Archive for the ‘Foreign Relations’ Category

KOREA: WHY?

Monday, August 21st, 2017

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Korea! Why is our American military still there — there, so many decades after the end of the Korean Conflict; so many years after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union? Why are our political leaders so enthusiastic about risking the nuclear annihilation of these United States of America and the rest of the world in order to become involved in a civil war among Koreans? A treaty, you say?

See “DEFEND SOUTH KOREA?”

The Korean-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is a dangerous joke. Mutual defense? Did we Americans then or do we now need the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to defend us against foreign aggression? The treaty represents a one-way street for us to defend them militarily while they rape us economically.

Military treaties are made with such ease. Military treaties are defended with such difficulty. Making a treaty involves words easily written. Defending a treaty involves lives brutally spent and treasure often wasted.

Democracy
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Democracy? By way of correcting a widespread misapprehension, these United States were founded neither as a pure democracy nor a republican democracy but as a democratic republic. Yes, there is a difference.

See “DEMOCRACY? WRONG, MR. CHURCHILL”.

On principle and by tradition, however, a strong case can be made that these United States judiciously should support everywhere the cause of individual freedom embracing the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Support with words but not by blood unless the latter directly and overwhelmingly be in our own national interest.

Against the advice of our Founding Fathers, “Neo-Conservatives” and their supporters favor imposing democracy by force upon backward countries resistant to even the concept. Witness the abhorrent consequences and the cost to this nation in blood but much more in treasure of such adventurism to date. Afghanistan, where we had won with a thousand troops then lost with a hundred thousand?

To be continued . . .
In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PERSPECTIVE FROM PYONGYANG

Monday, June 6th, 2016

“Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.” -John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)

What’s a young, Korean dictator to do when the West, especially these United States of America, is against him, and a reluctant China is his only real protector? Why, develop nuclear weapons, of course.

It’s obvious, isn’t it? The West, again especially these United States of America, attacks only non-nuclear countries. Think Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, North Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia.

What’s the dictator’s primary goal? To have retained his power.

What’s his secondary goal? To have enhanced his personal pride by gaining prestige.

What’s his tertiary goal? To have improved the living standards of his people? Probably. Well, maybe.

Plan? To develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them all the way to North America.

Then? Short term? To extort increased economic gain from a confused, declining, self-destructive West. Long term? To unify the Korean Peninsula under Pyongyang. Hey, the 21st-century is supposed to be the Asian century, isn’t it? The only question is, Which Asians?

Look, Europe already is under unarmed attack by millions of Mohammedans and Negroes — an attack that its governments refuse even to acknowledge as an attack, let alone repel. Besides, militarily Europe is close to impotent.

Meanwhile, these United States are under attack by millions of unarmed Latinos, mainly Mexicans pursuing “La Reconquista”; as well as assorted others, including Mohammedans who call their own brand of threat “The Silent Invasion” — an attack that the American government acknowledges but does little to thwart; at least, thus far. Besides, militarily the nation has been in decline and disorganization under a President whose primary goal in office is to have destroyed “White America” — White being defined as Euro-Caucasian. Remember Reverend Wright and his “God damn America!”?

Kim Jong-un (b. 1983) reigns as the Korean dictator faced with fulfilling the aforementioned goals; at least for the moment. He functions as the Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea as well as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). He’s ruthlessly homicidal as were his father and grandfather, dictators before him. His purges are reminiscent of Stalin’s; whom the “useful idiots” in the West, as Lenin called them, defended to the end.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood (1546)

In 1994, the feckless, deceitful philanderer who was sitting in the Oval Office at the time and who reportedly was allowing technological secrets to be traded to a hostile China in return for paltry political contributions had the last chance to thwart North Korean nuclear ambitions by whatever means necessary.

www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/22/china.money/ .

Did he? No. “Slick Willie” Clinton failed to protect this nation and the rest of the world. Now, his angry, vicious wife wants her turn. Think Benghazi.

In the early 1990s, would the Chinese have gone to war against us again? Perhaps, but they were in no position to win a non-nuclear confrontation. As for nuclear? Nobody would have won, a fact that had stopped the much stronger Soviets as it would have the Chinese, their bluster notwithstanding. Better that we now face a nuclear North Korea?

Conversely, President Ronald Reagan did protect this nation by achieving his goal to have defeated the “Evil Empire” — i.e., the erstwhile Soviet Union. His successors, especially Bush the First, then made a total mess of the gift he bestowed. Now, the world faces the end of days, and the cornered, young murderer in Pyongyang is the prime illustration, even beyond the fanatics in Tehran.

So, what to do? Nobody seems to know.

See “If You Were POTUS” and related posts.

The question, therefore, arises, should we Americans now allow Pyongyang to capture Seoul? If not, why not? What is South Korea doing for us? We know that which it is doing to us, but what is it doing for us?

The previous issue of organized, international Communism capturing the world no longer exists. Thank you, President Reagan.

Hasn’t the strife on the Korean Peninsula become merely a civil war between North and South? If so, why are we Americans there? Why are we taxing ourselves economically and borrowing from adversaries, if not enemies, to defend South Koreans militarily — who, in turn, are raping us economically? Why are we willing possibly to plunge the world into a nuclear conflagration to settle a war involving only Koreans against Koreans?

These are questions that scream to be answered. Admittedly, addressing them will be dangerous. Ignoring them will be fatal.

Science tells us truly, “Behavior has its consequences.”

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

IS RUSSIA OUR ENEMY?

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

Note (16MAY2016): Russia is modernizing its military and fortifying its position in the Black Sea. What to do? Are we to go to war?

Consider these United States of America simultaneously conducting warfare in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while going to war against China in the South Pacific, North Korea, and Russia. Currently, this nation on fire has launched economic warfare with 28 other countries in the form of sanctions — sanctions that punish American enterprise whilst rewarding foreign enterprise. Such is American foreign policy.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

The government of these United States of America has characterized Russia as an enemy. It has done so by levying economic and political sanctions. Such sanctions are tantamount to a declaration of economic and political warfare. If Russia really is our enemy, in what way?

Economics
In contrast to China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, economically what threat does Russia represent? Yes, it is the largest country geographically in the world. Yes, it contains immense natural resources, much of which remain undeveloped. Those natural resources comprise the substantial majority of Russian exports. Yet, a relatively small percentage go to these United States. Compared to the American trading deficit with China or even Mexico, they are negligible. So, does Russia represent an economic threat to these United States?

Politics
In contrast to our southern neighbor, politically what threat does Russia represent? Admittedly, yesteryear, cloaked in its garb of international socialism while waving the banner of the erstwhile Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it did. The Communist Party USA, funded by the USSR and composed of those whom Lenin called “useful idiots”, boasted a sizable membership and influenced especially American academia and entertainment. Today, there remains no USSR. There remains only Russia — a Russia in political turmoil as it evolves from the chaos of collapsed Communism followed by ineffectual democracy heading towards the authoritative order of Fascism.

To what extent are the internal politics of Russia the official business of these United States, anyway? Cannot a case can be made that Russia needs a Tsar in whatever form, be it a Catherine the Great or a Stalin and that it now is getting a new one in the person of Vladimir Putin? So, does Russia represents a political threat to these United States?

Culture
In contrast to our own, homegrown, Marxist-oriented egalitarians, sociologically what threat does Russia represent? As these United States sink ever more deeply into a semi-psychotic, moral cesspool of abominations never before witnessed in history, Russia seems to represent something of the opposite. The government there has strengthened its ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and promotes traditional moral values based upon Judeo-Christian liturgy. Whereas ordinary Russians may not meet the standards set by church and government, the country remains one of the last bastions of those values. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened in American sociological affairs not at all. So, does Russia represent a sociological threat to these United States?

Military
Ah, but what about militarily? Does not a nuclear-armed, militarily modernizing Russia represent a direct threat to the stability of the world, let alone these United States?

It depends upon one’s point of view. From the point of view of the neo-conservatives, who never met a war, especially a losing war, that they didn’t love, the answer is yes. To the financial profits and power to the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us two generations ago, the answer is yes. From the pont of view of the Founding Fathers, however, might not the answer be no?

Is Russia invading these United States? Is it threatening to invade these United States? Is it massing armaments and troops on our borders or even anywhere near them as this nation is doing to Russia?

Is not the irony that these United States may be under attack, but the attack is not from Russia? Are not the real invaders illegal aliens who may be unarmed but represent invaders, nonetheless? Are not the primary nations attacking these United States Mexico and some other Latin American countries? Do not the Mexicans label their particular invasion “La Reconquista”?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease, and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Also, what about the Mohammedans? Despite smaller numbers, no small matter is the invasion by Mohammedans, who soon will outnumber Jews in this nation on fire. Do not they label their aggression as “The Silent Invasion” although it is anything but silent in Europe?

So, to what extent does Russia represent a military threat as the aggressor to these United States? To what extent do these United States represent a military threat as the aggressor to Russia?

PART TWO

In discussing Russo-American relations, any defense of the Russian position automatically generates vituperative responses ad hominem from those who place opinion before knowledge. To adopt their myopic, biased viewpoint is to place this nation and the rest of the world in danger of a nuclear annihilation that nobody but a fanatical Mohammedan wants. Let us, therefore, attempt a more dispassionate analysis and offer an alternative to current American, foreign policy — an alternative consistent with advice of the father of this nation.

Who Is The Real Aggressor?
Is it not the fact of the matter that it is these United States that has acted as the aggressor toward Russia? Is it not we who instigated a successful plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine in order to prevent it linking closer to its historic ally, Russia? Is it not we who have levied international sanctions against Russia for retaliating against this American-inspired plot?

Russia has not been the only target in that regard. We have levied international sanctions against almost thirty other nations, as well. Who suffers most? American commercial enterprises.

Is not demanding other nations obey our economic and political dictates a form of extraterritoriality? Is it not we who have placed arms and troops on the Russian border, using an otherwise impotent NATO as camouflage?

After World War Two, we created NATO as an agency for the defense of Western Europe against an aggressive and hostile USSR. Today, there remains no USSR, but there still remains a NATO that we have expanded to include nations far from the Atlantic Ocean — nations bordering on Russia itself. Are we willing to engage in total, nuclear war with Russia, a war that will exterminate all aerobic life on Earth, to defend Estonia, assuming Estonia even needs defending?

Indeed, Russia may be attempting to expand its sphere of national interest to include nations historically under its influence. Do history and tradition justify such an attempt? Once again, the answer depends upon one’s point of view.

In its attempt to expand its influence, did Russia invade Ukraine? Did it not merely negotiate agreements with the freely elected government in Kiev? Was it not these United States that intervened, promoting rebellion to overthrow that legitimate government? The rebellion was successful. Had there been no American-inspired rebellion, would Russia have reclaimed Crimea militarily?

Hegemony
So, does not the issue become reduced to the quest by these United States to retain hegemony worldwide? Can we? Even if we can, is it in our interests? Can we afford it?

In the words of former Speaker of the House of Representative, John Boehner, “We’re broke!”

Does President Washington’s advice, as quoted above, mean to become isolationist? Does it not mean to become non-interventionist, intervening only when it is in our direct, immediate, national interest in a way that also is in our national interest? Should these United States not support republican liberty wherever we find it — support it in spirit but neither in blood nor coin?

An Alternative
“In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers.  The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address.  Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war.  We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests.  If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself.  It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead.  No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors.  If others want American military protection, they must pay for it.  We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest.  In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.”
-Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.

-End-

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

AMERICANS?

Monday, December 7th, 2015

Especially you who are young consider the following words:
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -John 8:32

Be aware that your elders on both The Left and The Right are lying to you by both commission and omission. In a survey, variations of the excerpt below, for example, were removed from commentary on a number of web-sites including Financial Times, National Review Online, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR. (See “Censorship, Everyone?” below.) The excerpt merely quotes the Mohammedans’ own bible, The Koran, and elaborates upon that which is written therein. It ends by asking questions based directly thereupon.

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:123

Ask yourselves, What affrights these periodicals? The truth?

Consider an excerpt borrowed from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences, that reads as follows:
“Islam represents a religion of war not peace.  Its prophet, Mohammed, is quoted in the Koran to the effect that any person or nation failing to submit to the Koran is a sinner.  According to the Koran, each and every Mohammedan, therefore, has the right to wage war against these alleged sinners and, by doing so, to make prisoners and slaves of them.  If killed while waging such war, a Mohammedan will enjoy the certain fate of entering Heaven.

Based upon the Koran itself, one can make a case that its believers have no place in a free, democratic, and non-theocratic society.  After World War II, the United States of America outlawed the Communist Party based upon such issues.

How can authorities discriminate those “moderate Mohammedans” who neither would wage religious war against the United States nor support such a war by deed or by thought from the tens of millions of those who would?  Not by asking!  Requesting a Mohammedan to pledge secular allegiance amounts to merely a futile exercise given that his religion encourages him to lie in order to further conquest in its name.

Should those already having emigrated to American shores be deported as having sworn allegiance under false pretenses?  [See, for example, Ben Hammad, AR: The Religion of Truth.  Riyadh, KSA: The General Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, and Propagation (1991).]  By its own admission, Mohammedanism leaves no room for apostasy (‘Apostasy from Islam is a grievous crime punishable by death.’) and little room for idolatry [‘… he should pay tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practise his polytheistic (e.g., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; added) rituals openly’].  Accordingly, can any Mohammedan safely be granted citizenship or even legal residence?”

Remember that, contrary to the bleating of the historical revisionists, these United States of America were founded as a Christian nation. What sayeth the Koran about Christianity? Consider the following:
“Those who say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth split asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!” -The Recital (The Koran), Mary: 19:88

So, what to do? Therein lies the heart of the matter — a matter that stretches backwards centuries. Consider the following words from more than a century ago:
“Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” -President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

As stated, these United States were joined by a common Christian, Euro-Caucasian heritage — primarily Anglo-Saxon in origin. Such heritage is an anathema to Mohammedans, especially those whom Big Media labels “radicals” and “extremists”. In reality, they simply are orthodox in their orientation and possess the will to fight and die for their convictions. Let those who say otherwise read The Koran!

Have you read the Koran, or do you gullibly take the word of Big Government and Big Media as to that which it actually preaches?

The Mohammedans’ commitment to their convictions raises the question, Are we Americans willing to fight and to die for our convictions? By the way, what are our convictions?

What are your convictions? That which is based upon the biased propaganda of those who want only to indoctrinate you with their own ideologies? That which you have concluded on your own after personal inquiry and discovery?

If you have not read the Koran, you speak from ignorance and indoctrination. Read the Koran!

As is written in the Mohammedans’ bible, were their Shariah Law to govern these United States, we “infidels” would have the choice either to submit or to die.  We, however, do not live under Shariah Law.

So again, what to do? Consider the following words:
“Sharp wounds cleanse away evil;
So do stripes that reach the inward parts.” -The Hebraic Bible, Proverbs 20:30

Science tells us, “Every discrimination carries with it an implied set of instructions.”

“Harold, the light turned red!” his wife screamed. In the context of driving a car, that discrimination about the red light in a traffic-signal carries with it the instruction for Harold to depress the braking pedal.

In the context of a non-Mohammedan nation such as ours, the discrimination of citing that which the Mohammedans themselves say also carries with it an implied set of instructions. That set simply says, “Fight or lose your way of life and possibly your life itself.”

American youth have most to lose. You who are among that demographic may wish to think before submitting to the lies, deceit, and indoctrination of those who feel affrighted by the truth — those on both The Left and The Right. Their words and actions are guided by avarice and cowardice.

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Revolt? How?

By thinking for yourselves? By demanding the truth? By bringing your behavior under the control not of antecedent, ideological claptrap but of real consequences that will determine the rest of your lives — consequences that represent the truth? In this age of creeping tyranny — economic, political, and sociological — doing so, indeed, may seem revolutionary.

Youth represents the future. Youth holds the lasting power. If American youths elect to use it, let them remember, unlike many of their elders, to use it wisely.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.