Barack Obama Is Responsible For America’s Tragic Racial Divide

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

In an article entitled “‘Own up to reality’: 2020 Democrats urged to confront US racial divide,” Lauren Gambino has written thoroughly anti-Trump screed in the UK’s Guardian, which nonetheless is worth reading:

In August 2016, Donald Trump stood before an overwhelmingly white crowd in Dimondale, Michigan, and asked black people for their votes.

“What the hell do you have to lose?” he growled.

He went on to accuse Hillary Clinton of caring more for immigrants than for black Americans, who he said were forced to live like “refugees in their own country”. After four years of a Trump administration, he vowed, 95% of African Americans would vote to keep him in office.

This week, it was evident that at least among members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, voters did not need four years to make up their minds.

A man who entered national politics by promoting the false “birther” conspiracy against the nation’s first black president, has, in office, equivocated in his response to a white supremacist march in Charlottesville; asked why the US does not attract more migrants from Norway instead of “shithole” countries like El Salvador, Haiti and various African nations; enacted brutal policies at the southern border; tried to include a citizenship question on the census; and told four lawmakers of color to “go back” to their home countries, regardless of the fact three were born in the US and all are American citizens.

At the association’s annual convention in Detroit this week, a unanimous vote recommended the impeachment of Trump, who the NAACP president, Derrick Johnson, said led “one of the most racist and xenophobic administrations since the Jim Crow era”.

“The pattern of Trump’s misconduct is unmistakable and has proven time and time again that he is unfit to serve as the president of this country,” Johnson said.

Appearing at the convention, the former vice-president Joe Biden cast the 2020 election as “a battle for the soul of this nation”. Other members of the most diverse Democratic presidential field in US history attacked Trump as a “bigot” whose rhetoric and policies have harmed communities of color while Bill Weld, Trump’s only Republican challenger, said the president “is a raging racist, OK? He’s a complete and thoroughgoing racist.”

Yet disagreement remained over whether Trump is an “aberration,[“] as Biden has argued, or if he is a symptom of more deeply rooted social and political ills.

“A country that elects a man like Donald Trump has serious problems,” said the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. “And we need to make big structural change.”

‘A strategy for a massive loss’

After Clinton’s defeat, many top Democrats determined Trump had won because white working class white voters abandoned the party as a result of its emphasis on race and identity. To beat him, they argued, candidates should only respond to Trump’s most inflammatory provocations and even then to quickly return to “kitchen table” issues: the economy, jobs, healthcare.

Trump spent the final months of the 2018 midterm campaign whipping up fear about an immigrant caravan at the southern border and the MS-13 gang. But Democrats won control of the House, taking seats in districts Republicans had held for decades with the help of suburban and college-educated white voters.

Now, though, in the wake of Trump’s incendiary attacks on the congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, leading voices of the progressive left, many black leaders and liberal activists are pushing candidates to more aggressively combat the president and his combustible politics of racial division.

The former NAACP president Cornell Brooks said Trump was playing a dangerous game and implored Democrats not to treat 2020 as “race-neutral”.

“You cannot pretend,” he said, “that healthcare, highways, jobs and climate change, that those are issues of consequence but that hate crimes, xenophobia, children in migrant camps and the targeting of women of color are not real issues. That is a strategy for a massive loss.”

Stacey Abrams, the 2018 Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia, advocated a new approach.

“We’re taught that you could only win people of color – you can only turn African Americans – by losing white voters,” she said. “But we didn’t believe that was true.”

Abrams lost narrowly but in Detroit she argued that her historic candidacy – she would have been the first black female governor of a US state – had helped reshape the political landscape before the arrival of long-term demographic change, through which Americans of color are projected to become a majority around 2050.

African American votes are critical already. They formed a strong base of the multiracial coalition that twice elected Barack Obama and overwhelmingly backed Clinton in 2016. But that year also saw turnout among African Americans falling to its lowest rate in 20 years, with particularly sharp declines in midwestern states like Michigan, where Trump won by less than 11,000 votes of the 4.8m cast.

At a Pennsylvania rally after his election, Trump thanked black voters who stayed home, saying they were “almost as good” as those who voted for him.

‘Come-to-Jesus moment’

In Detroit, Marjorie Innocent, an NAACP staffer from Baltimore, said Trump had handed Democrats a “come-to-Jesus moment”.

“Under the Obama years there was a false sense of security around the progress we had achieved and the extent to which, collectively, we were on a similar page,” she said. “The Trump administration has exposed these divisions and shown us that they are still very much pervasive in our country and that they are deeply grounded in race and class – in that order. Now we need a leader who will own up to that reality.”

The public remains deeply divided over race but attitudes have shifted. In 2017, a record 41% of Americans said racial discrimination was the main reason black people could not get ahead. Among Democrats the figure was 64%, more than double what it was in 2010.

Accordingly, the party has introduced ambitious and detailed proposals to address racial disparities in maternal healthcare, to overhaul the criminal justice system and to expand access to public housing, improve accountability in policing, invest in education and explore reparations for the descendants of slaves.

But race and racism remain hot issues and the NAACP presidential forum provided a preview of battles to come in the second Democratic debate, which will take place in Detroit next week.

Biden said he was “not going to be as polite this time”. In the first debate, the California senator Kamala Harris, one of two leading black presidential candidates, clashed with the former VP over his record on race[].

Biden, who enjoys sizable support among African American voters, is also exchanging barbs with New Jersey senator Cory Booker, the other prominent black candidate. On the sidelines of the NAACP forum, Booker called Biden the “architect of mass incarceration”, regarding his role in helping to pass the 1994 crime bill while a senator for Delaware.

Biden, who has proposed criminal justice reform legislation to undo some of the effects of that bill, refuted the accusation and then unloaded on Booker, attacking his record as mayor of Newark. Biden’s campaign later released a memo on Booker’s time in the city, claiming there would not be sufficient time to raise each point during the TV debate.

Biden also reminded NAACP members that Obama had not been forced to pick him for vice-president.

“They did a significant background check on me,” he said. “I doubt he would have picked me if these accusations about my being wrong on civil rights [were] correct.”

On the debate stage on Wednesday, Biden will stand between Harris and Booker.

‘A matter of survival’

White House officials and Trump allies argue that voters will be persuaded by economic gains. The president regularly brags that unemployment among Hispanic and black Americans has fallen to record lows, even though the rates have since climbed. He also signed into law bipartisan legislation overhauling a criminal justice system that disproportionately ensnares people of color.

But NAACP members said such efforts pale in comparison to the harm Trump has done. Hate crimes have risen. Experts say white nationalism is a growing threat.

“Our interest in this conversation is not political,” said Johnson, the NAACP president. “Our interest in this conversation is a matter of survival.”

Trump hopes moves such as his attack on the progressive congresswomen can drive up white turnout while depressing Democratic support among moderates and independents. Some think that could backfire. At the NAACP convention, the Rev Jesse Jackson warned: “When you separate four bees, the whole hive comes out.”

But on Saturday, in tweets attacking the Maryland congressman Elijah Cummings and calling his district “a rat-infested mess”, the president did it again.[2]

First, by and large, the British media is biased against America’s President Donald Trump.  The marshaling of almost every conceivable negative against him in the article above simply mirrors these biases.

Second, by way of contrast, Barack Obama is praised despite the fact that he was and is a racist and anti-Semite.[3]  If anyone has any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which is shocking.  It is summarized in the first article of this blog, with direct quotes and page cites.  It should be read by every American, which ideally should have happened before he was elected to the presidency.[4]

Third, Donald Trump was and is correct: if Hillary Clinton has cared about anyone other than herself, it seems to be illegal immigrants who would take jobs away from America’s blacks and other minority groups who are in the United States legally.[5]  Also, slavery and economic servitude were perpetrated and perpetuated by the Democratic Party, while the “Great Emancipator” Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party brought an end to it.[6]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was once a respected group; however, sadly today it is little more than another collection of race hustlers who sow racial divisions and victimization, and pander to America’s blacks in the hopes of being relevant and staying afloat financially.  As I have written previously:

150 years after slavery ended, the pathetic NAACP and other black racist organizations—like the so-called “Black Lives Matter,” Antifa and other violent groups—continue to play the “race card” at every turn, and seek “reparations” (e.g., welfare payments) for their flock.

They are spearheaded by “race hustlers” such as Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings and other members of the so-called “Congressional Black Caucus”—which should be outlawed as a racist organization.

As other minorities rise up the economic totem pole, America’s blacks remain at the bottom and are passed over. And their thugs aka NFL players are highly paid, but ignore the plight of elderly and other blacks in Chicago and other American cities.[7]

Fourth, America’s blacks whose ancestors were brought to our shores as slaves are U.S. citizens.  Their rights must be protected and nourished and not destroyed or lessened by the influx of illegal immigrants from other countries.[8]  It is arguable that Barack Obama has never understood this, much less fully, because he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

Fifth, with respect to Barack Obama’s former Vice President, Joe Biden, he is being attacked by those in the Democratic Party who seek to destroy his presidential candidacy and advance their own.  Indeed, there are reasons to believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and the other members of their so-called “Squad” may cost the Democratic Party both the presidency and the Congress in 2020.  And neither of them may be reelected.[9]

Sixth, as I have written:

[Progressive] is a term that has been coined or affixed to [members of America’s Left], to cloud, obscure or mask their true natures, identities and intentions.

They are the Jerrold Nadlers; the Adam Schiffs; the racist Maxine Waterses and Elijah Cummingses; the Richard Blumenthals (who lied repeatedly that he served with our military in Vietnam); the Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (who lied repeatedly about her native-American heritage); the Kamala Harrises (who rose to “fame” and recognition as former San Francisco mayor WIllie Brown’s ho); and the list goes on and on.[10]

Seventh, the racists attempt to portray “people of color” as being all the same, when the reality is very different.  Blacks, or “African-Americans”—those whose ancestors were brought to America from Africa as slaves—are in the distinct minority, having been surpassed by Hispanic-Americans, or those with Hispanic heritages.[11]

Lastly, Barack Obama’s legacy may be that of a traitor who sowed racial divisions, and sought to destroy the candidacy and presidency of his successor.  Indeed, it may be concluded that he was and is the greatest traitor in American history.[12]  And yes, the United States and the American people will survive his treachery.  It warrants repeating:

I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples. Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.[13]

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/28/own-up-to-reality-2020-democrats-urged-to-confront-us-racial-divide (“‘Own up to reality’: 2020 Democrats urged to confront US racial divide”).

[3]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-12626 (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”).

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article).

[5]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue”).

[6] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation (“Emancipation Proclamation”—”In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as ‘the heir of the aspirations of John Brown’.  On August 6, 1863, Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: ‘Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure'”).

[7] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-10895 (“Race Hustlers Like The NAACP, Colin Kaepernick And Barack Obama”).

[8] See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/ (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article).

[9] See, e.g., http://www.dickmorris.com/aoc-omar-crash-in-the-polls-2020-election-alert/ (“AOC & Omar Crash In The Polls – 2020 Election Alert!”).

[10]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-17600 (“Abortions And Gay Rights Are Not American Values”); see also, https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/17/is-trump-driving-a-wedge-through-the-democratic-party/#comment-18289 (“The Democrats Are Pure Evil, And They Must Be Crushed”).

[11]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans (“White Americans”—”White Americans (including White Hispanics) constitute the historical and current majority of the people living in the United States, with 72% of the population in the 2010 United States Census.  . . . European Americans are the largest ethnic group of White Americans and constitute the historical population of the United States since the nation’s founding”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans (“African American”—”African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa.  . . . Of the 12.6% of United States residents who identified as black [according to the 2010 U.S. Census], around 10.3% were ‘native black American’ or ethnic African Americans, who are direct descendants of West/Central Africans brought to the U.S. as slaves”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#20th_and_21st_centuries (“Hispanic and Latino Americans”—”Hispanic and Latino Americans constituted 18.1% of the total U.S. population in 2017).

[12] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-12626 (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”); see also https://www.apnews.com/277fe31ea2234658a991243a9c6f2466 (“Polls show sour views of race relations in Trump’s America”).

[13] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/17/is-trump-driving-a-wedge-through-the-democratic-party/ (“Is Trump Driving A Wedge Through The Democratic Party?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) (quoting http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ and http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2951-ilene/31177-interview-with-timothy-d-naegele).

Is Trump Driving A Wedge Through The Democratic Party?

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

There are reasons to believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and the other members of their “Squad” may cost the Democratic Party both the presidency and the Congress in 2020.  And neither of them may be reelected.[2]

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written an article entitled “Trump Fuels a Tribal War in Nancy’s House”:

President Donald Trump’s playground taunt Sunday that “the Squad” of four new radical liberal House Democrats, all women of color, should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came,” dominated Monday morning’s headlines.

Yet those headlines smothered the deeper story.

The Democrats are today using language to describe their own leaders that is similar to the language of the 1960s radicals who denounced Democratic segregationist governors like Ross Barnett and George Wallace.

Consider what the four women have been saying.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of attacking “newly elected women of color.” Was she calling Pelosi a “racist”?

“No!” protested AOC. But it sure sounded like it.

AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti attacked Native American Rep. Sharice Davids for her vote on a Pelosi-backed bill that sent $4.6 billion in aid to the border but lacked the restrictions on Trump policies progressives had demanded.

Chakrabarti described Davids’ vote as “showing her … enable a racist system,” adding that some Democrats “seem hell bent to do to black and brown people what the old Southern Democrats did in the ’40s.”

The House Democratic Caucus ripped Chakrabarti, “Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?”

At a Netroots Nation conference this weekend, African American Rep. Ayanna Pressley declared: “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. … We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.”

This comes close to calling members of the Black Caucus “Uncle Toms.”

Monday, the president doubled down, tweeting:

“We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of Communists, they hate Israel, they hate our own Country, they’re calling the guards along our Border (the Border Patrol Agents) Concentration Camp Guards, they accuse people who support Israel as doing it for the Benjamin’s”

The “Benjamins” recalls the accusation of Somali-born Ilhan Omar of Minnesota that the Israel Lobby buys the votes of members of Congress. “It’s all about the Benjamins baby.”

