OB Rag

From Washington Post / Jan. 3, 2025

President Donald Trump said Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago Club that the United States will control Venezuela for an unspecified period after a U.S. operation captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

“We’ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally. We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions,” he said, while declining to rule out U.S. military deployments. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground.”

The operation involved more than 150 aircraft, including strike and intelligence assets, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said after Trump’s remarks. “On arrival into the target area, the helicopters came under fire and they replied with that fire with overwhelming force,” Caine added. “One of our aircraft was hit but remained flyable.”

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, “gave up and were taken into custody” by U.S. forces, Caine said. The couple was removed from the country by helicopter, taken aboard the USS Iwo Jima and will be brought to New York, where both are facing federal charges.

Trump said the U.S. had prepared to mount a second-wave attack in Venezuela but that he doubted it would be needed.

Trump: US Oil Companies Will Take Over Venezuela’s Oil Fields

U.S. oil companies are going to take over Venezuela’s oil fields and industry, President Donald Trump said Saturday, declaring that U.S. oil interests will revive oil production in a country with one of the world’s largest reserves.

Several “No War on Venezuela” protests are being planned across the country today, after the US conducted a large-scale strike on the city of Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“We need to take to the streets and say no to another endless war! The people of this country do not want another war! A U.S. war would cause death and destruction for the people of Venezuela,” the Answer Coalition, one group organizing the protests, wrote in a news release.

Demonstrations are planned for Chicago, New York’s Times Square, outside the White House in Washington, DC, along with city halls and statehouses across the country this afternoon.

Meanwhile, In Congress 

Members of the US Congress on Saturday, Jan. 3, demanded emergency legislative action to prevent the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela after the president threatened a “second wave” of attacks and said the US will control the South American country’s government indefinitely.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said that “Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop” President Donald Trump, whose administration has for months unlawfully bombed boats in international waters and threatened a direct military assault on Venezuela without lawmakers’ approval.

“Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal,” said Casar. “My entire life, politicians have been sending other people’s kids to die in reckless regime change wars. Enough. No new wars.”

A day after the strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president by elements of the U.S. military, I guess we can now relax over any concerns that our military men and women wouldn’t follow illegal orders. For, the invasion of a sovereign country and the illegal abduction of its leader without Congressional approval (or even notice) by our army and navy are clearly illegal and against the Constitution.

Apparently, our boys and girls wearing US uniforms didn’t stop their actions in this attack against US and international law.

What a sigh of relief.

It was not even two months ago that a squad of Democratic congresspeople produced a video distributed widely telling military and intelligence officers to “refuse illegal orders.” Which is the law. Here’s that video they made:  a video .

In a statement shortly after the US bombings, Maduro’s government accused Washington of an “extremely serious military aggression”.

“Venezuela rejects, repudiates, and denounces before the international community the extremely serious military aggression perpetrated by the current government of the United States of America against Venezuelan territory and people,” the Venezuelan government said.

Here’s a look at how other countries are also reacting to the US attack and “capture” of Maduro.

Colombia
“Alerting the whole world that they have attacked Venezuela,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in a series of statements posted on the social media platform X.

“The Republic of Colombia reiterates its conviction that peace, respect for international law, and the protection of life and human dignity must prevail over any form of armed confrontation,” Petro said.

In a separate post, he said Colombia “rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America”.

Petro later announced the deployment of military forces to the Venezuelan border.

Mexico
In a statement on X, President Claudia Sheinbaum said “Mexico condemns the military intervention in Venezuela.”

She also included in her post an article in the UN Charter which states: “The Members of the Organization, in their international relations, shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

By Annie Karni / New York Times / Jan. 3, 2026, 10:46 a.m. ET

While President Trump crowed on Saturday about the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela by U.S. authorities, Democrats in Congress sounded alarms about the legality of the action and raised questions about recent briefings in which administration officials assured them that they were not seeking regime change in the nation.

Senator Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of having “blatantly” lied to Congress when they said the administration’s objective in Venezuela was not about toppling Mr. Maduro. He called the move to oust the Venezuelan leader “disastrous,” arguing that it would further isolate the United States on the global stage.

“Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war,” Mr. Kim, a former national security official in the Obama administration, wrote on social media.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat who represents a district in which Venezuelan immigrants cheered for the news, said that Mr. Maduro’s capture was “welcome” but that the way it was done raised serious questions.

Early Saturday, January 3rd, the Trump regime conducted a blatant and illegal act of war against Venezuela by bombing civilian and military sites and illegally kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

This act of aggression is a imperialistic continuation of U.S. policies against the sovereign South American country with attempts to seize and plunder Venezuela’s natural resources and threatens the sovereignty of other countries in Latin America.

The aggression goes against the will of the American people and against our Constitution. Nearly 70% of Americans oppose another war and reject the endless cycle of military interventions carried out in their name.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Venezuela, according to a Quinnipiac poll published in mid-December amid an escalation of U.S. pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.

Sixty-three percent of respondents told Quinnipiac they are against military action against Caracas, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out, with just 25 percent expressing support. And 53 percent of respondents said they opposed the administration’s use of military strikes to kill alleged drug smugglers in international waters.

As domestic and international condemnations of the attack and kidnapping mount up, there are typical sycophantic expressions of support from Trumpian Republicans.

By Donna Frye

As we head into the new year, it’s time once again to let the city council know that we oppose paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park for residents and non-residents alike.

Last year, four councilmembers (LaCava, Foster, Moreno and Elo-Rivera) included paid beach and bay parking in their budget priority memos as a potential revenue source.

Fortunately, on November 18, 2025 the paid parking proposal was not included as part of the council resolution being sent to the mayor’s office for consideration in preparing the FY 2027 budget.

However, as part of the annual budget cycle, the city council is required to update their budget priority memos and provide them to the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) by January 9.

We need to make sure that the next round of budget priority memos do not include proposals for paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park.

There are many reasons why paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park is a bad idea.

By Kate Callen

Just before midnight on December 31, my sister, Brae, and I were toasting the new year with champagne when the house was filled with a flash of blinding white light followed by a window-rattling boom. A minute later, it happened again.

My North Park street has been plagued by fireworks on July Fourth and New Year’s Eve for as long as I’ve lived here. But these weren’t sparklers or ground spinners. These were commercial-grade fireworks that should never be set off in residential neighborhoods.

What the hell is going on? Why does a handful of morons (an estimated 99 percent of whom carry the Y chromosome) need to set off explosives to celebrate holidays? And why do the rest of us tolerate lawless behavior that terrifies small children, scares pets into hiding or running away from home, triggers military veterans with PTSD, and poses a public safety risk?

It’s not hard to find the perpetrators. While I searched for my cats, Brae marched down the street to the place where the sound came from. She confronted three men standing on the sidewalk (we’re from Philadelphia, it’s what we do), and they denied any involvement.

Then the snarky one started arguing. Hey, what’s the harm? People just want to have a little fun. And it’s only one night a year.

Every Saturday at 10:30 am. San Diego Climate Mobilization Coalition Meetings January 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st.

Every Saturday 10 am – 12 pm Peace Vigil for Palestine:

The San Diego River Park Foundation has volunteer opportunities in Ocean Beach

Every Sunday 1:30  pm – 4 pm Otay Mesa Vigil Otay Mesa Detention Center

January 1st Thursday – January 4th Sunday 10 am – 6 pm San Diego Auto Show

January 3rd Saturday 5 pm doors open “From Ground Zero” film screening fundraiser for a family in Gaza.

January 5th Monday  12 pm – 1 pm Interfaith Vigil For Earth Justice Event by Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice

By Alex Cheney / CBS8 / December 30, 2025

San Diego’s music scene is grieving the loss of Tim Lowman, who died in a fatal motorcycle crash early Sunday morning near Balboa Park. The versatile musician, known for his performances as both a band member and one-man-band showman, was struck by an SUV on Pershing Drive at approximately 1:40 a.m.

According to the San Diego Police Department, a Harley Davidson motorcycle driven by Lowman was hit by an SUV, whose driver remained at the scene. Police say the SUV driver is not suspected of DUI, and Lowman’s impairment is considered unknown.

Lowman was a member of the band Blackout Party and performed as a one-man band called Low Volts, where he played all the instruments himself. Timothy Joseph, a producer and co-host of the Loudspeaker Show on radio station 91X and a close friend of Lowman’s, recalls the musician’s distinctive performance style and the impression he made.

By Paul Krueger / Special to the OB Rag 

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 30, placed another hurdle in the City of San Diego’s effort to allow high-rise development throughout the Midway/ Pacific Highway area.

The state’s highest court affirmed a lower court ruling that the city must fully analyze the negative environmental impacts of high-density, multi-story projects and give voters that information before they agree to override the existing 30-foot height limit in the Midway/ PacHwy district.

Voters twice — but narrowly — approved the height limit waiver. But state courts said the environmental impact studies failed to study possible negative and unavoidable impacts of high-rise development on traffic, noise, pollution, and other issues.

The most recent ruling against the city was a strongly worded and unanimous October 17 decision by the state Appellate Court.

FROM COASTAL CARETAKERS

Ring out the old year, ring in the new!  Coastal Caretakers appreciate what all of you have done in the past to keep major developers out of Ocean Beach.

However, the City of San Diego has a new attack underway: to remove the protection we now have by declaring that the Ocean Beach Historic District is not a District.  One response is to cave in, give up.  They, the powers at the State and City, have all the balls in their court, and they can bounce them around any way they want.  They can rewrite the law, law they wrote in the first place and got it wrong.

The one or two minutes per person we get during public comment is for a decision that our elected officials have already made.  But we are OB!  Ocean Beach IS a Complete Community!  We will be there once again to let the city and developers know one thing: We will not go away.  No to 23-story buildings on Point Loma Ave without adequate parking spaces!  No to Lower Voltaire Skyscrapers!  And NO to an all-new Newport Avenue.  OBceans will be there to protect our Historic District.
We want to take this time to remind you where we have been and where it is going, and  WHY we need to get the attention of City Hall. Here is a summary:

August 29, 2024, Coastal Caretakers and friends won our appeal to the Planning Commission, and the 20-unit building designed by Galba Architects never happened. Bad press tried to imply we were NIMBYs and wanted that corner to remain in its current state of disrepair, earning us the title bestowed on all objectors.