Killing Americans for Years and Getting Rich off of It

[DISCLAIMER]

As I remain politically neutral, my approach to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) isn’t necessarily polluted by beliefs which are irrational (not in accordance with both logic and reason). Still, this isn’t to suggest that I’m immune from bias. After all, I’m a fallible human.

Noteworthy, “logic” is the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable, and “reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. For instance, a modus ponens syllogism uses the following logical form: If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

As an example, if you overdose from a lethal dose of fentanyl (p), then you may die (q). You overdose from a lethal dose of fentanyl (p). Therefore, you may die (q). Given this construct, there’s an important REBT psychoeducational lesson to be learned regarding self-disturbance.

From a psychological standpoint, using the ABC model, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.

For instance, overdosing from a lethal quantity of fentanyl (Action) may result in death (Consequence). From an A-C perspective, exposure to a substance that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine can result in death if improperly used (e.g., recreational ingestion).

Alternatively, from a B-C view, awareness of United States (U.S.) fentanyl overdoses (Action) and Believing “drug users and dealers are worthless and I can’t stand them, because overdose deaths are awful, so the U.S. must go to war over drugs” may cause anger (Consequence).

When teaching my approach to REBT, I encourage people to understand the A-C and B-C distinction. In order to fully understand this difference, individuals empirically must comprehend the function of a logical and reasonable belief construct and setting aside emotional appeals.

In the fentanyl example, it’s logical to conclude that overdosing from a lethal dose of fentanyl may result in death. Nevertheless, it isn’t reasonable to conclude that one’s nation absolutely must go to war over drugs while becoming irrationally angry.

At this point in a period of instruction with clients, I may receive pushback concerning the distinction between morals and ethics. Apparently, many people irrationally maintain that their preferred descriptive rather than prescriptive beliefs constitute objective morality.

A “moral” is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. Morals thus relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.

An “ethic” is a set of moral principles, especially those relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or displeasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics – based on morals – are the social rules by which we pledge to live.

Although some, many, or maybe even most people may agree that fentanyl overdoses are bad; it isn’t objectively true that all people share this perspective. Suppose that for the sake of argument I concede the premise (i.e., most people may agree that fentanyl overdoses are bad).

Does it logically follow that the U.S. must therefore go to war over those who contribute to fentanyl overdoses? Some may argue in the affirmative while others may argue in the negative. The takeaway here is that there’s no objective moral and ethical conclusion.

This is the case even if one maintains that the aforementioned premise leads to a rational conclusion (i.e., if most people may agree that fentanyl overdoses are bad, then the U.S. preferably should go to war over those who contribute to fentanyl overdoses).

Notice that I shifted from use of a rigid prescription (“absolutely must”) to a flexible description (“preferably should”) for the sake of relatability. Even still, this doesn’t constitute an objectively true depiction of rationality. Rather, it’s merely an opinion that remains open to disputation.

Presuming you understand the distinctions outlined thus far, I now shift to a real-world example regarding this matter. In a recent post entitled False Trilemma: On Sheepdogs, I critiqued the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela as likely indicative of regime change.

For context, one source states, “This is about regime change. They’re [U.S.] probably not going to invade, the hope is this is about signaling.” Per another source, “Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro accused President Donald Trump of pushing for war against his country.”

As mentioned, I remain politically neutral. Nonetheless, I can examine whether or not political actions taken by the U.S. against other sovereign nations are rational. In order to do this, I find it useful to consider opposing sources. For instance, one source states of the Venezuelan matter:

There have been successive U.S. strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the international waters off Venezuela, a buildup of military assets in the Caribbean and even an admission from Trump that he had authorized covert CIA action on the ground in Venezuela. Still, Trump claims he’s not pursuing “regime change.”

The facts, as I understand them, are that the U.S. is currently involved in South America – using intelligence assets and military personnel – under the premise of what’s being referred to a “narcoterrorism,” presumably to afford President Trump controversial extra-judicial powers.

For context, when I served in the U.S. military I learned that “terrorism” is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. Given this description, during a recent conference U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem stated to President Trump:

What you did is that you took these cartels and gangs that we’ve known for decades, and you declared them to be what they really are—and that’s terrorists. You declared war on them and you didn’t say we were just going to fight them, you said we were going to destroy them. And everybody around this table is so honored to be here to work with you to destroy these terrorists that have been killing Americans for years and getting rich off of it.

First, per one source, “the Declare War Clause confers broad authority upon Congress to pursue the war effort.” Therefore, the ability to declare war rests within the constitutional authority of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Thus, President Trump cannot declare war.

Second, those who are involved in the illegal drug trade don’t meet the standard of terrorism I was taught when serving military and diplomatic posts. Per Noem’s description, “cartels and gangs” aren’t necessarily motivated by “political or ideological aims.” They seek monetary gain.

Last, examining the premise of “killing Americans [i.e., U.S. citizens] for years and getting rich off of it,” constitutes a logical claim—in that it follows a predictable formulation. Subjectively, the Trump administration may thus consider it reasonable to “destroy” those who traffic drugs.

To be exceedingly clear, let’s plug this formulation into a modus ponens syllogism. If drug traffickers are killing American and getting rich off of their actions (p), then destroying drug traffickers is appropriate (q). This is an intuitively rational claim for many people.

To assess whether or not the logic follows outside of a Venezuelan context, let’s apply this rhetorical form to other types of drug traffickers. Admittedly, I remain skeptical of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) following how COVID-19 was handled.

