Libs & North Korean Nukes

So, on June 12, 2018 President Trump once again made history. He became the first sitting American president to undertake to meet with any leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) aka North Korea. He also moved us closer to their denuclearization, normalization of relations between the US and the DPRK, and a formal peace upon the Korean Peninsula.

America’s deranged leftist domestic enemies, these so-called Liberals and Progressives, are … shall we just say less than pleased by these events.

Wanted To Be Nuked
Liberals Would Prefer North Korea To Nuke Us

And, as expected, the ever-insurgent purveyors of fake news, the Lamestream Enemedia – as exemplified by CNN – has been both quick and eager to both downplay the POTUS’ unique accomplishment and paint it in negative light. This despite the fact that President Trump by his own will ratcheted down the tensions between the US and North Korea by doing what no previous POTUS has done, taking a less hawkish stance again the DPRK and cancelling the regular military exercises the US conducts with South Korea – exercises that North Korean leaders have always rightly considered an existential threat to their regime.

But It's Trump!
But It’s Trump, So It’s Bad

But so far Democrat politicians have been largely silent upon the President’s diplomatic coup. I’m sure, however, that they’re more than ready to take action if it does come to pass that the US and the DPRK soon reach something akin to, or even more open than, detente. 😉

Dems Want Kim, Not Trump To Win
Democrat Politicians Are Ready For Peace With DPRK

Of course, if this had been Obama instead of President Trump, you can be sure that the Left, the Lamestream Enemedia, and the Democrat Politicians would be all up and lauding his “landmark diplomacy” and his ending of “America’s Hegemonic Control” Of Indochina.

Then, Obama was their President and they saw him as the man who would fundamentally transform America into the new “nation” they wanted to replace America with.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Future Planning

The future will always become the present with the march of time. One must understand one’s hopes and plan ways to realize them. Or one must surrender those hopes and so very much more.

small-arms-treaty
Hope, But Plan As Well
(Click to Enlarge)

In the admittedly unlikely – but far from impossible – event of UN troops being sent to America to disarm and quell the People, it’d be a hard choice between any of the Kalashnikov variants and those of the M-16. I suppose it would come down to which foreign nation’s troops were being deployed in your area.

The Gods have mercy on your souls, however, if it’s African troops in your area. History, especially WW1, has taught us the horrid lesson of what happens when Africans occupy White nations. For that reason alone I would slightly prefer the Kalashnikov…because no African under arms could sanely and morally be allowed to live.

Tags: | | | | |

A Dangerous Fool

Obama - A dangerous foolObama, America’s lamentable Jester-in-Chief is at it again. This time the dangerous fool is once again trying to sell Congress, America, and the world’s governments on his plan to launch a punitive strike against Al-Assad’s government in Syria.  As usual, his arguments in favor of his chosen course of action are better suited to a fool, cavorting for the entertainment of his masters than to anyone who is allowed to be in a position of authority.

First there is the boy’s attempt to clothe his desires in the Color of Law:

Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.

What the mendacious fool fails to mention is that Syria is not signatory to that treaty. In point of fact, Syria is not even signatory to the Geneva Convention, having withdrawn from it some 20 years ago. Hence the only way that any “basic rules were violated” is if we accept the postulate that treaties voluntarily entered into by one set of nations can be enforced upon other sovereign nations that did not agree to be bound by them.

Also, insofar as I know, bombs, missiles, rockets, and artillery shells, and such other remotely delivered ordinance also fail to make distinction between soldier and infant. The Gods know that Obama’s drone war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen has torn plenty of children into smoking gobbets of meat.

Fly my pretties!

Obama’s distinction between the forms of weaponry is the rankest of sophistry and, in the boy’s case, also the rankest of hypocrisy. It’s just more of his capering, shucking, and jiving.

Then there’s the fool’s attempt to make this a matter of America’s current and future national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

This statement is much akin to jester’s prank that fails to amuse. It engenders nothing but contempt with the sheer volume of error crammed into so few words.

Let us first put aside those logical flaws or deliberate misdirections that are inherent in this particular passage of Obama’s jabbering:

  • Let us ignore the informal fallacy of the slippery slope argument this argument is predicated upon.
  • Let us also ignore the fact that punishment does not equate to deterrence and has consistently failed in the Muslim World.

Instead, let us concentrate on the truly dangerous underlying foolishness of Obama’s who agenda regarding the Syrian Civil War. Al-Assad’s government has stockpiles of chemical – and, likely biological – weapons and has had them for decades. Not once has the Syrian government used them on foreign soil or troops and not once have they been turned over to proxies for use by various Muslim terrorist groups. Yet Obama has chosen to side with the rebels, mostly Islamists and filled with member of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.

The one singularly dangerous act of foolishness committed by Obama is his not backing Assad. Nothing will make it easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians than the overthrow of the current Syrian government by this Islamist rebels.

And Obama glibly proclaimed that he won’t do anything about it:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Every single step Obama takes towards ending Assad’s reign is step closer to releasing stockpiles of WMDs upon the world. If Obama is, for political reasons, unwilling to put American boots on the ground in Syria he is also unwilling to prevent this from happening.

At best the boy is hoping that the situation will drag out long enough for him to safely the leave office before Assad falls. That way resulting catastrophe won’t be on his watch.

~*~

America and the world’s problem is that Obama is a dangerous and dangerously weak fool, much better suited to cavorting and capering for the entertainment of his masters than being in any position of authority. Like all such fools, when wrongly placed in authority, he can, has, and will cause great harm.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |