Category Archives: Uncategorized

What History Teaches Us About the Danger of Ignoring North Korean Threats and Actions

NK over Japan

Yesterday North Korea launched a missile that was capable of carrying a nuclear war head that flew over Japan.  This is not the first time NK has violated Japanese sovereignty but it is potentially the most dangerous. To be certain this was not a test but a message. The message is that NK can and will attack its enemies with nuclear weapons. The world is outraged and terrified, except apparently Russia, which has said it was US and South Korean actions that forced NK to launch this missile. This of course was some of the same logic that certain parties used in the past to explain the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US made them do it.

We are moving down a path that the world has seen before, and has never learned from.  Kim Jung-Un is a ruthless dictator with no moral compass or sense of the world. He is testing the US and regional powers to see how far he can go. He will continue to push until he is convinced of his invincibility. At this point the world will pay a terrible price for its restraint. It is just a question as to which country he will fire a nuke.

We have seen this with Hitler and Stalin and more recently with Kaddafi, Saddam Hussain, and Assad. In each case the world waited until the need for force was required to end aggression and millions died. The argument has always been the same, use diplomacy, use sanctions and wait them out, use of force will only beget force and war. The reality is that the longer you wait to stop someone like Kim the more devastating the war will be, and war is his aim. He has deluding himself into believing the world will always back down and he will always get whatever he wants. There is no one to tell him differently and his life to date has shown he will always get what he wants.

War is terrible, and nuclear war devastating. I do not want war but the way we are going I don’t see a way out of it short of a preemptive strike and the removal of this dictator. In the end, it will be the least deadly path. History however has shown that we will not take that path and there will be another devastating war that could have been avoided.              

Advertisements

There Where Many Sides in Charlottesville

non-zero-sum

There is a game known as zero-sum total. According to Webster’s this is defined as “a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it.” We see this today in the form of political rhetoric. The President seemed to cause a major political uproar by saying that both sides in Charlottesville, VA could be assigned blame. This went against the grain of those that felt that blame can only be assessed to one side or the other.

Now the Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, KKK assholes have no place in today’s society. Under zero-sum total then any group who opposes them must be on the side of all that is good. But those groups included violent, race biased organizations that show a great amount of intolerance toward anyone who disagrees in any way to their beliefs. These include the Antifa, BLM and anarchist. So how do we blame both for suborning violence.  

It is easy really, assign blame to anyone or any group that is to blame. This is referred to as non-zero-sum. When zero sum is used when the problem is non-zero-sum a problem arises. This last is known as Zero-sum bias. For more I will direct you to a paper written by Daniel V. Meegan, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada titled “Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources,” I will let the reader look it up and read. The problem is that what happened in Charlottesville VA is taken as Zero-sum, the Nazis are evil and therefore wrong. Anyone against them must therefore be in the right. In fact, the activities must be seen as non-zero-sum, the extremes were both wrong and evil but loud to be the only options seen.

What stops us in many cases is another problem called Identity politics, defined as “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.” Much of this today revolves around race, ideology and by extension religion. In identity politics, a person takes a position based on race or ideology and will oppose anyone not of that race or ideology, regardless of facts. The problem with identity politics is that it forces anyone not in your group to be clumped into the “other” group.

No person or organization should be given a pass because of who they oppose. Evil is evil and left or right they should be denounced. The clumping now becomes a problem. While calling out both extremes we find others in the mix of a demonstration. In Charlottesville, the thugs where there to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee. There were also those who opposed the removal based on cultural heritage beliefs and others opposed to the destruction or rewriting of history. I was born and raised in NJ and have no affection for Lee or the south having been raised to believe them traitors. But I was also raised with a strong sense of history and that we need to always remember history in order to move forward.  There were also those who truly believed the statues no longer represented Charlottesville and wanted them removed. If we consider the argument to be non-zero-sum then the middle groups should be allowed to come up with a decision that would be a compromise agreed on by all parties. This of course would require us to return to an old political activity known as compromise.    

In the end, we must all look at every aspect of a problem and be prepared to support the group we agree with. We must also be prepared to see neither side as holding our beliefs and values. Before you reach a conclusion based on a personal bias PLEASETHINK that both sides may be wrong. Use Charlottesville as an example where two extremes were wrong and the middle was ignored.    

 

The Need for a Military Option in Diplomacy

Arms and Influence

The recent flare-up between the United States and North Korea has many pundits and politician on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The thought of using nuclear weapons should cause the world to pause and think and do all that is in the power of nations to stop it, but it cannot be unthinkable. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was a doctrine used during the cold war that kept both sides from striking the other. With-in this, the most important part is ASSURED. There was no doubt on either side that the other would respond to an attack with a devastating counterattack. President Trump is returning the military option to diplomacy and it is not a new or radical idea.

In his book in 1532, “The Prince” Niccolo Machiavelli asked “… is it better to be loved then feared or feared then loved…” The answer obviously was feared. Am I endorsing Machiavelli, of course not, but sometimes he does make a good point. Now let’s move a little forward in time to 1832. Following his death, the book, “On War” by the Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz was published, one point he made was that war is a continuation of foreign policy by other means. There are many interpretations of what he meant, but all agree that at a minimum when diplomacy fails, the state still has the military option. How does all this tie in. In 1966, Thomas Schelling an American economist and professor of foreign affairs, national security, nuclear strategy, and arms control wrote “Arms and Influence”, in the first chapter he wrote about the “diplomacy of violence.” The diplomacy of violence states, among other things, that regardless of the size and capability of your military, should your enemy perceive that it will not be used then the deterrent effect is nullified. In other words, if the military option is off the table then the bad guy has nothing to fear. This is the lesson the leaders of today have forgotten. That what has been passed down to us by all the above and others is that without the military option there is no diplomatic option.

Recent actions by the United States over the last few administrations indicate to the world we will not use the full strength of our military. Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding, we have failed to react to most major crisis’s in the world with the military option in the background. Russian activity in Georgia and Ukraine had sanctions put in place. In Iran, a very bad deal was made that will allow them to have nukes in a short time. In Iran both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry told the world without the Iran Deal the ONLY other possibility was war. This then took the military option off the table and made for a one-sided solution that will have serious negative consequences.

Today we are facing a rogue state that has been allowed to progress to the point of being able to attack the United States mainland with nukes. The leader of North Korea has shown he has no moral compass or world view. What sanctions will work on Kim Jong-un? He lets his people stave and believes himself to be a god, as do the people in North Korea.

If the world is made to understand the US has placed the military option back on the table and is willing to use it then that fear may move those nations that can force a change in North Korea to do so. Hopefully it will not take long for the world to understand that Donald Trump will use the military and that if that is truly a terrifying thought then they will act to eliminate the threat of a nuclear North Korea. If not, the United States must do what is necessary to protect itself and its allies.

Its Decision Time on the North Korean Problem

ICBM

Before we get started I ask the anti-Trump folks to read through and think. Please don’t just troll and say, yea, but Trump is… Ok now, Kim Jung-Un is an unstable and irrational person. He is the son and grandson of leaders considered gods. He himself is considered a god by the people of North Korea and is considered infallible. I have read a lot of experts and others say things such as he would not launch a nuclear attack on the US because he would know it is suicide. No, he does not, he sees the world through a child’s eye. He has no world view or world experience and there is no one around him who will tell him he is wrong. He has killed his brother and uncle and others who have crossed him. Additionally, successive US administrations have failed to make any permanent impression on the Kim’s and they watched as the Obama administration and the world caved to Iran. The worst thing President Obama and SecState Kerry did in those negotiations was continually repeat that without the deal the only other possible outcomes were war. This taught Kim that the threat of war was enough to force the US to back down.
The one overriding national drive in North Korea is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. The Kim’s have always seen the US as the only thing standing in their way. The North has impoverished itself in order to build a military that can defend the government, defeat the US and reunite the Korean people. The current leader was raised on video games and a sense of infallibility. He is a child with a room full of toys and he wants to play. War could have been avoided in the past if the few countries such as China had acted as responsible adults. While the world is told that there are few options left in dealing with the regime in Pyongyang and none good it is coming down to a single option, overwhelming force. All nations will have to be involved and it must be quick and it must be soon.
Yes there will be civilian deaths, but far fewer than if a Nuke lands in LA.

A Modern Witch Hunt

 

salem-witch-hanging2

The President recently called the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election and the Trump campaigns collusion with it a witch hunt. This is not the first time the President used the term nor is he the only one to make the comparison. What exactly is a witch hunt and how does the current investigation stack up against past activities that have been called witch hunts. 

 

The most famous case in America is the Salem witch trials in Salem Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. While not the first, last or largest it is the most famous to Americans. A quick recap some young girls in Salem who were exhibiting strange behavior accused local people of being witch’s and possessing them a series of trials took place and many of the accused were convicted, you know the rest.

 

The witch trials have been used in modern times as a cautionary tale to advise against false accusations and the refusal to adhere to due process. The American historian George Lincoln Burr cited the trials as “the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered.”[          

 

 The most famous witch hunt is modern times were the McCarty hearings looking, for communist in the government. This, as the Salem trials, spread far and wide looking for any person that could fit into the paranoia of the times. The Salem trials and the McCarty hearing finally floundered by becoming so aggressive that it became clear that there was no basis for the accusations.

 

Now to the current rush to judgment. As I have said in previous posts, the Russian accusations started out as an attempt to deflect the growing appearance of incompetence by Hillary Clinton and, more so, from her apparent criminal actions as Secretary of State regarding mishandling of classified information. From the first charge of the Russians hacking the DNC and releasing incriminating emails through Wikileaks. Following this it was a Russian conspiracy to swing the election to Trump, and finally that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians to influence the election.

 

Now why are we calling the current congressional and FBI investigation a witch hunt? As I said the only thing that is known is the DNC was hacked, likely by the Russians. The rest is pure speculation and innuendo. Much of what is being investigated could be called guilt by association. Paul Manafort who was at one time a Trump campaign manager had also help the former president of Ukraine, an ally of Russia. Paul Manafort is a paid political consultant, this is what he does. This is no established connection between him and any Trump campaign activity that could lead to Russia. The big best known now is former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Flynn met with the Russian ambassador in December, after the election. The accusation is that Flynn spoke about lifting sanctions after the inauguration. He was fired for lying to the Vice-President about that conversation, no connection to Russian hacking or influence. Now in today’s Washington Post is an article about the Presidents son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his connections to Russia. This last is the most recent example of yellow journalism. Which is defined as relying on sensational or exaggerated headlines to sell newspapers. What was the headline:

 

        Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation

 

And what was in the story:

 

        “Investigators are focusing on a series of meetings held by Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-                   law and an influential White House adviser, as part of their probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and related matters, according to people familiar with the investigation.”

 

 

 

So far so good, a news story, until we get 5 paragraphs in:

 

“The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. “Target” is a word that generally refers to someone who is the main suspect of investigators’ attention, though prosecutors can and do bring charges against people who are not marked with that distinction.”

 

OK, is this a story or a witch hunt. Front page in print and leading in the online edition and 5 paragraphs in it reverses the headline.

 

Again, I ask, PLEASE THINK about what you read and hear. I am not sure if I want to call this story part of a witch hunt or just continuation of bad/biased reporting. In fact, it is both so read the whole story and use common sense. To the news media, please just report the news and only once you have confirmed the facts.

 

 

Has President Trump Committed Impeachable Acts?

Trump

 

Since the early morning hours of November 9, 2016, there have been declarations that Donald Trump has committed heinous acts that demand he be impeached. It did not seem to matter that this movement began before he took office, he had to be impeached. It appears that there were some among the crowd who believed that if they could do this then Hillary would become president. So lets look at the probability that Donald J. Trump has committed impeachable acts.

To start the discussion it must first be pointed out that impeachment does not mean removal from office. It is the formal process of leveling charges, to decide if crimes have been committed and if so do they rise to the level required for trial. To date only two presidents have been impeached by the House, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, neither was convicted in the Senate.  Richard Nixon was under investigation but resigned before the House took action. The attempt to remove a sitting president from office was intended to be difficult and requiring very specific reasons. This is were the problem with declaring, preemptively, that president Trump has committed impeachable offences.