Rashida Tlaib of Michigan is the other congresswoman in Trump’s sights. Together, the four have achieved a prominence that almost exceeds that of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Majority Whip James Clyburn.

The four — AOC, Tlaib, Pressley, Omar — have no clout in the Democratic caucus. But because of the confrontations they have caused and the controversy they have created, they have a massive media following.

Paradoxically, their interests in winning cheers as the fighting arm of the Democratic Party coincide with the interests of Donald Trump. He entertains and energizes his base by answering in kind their attacks on him and by adopting incendiary rhetoric of his own. He is now assuming the old “America! Love it or Leave it!” stance in going after the four women as anti-American ingrates.

They, by calling Trump a criminal, racist and fascist for whom impeachment proceedings should have begun months ago, elate and energize the outraged left of their party.

Among the presidential candidates, some have begun to side with the four, with Bernie Sanders saying Pelosi has been “a little” too tough on them.

On “Meet the Press,” Bernie added: “You cannot ignore the young people of this country who are passionate about economic and racial and social and environmental justice. You’ve got to bring them in, not alienate them.”

Trump’s Sunday attack forced Pelosi to stand with her severest critics, and she re-elevated the race issue with this tweet: “When Trump tells four American Congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to ‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again.”

Do Democrats believe that refighting the racial battles of the 1960s that were thought to have been resolved is a winning hand in 2020?

Does Pelosi think that demeaning white America is going to rally white or minority Americans to Democratic banners?

The race issue had already arisen in the first debate when Sen. Kamala Harris called out front-runner Joe Biden for befriending segregationist Senate colleagues in the ’70s and ’80s, and for colluding with them to block court-ordered busing to achieve racial balance in the public schools.

Observing the clash between Trump and these women, the rank and file of the Democratic Party are being forced to take sides. Many will inevitably side with the fighters, as Democratic moderates appear timid and tepid.

Trump is driving a wedge right through the Democratic Party, between its moderate and militant wings. With his attacks over the last 48 hours, Trump has signaled whom he prefers as his opponent in 2020. It is not Biden; it is “the Squad.”

Sunday, Pelosi recited again her mantra, “Diversity is our strength; unity is our power.” It sounded less like a proclamation than a plea.

We see the diversity. Where is the unity?[3]

Next, new documents revisit questions about Omar’s marriage history.[4]  Will she be indicted, convicted, imprisoned and/or deported?

Clearly, there are massive racial divisions in the United States today, which were brought to us and fostered by the most racist, treasonous, un-American, anti-Semitic president in our history, Barack Obama.  If anyone has any doubts whatsoever, please read his book, “Dreams from My Father.”

His racist, fundamentally un-American beliefs are set forth there in his own words, and they are worth reading again and again—to remind each of us how we got to this racial divide.  Indeed, this blog began with an article that summarized the book, with direct quotes and page cites.[5]  But his treasonous presidential conduct has been on even fuller display, with his attempts to destroy the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump.[6]

In the event that Obama and the four fascist congresspersons missed it, America is white, whether they like it or not.  And blacks, or African-Americans are in the distinct minority, having been surpassed by Hispanic-Americans, or those with Hispanic heritages.[7]  As I have written:

As a whole, African-Americans are the last hired and the first fired, except in government.

Other ethnic groups have come to our shores, but America’s blacks remain at the bottom of the totem pole, while the more recent arrivals climb above them (e.g., those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage, Asian Americans).

America’s first and perhaps last “Affirmative Action” president has only made their conditions worse.[8]

However, as I said in an interview ten years ago:

I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples. Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.[9]

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See http://www.dickmorris.com/aoc-omar-crash-in-the-polls-2020-election-alert/ (“AOC & Omar Crash In The Polls – 2020 Election Alert!”)

[3]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/trump-fuels-a-tribal-war-in-nancys-house-137314

[4]  See http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/ (“New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s marriage history“)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

[6] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-12626 (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”); see also https://www.apnews.com/277fe31ea2234658a991243a9c6f2466 (“Polls show sour views of race relations in Trump’s America”)

[7]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans (“White Americans”—”White Americans (including White Hispanics) constitute the historical and current majority of the people living in the United States, with 72% of the population in the 2010 United States Census.  . . . European Americans are the largest ethnic group of White Americans and constitute the historical population of the United States since the nation’s founding”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans (“African American”—”African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa.  . . . Of the 12.6% of United States residents who identified as black [according to the 2010 U.S. Census], around 10.3% were ‘native black American’ or ethnic African Americans, who are direct descendants of West/Central Africans brought to the U.S. as slaves”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#20th_and_21st_centuries (“Hispanic and Latino Americans”—”Hispanic and Latino Americans constituted 18.1% of the total U.S. population in 2017)

[8]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-6334 (“Black America’s Rising Woes Under Obama”)

[9]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) (quoting http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ and http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2951-ilene/31177-interview-with-timothy-d-naegele)

Will The Trump Presidency Conclude In 2025?

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

There are reasons to believe that Donald Trump will be reelected in 2020, and serve another four-year term in office; and that his presidency will end in January of 2025.  If so, America will be changed forever.

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written an article entitled “Are Democrats Ceding the Center to Trump?”:

Since the Democratic debates in June, the tide seems to have receded for the party and its presidential hopefuls.

In new polls, only Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump comfortably.

The other top-tier candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg — are running even with Trump, a measurable drop. A Washington Post-ABC poll just found Trump at 47% approval, a new high for his presidency.

Apparently, the more the nation sees of the alternatives to Trump the Democrats have on offer, the better The Donald looks. For Democrats, this is not good, not good at all.

For while Trump has run a daily gauntlet of dreadful media for two years, these Democrats have had only one debate and a few weeks of close coverage.

Between now and the New Hampshire primary, they will be going after one another and receiving a far more thorough vetting by a media in constant search of failings and flaws, especially of front-runners.

Traditionally, all candidates suffer attrition as the primaries come closer. For it is then that their lagging rivals become more desperate in their attacks and the media coverage becomes more intense.

Other problems have now arisen for the Democrats because of the issues that have come to the fore: race, radicalism and the border.

None looks like a winning Democratic issue in November 2020.

The race issue surfaced in the debate when Biden was called out by Harris for his professed friendships with segregationist senators like Herman Talmadge and James O. Eastland, and for Joe’s impassioned public resistance to the court-ordered bussing of black and white children for racial balance in the public schools of the 1970s.

Harris defended bussing as a necessary remedy to segregation and added that, as a “little girl,” she had been a beneficiary.

If your friends like Eastland had their way, said Harris, I would not be here in the Senate. For days, the issue dogged Biden, who, last weekend, apologized for any “hurt” he caused.

Biden seems to have recovered most of the ground lost from Harris’ attack. But that this racially charged issue threw him on the defensive for weeks assures it will be raised again by opponents to trip up the front-runner.

Another issue certain to come up in future debates, and in the South Carolina primary where 61% of the Democratic vote is African American, is reparations for slavery.

Several candidates have already endorsed a commission to study reparations, and Biden and every other candidate will have to take a stand.

Yet, recent polls show that Americans, by 2-1, are opposed to paying reparations for a system of slavery that was abolished 150 years ago.

