Venezuela, Drugs & Other Considerations

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 1/8/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today. And it’s also our first bimonthly emphasis on headline events, the Constitution and US history. And again, with regular guest David, new constitutional attorney, author, and a public speaker. And we’ve been doing this together for a long time now. And so it’s a real pleasure to start out 2026 again this way. Now, major globally impacting events are coming to a head so fast it seems in 2026 you’re listening to me, you’re probably also listening to news and that’s what everyone seems to be sensing. Some of these big events they range from, for instance, some things that are like right now what I’m going to talk about just briefly, it’s not even really out in the big news yet, but they’re behind the scenes, sea changes and in the area of global finances impacting the dollar of the Federal Reserve, which had an emergency meeting yesterday in Jackson Hole.

A big deal impacting gold and silver and our monetary changes, China and the brick nations major things that are happening. Most of these major changes, like I say, it’s not yet out in the mainstream, so be aware, but there’s also a boiling pot in an increasingly likely advent of all out war in the Middle East. And we’ve been talking about that for a long time, but it ebbs and flows. But just as of yesterday, even following the program I did yesterday on standing the gap here with Israel, the Middle East and biblical prophecy with Chris Katulka from Friends of Israel, there are things that are happening right now that are headlines there, Israel, the United States and Iran at war, right? Well, it’s boiling pot. That’s the point. Another oil tanker yesterday was commandeered on the high seas by the United States in the North Atlantic that’s playing out yesterday the president said that the US military is ready to take over Greenland.

Okay, so that’s another one. And on I could go, you get the idea yet an action that caught the attention of the entire world and moved quickly to an emergency. And unanimous condemnation, by the way, by the United Nations saved one nation and that was the United States. And that was the world debating the many aspects of Donald Trump’s decision to invade Venezuela, capturing Venezuela president and his wife and exhibit them on trial here in the United States already been done. Donald Trump’s confirmation that along with Maduro and his wife, the US government is also claiming ownership over Venezuela’s oil and natural resources, the decision to establish US oil companies there in Venezuela and to sell and to collect the revenue from those resources to pay for resource development and give some of it back to the people. But under what terms is not defined that a statement as well was that.

And under any scenario, the US would continue to run Venezuela until some point ostensibly someone in the current White House or a future White House for instance, would determine that Venezuela was achieving US goals and ambitions. All of these things are layered one down on the other. And the implications by necessity are very wide. And I’m going to say very unknown. They serve to place our nation and the international community into historical days of uncertainty. The point being here that the world is in change, big change. And our goal today is not to address all of these considerations or the implications because we cannot do it, but to pick on a couple of those and title I’ve chosen to frame our discussion today is simply this, Venezuela drugs and other considerations. And with that, I want to welcome in right now. David. David, thanks for being back here with me today.

David New:

Those thanks to you and happy new year to everybody.

Sam Rohrer:

David, you and I have already talked in depth and we’ve had some real discussion as well as it’s happening across anybody who’s really informed is having discussion about the things that we’ve talked about. And we’re going to get into some of those things here today and the program a little bit of maybe a point counterpoint aspect and just allow our listeners to listen in with us. But let me start with this with you. And I’m asking all of our recurring guests like you, like Chris yesterday and Leo Homan with me on Monday. Basically the same question to get us going and that is this, when you, from your perspective, look back over 2025, what would you highlight as perhaps the most notable event or events which perhaps lay the groundwork even for shaping what might unfold in 2026?

David New:

Well, first I would say that America has become a religion friendly government for a change. And it’s practically pro Christian. It’s quite obvious that the many members of the Trump administration are Christian. They make that very clear. Second, closing the border, of course electing President Trump, taking the office on January 20th, tops the list closing the border. That’s extremely important. Next bombing Iran, their nuclear efforts that is extremely important to the world that they never get a missile that can send a nuclear weapon to Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and other places. As far as bad things for this year so far, the failure complete and total failure by President Trump who claimed he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and he has not even come close. But those are the key things so far this year or for last year.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright? And it’s interesting in that regard. I would say some similarity for those of you listening to me right now who heard what David said, but most would agree that without a doubt the election of Donald Trump, the inauguration in January, and then the things that have happened out of that consequential to that have been, well the primary change makers. So let’s put it that way around the world. And that takes us David, or even right up to the Venezuelan aspect which we talk about because again, that was initiated by the president. Now we don’t have much time left, but some of those are major things. So in effect, what you’re saying is that the changes made here in the United States, you highlighted all of them are driving and shaping the global events probably as much as anything, right?

David New:

Oh yes, yes. And I think one of the most important things is of course America has become a more pro-family nation. That is the key. The family is the key. The stronger the family, the stronger the nation, the weaker the family, the weaker the nation. And the LGBT agenda is exactly a threat to the institution of the family to make this nation weaker.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, David, thank you much for that. And ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to build on that because as David referenced, there are certain fundamental things that are necessary for good governance and all that happens. And that kind of walks us right into a consideration and we’re not going to get to all of them, but the decision to move into Venezuela and do what I said at the beginning of the program is at the moment dominating most discussion with broad implications. We’ll look at some of those. What is the basis for doing that? If you’re just joining us here today, this is our Thursday program emphasis, bimonthly emphasis on constitution and US history and generally work into it, some aspect of relevancy with headline type news. And so we’ve introduced it that way. David New is my guest as always, and today I’ve chosen as a theme just to frame a portion because we don’t have enough time here in an hour to deal with everything comprehensively, but is Venezuela drugs and other considerations.

And within that that we’re going to try and touch on all of those things. Now let me just give a list bit of a foundation here and then we’re going to move into this. The decision by the president to use military troops to enter Venezuela capture its president and his wife and take over its oil and natural resources was positioned in the media prior to the January 4th event primarily by saying that it was because of President Maduro’s involvement in drug trafficking and therefore triggering a somewhat connected moral duty perhaps and that of the necessity of bringing him to justice. So some of those things were linked because every policy, if you recall, just put this in here, every time that I can recall our nation entering into a foreign country, be that Iraq or whatever, there was always a time of positioning by the administration and force at that point of justifying somehow to their level of expectation why they were doing that.

Alright? So in this case, this is what was positioned Now, however, about a week prior earlier, the statements of Susie Wiles there in the White House and the president’s in his post capture press conference, which held on January four, just a few days ago, made the emphasis. She said that it was all about acquiring the oil reserves and natural resources. And of course the president spent almost all his time talking about that. So these widely varied statements from moral drug on one hand to oil and other natural resources, they’re both out there on the table and they therefore have opened the door. I’m going to say for what is legitimate discussion and debate, and again, we’re not going to make this exhaustive, but David, I’m just going to go to you at this point and then we’ll get into it. To what extent do you see the consideration of that earlier argument, at least drugs, moral duty, justice, they generally walk together as a legitimate basis for our nation to enter Venezuela, another nation and capture its president and his wife.

David New:

Well, I believe the drug issue was the primary principle basis. I don’t believe it was oil. I never have believed it as oil. And President Trump is making one giant mistake talking about oil. The subject of oil from Venezuela shouldn’t have even come up until after a new president of Venezuela is in position and he has made the talking points for his opponents by talking about oil. It is not about oil. He is threatening to do Columbia as well because it is a narco state. They don’t have oil. So it is not about oil. There’s nothing in Venezuela oil that will make a difference to the United States for more than a decade. So it is all drugs, in my opinion, from A to Z, the only way oil matters is it is a tool for the president to quarantine them and to take each one of those tankers and just to take them, each one of those giant oil tankers are worth in oil. They carry about $200 million of value in terms of oil, each one of those tankers. And every time the United States takes one, the United States is hurting a bad guy, either Cuba, Russia or China. And of course the narco state of Venezuela.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, we’ll see. Now that’s interesting and you and I have had a lengthy discussion on that because I have generally said I don’t think it’s about drugs at all. And ladies and gentlemen, I said earlier when we began listening to the discussion because good people can come to different conclusions and there are other things we’re not even bringing into here. For instance, right now, I mean there’s international relationships posturing going on between the United States and China and Iran and Russia, and they all happen to converge in Venezuela. So there’s a lot going on that we’re not going to be able to touch on, but this is one that was put out publicly. And so David, you’re saying that you in fact think that the drug piece is important and I want you to get to share some history at this juncture and perhaps just do that here as we go into this. Because as you and I have debated privately and we’ve done a lot of discussion, and I’m going to say very emotionally driven, but really good is that in the aspect of this, whereas drugs and drug lording and all of that is an issue and it is because it’s harmful. Madura is a bad guy, all that. And it is, let’s just hold that for a moment. And is there an historical aspect, for instance, where drugs for whatever have gotten involved in international relations of this type that you could share?

David New:

Absolutely. What we are experiencing right now, what is happening right now as the last time it’s happened to my knowledge was over 200 years ago, just before the Civil War. There have been many cases where nation states have gone to war against drug lords and drug dealers and drug gangs and all of this kind of stuff. This what’s happened in Venezuela is very different because it’s now one state going at war against another state for their drug behavior. The last time this happened was 200 years ago, and the contestants were the great British, the British Empire and China, they’re called the Opium Wars. There were two of them. The first was from 1839 to 1842, and the second was from 1856 to 1860 just before the Civil War. They’re called the Opium Wars. And what was happening is that the British love tea and they were buying lots and lots of tea from China. The problem is the Chinese really don’t want anything from the British. They didn’t want anything and they demanded to be paid in silver.

So what Great Britain did, this is a very dark chapter in Britain’s history, is that they had lots of opium in India. They could grow it there like nobody’s business. They put them on ships and they sent them to China as trade for tea. The Chinese government said, Uhuh, we don’t want any of your opium in our country. And they went to war over it. It was a drug war, an international drug war. And it’s the only one I know of. There may be others, but I know of this one. And it had a profound impact. These opium wars are so important. When China looks at the West, at the western powers, they see us through the opium wars. That’s the context in which they look at us. And so Great Britain forced it. The Chinese military could not stop them, and so they flooded China with addicts and all kinds of things.

It was horrible what the British were doing in this situation. That’s how Britain got Hong Kong. Hong Kong was the base for trading drugs, opium for tea. That’s why they got Hong Kong for that reason. They got a 99 year lease, they had to give it up in 1997 and so they’re out. But they initially got it because of the drug war and all kinds of people were involved in trading opium for products throughout the world because at that time, opium wasn’t illegal. John Jacob asked her drug dealer, he made most of his money from furs, but he made some of it from selling opium. FDRs father, he sold opium too, but it was legal. It doesn’t become illegal until later. You used to be able to buy opium in the United States up until the early 19th, 18th, 19th century. So that is the context in which what we have going on right now, this is the second international drug war between a narco state and that’s what that government is.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, you’ve probably never even heard of that kind of a connection, but you have heard of the connection of fentanyl and drugs killing our American people that coming from China, interesting China again, but primarily coming through Mexico, not so much through Venezuela, which is cocaine, but nonetheless, it’s interesting that drugs are mixed up in the middle of it as well. Well, we’re halfway through our program today, David New is with me again and again, we’re just taking a little bit of an interesting slice in a view, a leading event, and that’s the decision by the president to enter into Venezuela and all that is unfolding out of that. And we will revisit that piece we talked about because prior to going in to Venezuela, the White House had positioned a moral, I wouldn’t say more of a moral justice type of an approach by saying that Maduro was involved in drugs.

And because he had been indicted, again alleged in a court in New York, we were going to use that as a justification to go in and extract him using the military, extract him from the country president and his wife, bring him here and then put him before US justice. Now that has happened, by the way, and he has pled not guilty. So that sets up who knows what will happen in the days ahead on that, but it’s still the aspect of the justification because afterward as he just turning in Susie Wiles from the White House prior and then the president himself, and David, you just said it was a foolish thing on the part of the president to spend so much time on making the emphasis on oil and leading you to the conclusion that no, it really is about drugs and it’s led me to the collusion.

No, it really is to me more about oil and resources because they’ve made it clear that’s what it is. But in the midst of it, there are some other power plays going on that involve Russia and Iran and China strategically, all of whom have a position in Venezuela, which is one of the things that makes it difficult for people to talk fully knowledgeable of what it is because there are so many layers to the discussion. But that being the case, I’m just going to let that sit there for right now. But David, one of the challenges as I’ve kind of talked about there is that good people not just left right type thing, but good people across this nation, they’re being forced to consider and some for the very first time, I’m going to say. And that is the foundation for the authority, legal authority, lawful authority, moral authority, constitutional authority.

From a God freeing perspective, we must put in their God’s moral authority to have one nation enter another. And in this case, we’re Americans. So we’re looking at this administration making the decision to go into Venezuela, although countries going into other countries is something that’s happened for a long time. But nonetheless, it all comes down to what kind of authority. Somehow it has to be addressable and justifiable. Now in this case, the president and some have cited the Monroe Doctrine first made in just a bit of history, ladies and gentlemen. The Monroe Doctrine, which you’ve heard cited, was made public in December 2nd, 1823 by President Monroe, hence Monroe Doctrine. And it was done during his seventh annual message to Congress. That’s back 1823. And since that time, that proclamation, that message has been referred to incited by numerous presidents including JFK and Cuba and President Reagan in regard to RAG and some actions that were there and others as well.

How they employed it was different. Each president succeeding that’s referred to it have adopted it differently. Donald Trump maybe I’m going to say has been rather some would say creative because in 2025 he has actually adopted it, cited it, even naming it the Don Rowe Doctrine, the Don Row doctrine. So here’s my question, David, from your perspective barreling down it, what authority does the Monroe Doctrine provide, not just in this case in Venezuela, but for any present really, when the Monroe Doctrine is neither a law or a treaty, but is recognized and has been recognized throughout history as a political policy statement, which was the context of the presentation of President Monroe in 1823,

David New:

Monroe doctrine is the legal justification to do what the President Trump did. Very quickly, I want to point out something Maduro sold many years ago, quite a few years ago, 49% of his oil and investment to Russia, the Russian, our good KGB sweetheart sent about two or three dozen troops to keep Maduro empowered to protect his investment. I don’t know if they still own 49% or not. The second key fact for those who believe that oil was the reason is Chevron. Chevron is operating oil business in Venezuela today. They have never ceased operating and dealing in oil in Venezuela. They’ve been there for years and they’re not going anywhere. And Maduro said, there’s nothing wrong. We’re keeping Chevrons. So Chevrons in there. So there’s no need to go in there for oil because Chevron is already there and he is already been doing business. Now the Monroe Doctrine, this is a doctrine that is very important.

The Constitution says the President shall be the commander in chief in Article two, section two of the Army and Navy of the United States. Now that’s all it says, commander in chief. But along with each branch of the government, state Department, treasury Department, justice department, there are policy guidelines. They aren’t laws necessarily, they don’t exist because of treaties, but they are policy rules. And one of the policy rules for the military, for the presidents of the United States as commander chief is the Monroe Doctrine. It’s extremely powerful. It’s been around for a long time and it’s very valid and other nations recognize it. Now listen, why is the Monroe doctrine so important? Why is it so powerful? It’s very simple. When you have opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, get out a piece of paper and write down the year that George Washington became president, the year 1789 and write down the year he ended being president and go down all the presidents for all the years. Their most of them are going to be either eight years or four years, right? Where has that ever existed before in the history of this planet? Never.

