Vying For Power, Amidst Much American Meddling

THERE IS A CONTROVERSY, or perhaps "crises" would be a more apt description, in Venezuela concerning the identity of the legitimate president, stemming from a recent election in dispute. To Americans, particularly those conversant with their country's history, this is, or should be all too familiar, a rhyme, but not a repetition. If the United States were a much smaller country, with a less firm legal foundation, Hillary Clinton might have marched with he supporting mob down Pennsylvania Avenue, adorned in armor remindful of Elizabeth the first awaiting the Spanish, demanding the White House by dint of popular vote. It took Jefferson and Adams thirty six vote counts in the House of representatives to elect Jefferson. Adams skipped the inauguration, disgusted, and quietly left town, explain to Abagail: :If he wants it that badly, let him have it." he wanted it badly. Badly enough to pay a smear merchant fifty dollars to slander Adams in the fake news media of the day, whose principle purpose was to spread fake news, in a contentious presidential demanding which makes our modern versions look tame by comparison. Th man to whom Jefferson owed the money appeared at the White House requesting it, and when Jefferson pleaded insolvency, offered to make public dreamy tom's liaison with a certain young black woman whom he owned. Jefferson, miraculously, found the cash. Adams' stripling avenged his father's reelection near miss in 1824,, with a "corrupt bargain" embittering Andrew Jackson, a man whom it was always unwise to embitter. Jackson took bullets, laughed, and carried them to his grave. Jackson was motivated to a rematch in 1828, with better results, at least for him, if not john Quincy Adams. Another peculiar arrangement brought Rutherford B. Hayes to the white House in 1876, in exchange for the removal of the union jackboot from the throat of the defeated confederacy. And those of a certain age can never forget the sight of al Gore, striding to the microphone in December of 2000, and accepting, grudgingly but magnanimously, the verdict of Florida's electoral corruption and the blatant political partisanship of the United States Supreme Court. We omit mention of Kennedy Nixon in 1960, and votes cast by the deceased in Chicago, for lack of verifiable information. Let us stipulate that on one of these occasions of disputed American presidential elections did any foreign power seek to impose its political will upon the United States, although in 1800 Napoleon thought about it, but relented when Jefferson, a known Francophile, won. so why does the United states now presume to tell Venezuela who their president rightfully is, who rightfully isn't? In a word, because it can. Among humans, and especially in affairs of state, might makes right, and its as simple as that. the United Stats has been presuming to know what's best for Latin American countries since it issued its famous, but utterly impotent and unenforceable "Monroe Doctrine" in 1824, and old habits are hard tp break. In the present affair of state, the incumbent dictator of Venezuela has ordered all American diplomats out of the country, and the gentleman claiming to be the new dictator is inviting them to stay. As you might suppose, the Trump administration, looking for distractions amidst its own legal difficulties, is insisting, unwisely, that they stay, thus putting themselves at great risk. The corporate masters of America always back whichever candidate pledges the most capitalism, and the greatest leeway in tolerating American investment in and exploitation of country's in question national natural resources, and that, concerned citizen, is no mere coincidence.