You have to hand it to the Democrat left. Their schtick never changes, and that’s especially true when it comes to their untreated and worsening Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I keep seeing people wringing their hands over President Donald Trump’s supposed “kidnapping” of Nicolás Maduro, warning that it sets some dire precedent that will inevitably come back to haunt us. According to this crowd, it’s a blatant violation of international law that will embolden China or Russia to suddenly abandon “international norms” and start behaving aggressively—as if they’ve been patiently restrained all this time out of respect for polite paperwork.
Okay, well, Mehdi, we didn’t invade Venezuela and, as of now, President Trump has no reason or plans to do it, so there’s that huge glaring difference.
There’s also this inconvenient reality: does anyone seriously believe Vladimir Putin just now realized he might ignore international “norms” or “law” because President Donald Trump sent troops to capture Nicolás Maduro?
Or that Xi Jinping is sitting on his hands, respectfully restraining himself from challenging Taiwan’s sovereignty—right up until this supposed “horrific violation” of international law gave him ideas?
Come on. That’s not how the world works. Strongmen don’t consult law reviews or wait for moral permission slips. They act based on strength, weakness, opportunity, and cost. Pretending that Putin or Xi are guided by Western notions of “norms” is comforting fiction for people who don’t want to grapple with power realities.
If anything, decisive action does the opposite of what the hand-wringers fear. It clarifies red lines. It raises the cost of aggression. And it reminds adversaries that American resolve isn’t a debating society—it’s a capability. The idea that enforcing consequences causes authoritarian adventurism isn’t just wrong; history shows it’s usually the lack of consequences that invites it.
International law isn’t really law in the way people pretend it is. We like to act as though it exists, and in some circumstances the pretense is useful to maintain, but that doesn’t make it real in any meaningful, enforceable sense.
When civilized nations want a basic framework to manage relations among themselves, they sign treaties, set up rules, and create bureaucracies whose decisions they agree—voluntarily—to respect. That arrangement can be practical. It can even promote stability. But it isn’t law.
Law, by definition, requires enforcement—force. And there is no overarching international sovereign with the authority or capability to enforce anything resembling real law across the globe. No world police. No global sheriff. Just agreements that powerful nations follow when it suits them and ignore when it doesn’t.
Which makes the performative wailing about “international law” even more hollow. It’s usually coming from the same people who insist that slapping a “gun-free zone” sign on a wall magically prevents murder.
If they even believe what they’re saying—which is an open question. Some probably do. Many clearly don’t. After all, a fair number of the same voices now hyperventilating about President Donald Trump’s supposed “kidnapping” of Nicolás Maduro were perfectly fine excusing—or outright justifying—the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israelis.
When Hamas raped and murdered civilians, it was waved away as “resistance,” “context,” or some fashionable decolonization slogan. International law? Human rights? Suddenly optional.
Some may argue that the effort isn’t worth the payoff in situations like this, but I don’t want to hear any more about “international law.” We live in a world where SOMALIA currently holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council.
You really can’t make this stuff up. A Somali diplomat stepping forward to scold the United States and lecture Americans about “international law” is rich enough on its own.
But it gets even more absurd. According to reporting and public records, this same individual is also tied to operating a health care business in Ohio—which has raised serious questions and allegations about potential improprieties.
It’s pure idiocracy—and liberals expect anyone to take it seriously? They want people not to laugh in their faces?
The only questions that actually matter are simple ones: does removing Maduro make the world a better place? And more importantly, does it make the United States of America safer and stronger?
If the answer to either—or both—is yes, then the debate is over. Everything else is noise, posturing, and bad-faith outrage from people who wouldn’t recognize a net positive if it handcuffed a dictator and put him on a plane.
Leave a Reply