You will not find a line of succession of presidents for an eight years apart except for those who were assassinated. You’ll not find anywhere on the history of the supply. But what that does is it gives enormous power to the commander in chief because of stability. Now, ladies and gentlemen, look, south America has about 12 to 13 countries, most count 12, some count 13, depending a little bit of territory down there that they argue about Central America, eight countries. If you add the Caribbean, which is also in our hemisphere, 13 countries, that makes 33 countries. Now I want you to think about all the things that happen in Africa and Asia and Europe, all the violence that goes on.

Now, think about what goes on in these 33 nations. How many times have they tried to invade each other? They don’t. Why Monroe Doctrine? How many of these 33 nations are trying to develop a nuclear weapon and get a missile to deliver it to the Yankees in the north? Zero? They won’t even try. Why? Because they live under the nuclear umbrella. All 33 of them. They live under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. You fire nuclear weapon and any of them, as President Kennedy said at the Cuban Missile Crisis, you have fired it upon the United States and we will respond accordingly. They don’t have to have nuclear weapons. They don’t need ’em. Why waste money? The reason why you don’t see warfare, constant warfare among 33 nations is because of the United States, because of the Monroe Doctrine. Now, it is also true that Christianity has a big role in keeping these areas free and safe. Chile and Argentina, we’re about to go to war against each other In 19 0 2, 19 0 4 timeframe, they decided not to Why Christ of the Andes, Christianity has had a major role in making these nations stay where they are and not invading the other. But this is now being threatened by two narco states, Venezuela and Columbia. And if these states aren’t taken care of and dealt with, it will spread throughout South America.

Sam Rohrer:

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I would say, David, you did a very, very good job of applying the justification of citing the Monroe doctrine because what you have said, the presence of the United States in this sphere certainly has had the consequence, good consequence of the things you’ve talked about. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we’ll come back. We’re going to shift a little bit and extend this conversation. Alright ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to go into our final segment here. And I said at the very beginning that we would touch in a cursory fashion, so to speak, on this matter of the president’s decision to go into Venezuela. We’ve highlighted a couple of things. When there’s a decision, governmental decision, it is a policy decision. That’s what it’s, and it can be supported or it can be opposed. And so then you generally have right and left and Democrat and Republican and all of that.

And that’s where all that comes from because some say, well, based on how I view things, I don’t agree with what you did. And others say, well no, I do agree. And that’s where policy and policy statements come into effect. And so the sighting of whether it’s going to take over the oil and the resources, which is what the president is saying, it’s clearly a part of it because that’s what they’ve said and they’ve done it and they’re doing it. But how does that impact on military strategic aspect relative to the fact that there’s really a war going on between China and the United States and there’s currency wars going on right now as we speak between China and Russia and the brick nations and the United States dollar. It’s happening as we speak. There’s a lot of things going on that most of the time are not made public, but they factor into the policy decision.

So some would have one aspect and some would have another view. Alright? So in the case of this, when I was in the legislature and had to be forced to vote on law as an example or policy, I had to reach in and say, where’s the basis for it? What does God say about this? I’m going to vote on something that’s going to take the life of a baby abortion. Then I’m going to reach right to the very beginning and say, what does God say about it? Under no circumstance can I do it because sacred life is sacred. So I’m going to vote now and I’m going to support what God says. And when it comes to other things, and many times I dealt with it, somebody wanted to pass a law and there was big debate going on, but they had to go back and say, now wait a minute.

What’s the Constitution say about this? We may have the power to pass something, but do we have the authority? Different matter. So you got to say, no I can’t and had to vote. No, we don’t have the authority to do this. Alright? That’s the point of walking through Now as a Christian citizen and those in position of authority to have to walk down through these things and if something doesn’t line up, you can’t do it. So in this case, whether or not Madura is a bad guy and he is and he’s involved in drugs and evidently to some extent without a doubt, and is that a bad thing? Yes it is. And does that harm people? Yes it is. Now, does it warrant our nation going into another nation? Okay, I’m going to say no, I can’t find that anywhere in print. I can’t find that in the Constitution.

So where do they go? Well, that’s the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was a policy statement, not a treaty, not a law, not the Constitution. It has been referred to by presidents before. Adapted, as I’ve said by many other presidents along the way. Now being adopted into the Don Row doctrine, which again, what does that tell you? Well, it’s a concept, it’s a statement of policy, but it is interpreted differently by different presidents in different times. Did they all do it correctly? Well, depends what the people say. Depends what Congress says. You get my idea. It’s not absolute, it’s discretionary, but that’s where things are here right now. I can find no clear in my opinion, no clear authority, implied authority is how I would say it, but no clear authority and therefore, and that is the discussion that is taking place out there. Now that being the case, David, we only have just a couple seconds left, but you and I were talking yesterday and the concern of good people, that bad people like a Maduro or other drug people, that if you do not contain them, somehow that contagion will spread and we can’t be a part of that.

The United Nations after World War ii, they stood up and they promised that they were going to come of being so that they would have a good global government and prevent the atrocities of World War I Andi from ever happening again. Do they have the ability, David, just very quickly, what are your thoughts about the ability of manmade government to actually deliver consistent justice?

David New:

You asked Manuel Noriega, he has no oil in Panama, but he was a drug Lord and the United States got rid of him. The United States has involved itself more than 40 times in other nations. And in the vast majority of times without congressional approval, the very first was Jefferson sending the United States Navy to blow up the Barbary pirates. We were paying the ransom and we got tired of it and they declared war on us and we went there and blew them up. Another little story for people to realize who think he has to have congressional approval? First, Poncho Villa very nice gangster. He raided Columbus, New Mexico, killed 17 Americans. In 1916, president Wilson without congressional approval told the United States Army General Pershing in particular, go get them, cross the border into Mexico, get them. The United States Army was running all over Mexico for 11 months. There were initial attack was 6,000 troops, but at one point it got up to 10,000 US soldiers looking for this guy. They never did find him, but they tried. What really cut it short was the onslaught of World War I. There are many, many cases where the president acts and has acted without congressional approval. So this thing is legal. If there were, and by the way, a lot of people believe what’s driving this stuff right now is Marco Rubio, our Secretary of state is a Cuban and he wants Cuba out of power.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, David, I’m going to have to interrupt…

David New:

Do it, is to get rid of the oil.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay, I’ve got to interrupt. I got to conclude this. So ladies and gentlemen, the purpose for today’s program was to present an area of great controversy. Frankly, not all agreed by all people. And you’ve heard what David has said and what I have said, and I take a strict constructionist perspective and I don’t think the authority was there, although I think you can make a great case for all of those things. Here’s the point. We live in a human government world where we’re governed by people who have their own thoughts, their own ambitions. It changes from generation to generation. And not everybody interprets as in our day now, for surely don’t even interpret God to be the same God or truth to be the same, or don’t even follow the Constitution. That’s not the primary thing. Today, following God is not the primary thing today.

It hasn’t been for a long time, but here’s the point of hope. One day soon it will be when Jesus Christ returns and sets up the millennial kingdom, which the Bible speaks about, he will rule as king of the world from the global capital of Jerusalem in the nation of Israel. And if you know Jesus Christ as your personal savior, we will also reign with him. Think about that. And for the first time in the history of this world, government will be run by the king of kings Jesus Christ, physically on this earth with a rod of iron. And for the first time, justice will be administered as God’s plan has intended, and it will happen for a thousand years. Until then, there’s going to be debates, there’s going to be controversies, and there’s going to be increasing evidence of sin, corruption, and bribery. But one day that’ll all be put aside. So we’ve strived for the standard that God has laid out. Know that we’re in a world that is far from perfect, but I anticipate that one to come and I hope that you do as well.