion
“Not only had there been a warrant for Maduro's arrest for over five years… over 50 countries in the international community had not even recognized Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela...” (00:31)
“The arrest was lawful and publicly defended, at least for a while, by both Republican and Democrat administrations.” (00:53)
Historical Precedent of U.S. Interventions
“I don’t know if any of those Democrats are history buffs. I suspect they're not. But when we examine the claim that Trump's action in Venezuela was unprecedented, we find a lot of precedent.” (01:12)
“Since the Mexican American War in 1846, the total number of US interventions in Latin America has been 88…” (01:17)
Citing Specific Regime Changes
“Since 1906, the US has helped to swap out governments in Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala, Ecuador...” (02:48)
“Unprecedented only in its efficiency, its legal predicate, and in how successfully it was carried out.” (03:28)
“Which is, coincidentally, the number of minutes which elapsed from the time the US troops reached Maduro's palace to the time they had completely evacuated the country. Pretty impressive.” (01:30)
On Democratic hypocrisy:
“Maybe Trump should call her up and try to claim his reward.” – Michael Knowles (00:25)
On the prevalence of American interventions:
“We help to overthrow regimes in Haiti again. That’s the last one for now. And Honduras in 2009. And then, most recently, we arrive at the unprecedented action in Venezuela…” (03:14)
On historical awareness:
“I don't know if any of those Democrats are history buffs. I suspect they're not.” (01:12)
| Timestamp | Segment | |---------------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:00–00:53 | Political backlash, Kamala Harris critique, legality issue | | 01:07–01:55 | Historical context—U.S. interventions enumerated | | 01:55–03:28 | Detailed list of regime changes, summary of precedent |
Michael Knowles adopts a characteristically sardonic, rapid-fire style, blending historical facts with pointed political jabs. His approach is both informative and unapologetically partisan, designed to critique current Democratic commentary while underscoring historical precedents for American actions in Latin America.