South Korea’s Moon over Obama

 

Moon meets with Putin

Post by Mustang

Gordon Chang’s recent article at the Gatestone Institute is nothing if not instructive.  Reading the post, titled “Will North Korea Take Over South Korea?” … one wonders how the people of South Korea, given their history over the past 70 years, can possibly accept President Moon’s treasonous behavior as their chief executive —but then, the efforts of this man to dismantle republican democracy in South Korea does sound awfully similar to the presidency of public enemy number one, Barack Obama.

I still shake my head every time I think of Obama’s election … not once, but twice.  In fact, there are so many similarities between Obama and Moon that one begins to think about conspiracies of global proportions.

You can read the article for yourself, but here are a few of his salient points:

  • ·       While visiting North Korea, President Moon went out of his way to downplay the legitimacy of the country he was elected to represent;
  • ·       Since becoming president in 2017, President Moon has undermined his country’s democracy in tangible ways, including the use of broadcast media to suppress dissenting views, while at the same time promoting those of North Korea.
  • ·    President Moon ordered the dismantling of the South Korean military, including the removal of defenses along likely invasion and infiltration routes.
  • ·       In North Korea, President Moon recently stood mute while Kim Jung Un referred to the South Korean people as “My people.”
  • ·     President Moon has long advocated unification of the Korean Peninsula; what no one expected is that he has been working overtime to make South Korea more compatible with the authoritarian nature of the North Korean state.  As but one example, Moon insists that the term “liberal” be removed from the concept of constitutional democracy.

So why are the people of South Korea standing idly by?

I suppose for the same reason our people thought that electing Barack Obama was a wise choice —on two occasions.  South Korea society today mirrors that of the United States: it is beset with social issues, which include alcoholism, substance abuse, over-fascination with social media and video games, destruction of core family values, and a sense that their nation’s policies are of no concern.  Being lulled to sleep by drugs and technology would seem to a windfall for Kim Jung Un.

Does any of this sound familiar?  Why does this matter?  Why should anyone care what South Korea does?

Does it matter because 34,000 Americans gave up their lives during the Korean War?  Does it matter because five-thousand Americans suffered as prisoners of war in North Korea and China —and that not all of them came home?  Since the Korean armistice (a peace treaty was never signed), the American taxpayer has paid billions of dollars helping to improve South Korea’s infrastructure and subsidizing South Korea’s national defense … a treaty obligation since 1950.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that there is anything the United States can do about President Moon’s treasonous behavior.  Maybe the wise course of action is to do nothing —let the Koreans decide their own fate, come hell or high water.  The American people seem incapable of dealing with their own political system much less those of another country so far from our shores … and you know, this does suggest to me that Obama achieved most of his goals as chief executive: to make fundamental changes to the United States of America.

Is it in America’s long-term interests to abandon global leadership?

Should we hit them in the old pocket book by refusing to buy Korean cars?

Well, such a remarkable repudiation of South Korea’s present leadership would suggest that we Americans have the chutzpah to act on our principles.

Or that we even have such things as principles.

 I would be interested in reader’s views.

Advertisements

North Korea is sitting on $6 trillion in mineral resources

 

So Rocket Man, Chairman Kim Jong Un, has a whole lot of stuff sitting under his earth’s crust. While everyone depicts North Korea as this down and out country, it turns out the story is far more complicated with Billions of dollars worth of rare earth minerals for one. It has been claimed that it would be such burden for South Korea should these two ever get together. Not true apparently. Plus it has beautiful beaches that Trump would love to develop!:

 

It has long been regarded as a poor country.

But as it turns out North Korea is a lot richer than we thought, or at the very least has the potential to be.

North Korea has mineral resources estimated to be worth at least $6 trillion, according to Quartz, and the secretive state is sitting on a vast array of mineral resources which remains largely untapped including iron, gold, magnesite, zinc, copper, limestone, molybdenum and graphite.

Its bedrock also holds a large amount of metals needed to make smartphones and other technological products.

But while the isolated nation might be rich in underground resources, taking advantage of the buried treasure this remains another issue.

But a 2012 estimate by a South Korean research institute valued its mineral wealth as high as $10 trillion, The Economist reported.

More at  New York Post

UN Ambassadors Nikki Haley versus Samantha Power – change all in one year

All of the change at the UN in just one year. I give you a portion of a post I did almost one year to the day – we had Samantha Power as the UN Ambassador who earlier in her career called for the invasion of Israel. The first clip a take on our new Ambassador who told the UN where it was at this past week. (They think we bullied apparently.) Then Samantha Power.

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley has sent a letter of warning to members of the UN General Assembly ahead of an emergency session to vote on a resolution calling for Trump’s Jerusalem decision to be withdrawn

 

Why Samantha Power lighted the U.N. Israel firestorm

Snip…..In 2002 Samantha Power made a statement, calling for a U.S. military invasion of Israel. Full transcript available at the youtube site.

Commentary Magazine: (An excellent piece, well worth the full read on our gal)

 

 In a 2003 article for the New Republic, Power:  “The U.S,” she wrote, “came to be seen less as it sees itself (the cop protecting the world from rogue nations) than as the very runaway state international law needs to contain.”

Power wrote that America’s record in world affairs had been so harmful to the freedoms of people around the world that the United States could remedy the problem only through profound self-criticism and the wholesale adoption of new policies. Acknowledging that President Bush was correct in saying that “some America-bashers” hate the American people’s freedoms, Ms. Power stated that much anti-Americanism derives from the role that U.S. power “has played in denying such freedoms to others” and concluded:

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling….Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When [then German Chancellor] Willie [sic] Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany. Would such an approach be futile for the United States?

Who is Samantha Power, Irish Pro-Palestinian Activist (see also Ed Lasky, American Thinker) -a good piece on the danger to Israel.

 

 

 

A British Perspective on options regarding North Korea

By Mustang

A writer by the name of Mark Almond recently got a four-page spread in The Daily Mail that addressed “western” options vis-à-vis North Korea.  Beyond the usual backdrop to the problem, which essentially ignored any details about the appeasements offered to the NORKS by Bill Clinton, Almond offered up a few “alternatives.”  Personally, I’m not sure why the Mail would want to inform North Korea about our options —it appears to give some aid and comfort to the enemy, but I nevertheless found his options somewhat interesting.  His options were:

Diplomacy —treat North Korea as an equal (not as a rogue), but do try to refrain from Washington’s previous appeasements.  Surprisingly, he urged President Trump to demand verification of any halt to nuclear weapons development.  I laugh … how does one verify such a thing?  Cross my heart and hope to die doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Sanctions —allowing that Kim Jung Un cannot be “sweet-talked” into behaving himself as a responsible national leader, we should perhaps impose further sanctions upon the North Korean regime. Personally, I’m not aware that any of our previous sanctions ever worked.  Maybe we should threaten to send Jimmy Carter to North Korea.  That might work.

Limited strike —well, once more, I’m not sure that limited strikes serve much purpose beyond reducing America’s arsenal of air-delivered munitions.  North Korea is a mountainous country and I have no doubt that Kim Jung Un has a plush underground bunker where he can avoid any discomforts from American/South Korean airstrikes.  I do suspect that the American taxpayer paid for these bunkers, but then this is what happens when the American people elect a Clinton to the presidency.

Full Invasion —right.  The United States of America is already over-committed to the Middle East and without the massive participation of North Korea’s neighbors (South Korea and Japan) this option would appear to be laughable on its face.

Assassination —Although I do not think there are any Americans who are Democrats, the Democratic party in America would almost certainly oppose such attempts, unless it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz who first came up with the idea.  How should we assassinate Kim Jung Un?  Well, beyond hiring the Israelis to do it for us, I don’t see how this is a realistic possibility —unless we were to find out that Fat Kim loves M&Ms.  In that case, we’ve got him by the short-hairs.

An American Nuclear Strike —I suspect would could never get away with this.  Gore would be absolutely apoplectic, and don’t we need to protect Al Gore as a national treasure?  I wondered why a British fellow is attempting to encourage an American nuclear strike.  Hmmm.  Presently, North Korea has somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty nuclear bombs.  If he only got off one of these in his own defense, it could get messy.  On the other hand, does Un even know where Guam is?

Pressure on China —by far the most logical of all suggestions, with some modification by Machiavellian me.  So far, the Chinese have not appeared much disposed to reigning in their little fat tyrant, but what if we offered this suggestion via the New England Journal of Medicine: North Koreans are as nutritionally balanced and tasty as roast duck?

My personal opinion is that it is a darn good thing Mr. Almond isn’t working for the British Defense agency.  On the other hand, America has all these MOABs sitting around gathering dust.  What if we simply delivered one of these for every square inch of North Korea and made it an UN-limited strike?

I don’t know … I’m old, and confused most of the time.  What do Bunkerville reader’s think our options are?

EU, World Bank brutalize Africans for Carbon Credits

Here is a story that Al Gore and his henchmen, the Liberal wacko’s, the Progressives, who care so much for the environment, that they will not let you know about it. And the EU and the World Bank are equally responsible. But this is their M.O. for the uninitiated. Our lives are nothing to them, we have no value. In fact, we are a burden to their precious planet. For you see, they think there are far to many of us. So for these sad folks it is too late. Let this be our wake up call. Because sooner or later, they will come for us. Yes indeed.