Bottom line: If the 2020 campaign becomes a conversation about reparations for slavery and the bussing of white kids from the suburbs into inner-city schools to achieve greater integration, the Democrats will be in a world of hurt.

On border security, indispensable to Trump in 2016, Democrats in the debates came out for ending criminal detention of people invading our country and for providing free health care for migrants who successfully break into the USA.

Detesting ICE as they do, and supporting sanctuary cities, left-wing Democrats routinely describe the Border Patrol as neo-fascists who run “concentration camps” where migrant children are forced to drink toilet water. The Democrats are becoming an open borders party.

What is their solution to the hundreds of thousands of migrants who annually arrive at our borders? Foreign aid. They want to create a Marshall Plan for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador so refugees will stay home rather than come to the USA for the health care Democrats will provide at taxpayer expense.

Among other ideas advocated by leading Democratic candidates:

Free college for all, cancellation of all student loan debt, Medicare for All, an end to private health insurance and the companies that provide it, the abolition of the Electoral College, expansion of the Supreme Court to 15 justices, the abolition of ICE, a phase-out all fossil fuels for a carbon neutral country, and repeal of all Trump tax cuts.

What is causing the moderate Democrats to adopt what they used to regard as radical positions? The party base, which votes in primaries and is further left than it has ever been.

Also pulling the party leftward is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her sisters in Congress who receive extensive and indulgent media coverage and have a powerful following among millennials.

What the Democratic Party is risking today — and what many of its leaders recognize — is that it will be pulled so far outside the mainstream of American politics in the nomination battle, that its nominee will not be able to make it back close enough to the center to win.

If the Democratic Party, as its alternative to Trump, decides to run on this radical new agenda, America will punish that hubris with a second term for Trump.[2]

It is likely that the Biden candidacy will collapse for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which he is prone to gaffes and mistakes that are seemingly unforgivable.  He may be shown to be an utter buffoon, sooner rather than later; and the fact that his son Hunter has been embroiled in scandals, linked to his father, may only compound his problems.[3]

Bernie Sanders is authentic, albeit a true socialist not unlike Karl Marx; and his only viable chance of getting the Democratic Party’s nomination may have died in 2016, at the hands of Hillary Clinton and her thugs.  Did Sanders deserve to be the party’s nominee?  Probably so, but he was robbed of it then, as history will attest.

Kamala Harris’ political career began as former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s ho.  And having been nurtured while “working” on her back, this may forever define her credentials as a candidate for higher offices.  The fact that California’s Leftist voters let her “skate” speaks volumes about what has happened in this once-great and proud State.[4]

Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, who lied repeatedly about her native-American heritage, is going nowhere fast.[5]  Like the remainder of the pygmies and societal misfits who are running for their party’s nomination, they are likely to join the growing ranks of ignominity.[6]  And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

Pat Buchanan is correct that race, radicalism and “the border” are likely to be in the minds of Americans as they approach and vote in next year’s elections.  Crime, abortions and a plethora of other issues will affect their decisions too, but Buchanan may be correct when he concluded:

What the Democratic Party is risking today — and what many of its leaders recognize — is that it will be pulled so far outside the mainstream of American politics in the nomination battle, that its nominee will not be able to make it back close enough to the center to win.

If the Democratic Party, as its alternative to Trump, decides to run on this radical new agenda, America will punish that hubris with a second term for Trump.[7]

The Left’s efforts to radicalize America must be stopped in their tracks.  Our borders must be closed tight, except to those who come here legally[8]. Sanctuary cities and other lawlessness must be eradicated.

Those who are in our great country illegally must be rooted out and deported summarily.  Violent groups like Antifa must be designated as terrorist groups, and dealt with harshly.  Eco-Nazis must be repudiated; and the hoax of man-made “global warming” must be exposed for what it is.[9]

Abortions must be treated as Infanticide, with criminal consequences ensuing for all involved.  Our Electoral College must be respected and adhered to, not cheapened or discarded.  All student loan debt must be paid back, not forgiven.

Radical judges who seek to legislate from the bench must be removed, and replaced with those who will follow the law, not discard it. Those who sought to destroy the candidacy or the presidency of Donald Trump must be prosecuted and imprisoned for treason, at the very least.

And the list goes on and on.

. . .

Lastly, will Bill Clinton’s flights on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” jet—allegedly 26 times, involving the sexual trafficking of young girls—affect the Democratic Party’s election chances?[10]

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/are-democrats-ceding-the-center-to-trump-137283; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-17600 (“Abortions And Gay Rights Are Not American Values”)

[3]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden (“Hunter Biden”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/it-is-time-for-trump-supporters-to-fight-back/#comment-15821 (“Willie Brown’s Mistress Runs For America’s Presidency”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/the-state-of-our-union-2019/#comment-17756 (“Texafornia: America’s Future?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/the-death-of-new-york-city/#comment-14019 (“THE DEATH OF SAN FRANCISCO?“) and https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-out-of-bay-area-california-where-to-go-cost-13614119.php (“53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/#comment-12509 (“LYING POCAHONTAS REFUSES TO BE TESTED“)

[6]  The only exception might be Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who has an impressive background, but she has many years ahead of her; and she can be viewed as a far-Left Democrat too.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/the-democrats-are-evil-but-smart-while-the-republicans-are-neanderthals-and-dumb/#comment-17837 (“Tulsi”)

[7]  As I stated previously:

Liberalism and its counterparts in the far-Left beliefs and actions of the United States are an equal threat to America’s future [vis-à-vis our external enemies such as Russia’s dictator-for-life Vladimir Putin].  Whether it be the violent Antifa groups, who seek to silence dissent, or their counterparts in the Democratic Party, today’s radical Leftists are threats to America’s democracy, to its history and heritage, and to all that most Americans hold dear and cherish.

. . .

Perhaps the most vivid example of Liberalism in America today can be summed up in the following facts:

“Roe v. Wade unleashed a holocaust of epic proportions, which ranks with the greatest holocausts in human history—including the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust and Mao’s Chinese Holocaust.

“Indeed, more human beings have been killed as a result of abortions—since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in 1973—than in each of the other three holocausts.”

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/is-putin-right/ (“Is Putin Right?”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) (“Antifa (United States)”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-12626 (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/ (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-17243 (“Finally, More Abortion Bans Are Coming“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-3298 (“55 Million American Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade“)

[8]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/ (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

[9]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

[10]  See, e.g., https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7226525/Bill-Clinton-insists-no-idea-Jeffrey-Epsteins-terrible-crimes.html (“Bill Clinton insists he had no idea about Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘terrible crimes'”) and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7229027/President-Trump-banned-Jeffery-Epstein-Mar-Lago-sexually-assaulted-underage-girl.html (“President Trump banned Jeffery Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he sexually assaulted an underage girl”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Is Putin Right?

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

I have been outspoken in my condemnation of Russia’s venomous Vladimir Putin.  Perhaps my article about him on November 29, 2015—entitled “The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”—summed up my beliefs and yes, hopes, the best:

The death of Russia’s brutal dictator-for-life Vladimir Putin, and the end of Russia, will comprise the final chapter of the Cold War—which began at the end of World War II, and lasted more than 70 years.

. . .

It is estimated that the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen—including millions during the collectivization of the Soviet farms in the 1930s. As the Soviets moved through Germany and captured Berlin at the end of World War II, they raped at least two million German women in what is now acknowledged as the largest case of mass rape in history.

. . .

Putin is a killer, and Stalin’s heir.  After World War II, he came to prominence as a KGB operative in East Germany—or the DDR, as it was known before the collapse of Erich Honecker’s government—which was one of the most repressive regimes in the Soviet Union’s orbit, or the Evil Empire. Following the USSR’s implosion, Putin and his thugs and cronies hijacked Russia’s incipient democracy, and have been exploiting it ever since.

. . .

Russia is crippled as a result of our economic sanctions and the fall of oil prices. By ratcheting up the sanctions even more—such as unilaterally denying Russia access to the SWIFT banking system—Putin and Russia will be in free fall, and in a death spiral from which they will not recover. . . .

Russia is weaker today than the former USSR before it collapsed. It spans nine time zones and includes 160 ethnic groups that speak an estimated 100 languages. It is by no means monolithic, and may crumble “overnight.” Once Putin is gone, Russia may be dismembered—never to rise again—with China taking part (e.g., Siberia, which it covets) and the rest becoming independent states like the former Yugoslavia.

Each of the new states will act in its own best interests, just as has been true in the former Yugoslavia, and among the countries that were spun off from the USSR—which have thrived as part of the West. Putinism will not survive Putin. It will suffer an ignominious death, like its namesake; and constitute a tragic watershed in history, like Adolf Hitler’s “Thousand Year Reich” and Nazism.

Let the celebrations begin. The end is near . . .

As if to add emphasis to my feelings about Putin, the photo at the end of the article was of a corpse.[2]

Yet, Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written in an article entitled “Is Putin Right? Has Liberalism Lost the World?”:

“The liberal idea has become obsolete. … (Liberals) cannot simply dictate anything to anyone as they have been attempting to do over the recent decades.”

Such was the confident claim of Vladimir Putin to the Financial Times on the eve of a G-20 gathering that appeared to validate his thesis.

Consider who commanded all the attention at the Osaka summit.

The main event was Trump’s meeting with China’s Xi Jinping and their agreement to renew trade talks. Xi runs an archipelago of detention camps where China’s Uighur Muslims and its Kazakh minority have their minds coercively “corrected.”

A major media focus at the summit was Trump’s meeting with Putin where he playfully admonished the Russian president not to meddle again in our 2020 election. The two joked about how both are afflicted with a media that generates constant fake news.

At the G-20 class picture, Trump was seen smiling and shaking hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom U.S. intelligence says ordered the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump called the prince “a friend” who has done a “spectacular job.”

Trump then left for Seoul, traveled to the DMZ, and crossed into North Korea to shake hands with Kim Jong Un, who runs a police state unrivaled for its repression.

Negotiations on Kim’s nuclear weapons may be back on track.

Among other G-20 leaders present were Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi of India and President Recep Erdogan of Turkey, who has imprisoned tens of thousands following a coup attempt in July 2016.

In his interview with the FT’s Lionel Barber, Putin appeared as much an analyst of, as an advocate for, the nationalism and populism that seems to be succeeding the 20th-century liberalism of the West.

Why is liberalism failing? Several causes, said Putin. Among them, its failure to deal with the crisis of the age: mass and unchecked illegal migration. Putin praised Trump’s efforts to secure the U.S. border:

“This liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. … This liberal idea presupposes that … migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected.”

Putin deplored Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2015 decision to bring into Germany a million refugees from Syria’s civil war.

His comments came as 10 Democratic candidates in the second presidential primary debate were raising their hands in support of the proposition that breaking into the USA should cease to be a crime and those who succeed in breaking in should be given free health care.

Putin also sees the social excesses of multiculturalism and secularism in the West as representing a failure of liberalism.

In a week where huge crowds celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall “uprising” in Greenwich Village, as it is now called, with parties and parades, Putin declared:

“Have we forgotten that all of us live in a world based on biblical values? … I am not trying to insult anyone because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia. But we have no problem with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish.”

He added, “But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles.”

Elton John pronounced himself “deeply upset.”

Putin did not back off: “Let everyone be happy … But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”

Putin took power, two decades ago, as this 21st century began. In recent years, he has advanced himself not only as a foe of liberalism but a champion of populism, traditionalism and nationalism.

Nor is he hesitant to declare his views regarding U.S. politics.

Of Trump, Putin says, “He is a talented person (who) knows very well what his voters expect of him. … Trump looked into his opponent’s attitude toward him and saw changes in American society.”

Recalling his own controversial comment that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, Putin said the tragedy was not the death of Communism but the shattering of the Russian Federation into 15 separate nations.

The tragedy was the “dispersal of ethnic Russians” across the newly independent successor states of the Soviet Union: “25 million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the Russian Federation. … Is this not a tragedy? A huge one! And family relations? Jobs? Travel? It was nothing but a disaster.”

What may be said of Putin?

He is no Stalin, no Communist ideologue, but rather a Russian nationalist who seeks the return of her lost peoples to the Motherland, and, seeing his country as a great power, wants NATO out of his front yard.

While we have issues with him on arms control, Iran and Venezuela, we have a common interest in avoiding a war with this nuclear-armed nation as we did with the far more menacing Soviet Empire of the Cold War.[3]

I have not changed my opinion of Putin, but believe that Liberalism and its counterparts in the far-Left beliefs and actions of the United States are an equal threat to America’s future.  Whether it be the violent Antifa groups, who seek to silence dissent[4], or their counterparts in the Democratic Party, today’s radical Leftists are threats to America’s democracy, to its history and heritage, and to all that most Americans hold dear and cherish.  And yes, lots of us began as Democrats, but will never vote for one again.

Perhaps the traitorous, racist, anti-Semite Barack Obama fractured the American fabric more than any single person in our history.  He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the U.S. mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.  A window into his “soul” is best understood by reading his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which is shocking.  Indeed, the book was summarized—with direct quotes and page cites—in the first article that was published in this blog.[5]

Many Americans believe that he should be in prison today—at the very least—for trying to destroy the Trump candidacy and then the Trump presidency.[6]  Perhaps the most vivid example of Liberalism in America today can be summed up in the following facts:

Roe v. Wade unleashed a holocaust of epic proportions, which ranks with the greatest holocausts in human history—including the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust and Mao’s Chinese Holocaust.

Indeed, more human beings have been killed as a result of abortions—since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in 1973—than in each of the other three holocausts.[7]

This is the gift of death that Liberals and the far-Left keep giving to Americans each and every day.

© 2019, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-19-4-29). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”).

[3]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/is-putin-right-has-liberalism-lost-the-world-137223 (“Is Putin Right? Has Liberalism Lost the World?”)

[4]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) (“Antifa (United States)”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article)

[6]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/ (“Should Barack Obama Be Executed For Treason?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/ariel-sharon-is-missed/#comment-12626 (“DEMOCRATS ARE ANTI-SEMITES”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/ (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/ (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond”)

[7]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-17243 (“Finally, More Abortion Bans Are Coming“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/#comment-3298 (“55 Million American Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade“)

The Next Major War: Korea Again?

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

A series of events has been unfolding for some months now, which may culminate in another shooting war on the Korean peninsula that might prove devastating.  North Korea has warned that a war with South Korea would go nuclear[2]; and the ramifications are enormous.  In discussing this potential tragedy of epic proportions, it is useful to review recent events that have brought us to the present state of affairs:

• The Sinking Of A South Korean Navy Vessel In March Of 2010—The facts were unknown when it happened, except that an explosion took place aboard the ship, and efforts were underway to save as many of the crew members as possible.  Whether this would turn into an international incident, testing the South Koreans and President Barack Obama, remained to be seen.[3] However, the Wall Street Journal noted:

The possibility of a violent, potentially apocalyptic regime collapse in North Korea within the decade is one that all countries with an interest in the region should keep in mind.[4]

The Journal added:

The latest incident comes days after a conference in which some experts described the Kim dictatorship as being in the first stage of collapse.  Americans should be paying attention: If North Korea decides to go out in a blaze of nuclear glory—and its current penchant for kamikaze rhetoric suggests it might—the enormous number of casualties would likely include many of the U.S. troops stationed on the peninsula.[5]

• South Korean Ship Was Hit By North Korean Torpedo—Among other publications, the London Times reported that North Korea had launched one of the worst military acts of provocation since the Korean War, killing 46 South Korean sailors, which had amounted to a deliberate and unprovoked attack by North Korea.[6]

• Finally, In May Of 2010, South Korea Blamed North Korea For Launching The Torpedo At Its Warship, Causing The Explosion That Killed 46 Sailors[7]—The Wall Street Journal reported that South Korea had convincing evidence.[8]

• There Is Reason To Believe That North Korea’s Dictator Kim Ordered The Sinking Of The Cheonan, To Help Secure The Succession Of His Son—The New York Times reported that an American intelligence analysis of the deadly torpedo attack on the South Korean warship concluded that Kim Jong Il, the ailing leader of North Korea, must have authorized the torpedo assault.[9]

• China Shields North Korea—Bloomberg News reported that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was likely to resist pressure to acknowledge that North Korea had torpedoed the South Korean warship.[10]

• North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warned.[11]

• North Korea Fired At South Korea As It Prepared To Host G-20 Summit Of Wealthiest Nations.[12]

• North Korea Fired On South Korean Island.[13]

• China Warned U.S. About Joint U.S.-South Korean Military Exercise As Korea Tensions Rise[14]—In turn, North Korea responded angrily to the maneuvers: “The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war.”

• America’s Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, Admiral Mullen, Rebuked China For Failing To Curb North Korea.[15]

• Firing Drill Increased Korea Tensions—South Korea test-fired artillery from the island that North Korea attacked, defying North Korean threats of another attack and asserting its rights in a maritime area it has controlled since the Korean War of the 1950s.[16]

• North Korea Said It Would Not Strike Back—As the Wall Street Journal noted, North Korea stood pat after a South Korean artillery drill, easing fears of armed conflict and suggesting that the North Koreans might be using provocations to seek economic inducements.

The Journal added:

Fighter jets patrolled the air and destroyers sailed in nearby waters ready to counter another North Korean attack.

. . .

[F]or decades Pyongyang’s power has been tied to its ability and willingness to surprise Seoul. Analysts say it is more likely to stage another provocation when the South’s guard goes down in the months ahead, depending on its need to further its broad goals of securing economic assistance and security guarantees for its authoritarian regime.

For now, the episode appeared to take its place in a long series of provocations South Koreans have gotten used to.

. . .

Earlier in the day the North made another conciliatory gesture—announced by a visiting U.S. dignitary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, making an unofficial visit—to let the international nuclear inspectors it kicked out last year come back to the country.

. . .

For longtime North Korea watchers, Pyongyang’s official statement and offer to Mr. Richardson showed that it continued to operate in a familiar pattern: heating things up with provocative actions that draw attention, and then cooling them down with peace-making gestures in hopes of winning economic and security favors.[17]

• WikiLeaks Cables Reveal China Ready To Abandon North Korea—The UK’s Guardian reported:

China has signalled its readiness to accept Korean reunification and is privately distancing itself from the North Korean regime, according to leaked US embassy cables that reveal senior Beijing figures regard their official ally as a “spoiled child”.[18]

North Korea’s latest series of provocations might prove little more than that, even as deadly as they were.  However, miscalculations may take place, which could be catastrophic.  While America is tied down militarily in Iraq, and its forces are mired in the Afghan War, North Korea may feel emboldened to strike against South Korea and set the Korean peninsula ablaze.  Similarly, other trouble spots around the world may flare up, such as a war in the Middle East involving Israel and Iran or its surrogates.

Given Barack Obama’s perceived weakness and naïveté, as well as global economic problems confronting the United States and other countries, its enemies may choose now or in the not-too-distant future as an opportune time to strike.  The use of nuclear weapons, or the ultimate EMP Attack[19], would send America and its allies reeling.  Let’s hope and pray it never happens.

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

---

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2] See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4fb1629dc68392c48ffbd287f0cd9a66.931&show_article=1

[3] See, e.g., http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7077655.ece and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146940411764282.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_world

[4] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145672974954144.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

[5] See id.

[6] The Times article added:

[South Korean President Lee Myung Bak]’s government appears to be struggling to find an appropriate response that would demonstrate its resolve in the face of aggression but stop short of a costly and unpredictable war.

. . .

The speculation is that this was an act of retaliation for a naval skirmish in November last year in which the North came off worse.

. . .

Some security officials favour a tit-for-tat response to any North Korean aggression. But the risk is that this could escalate into a war, which might result in eventual victory for the South and its US allies, but could be ruinously destructive and expensive.

A limited war might be exactly what the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, is hoping for. After decades of economic decline and famine in the 1990s which killed as many as a few million people, his economy is in chronic decline.

A military adventure against the routinely demonised “imperialist” US and its South Korean “lackeys” could serve as a welcome and unifying distraction.

. . .

“No one wants to say it out loud,” wrote Song Ho Keun, a professor at Seoul National University in the Joong-Ang Ilbo newspaper.

“We told ourselves to be patient and cool, not to jump to conclusions as there is no definitive evidence implicating the North. But if we find one little piece of evidence pointing definitely at North Korea, the rage we have forcibly suppressed will gush forth.”

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7104498.ece

[7] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803094.html?hpid=topnews

[8] For example, the Journal noted:

[W]hen the South Korean joint military-civilian investigation team presented their findings at a nationally-televised news conference, they unveiled a surprise: virtually the entire unexploded portion of the torpedo that destroyed the ship.

Searchers found the torpedo parts—including its propulsion system, steering section and propellers—last Saturday in the waters where the ship was destroyed. A marking inside the propulsion system reads “No. 1” in Korean lettering and, investigators said, is consistent with markings in a North Korean torpedo that the South Korean military obtained several years ago.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575255162754594880.html?mod=WSJ_hps_SECONDTopStories

[9] See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1274612566-rHxXHrx8DGOehpG3vtFz9Q

In an editorial entitled, “Lessons From a Torpedo”—and subtitled “Placating Kim Jong Il doesn’t change North Korea’s behavior”—the Wall Street Journal stated explicitly:

President Obama . . . sent Kim a personal letter spelling out a “future vision” for the two countries, including the promise of a peace treaty, a guarantee of regime security and economic aid in exchange for the North’s denuclearization. The North’s response arrived by torpedo.

. . .

Engaging Kim has done little to improve his behavior, except in brief intervals, and if anything that behavior has become worse since Mr. Obama took office.

. . .

The larger strategic insight is to recognize that North Korea won’t change until Kim dies or his regime falls. The goal of the West should be to increase pressure on the North toward the latter goal, especially given signs of increasing discontent in the North.

. . .

[T]he long U.S. attempt to persuade Beijing to control its client has nothing to show for it.

. . .

If Kim and his generals can sink a South Korean ship without serious consequences, they might well conclude that they should escalate. The proper response is to give up the illusions of engagement, and methodically and coolly treat the North as the rogue state it is.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/LessonsFromaTorpedo.pdf

In an article entitled, “Kim Jong-il ‘laying the ground for succession’ with military attacks”—and subtitled, “Palace power-struggles between North Korea’s new-generation political leadership and its hawkish military establishment could spark off a full war on the Peninsula, South Korean and US authorities are warning”—the UK’s Telegraph reported:

Last week’s attack on Yeonpyeong island, a senior South Korean defence official told The Daily Telegraph, was personally approved by North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong-il and his son and heir-apparent Kim Jong-un, in an effort to curry favour with hostile military hawks.

“I fear we’re going to see much more fighting in weeks to come,” the official said.

. . .

Kim Jong-il, US government sources said, is determined not to rejoin talks aimed at curbing North Korea’s nuclear programme in return for aid, fearful of upsetting military leaders. He hopes precipitating a crisis will lead the generals to rally behind his son and compel South Korea and the West to engage in dialogue on his terms.

Kim Jong-un was made a four-star general and named vice-chairman of the country’s National Defence Commission in September—even though the Swiss-educated 27-year-old had no military experience. “The generals saw Kim Jong-un as a puppy who wasn’t even lavatory trained,” said Kongdan Oh Hassig, a North Korea expert, “not a credible leader. There was lots of fuming.”

Bruce Bennett, another North Korea specialist, said the succession left generals “asking themselves how much longer they would have a role in government”. He noted that replacements of officials in North Korea “usually occur as the result of a purge or a ‘traffic accident,’ so that could be cause for some instability.”

“Every time there’s been a succession in North Korea,” Dr. Hassig noted, “you’ve had trouble, because the leadership has needed to reassure the military.”

Kim Jong-il ordered the bombing of a Korean Air plane in 1987, killing all 115, and an attack on officials which left 17 dead.

Little noticed in the West, tensions with the military have often threatened North Korea’s ruling family. In 1991-1992, there were reports that a group of generals had been planning to assassinate Kim Il-sung, in order to implement a programme of radical modernisation. Later, in 1995, elements of North Korea’s VI corps in famine-hit North Hamgyong province almost revolted.

“The Kims are playing the Crazed Fearsome Cripple Gambit,” a US military official told The Daily Telegraph, referring to a term coined by the strategic analyst George Friedman.

North Korea’s regime, Mr Friedman argued, wilfully chose to be an economically-crippled state to make itself unattractive as a target for intervention. Then it sought to inspire fear by developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, Mr Friedman argued, “having established that they were crippled and fearsome, the critical element was to establish their insanity”. Since no one would wish for a nuclear-armed North Korea to engage in a crazed military adventure, it would give the regime what it wanted.

Both Koreas are now holding out threats of further fighting. North Korea’s official news agency warned on Saturday that the “situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war”.

Lieutenant General Yoo Nak Joon, commander of the South Korean Marine Corps, meanwhile, called on his troops to “put our feelings of rage and animosity in our bones and take our revenge on North Korea”.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8166343/Kim-Jong-il-laying-the-ground-for-succession-with-military-attacks.html

[10] Specifically, Bloomberg reported:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is likely to resist pressure to acknowledge that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship when he flies to Seoul tomorrow to meet South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama.

. . .

China wants to avoid a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and is concerned that taking South Korea’s side may provoke North Korea into further escalations and even lead to war, said Shen Dingli, vice dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Shanghai’s Fudan University.

“North Korea is dying, and we can make things worse,” Shen said. “We have assumed North Korea is not a rational actor.”

See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-26/china-may-shield-north-korea-as-lee-clinton-seek-action-over-ship-sinking.html

[11] See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8020972/North-and-South-Korea-on-the-brink-of-war-Russian-diplomat-warns.html

[12] The AP reported:

North Korea fired two rounds toward South Korea at their tense border and South Korean troops immediately fired back, an official said Friday.

The exchange of fire at the heavily armed border highlights the security problems faced by Seoul as it prepares to host the Group of 20 economic summit next month.

North Korean troops fired at a South Korean guard post in the Demilitarized Zone, said an official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul.

. . .

The guard post is 73 miles (118 kilometers) northeast of Seoul.

. . .

The spike in tensions Friday came two weeks ahead of a global economic summit in Seoul to be attended by President Barack Obama and other leaders.

. . .

In May, a multinational investigation led by Seoul concluded that a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine sank the 1,200-ton Cheonan warship. North Korea has denied involvement in the sinking, which killed 46 South Korean sailors.

The sinking heightened tensions between the rival Koreas, which remain technically at war because their 1950-53 war ended with a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101029/D9J5B8OG0.html; see also http://www.naegele.com/documents/NorthKoreaFiresShotsAcrossBorder.pdf and http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-10-29-north-south-korea-fire_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[13] The Los Angeles Times reported:

North Korea on Tuesday fired dozens of artillery rounds onto a populated South Korean island, killing two and injuring 19 others after Pyongyang claimed that Seoul was readying for “an invasion,” officials said.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak called an emergency session of his national security-related ministers in an underground bunker at the presidential residence late Tuesday to devise a response to the attack, which occurred near the disputed western border between north and south.

The Seoul government later called North Korea’s artillery attack a “clear military provocation” and warned that the secretive regime would face “stern retaliation” should it launch further attacks.

. . .

The South Korean military was placed on high alert, with fighter jets sent into the air, after officials confirmed that two Marines were killed and 19 others—including three civilians—were injured.

. . .

The White House . . . said the U.S. would stand by South Korea. “Earlier today North Korea conducted an artillery attack against the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. We are in close and continuing contact with our Korean allies,” said a statement.

“The United States strongly condemns this attack and calls on North Korea to halt its belligerent action and to fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement.” It added that the U.S. “is firmly committed to the defense of our ally, the Republic of Korea, and to the maintenance of regional peace and stability.”

See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-shelling-web-20101124,0,958943,full.story; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703904804575631763523837910.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories and http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101123/wl_afp/nkoreaskoreamilitarynuclearweapons_20101123092327

A USA Today article added:

The skirmish came amid high tension over North Korea’s claim that it has a new uranium enrichment facility and just six weeks after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il unveiled his youngest son Kim Jong Un as his heir apparent.

. . .

The existence of North Korea’s new uranium enrichment facility came to light over the weekend after Pyongyang showed it to a visiting American nuclear scientist, claiming that the highly sophisticated operation had 2,000 completed centrifuges. Top U.S. military officials warn that it could speed the North’s ability to make and deliver viable nuclear weapons.

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-23-korea-artillery_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[14] The Wall Street Journal reported:

Beijing [has] lodged its first official protest of a joint U.S.-South Korean military exercise planned for Sunday, even as the aircraft carrier USS George Washington steamed toward the region.

North Korea also responded angrily. “The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war,” the state controlled Korean Central News Agency responded Friday to the maneuvers, which are set to take place in the Yellow Sea between the Koreas and northeastern China.

The strong talk was the latest fallout from North Korea’s hour-long artillery attack of a South Korean island on Tuesday that killed four people. The next day, the U.S. and South Korea said planned joint exercises would go ahead over the weekend, heightening fears in some quarters that already-tense relations between North and South Korea—and their respective international protectors, China and the U.S.—could be heading for a showdown.

Yet China’s outwardly defiant response belies a more delicate political reality: Beijing’s continued support of North Korea’s erratic, martial regime is beginning to extract real costs. China’s statement Friday included a face-saving formulation that appeared to open the door for a scenario China has long sought to avert—a U.S. aircraft carrier, a potent symbol of U.S. military might, plying the edge of Chinese waters.

. . .

China has long frustrated U.S. efforts to bring its nuclear-armed neighbor to heel, fearing any radical change could sow chaos in the region and potentially lead to a unified Korea with a U.S. military presence directly on its border. Beijing refused this week to blame North Korea for Tuesday’s attack. Privately, its officials maintain, the weekend’s exercises could be a grave mistake that risk further provoking the North.

But current and former U.S. officials who have worked on North Korea said Friday that they saw China in a growing quandary in how to square its support for Pyongyang with the regime’s continued provocations.

Beijing has sought in recent months to deepen its economic and strategic relationship with North Korea, despite U.S. objections, arguing it would help contain leader Kim Jong Il’s nuclear work and military provocations. As Pyongyang has continued to challenge the international community, however, China has been placed in an increasingly weakened position to protest U.S. military action.

“China is having a much harder time in defending its policy, but they only have themselves to blame,” said Michael Green, who oversaw Asia policy for the White House during George W. Bush’s first term. “You talk to any Chinese official, and they’re furious with the North Koreans.”

Beijing is also facing renewed criticism from Chinese foreign-policy experts, journalists and Internet activists who question whether unqualified support for North Korea is still in China’s interests.

China’s apparently softened stance on Yellow Sea exercises appears to demonstrate a concern that the North Korean crisis will overshadow a planned trip to Washington in January by President Hu Jintao. It may also reflect an acknowledgment that China would be unlikely to prevent the U.S. and South Korea from staging their drills following the week’s attack, requiring a compromise to avoid appearing weak before an increasingly nationalist and demanding Chinese public.

“The very recent developments put China in an awkward position,” said Jin Canrong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing. “China’s not pleased to see that, but it has to face it. So its immediate concern is to contain the crisis.”

U.S. military officials insisted Friday that the exercise scheduled for this weekend shouldn’t be interpreted as anything but an attempt to deter North Korea from further attacks on the South.

“This exercise is not directed at China,” said Capt. Darryn James, a Pentagon spokesman. “The purpose is to strengthen the deterrence against North Korea.”

U.S. officials on Friday said the Obama administration continues to focus its diplomacy in Northeast Asia on gaining China’s cooperation to exert more pressure on North Korea.

. . .

[In] a speech by [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton[,] she said that the U.S. had a national interest in protecting freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Ever since, China and the U.S. have been engaged in a tussle for influence in the region, where many Southeast Asian nations that have territorial disputes with China are looking to beef up defense relations with the U.S.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704008704575638420698918004.html

[15] The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the chairman of America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in Seoul that Beijing’s inaction gives tacit approval to its ally North Korea’s aggression:

The most senior U.S. military official delivered a sharp rebuke to China on Wednesday, blaming Asia’s top power for failing to rein in its North Korean ally in the escalating dispute over the fate of the Korean peninsula.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blasted China for refusing to condemn North Korea over the Nov. 23 artillery barrage that killed four people on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. He spoke in Seoul, where he met with his South Korean counterpart in a public display of resolve to deter any North Korean aggression.

But Mullen directed some of his most pointed criticism at Beijing.

“The Chinese have enormous influence over the North, influence that no other nation on Earth enjoys,” said Mullen at a press conference at the South Korean Ministry of National Defense. “And yet, despite a shared interest in reducing tensions, they appear unwilling to use it.”

“Even tacit approval of Pyongyang’s brazenness leaves all their neighbors asking, ‘What will be next?’ ”

At the joint news conference Wednesday, Han Min-koo, South Korea’s own top commander, said that rules of engagement are being strengthened to allow commanders on the ground to fire back immediately in case of another North Korean attack.

. . .

“It is not just that China is turning a blind eye to what North Korea is doing, they are enabling North Korea,” [L. Gordon Flake, a Korea specialist with the Mansfield Foundation] said. ” China’s overt support for North Korea is blunting the effectiveness of diplomatic measures to curb their behavior.”

. . .

The U.S. administration has also signaled that it is not ready to return to the previous diplomatic path of the six-party talks, a position Mullen reiterated Wednesday.

“We first need an appropriate basis for the resumption of talks,” he said. “There is none so long as North Korea persists in its illegal, ill-advised and dangerous behavior. I do not believe we should continue to reward that behavior with bargaining or new incentives.”

See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mullen-china-korea-20101209,0,6920379.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

[16] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704138604576029240348016046.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582343372934982.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories (“A History of Korean Tensions”)

[17] Also, the Journal article stated:

With its Nov. 23 attack on Yeonpyeong Island and in statements since, North Korea has tried to effectively redraw a maritime border in the Yellow Sea that it has long disputed with South Korea. Four South Koreans, including two civilians, died in the attack.

North Korea claimed that waters around the island, into which South Korea has test-fired artillery since the mid-1970s, belong to it and that any South Korean military test amounts to an attack on its territory. South Korean officials insisted on continuing the drill on the island to assure that North Korea’s attack wouldn’t create a de facto change of its territory in the maritime border area.

. . .

North Korea’s statements caused more alarm in other countries than they did in South Korea, where North Korea’s rhetoric is part of the daily noise. Analysts in Seoul over the weekend noted that Pyongyang’s threats were issued by lower-level sources than the agencies affiliated with its dictator Kim Jong Il. As well, military officials said they saw no unusual preparations by the North’s military over the weekend.

As a result, no special precautions were ordered on South Korea’s mainland and in the capital city of Seoul, just 30 miles from the border, and business proceeded as usual Monday.

. . .

North Korea’s offer to restart international nuclear inspections may have less impact now after its announcement last month of a uranium enrichment program. When the North’s nuclear-weapons development work was confined to plutonium reprocessing, it was easy for inspectors to monitor.

But, analysts note the uranium program Pyongyang revealed last month is likely housed in multiple locations and easily hidden, making the inspections process less reliable as a means of holding North Korea to disarmament agreements.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031232770698532.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

[18] See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea

[19] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/#comment-1170