Happy 4th of July
The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
An America First Korea policy
by Patrick J. Buchanan
.
What Do Americans Think of Patriotism and
Liberty?
Tomorrow, we'll celebrate the 241st anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. Our nation boasts a rich history and myriad reasons for that celebration. But there are some troubling things worth pondering.
For example, a recent YouGov poll holds some disturbing numbers about patriotism. Four in 10 say they are very patriotic, and eight in ten are at least somewhat so — but nearly half the country thinks other people are losing patriotic fervor. Perhaps that's because of the unbelievably rancorous political rhetoric these days. Indeed, the partisan split is stark — almost two-thirds of Republicans call themselves very patriotic, as opposed to just one-third of Democrats.
Another group of Americans is also troublingly unpatriotic — Millennials. More than a third of them aren't patriotic. Hot Air's Allahpundit elucidates, "They've grown up in a bad economy, saddled with skyrocketing education debt, reminded daily that their standard of living may well be worse than their parents', and forced to live with the reality that federal entitlements won't be there for them when they're 65." And yet Millennials are evidently blaming the country instead of bad, leftist policy.
In another interesting Fox News poll, while the majority (51%) of Americans are proud of the U.S., a whopping 79% of voters don't believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and our other Founders would be all that impressed.
The question is worth asking: Are we honoring the sacrifice made by those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure our independence and Liberty? Are we stewarding what was bequeathed to us at great cost?
In 1776, after the signing of the Declaration, John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail: "I am apt to believe that [the signing of the Declaration] will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Let's work to secure our Liberty, and to make sure that all Americans have reason to celebrate.
~The Patriot Post
.
.
liar-nObama Warns Evil Nationalists
Out To Undo His Globalist Invasion
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Let’s put aside the false liar-nObama aggrandizement, most of the people who voted for him did so either because he’s black, or at least non-white, and he gives away other people’s money to them... He also is a good speaker, able to lie to their faces and be completely forgiven or met with disinterest when exposed. His support has nothing to do with policy beyond giving preference, especially illegally, and communist wealth redistribution for the lazy and for those who, by design, he failed to create a positive economic environment. Speaking to the Fourth Congress of the Indonesian Diaspora, the latest installment of his never-ending vacation, Hussein liar-nObama gave us a peek at the next phase of his globalist attack on a free America. He’s vilifying our President and our people for wanting to be the best we can and for choosing to do so as a nation. It’s what made us great but now, in the eyes of the new global communist leader, it’s called the “dangers of nationalism.” The hypocrite could argue that Indonesia financially contribute to the support all of southeast Asia in the phony climate hoax and see how well they’d like wearing that other American shoe, but he’s not there to be honest. He’s doing what he’s always done, criticizing and demeaning America. It’s unlikely anyone outside of their gathering or more than one percent of Hussein liar-nObama supporters would know the definition of diaspora or sectarian, but that’s part of the plan...http://rickwells.us/obama-warns-evil-nationalists-undo-globalist-invasion-minority-privilege/.
Nancy Pulosi Makes Russia Accusation
and Quickly Forgets What She Said
by Martin Lioll
{conservativetribune.com} ~ House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi has never been known for any significant degree of verbal felicity... This is a woman whose career will likely be remembered for a cataclysmic turn of phrase that came to define the entire liar-nObamacare debacle: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” However, it’s become clear in recent months that Rep. Pulosi’s condition has degraded from an unfortunate inarticulateness into a genuinely problematic inability to express herself coherently. Nowhere was that more evident than a Thursday news conference that ended up sounding about as coherent as a Pete Doherty interview. “It’s afternoon. It is afternoon. Good afternoon everyone,” she began by muttering... http://conservativetribune.com/how-far-gone-pelosi/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=braverafreedomforce&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2017-07-02
.
Leftist Anti-Trump MEDIA
Committing LIBEL, VOTER FRAUD
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Bill Whittle takes on the topic of media bias, which he notes has been a complaint for half a century. It’s been a problem for much longer, at since at least the 1800s... but he’s dealing with the current mess we’re in. He notes that a 2013 survey showed the percentage of journalists identifying as Republican was a mere 7 percent. We could approach it from another angle, that the actual figure was 100 percent, since those identifying as Democrats or other liberals, the 93%, were propagandists by definition, not journalists. In further exposing the left-wing stranglehold, he cites the result of a poll in April of last year of those in the White House Press Corps, which reflected a more dismal 0% of GOP members, or 100% leftist propagandists. Whittle isn’t buying the argument that there’s no fake news coming out of such an obviously biased group and utilizes the work of Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe to enhance his arguments... http://rickwells.us/bill-whittle-leftist-anti-trump-media-committing-libel-voter-fraud/
.
Two dozen Democrats get behind bill
to lay foundation for removing Trump...
by David Martosko
{dailymail.co.uk} ~ A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office... Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner. But the U.S. Constitution's 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president's cabinet, or 'such other body as Congress may by law provide,' to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4655964/Democrats-lay-foundation-remove-Trump-mental-grounds.htm
.
White House Signals Support For Ted Cruz
“Consumer Choice” Healthcare Amendment
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ The vast majority of the most severely impacted people within the discussion, middle-class workers/taxpayers who do not qualify for Medicaid... have been essentially locked out of the legislative consideration. It is refreshing to see middle America finally being part of the equation. Within the Senate bill, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have finally advanced something of value. The “Consumer Choice Amendment” would allow insurance companies to sell plans that do not follow regulations created under liar-nObamacare, with the caveat that those insurers have to sell at least one plan that adheres to liar-nObamacare’s mandates. The proposal would allow insurers to sell plans with tailored benefits. The Cruz amendment doesn’t impact those on medicare or medicaid (mandated types of coverage by government), and follows the basic premise we previously outlined in the parallel approach seemingly structured within the Trump Team’s overall outlook... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/02/sunday-talks-white-house-signals-support-for-ted-cruz-consumer-choice-healthcare-amendment/
.
.
by Patrick J. Buchanan
An America First Korea policy
by Patrick J. Buchanan
{wnd.com} ~ “The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with, and probably dealt with rapidly.”
So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.
But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.
North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose and died within days.
Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong-un is determined to do.
Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.
Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?
First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.
Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.
Asked by Rep. Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”
Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.
We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.
What about sanctions?
The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.
What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong-un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”
Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.
As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.
China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.
Where does this leave us?
We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.
As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.
What would be an America First Korea policy?
The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.
“The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”
But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.
No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.
If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?
The question answers itself.
So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.
But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.
North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose and died within days.
Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong-un is determined to do.
Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.
Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?
First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.
Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.
Asked by Rep. Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”
Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.
We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.
What about sanctions?
The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.
What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong-un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”
Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.
As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.
China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.
Where does this leave us?
We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.
As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.
What would be an America First Korea policy?
The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.
“The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”
But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.
No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.
If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?
The question answers itself.
Comments