The drama began during the debates last summer when Trump called out Hillary for mishandling classified emails and for leaked emails showing she had colluded with the DNC to manipulate the Democratic party primaries. Hillary’s response was defensive and said the real question was that Russia had hacked the DNC and that was the major issue. In all fairness it was and is an issue but I am not sure it was a bigger issue then her breaking the law and suborning the DNC’s manipulation, but there it started.

Once started the Russian bogyman morphed from an attack on the DNC to Russia attempting to influence the election toward Trump, to Trump and his campaign colluding with the Russian government to ensure a Trump victory.  All of this in an attempt to rescue the Clinton campaign that only a few knew was in trouble.  The major problem was that this campaign maneuver did not die with the election but was perpetuated by the so called resistance to  Trump and became not only an article of faith but the presumed first article of impeachment.

The problem is that currently there is not one shred of evidence to back up the claims. It is all rumor, innuendo and talking heads drawing unbelievable connections from just about anywhere they can. Such connections include, Mike Flynn was fired because he was a connection to the Russians. Mike Flynn was fired because he lied to the vice-president. Sally Yates was fired to stop the Russian investigation. Yates was fired for failing to follow the directions of the President, her boss and client. As an attorney she has an obligation to advocate for her side regardless of personal feelings.  Comey was fired to stop the Russia investigation. Comey was fired for incompetence and violations of long standard practices. In both of these cases the investigation continued. More recently Trump committed treason by giving the Russians classified information. Two points here you can only commit treason in time of war and as President he has the authority to declassify intelligence as he see fit. The last point is the now infamous Comey memo that says Trump asked him if he could see fit to not go after Flynn, obvious obstruction of justice, but its not. First Trump made it a request not an order and put no conditions on it. Second if it was obstruction of justice Comey was bound by law to report it and he did not. Lastly the White House denies it so it becomes hearsay evidence.

In the end we are left with the fact that to date Trump has not committed any impeachable acts, at least none that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Many are trying however to compare this to Watergate and the eventual resignation of Richard Nixon, history however has a different, more appropriate lesson, Andrew Johnson. Nixon was guilty without a doubt and would have been convicted in the Senate. Johnson on the other hand was a victim of political intrigue and hated by the elites of Washington for standing up for what he believed to be in the best interest of the country. Johnson was vilified in the press and was a very unpopular president, but in fact had done nothing wrong or illegal. In the end the Senate failed to convict by one vote.

PLEASE THINK of the consequences of impeachment actions or the removal of the president, especially for what appears to be political grandstanding. The country can survive a Trump presidency but may not survive a coup d’état. Oh and for those who think Russia got what it wanted in a Trump win, they did not. They will get what they were actually looking for if the country continues down this road, a wracked political system and a powerless country.

 

 

PLEASE THINK: Check All News Reports

fake_news

I recently read a story put out by the Associated Press (AP) whose headline screamed “Trump, DHS considered National Guard troops for immigration raids; White House disputes report.” At least they said the White House disputed the report. This and another article went on to report that up to 100,000 National Guard troops would be used to help enforce immigration laws and assist in the deportation of illegal aliens. What it said was:

D, Expansion of the 287(g) Program to Include State Guard Units in the Border Region

(Two paragraphs latter it says)

     “Pursuant to Title 32 of the United States Code, State National Guard components are employees of their respective states and are under the command to their Governors when not in federal service. Based on their training and experience, these men and women are particularly well-suited to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law and augment border security operations by Department components.”

In other words within 14 paragraphs A through N with a lot of verbiage in between this two sentence paragraph is the only one that mentions the National Guard. If you wish to read the entire memo you can find it at http://apne.ws/2l1Dj0k

From these two sentences the AP deduced that up to 100, 000 Guardsmen would be used in immigration round-ups. Ignoring the rest of the draft memo the only part reported was on the National Guard.

No one knows who instigated the memo or at what level but it is reasonable to be assured it did not get too far.

In his last press conference the President castigated the news media, this is one of the reasons why.

I ask all journalist to PLEASE THINK about the stories they are reporting on and to check the facts. This story had no purpose other then to instigate fear in the immigrant community and once again try and bring down the executive branch of our government.