The government of Uganda and the U.K.-based “carbon credits” firm New Forests Company — accredited by the United Nations and largely financed by the World Bank and the European Union — are under intense public pressure after evidence emerged that over 20,000 poor Ugandan farmers were brutally evicted from their lands in order for New Forests Company to plant trees. The atrocities, publicized in a September 22 report by the non-profit aid group Oxfam, have made headlines around the world. But not in America. They are still trying to ram the credits down our throats, and this is bad press.

“We were beaten by soldiers. They beat my husband and put him in jail,” Naiki Apanabang, who obtained her family’s land in recognition of her grandfather’s military service, told Oxfam investigators. “The eviction was very violent.” Apanabang and her eight children no longer have enough food to eat — let alone money for schooling.   …..unanimously telling investigators horror stories of brutality, shootings, wanton destruction of livelihoods, and more. “The communities Oxfam spoke to describe the evictions as anything but voluntary or peaceful,” the report noted.  

Ugandan authorities granted the UN-accredited carbon-trading firm a license to plant trees on the land in 2005. So-called “carbon credits” earned from the plantation would then be sold to companies to offset their emissions of CO2. The problem was that tens of thousands of people had been living off of the land for decades.

Read the full appalling story here: New American

Here is a refresher as to what the Progressives are all about. Let us not forget for a nanosecond.

Obama message for the world via the UN.. ‘I am here to save it’

One of the most despicable vids yet. That is the wonder of the Internet.. we finally get to capture these special moments for all to see. View it at your peril. This story goes so well with the one just posted previously: Obama as Lord Shiva… except Shiva was the destroyer of the world. You might want to pick up our story and Vid: Obama and Collective Salvation, a good insight into this fine fellow and where he is coming from.

The Obama administration has a message for the world. The message is something along these lines: The United States is very bad, but Barack Obama is very good. He seeks to redeem America from its evil.

Carl in Jerusalem aptly comments: “The key foreign policy goal of the Obama administration is to destroy the notion that America is an exceptional nation, and to cut it down to the same size as brutal dictatorships around the world. Trying to cut down America’s most feisty ally by forcing it into a situation where it will have to fight for its very existence is part of the same ‘strategy.'”

Eye on the UN has compiled the disgusting video below of the United States abasing itself before some of the most reprehensible regimes in the world. I believe this is what goes under the name of “smart diplomacy” in the Obama administration.

Read the rest at Power Line here

Over at the Green Room:

“When I read about this, it reminded me of the movie “Becket“, which begins with Henry II submitting himself to a ritual flogging by Catholic priests, as penance for the murder of Thomas Becket.

But doesn’t this also have overtones of the core Christian dogma? Obama, The One, is pure and good, and he will absorb the punishment deserved by his people in order to purify and save them? And then arise afterwards to make the oceans fall and the planet cool and generally make things just a whole lot better?”

New U.N. Report Claims that the United States owes $45 Trillion in “climate debt”

You don’t need to attend the United Nations climate change conference to know what’s really going on.

Ignoring the fallacies behind the “science” of man-made global warming, a new U.N. report on “climate justice” says the U.S. and other countries owe $24 trillion in “climate debt” to the rest of the world.

The report, “Climate Justice for a Changing Planet,” argues that the United States is “historically the largest global emitter” of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest “debt” to pay. But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion. President Obama seems prepared to accept this bogus claim by attending the United Nations conference on December 18.

The U.S. failure to pay, argues leftist Canadian writer Naomi Klein, has already produced “climate rage” and a “global movement for climate justice” led by Bolivia’s socialist President Evo Morales. The implication is that if the U.S. doesn’t pay up, protests and even violence could break out.

In a statement, the Morales regime declared that “What we call for is full payment of the debt owed to us by developed countries for threatening the integrity of the Earth’s climate system, for over-consuming a shared resource that belongs fairly and equally to all people, and for maintaining lifestyles that continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the poor majority of the planet’s population.”

In other words, Americans are supposed to feel guilty over having a successful industrial economy. It is a system that has produced more wealth for more people than any in human history.

A detailed proposal from Bolivia says “a wealthy minority,” presumably in the U.S. and other “rich” nations, “has already over‐consumed a considerable amount of environmental space,” thus “denying it to the poorer majority who needs it in the course of their development.”

Naomi Klein describes the proposed payments as “reparations.” ………

 http://www.aim.org/aim-column/socialists-demand-trillions-in-climate-debt/

%d bloggers like this: