By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a CNN interview, White House advisor Stephen Miller articulated the Trump administration’s stance on foreign policy, asserting the United States’ right to take control of other nations for its interests, particularly concerning resources. Miller’s comments, which included the view that sovereign countries do not have sovereignty if the US wants their resources, were described as “imperialistic” by Senator Bernie Sanders. The administration has set its sights on Venezuela’s oil reserves and Greenland’s untapped resources, even though Greenland is part of Denmark, a NATO ally. Danish and Greenlandic officials have strongly condemned Trump’s threats, with the Danish Prime Minister warning that an attack on another NATO country would end the alliance.
Read the original article here
In “Unhinged” Rant, Miller Says US Has Right to Take Over Any Country For Its Resources
The core of this unsettling situation is Stephen Miller’s pronouncements, and the implications of his words are truly chilling. The idea that the United States, as a self-proclaimed superpower, has the right to simply seize any country for its resources isn’t just a controversial opinion; it’s a dangerous one. It echoes a mindset that has historically led to conflict and suffering, and frankly, sounds like a page taken straight out of a history book we’d rather forget.
The rhetoric seems to suggest that this isn’t just a stray comment; it’s a strategic declaration, a sort of roadmap of intentions. The comments emphasize that this is not a one-off statement but rather the articulation of a dangerous world view that was widely rejected post-World War II. It’s a throwback to a time when might made right, a concept that seems completely out of place in the modern world. Miller’s words paint a picture of a nation ready to throw its weight around, disregarding international norms and potentially sparking global instability. The casual discussion of military intervention, and the willingness to pursue regime change or occupation in various countries, is alarming.
The very fact that these statements are being made, and seemingly embraced, is what’s truly concerning. That the US can simply “conduct ourselves as a superpower” and take resources wherever they’re found is a frightening prospect. It’s reminiscent of historical narratives of territorial expansion and resource exploitation. It’s not just a matter of semantics; it’s about a fundamental shift in how the United States views its role in the world and its willingness to exert its power.
One of the most alarming aspects is how this mindset seems to be coupled with a disdain for the principles of consent, empathy, and international law. The fact that the rhetoric suggests that elections shouldn’t be held in Venezuela but rather that the US needs to ‘assert’ itself is a worrying indicator. It’s reminiscent of a historical playbook of aggressive foreign policy, a move that is out of step with the ideals of a democratic society.
The potential for conflict that the mindset described by Miller evokes is substantial. The idea of the US occupying nations in the name of resource acquisition is a dangerous proposition, and it carries the threat of global repercussions. History has shown us the catastrophic consequences of such actions, whether it be for oil or any other resource.
The comments also highlight a deep concern about the potential for American society to fall under the control of a small elite. When a nation is perceived as being “hollowed out” and run by a few rich people, this signals danger. The erosion of institutions, the destruction of education, the takeover of the media and the courts, and the manipulation of political systems, paints a dark picture of where things are heading. The fear is that the country has become a nation of cowards, bootlickers, and dipshits.
The response to this kind of rhetoric is critical. If such views are met with silence or, worse, approval, it sends a dangerous signal. The necessity of strong opposition, public scrutiny, and a firm rejection of these ideas is paramount. The people must demand their elected officials to take a stand.
The comments do suggest that what is at play here is not just an individual rant, but a clear, articulated vision. It is a philosophy that has been rejected in the past. To avoid sliding into an era of instability, one must be willing to push back, and expose the destructive nature of these ideas. It is an invitation to engage, to be aware, and to act against the erosion of values. It is a matter of safeguarding the principles of a world that values peace, cooperation, and the rights of all nations.