Why the US Hasn’t Brought “Fire and Fury” to North Korea

As the world ponders the meaning of President Donald Trump’s threat of “fire and fury” on North Korea, it’s worth asking why his predecessors never took those steps to stop its nuclear program. Trump isn’t the first president to threaten North Korea. The others were all bluffing.

When Bill Clinton was confronted with the threat of North Korea’s exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he considered military force. But he ended up going for negotiations in what became known as the Joint Framework Agreement. The North Koreans froze their plutonium program in exchange for fuel shipments and a light water reactor from the U.S. Neither side ever fully delivered.

Then there was George W. Bush. He didn’t like North Korea. He put the nation in the original “axis of evil.” On his watch, the U.S. discovered Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program, in violation of the spirit of Clinton’s deal. Then in 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear device. By 2007, Bush had lifted crippling sanctions on the regime’s elites and entered into new negotiations. And surprise: The North Koreans backed out of those talks at the end, too.

By the time Barack Obama came into power, the North Koreans were back to building up their program. They perfected missiles, sunk a South Korean ship and shelled a South Korean island. The current tyrant, Kim Jong Un, ascended to power and proceeded to consolidate his position, killing his uncle and later his half brother. All the while, Obama pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” aimed at not rewarding Kim’s regime for its provocations and rogue behavior.

Now Trump has inherited a mess. Not only is Kim testing ballistic missiles at an alarming rate, as the Washington Post reported this week, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency now assesses North Korea can miniaturize a nuclear warhead so that it can fit inside a missile. Game, set, match.

So why didn’t the last three presidents take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities when they had the chance? The answer is Seoul, the thriving capital of South Korea. The North has enough artillery pieces within range of this metropolis to kill hundreds of thousands of people, which could very well begin a world war and throw the global economy into a tailspin.

Past presidents have understandably feared the North would retaliate in this way. But for some today, that fear is fading. John Plumb, a former director of defense policy and strategy for Obama’s National Security Council, told the Atlantic last month: “If I were the Trump administration, I would be looking at the threat to incinerate Seoul and trying to figure out how real it is. Because to me, it’s become such a catchphrase, and it almost — it starts to lose credibility. Attacking Seoul, a civilian population center, is different from attacking a remote military outpost. It’s dicey, there’s no doubt about it.”

Intelligence officials have said in recent months that this threat remains very real. While there are steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the problem, such as dropping cluster munitions on the big guns, it’s an imperfect and high-risk strategy. An attack on North Korea would be unpredictable and could unleash far worse on U.S. forces (which have been stationed in South Korea for more than 60 years), not to mention allies like Japan.

All of this gets back to Trump’s bluster. At this point we as Americans ought to expect more careful words from the president. At the same time, nothing Trump said was that different from the implicit threat against North Korea, or any power that threatens American cities with nuclear destruction.

Don’t get me wrong: There are few people on the planet more deserving of “fire and fury” than Kim Jong Un. But would such a strike even eliminate its nuclear program? How far is Trump willing to go? Will he order an invasion of North Korea to topple the regime? And if he does, would he commit the manpower, capital and time to stabilize the country once the Kim dynasty falls?

According to retired Admiral William Perry, Clinton’s second secretary of defense, the U.S. couldn’t even take out North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure with military strikes, given how much it has expanded in the last 20 years. What’s more, the price paid by South Koreans would be unacceptable. This is what he told a group of journalists this spring at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institution.

It’s possible that Trump is counting on his reputation as an impetuous novice — one who Kim just might fear would roll the dice by attacking North Korea. But Trump’s ultimatum allows the boy-tyrant in Pyongyang to test the president’s mettle. (Already the North Korean state media has threatened Guam.) We can expect more taunts and threats in the coming days, proving Trump’s threat was hollow. As hollow as past presidents’ pledges to do the same.

Yep, It’s Definitely Donald Trump Who’s the Tyrant Here

Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Pol Pot. al-Assad. Hussein. Gaddafi. Franco. Kim Jong Il. Each one is considered a dictator, a tyrant who’s greed for power is only surpassed by their cruelty and inhumanity.

If you were to wade into the depths of #TheResistance on social media (which I don’t recommend), you’d also see a movement to brand Donald Trump a dictator and his administration a lawless tyranny over the nation.  To be sure, the Trump administration has done itself no favors is coming across as inept, overly ambitious and yet clearly out of its depth. They have said things that, yes, are frightening.

But let us be absolutely honest here. When it comes to tyranny in America, there is no tyranny except for that of the mob.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse. The instant communication of thoughts to the world allows for breaking news to break faster and hard-hitting news to hit harder. The downside is that it opens you and everyone you know and love up for ridicule, petition, and even expulsion from society.

Case in point, the lad from Google who wrote what is being called a “manifesto” opposing Google’s diversity policy. It seems that, virtually instantly, this person was the target of a mob whose sole purpose was to flush him out of The Collective.

It worked, too. Google fired the man (interestingly, a new social media platform called “Gab”, which touts itself as an ad-free, free speech platform, offered to hire him), and the Left was delighted that the wrongspeak was punished.

This is not the first time, however, that someone’s livelihood was destroyed over thinking or believing the “wrong” thing. We’ve covered countless times the bakers, photographers, and other business people whose lives were ruined and their businesses shuttered because they dared to not conform with the Left’s ideology.

“But Mr. Reagan Conservative,” some on the Left might cry, “this isn’t tyranny because mobs aren’t the government.” If you think that, you are wrong. It is with the help of the courts that these attacks on private businesses have flourished. It is the politicians who speak out and encourage this behavior that ruins the lives of people whose only crime is thoughtcrime.

For another example, take Chelsea Handler, the so-called comedienne who actually suggested we criminalize speech.

Where, exactly, does this type of legislation begin and where does it end? By the Left’s standards, virtually everything is racist, so that means if you laugh at something someone else deems is racist, you’re going to (at best) be fined. This is an actual proposal from someone who thinks there is no problem with criminalizing what someone finds funny. There is no end to this slippery slope, either.

Or take the case of Dana Loesch, who is under attack from journalists and Leftists because she appeared in an NRA video ad and says she wants to fact-check the media. The number of people who want to silence her by reporting her to the feds, threatening her husband and her children, and making graphic, sexual threats to and about her is appalling.

But this is the new norm. This is the world we live in now. We have to deal with the tyranny of the mob before we can move on to the tyranny of any White House occupant.

So, forgive me when someone calls Donald Trump a fascist dictator with one breath and turns around to advocate banning speech because they don’t like it.

 

Man Who Identifies as 6-year-old Dominates CrossFit Kids Class (Satire)

Local CrossFit enthusiast Anthony Neff walked out of his local CrossFit affiliate with a smile on his face after his 4pm class on Tuesday. He had just dominated another workout, not only setting a personal record in the snatch, but besting the next strongest athlete in the class by over 185 pounds.

Neff, who works as a sales associate at Target, was born in 1983 but is currently transitioning to a birth year of 2011. He is the first transaged individual to participate in his gym’s CrossFit Kids program.

“I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for everyone who has been supporting my transition,” Neff told The Associated Press as he boosted a fellow athlete up to the gym’s water fountain to help him take a drink. “Science has come a long way in recognizing that age isn’t just a matter of how old you are. ”

Neff began to publicly identify as a six-year-old three years ago, but didn’t tell his wife Angela until months later.

“Anthony has always been a little immature, but I thought he would grow out of it,” She explained. But over time, Angela noticed her husband playing with toy trucks instead of going to work, watching hours of Octonauts, and laughing at the words like ‘poop’ and ‘booger.’

“This is who he is, and celebrating that is more important than pressing him to conform to reality.”

The change hasn’t been easy, but Neff says he’s been treated “well and kind” at his affiliate. “The coaches are all very supportive,” he said. His treatment has included increased growth hormones to match the levels found in the bodies of growing children.

“If he has been taking hormones, or steroids, he should be training and competing against actual children,” said Melissa Jones, mother of one of the other children in Neff’s CrossFit Kids class.

Jones is not alone in her concerns, but Neff’s coach, Travis Miller disagrees.

“I asked him if he thought the growth hormones were giving him an unfair advantage against the other children in the class,” Miller told the Associated Press. “He looked right at me and said he ‘didn’t identify’ as someone who was taking growth hormones. What kind of hateful bigot would question that logic?”

At time of press, Neff was consuming a bowl of Fruit Loops and looking forward to a CrossFit Kids session consisting of front-squats and a game of burpee dodgeball.

“All I know is when I get the ball everybody on the other side better watch out.”

Calm Down Democrats, The Holy Grail of a Trump Crime Remains Missing

What has really happened since Donald Trump Jr. released his email chain setting up a meeting last June with a Russian lawyer? Are Democrats and their allies in the media any closer to having their high crime or misdemeanor?

Answer: No.

As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz stated on July 11,

“It is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.”

Well said, Mr. Dershowitz.

And yet, the media would have you believe that the meeting Trump Jr. described as “literally just a wasted twenty minutes” is a smoking gun that will inevitably take President Trump, his administration, and his entire family down forever.

In reality, Trump Jr.’s emails show he has nothing to hide.

Further to this point, Trump Jr. recently went on “Hannity” to speak specifically about his actions. Granted, Fox News host Sean Hannity is not always interested in giving a complete, unvarnished account of what happens in Trump World and his questions are softballs, but Trump Jr. made some important points nonetheless– namely, the fact that there was no subsequent follow-up contact with the Russian lawyer and “nothing to tell” then-candidate Trump. Therefore, unless you decide to believe he is lying, there was no “collusion.” The holy grail is still missing.

I don’t think Trump Jr. went on national television and told a bunch of lies. Undoubtedly, the president’s enemies will believe that they are justified in feeling otherwise. But Trump Jr. has little incentive to do anything but tell the truth at this point.

Even if we suppose there was a follow-up from the campaign with the Russian lawyer, it is hard to say that more conversations or meetings would have amounted to a crime. And yes, something can be wrong but not illegal. However, that is not the argument Democrats and their allies in the media want to make. They want this to crack the foundation of the Trump presidency. They want it to crumble.

Blinded by disdain for the president, liberals are the media are mostly trying to create credibility for accusations of criminal violations and impeachable offenses. They embellish everything just so that they can keep the story moving. Maybe they will get a break and someone will stumble into a crime during the investigation into the non-crimes from the fall campaign.

In their search for a nonexistent smoking gun, Trump’s opponents appear at least partially satisfied by the constant hounding of the White House and the president’s family.

In politics, being innocent is just an advantage. It is not determinative. And although the fact’s do not support the left’s pursuit of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the Trump family, Trump Jr. is sure to face a lot of harassment, and he may make more “mistakes.” But that is far from being in the crosshairs of an American law enforcement investigation that could bring down a president. Sorry to the Trump haters for being such a buzzkill.

If Trump Jr. is guilty of anything, it is letting someone so lacking credibility have unfettered access to his schedule. Danger. You usually see your enemies coming, but it is your friends who will blindside you and get you in trouble.

Anyway, Trump’s enemies are desperate for something impeachable. But remember, there is no such thing as the crime of collusion. It’s not even a misdemeanor. And unless the Russian lawyer provided an illegal contribution, stolen probably, etc., to the Trump campaign, there is no crime that will take this story where the media want it to go. But that doesn’t mean they will quit trying.

My Reaction to the “Smoking Gun” of Don Jr.’s Meeting

I don’t care. I honestly don’t care. The more alarmed the press becomes, the more I believe America is becoming exhausted. These stories are becoming so intense and so over-the-top. The press is so interested in re-litagating the past, instead of the future. We know as Americans, it is not about collusion, it is about settling the score. I would also think some conservatives and Republicans might do the same thing, because we’d be angry over an election, but at some point, you have to let it go. I could redefine “collusion” as collusion between media, academia, and the entertainment industry who have been trying to brainwash us for the decades over the dumbest ideologies. We’ve all been victims of “collusions” of our lives. The narrative here is that the Trump presidency is in disarray: that’s what we know because that’s what we the people elected. We are okay with disarray, we elected someone because they don’t have any experience in politics; therefore, President Trump is surrounded by people who are not as adapted to controlling the narrative. Maybe that’s their fault, and he should have known better, but the bottom line is this: if you didn’t want this to happen, you could have had a Kasich or a Rubio, but you wouldn’t have this Trump “phenomenon/revolution” in the polling booths. We elected a bunch of outsiders, so there isn’t a bug in the system, this is the system and we (and the media) just have to deal with it and get over it. And the hyperventilation on the other networks is insane. Have you seen them recently? I worry about their health.

Heres a dumb question: How come a citizen cannot engage in a practice that a reporter can? A reporter can go to a meeting and he gets some information and he becomes a whistleblower, a hero (i.e. the Pentagon Papers and Snowden). But Donald Trump Jr., who is a citizen, not involved directly in a campaign, does it and it called collusion, but when in fact if he had found something, Trump Jr. could have been our Chelsea Manning, a hero.

The issue is that some liberals can’t grasp the idea that no matter what happens, Hillary Clinton can’t win the 2016 presidential election, it is completely impossible. Even if some evidence magically appears that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, Ms. Clinton would not be in the White House.

So here’s the big question of the day: What’s the point in bringing up all of these collusion stories and over-analyzing and over-investigating? To get President Trump removed from office? Are these liberals really going to be satisfied with a more (from an ideology standpoint) conservative President Pence? The answer is probably not. So then, some liberals say that they don’t want Trump impeached, all they want to show is how ignorant Trump and his administration are. So here’s the rewritten big question of the day: What does showing President Trump’s “ignorance” accomplish? The only answer that I can think of is more polarized, divided nation.

What I’ve Noticed From Our Leftist “Friends”

Ever since I’ve been interested in politics, I’ve always been involved in debate with others on the left side of the aisle. I have gained experience with debating liberals inside the classroom (teachers and my fellow students), in conservations (in person or via text message), and in Illinois’s capitol (for my state senator’s youth advisory council). Here at some of the things that I have noticed with our leftist “friends”:


Isn’t it interesting how liberals only cite science, the Constitution, or the Bible when it works in their favor? Science is crucial and unquestionable when it comes to subjects like climate change, but it is secondary, biased, and unmentionable when it comes to abortion and gender.

The Constitution is helpful when they can cite the fourteenth amendment to justify their pro-choice doctrine, but it is inconvenient and wrong when it comes to gun control and free speech.

Bible verses are great taken out of context to try to guilt people out of advocating for a wall or a travel ban, but when the Bible is used as a foundation for any conservative position, it’s bigoted and antiquated.

That’s because, in general, modern-day liberalism has moved away from the realm of science and reason and into the realm of emotion and subjectivity. It’s become a religion of sorts, in which everyone must believe or else you are condemned as a rudimentary cretin subject to public disdain. Science is something to be manipulated to fit an agenda.

According to the left, the founding documents are mostly irrelevant manuscripts infested with white patriarchy only to be used when politically expedient; and the Bible is a sexist, racist compilation of fictional stories decontextualized then cited exclusively to guilt other people into believing your side. Truth, to the left, is both relative and absolute– it’s relative within the realm of what they believe to be absolutely true. And if you believe anything outside that realm– then you are not just incorrect, but you are a bad person and on the wrong side of history. Which is exactly why we are seeing such cruel, bitter criticism and violence in this so-called “resistance”– they see themselves as moral vigilantes– vigilantes for the earth, for rights, for equality, for “tolerance,”– fighting against the evil this is Donald Trump and conservatism. And it is extremely difficult to reason with a group of people who are both politically and religiously motivated to take down what the wrongly believe to be the “darkness.”

So, what do we do? Well, the solution is not easy– but it is simple: all we can do is keep speaking the truth (the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), stay in the lane of logic and reason, and hold fast to the values of liberty and justice that make America great.

Have a conservative day!

-The Reagan Conservative 🇺🇸

Fourth of July Message

My one of my main men, Bill O’Reilly, posted this on his website, and I thought it would also be a great idea to share it with all of you too:

We Pledge to you an Honest Presentation

A new Gallup poll says just 27 percent of Americans trust newspapers and 24 percent have confidence in TV news.
Those numbers are actually up a bit from the recent past, if you can believe it.  The reason for the slight improvement is some Trump-hating Americans are satisfied that the press despises the president as well.
The distrust of the media is both good and bad.  Above all, the national media no longer seeks the truth and the folks know it.  Ideology and money now drive news coverage.  The mission to bring facts to the populace has vanished.
The fact that many Americans understand this – is a good thing.
The big downside of distrusting the press is cynicism.  No longer can we make decisions based upon information we are confident about.  Now, we have to seek out individuals for perspective.  Some of those people are honest, many are not.
As we approach Independence Day, it is a shame that the American press has fallen apart.  The Founders would be sad to see that.  They wanted an honest press to protect Americans from powerful people who might harm them.
We on this website pledge to you an honest presentation.  And we wish you a great July 4th.
I would also like to wish all of you a great, smart, fun, safe, and conservative July 4th, as we celebrate this great country that we all live in. May God bless our President and may God bless this great country.
Have a conservative day,
The Reagan Conservative 🇺🇸