Still, for the sake of argument, suppose I accept the CDC’s proposition that of the leading causes of death in the U.S., accidents (unintentional injuries) are the third highest cause. This statistic is supported by evidence from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Specifically, the latter source states, “The death rate due to unintentional injuries increased 26.3% from 2019 to 2023, largely due to a substantial increase in drug overdose deaths.” In consideration of this evidence, drug-related deaths are significant in the U.S.

This begs the question about the first and second highest causes of death in the U.S., as the Trump administration apparently maintains that it has the unconstitutional right to declare war regarding the third highest cause of death. Bear in mind, we’re approaching this unbiasedly.

The aforementioned CDC source declares that heart disease is the first leading cause of death in the U.S. and cancer is the second. The aforementioned JAMA source supports this claim. Per one CDC source, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and smoking contribute to heart disease.

Not that I’m advocating this extreme measure, one wonders why President Trump hasn’t “declared war” on fast food entities and tobacco industry complexes. If the logic follows (i.e., if p, then q), one imagines such aggressive actions would be considered reasonable by others.

Then again, the fast food and tobacco industries arguably aren’t involved in drug trafficking. Therefore, we can instead turn to the issue of cancer—the second leading cause of death in the U.S. According to one source:

COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer.

Debatably, the pharmaceutical industry (“big pharma”) traffics in drugs which are used as prescribed, recreationally, and otherwise. Some of these therapeutics “could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types,” per the aforementioned source.

Thus, there remains a plausible nexus between pharmacological interventions (i.e., the COVID-19 shots) and cancer—the second leading cause of death in the U.S. Not that I’m advocating this extreme measure, one wonders why President Trump hasn’t “declared war” on big pharma.

If the premise that killing Americans for years and getting rich off of it is the logical proposition for an unconstitutional declaration of war, then big pharma meets this criterion. Why then is the Trump administration not threatening intelligence and military intervention in this case?

Perhaps the answer is as simple as big pharma doesn’t represent so-called narcoterrorism any more than do the South Americans. Is each of these entities – legal or otherwise – motivated by monetary gain? It would be intellectually dishonest to argue in the negative.

However, even if or when these entities use violence against non-combatants, it disputably isn’t essentially to achieve political or ideological aims. When using disputation of irrational beliefs, as I’m demonstrating at present, it isn’t uncommon for people to mistake my intent.

Herein, I’m not advocating narcoterrorism, supporting the illicit drug trade, or even the distribution of COVID-19 so-called vaccinations (forbid!). Rather, I’m examining the logic and reason used, which is largely predicated on morals and ethics, and challenging beliefs.

If one’s use of logic and reason applies only under a specific set of circumstances (i.e., apparent regime change), though not to other situations (e.g., big pharma’s ostensible contribution to increased cancer risk), then one may not be using beliefs which are rational.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.

At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!

Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW

Photo credit, fair use

References:

Ahmad, F. B., Cisewski, J. A., and Anderson, R. N. (2024, September 24). Leading causes of death in the US, 2019–2023. Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874302/

Bazail-Eimil, E. (2025, October 23). What Trump’s Venezuela strategy is really about. POLITICO. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/23/trump-maduro-boat-strikes-interview-00618927

CDC. (n.d.). Heart disease risk factors. U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/heart-disease/risk-factors/index.html

CDC. (n.d.). Leading causes of death. U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Constitution Annotated. (n.d.). ArtI.S8.C11.2.1 Overview of Declare War Clause. Retrieved from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2-1/ALDE_00000110/

Hall, R. (2025, October 25). Venezuela accuses Trump of ‘fabricating’ a war as U.S. deploys aircraft carrier. TIME. Retrieved from https://time.com/7328458/venezuela-trump-uss-gerald-ford/

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2022, August 26). AntiFACTser: A pandemic of the unFACTsinated. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/antifactser-a-pandemic-of-the-unfactsinated

Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Automatic thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/automatic-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing

Hollings, D. (2023, August 28). Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/confirmation-bias-and-cognitive-dissonance

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription

Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

Hollings, D. (2025, October 23). False trilemma: On sheepdogs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/false-trilemma-on-sheepdogs

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better

Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2024, April 27). Ideal-world vs. real-world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-world-vs-real-world

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, March 13). Objective morality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist

Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt

Hollings, D. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2025, January 5). Spooky business. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/spooky-business

Hollings, D. (2025, August 23). Stoking tensions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoking-tensions

Hollings, D. (2025, June 11). Stop the violence. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stop-the-violence

Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct

Hollings, D. (2025, January 16). The words we use matter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-words-we-use-matter

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Kim, H. J., Kim, M. H., Choi, M. G., and Chun, E. M. (2025, September 26). 1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Korea. Biomarker Research. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12465339/

Ramos-Matos, C. F., Bistas, K. G., and Lopez-Ojeda, W. (2023, May 29). Fentanyl. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459275/

Wells, I. and Cheetham, J. (2025, October 24). Warships, fighter jets and the CIA - what is Trump’s endgame in Venezuela? BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp2lxz75eo

White House, The. (2025, January 20). Designating cartels and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/

White House, The. (2025, October 23). President Trump makes an announcement, Oct. 23, 2025 [Image; video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/4e9yIddFxJA?si=N6-A7pXnpbkUBKtF

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Fentanyl. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Kristi Noem. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristi_Noem

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Nicolás Maduro. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Regime change. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Second presidency of Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump