My Local Domestic Violence Shelter, Quanada, Has Blocked Me on Facebook

Featured

I’m not sure exactly what I did to warrant it, though I’m certain I’ve never ‘harassed’ anyone on their site. My local Domestic Violence shelter is pretty selective about which women’s opinions it wants on its site.  The most I’ve ever done was constructively criticize their position on how they portray Domestic Violence. Often it’s females as victims and males as perpetrators. I’ve been vocal of the way they’ve stereotype and attached gender to Domestic Violence roles. So I do like to occasionally go to their Facebook page and read some of their content to comment. However, the other day was different.

I noticed, initially when I had attempted to comment on one of their articles, and I had no option to reply. It had been months since I had even visited the site. So why had I even been blocked? I haven’t done anything to them, anything that is, except being an open critic of the facility. Even then, it had been over five months since I had even engaged or mentioned their name. So they either targeted me and did it without me knowing, or I’ve been blocked for awhile.

Quanada 2

When I checked to see if I sent them any emails, I found that my outbox was completely empty. I had not sent them anything directly to warrant a block. A matter of fact, I hadn’t sent them anything on their inbox an ALL.

QuanadaInbox

 

 

I wanted to make certain that I was blocked. So I looked through my boyfriend’s account, he was allowed to reply and comment. It seemed that I really was put in a situation where I was targeted and silenced.

The point is, this facility receives public funding and is a non-profit, taxpayer funded organization. Is it even allowed to block one of its critics if they’re not harassing them? If they did not block me for criticizing them, are they allowed to block me for no reason at all? I would say NOT. I know for a fact that part of my own taxes go to this group and I should not be silenced for doing NOTHING wrong.

Whatever I allegedly did, I didn’t even receive a Facebook ban for, that’s how pitiful it probably was.

Advertisements

North Korean Nuclear Problem: A History

 

Some may think that the North Korean Nuclear incident is a recent problem, but this international issue is as old as the nuclear devices themselves. Although recent progress has pointed towards a hopeful deconstruction of North Korea’s nuclear arms, past behavior has made this an unlikely outcome. There have even been reports of nuclear expansion despite goals of denuclearization. How it has come to this point, the accomplishments overlooked, and where the future goes lies in the hands of politician’s negotiation skills.

Many people believe that North Korea didn’t get a-hold of Nuclear technology until the deal with Bill Clinton in 1994. However, the Hermit Kingdom actually started its program along with every other country in the early 1950s with the creation of the Atomic Energy Research Institute  (James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies , 2018). Scientists were sent from North Korea to the USSR to collect research on the topic. The nuclear deal propositioned by Bill Clinton in 1994 was not a gift of free technology that North Korea didn’t already have, but a response to North Korea’s pre-existing nuclear program (Blakemore, 2018).

Under the guise of “Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy” the USSR signed an agreement with North Korea to assist them in building research complexes in 1959 (James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies , 2018). Later on, in the 1960s, Russia also provided them with a small nuclear reactor to help train their own personnel with (James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies , 2018). Knowing that Russia played a large part in North Korea’s nuclear program creation

In 1968 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was open for signatures. This treaty was a mutual world-wide agreement to disarm nuclear weapons. More countries signed the NPT than any other arms agreement (UNITED NATIONS, 2011). The treaty stressed that countries that weren’t already nuclear powers, wouldn’t seek to create a nuclear arsenal (UNITED NATIONS, 1968, p. Article II). It made note the importance of nuclear powers to not assist non-nuclear nation states in the development in nuclear weapons (UNITED NATIONS, 1968, p. Article III). North Korea did not sign this for another seventeen years as they dove into nuclear research with the assistance of the USSR.

Since it was not against the contract to explore nuclear energy in general and the only crime was specifically the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, North Korea eventually signed the treaty in 1985 (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018). This was the source of nearly every American President’s headache in office after that. Signing the document, North Korea had agreed to disarm any nuclear weapons it may have created, destroy any research facilities used to develop them, and actively work toward becoming nuclear free.

Keep in mind that the Korean peninsula had ally arms left over from the Korean war. The United States had a compliment of 100 nuclear weapons in the South and the Russians had some to the North. On September 27, 1991, allied forces removed their devices in good faith that the two countries would follow suite (Sanders-Zakre, 2018). The two Koreas made an agreement and signed off to completely denuclearize the peninsula jointly (Center for Nonproliferation Studies , 2018). South Korea, extended an olive branch and gave up its weapons, North Korea insisted it did as well. It was revealed on January 10, 2003 when North Korea pulled out of the NTP, that it had actually retained nuclear weapons for the entirety of the time (Kirgis, 2003). North Korea had been so convincingly cooperative, that it was actually surprising that there were still weapons on the peninsula.

North Korea threatened to leave the NTP once before, using it as leverage to obtain what they wanted. Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. In 1993 threats were made to leave unless specific conditions were met. In response, a six-party talk was held which included North Korea, South Korea, Russia, China, Japan and the United States (Cooper, 2007). North Korea came to the table with four conditions. One, the United States would build two light-water nuclear reactors by 2003 to compensate for energy set-backs (Davenport, 2018). Until the two plants were built, the United States would ship 500,000 tons of heavy fuel to North Korea per year (Davenport, 2018). The United States would lift sanctions, remove them from the list of state sponsors of terror, and normalize political relationships (Davenport, 2018). These weren’t unreasonable requests, however, the United States failed to live up to these expectations. Not only did the United States fail to build the two nuclear reactors, but they were also late with shipments of fuel for several consecutive years (Ryan, 2017). Even though being late with fuel shipments was not uncommon, it bred distrust with the North Koreans.

In 2002, George W. Bush referred to North Korea in a speech, placing them on an “axis of evil” next to Iran and Iraq (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018). Directly after making this speech fuel shipments were shut down under the accusations of enriching Uranium (Boghani, 2018). United states intelligence allegedly found evidence of HEU technology that was came from Pakistan (James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies , 2018). However, I don’t have much faith in the Bush administration’s intelligence after its claims of nuclear weapons in Iraq. If it wasn’t bad enough for the President of the United States insulting the country they were attempting to disarm, after not living up to their half of an agreement; the United States applied sanctions to an already frustrated country (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018). The North Koreans didn’t get their request to be taken off the terrorist watchlist until 2008 (Ryan, 2017). They got taken off, even after they made the claim that they successfully tested a nuclear weapon in 2006 (Hamblin, 2017).

North Korea’s request to be taken off the terrorist watch list fell upon deaf ears for twelve years. When George W. Bush did act it seemed more like an act of desperation to save his own legacy than good will. It took Bush four years into his Presidency even after the North had been qualified to be taken off. At the last second, North Korea was taken off the terrorist watch list on October 11, 2008 (Ryan, 2017). To give some objective insight, Obama became president elect on November 4, 2008, just twenty-four days after the call was made (A&E Television Networks, LLC, 2018). Less than a full month away from new leadership and Bush made a large political choice that could have altered the incoming administration’s dialogue. On his way out the door, George W. Bush wrote a personal letter to then leader Kim Jong IL, requesting that he keep ‘his end of the bargain’ to denuclearize (Cooper, 2007). He also wrote the other four leaders who were in the six-member talks to reassure them on the United States’ commitment to staying at the negotiating table (Cooper, 2007).

In April of 2009, North Korea launched what many critics called a test of a long-range ballistic missile and pointed out that the Six-party talks were “useless” (Moore, 2009). The Obama administration reacted hastily. Three North Korean companies were blacklisted by the United Nations under expanded sanctions (The Associated Press, 2009), a decision the Obama administration claimed was a “clear and united message” that would send a message of real consequences (Moore, 2009). It had been thirteen years since their initial agreements to denuclearize in 1994. The results from a North Korean point of view, had been nothing but increased sanctions, unkept promises, and the United States tightening their grip on their only lifeline.

The world was then confronted with North Korea’s second nuclear test on May 25, 2009 (Jie-ae, Florcruz, Chance , & Neill , 2009). Whether this was previously planned or out of reaction to increased sanctions is debatable. The blast was large enough to have even its allies concerned, China was not defending North Korea as it had a month previously. North Korea had allegedly attempted place a satellite in space, but failed. The Obama administration considered this a violation of U.N. resolutions and sanctions were tightened (Boghani, 2018). Just a few days later, North Korea was kicking the IAEA inspectors out of the country (Boghani, 2018).

Another test was conducted in May of 2009, with claims that all the flaws had been ironed out. Sanctions were automatically tightened in reaction to the test (Boghani, 2018). Then, just a year later in November of 2010, it was revealed that even under tight sanctions the regime had managed to construct a Uranium enrichment plant (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018). Not only had they built the plant swiftly, but they managed to keep it a secret until publicly revealed. If that’s not bad enough, in the same year South Korea stops negotiations with North Korea over the singing of a Navy vessel (The BBC, 2010).

In December of 2011, it was publicly announced that the ‘Great Leader’ Kim Jong IL had passed away (Boghani, 2018). Walking next to the former leader’s son, Kim Jong Un and one of his closest advisors and brother-in-law, Jang Song-thaek. The world had hope that maybe this individual, no more than twenty-five years old, was the key to major reform in the region (World Affairs Institute, 2012). Their answer came when he publicly announced to world leaders, including to the “puppet group in South Korea”, to not expect any change from the North (AFP, 2011). Some still wondered if the young man wasn’t going to be a puppet for bureaucratic officials in the background. His uncle, Jang Song-Thaek had been pulling the strings ever since his father started deteriorating. The Chinese trusted the man, which was likely his biggest downfall. In December 12, 2013, Jang Song-Thaek was executed, with accusations of conspiring against the ‘Republic’ (Morse, 2014). There were even rumors that this young man, who looked harmless, fed his own uncle to actual dogs that he starved for three days (Morse, 2014). The purge of possible instability left the dictator stronger, he would be pushing forward with no one questioning him and a full army at his back. The world had a new leader to deal with, unpredictable, inexperienced, who seemed more unstable than his predecessor’s, and had his hands on a nuclear arsenal.

On February 6, 2015, a little over a year after the strategically planned execution of Song-thaek was carried out, Obama declared his national security strategy for strategic patience (Korte, 2015). The thought behind the alleged strategy was that the United States would allow activities in other countries to resolve as they would have had they not been there at all and ultimately, allow the country’s own actions be their downfall. The thought that, perhaps, maybe China would realize that it was not our interference that made North Korea a headache to work with and would eventually cut them off. That inaction was sometimes better than acting. A philosophy that works better on an individual level, rather than a national level. With this, the United States increased its defenses and practically left North Korea to themselves.

The tides turned on North Korea when they had been dealt a new hand in 2016. An unpredictable person had been elected into the Presidency, it wasn’t just a new set of cards being dealt, it was an entirely new game being played. President Trump was an experienced, unpredictable, negotiator that had something in his personality that said, “I don’t care about the consequences of my words and I don’t care if you judge me for them,”. There was a positive to his tweeting, it made him extremely unpredictable to the North Koreans. Every previous president had a known pattern, was calm and conservative compared to the way Donald J. Trump harnessed his social media platform. Calling his political opponents names, making plans, then cancelling those plans, and spouting his opinion for everyone to see. Presidents of the past would excessively plan before meeting initiating conversation with North Korea, could this be the approach to take the bull by the horns?

Many in the media saw the language as fanning the flames of an already heated topic. Trump used colorful language, in August of 2017 he stated any threats made to the United States would be met with “fire and fury” (Paolo, 2017). A few hours Trump made this threat, North Korea made threatened to target the U.S. Territory of Guam (Paolo, 2017). Many saw Trump as dumping gasoline on a forest fire by using such language, but expert and writer on North Korea, Michael Malice, says Trump was speaking to North Korea “on their level” (Malice, 2017). A month later, the country launched another rocket that successfully flew over the Japanese Islands (Griffiths, Cohen, & Berlinger, 2017). This earned him the nickname “Rocket Man” by Trump that accompanied the statement that he may be forced to “totally destroy” North Korea (Vitali, 2017). This was followed with a new launch at the highest ballistic missile height North Korea had ever reached (BBC, 2017), one of the key components necessary to hit the United States.

A meeting was finally established between the two, and would be hosted by China. There were those who believed that if Trump met with the young dictator that it would be nothing more than free political propaganda for him, with zero results for the United States. Trump reassured everyone watching that he was more than willing to walk away if things weren’t going his way, which again Michael Malice acknowledged as a smart move since North Korea used this tactic all the time at negotiations (Malice, 2017). Publicly announcing the willingness to leave would keep North Korea on their toes instead of the other way around.

On June 12, 2018, Donald Trump met with Kim Jong-Un even against the wishes of some people in the country (BBC, 2018). A movie clip was shown to Kim Jong-Un that showed him two outcomes, one with prosperity through cooperation and the other through war and annihilation should they not (Friedman, 2018). Trump’s political opponents criticized that he wasn’t more confrontational, instead the President seemed to be respectful and complimenting the Chairman. However, this detail was part of the plan, this is a common sales-pitch tactic known as love bombing the target (M.D., 2017). Before meeting him, he made the chairman uneasy by thinking he may walk away. After Trump meets him, he psychologically narrows the target’s options down to two through visual stimulation. He then showers a neglected confidence with affection to draw him closer to the more attractive option. Love bombing is a manipulation tactic that showers someone with compliments or general affection so they are more open to trusting you (M.D., 2017). Of course, this isn’t the same type of love-bombing as the manipulative romantic relationship type, it’s more of a sales-pitch lure. This is the only reason Trump was hailing Kim Jong Un at the Trump-Kim Summit.

One part of the North Korean Nuclear problem that many don’t understand is the demand of denuclearization itself is a large request when the country considers it to be its only bargaining chip. Having the expectation of full denuclearization up front is a naïve approach. When looking at the scenario in full context, the United States has been just as neglectful at the negotiating table as they accuse North Korea of being. Our media outlets only exacerbate the situation by making us out to always look like the ‘good guys’. A 2009 Washington Post article read, “The 2006 explosion pushed the Bush administration to negotiate directly with North Korea, including removing it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, to persuade it to give up its nuclear weapons.” (Harden, 2009). However, when looking at the entirety of the issue, being taken off the watch list was a promise made by the United States in its original talks in 1994. This means that the Washington Post neglected to report the full context of the issue, made North Korea completely at fault, and made the United States out to be a hero. Even though North Korea undoubtedly took up producing nuclear weapons, it was due to America’s insufficiency that cost us the opportunity to denuclearize the peninsula.

When comparing Trump’s current approach to others, North Korea has been making genuine strides towards denuclearization. Visitors to the country reported that anti-American propaganda has been replaced with more positive images (Illmer, 2018). Even their media has lightened up on its coverage, the tone in the paper has changed from ‘negative’ to ‘neutral’ (Illmer, 2018). A neutral tone is a ‘miracle’ in the eyes of some experts, “In five years working in North Korea, I’ve never seen them completely disappear before.” (Illmer, 2018). Kim Jong Un made history when he became the first North Korean dictator to cross the demilitarized zone and enter Seoul, South Korea (Coonan, 2018). On July 27, 2018 the United States received the remains of alleged soldiers from the Korean war. When the remains were analyzed they were confirmed that they were likely to be Americans (CBS Interactive Inc., 2018) (Gamel, 2018). Scientists have already successfully identified two of the remains and matched them through DNA testing with family members (Copp, 2018). The very fact that they are American human remains is significant itself. North Korea has released alleged remains in the past and they have turned out to be completely faulty. They were nothing more than a box filled with random animal bones. The North and the South have demined a large section of the demilitarized zone (CBS/AP, 2018).

The more likely answer is that these are all moves to make us think that they are genuine. Kim Jong Un will do anything to keep his hands on power. Many North Korean Defectors have warned Donald Trump that Kim Jong-Un is lying (CBC Radio, 2018). However, since Trump has yet to lighten up on the regime, it is likely that these acts of fake integrity are really a sign of desperation.

North Korea has continued with their nuclear weapons, as we all knew they would (DePetris, 2018). Sanctions are still tight on North Korea and they have expressed their unwillingness to cooperate if sanctions stay in place (Denyer, 2018). They have shown full capability of producing nuclear weapons with sanctions on them (Malice, 2017), and have shown a history of being uncooperative if sanctions are in place. Two choices lie ahead, take the risk of taking the sanctions completely off or starve the regime down till it cracks. Either way, Kim Jong Un has backed himself into a corner, his people are starving, the younger generation is not loyal to him, and people are becoming more informed. The real questions are, will the regime be forced to cooperate and will they survive should they refuse?

 

 

References

A&E Television Networks, LLC. (2018). Barack Obama. Retrieved from History.com: https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/barack-obama

AFP. (2011, December 30). Do ‘not expect any change from us’, warns North Korea. Retrieved from France24.com: https://www.france24.com/en/20111230-north-korea-warns-kim-jong-il-jong-un-south-asia-diplomacy-funeral-death

BBC. (2017, November 27). North Korea launches ‘highest ever’ ballistic missile. Retrieved from BBC.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42160227

BBC. (2018, June 12). Trump Kim summit: US and North Korean leaders hold historic talks. Retrieved from BBC.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44435035

Blakemore, E. (2018, April 17). Bill Clinton Once Struck a Nuclear Deal With North Korea. (A&E Television Networks, LLC) Retrieved from History.com: https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agreed-framework

Boghani, P. (2018, April 18). The U.S. and North Korea On The Brink: A Timeline. (WGBH Educational Foundation) Retrieved from PBS.org: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-u-s-and-north-korea-on-the-brink-a-timeline/

CBS Interactive Inc. (2018, August 1). Korean War remains to head for Hawaii after repatriation ceremony. Retrieved from CBSNEWS.com: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/korean-war-remains-to-us-from-north-korea-hawaii-osan-repatriation-ceremony/

CBS/AP. (2018, October 1). North and South Korea begin removing mines along DMZ. Retrieved from CBSnews.com: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-south-korea-removing-land-mines-dmz-panmunjom-arrow-head-hill/

Center for Nonproliferation Studies . (2018, September 19). JOINT DECLARATION OF SOUTH AND NORTH KOREA ON THE DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA . Retrieved from NTI.org: https://www.nti.org/media/documents/korea_denuclearization.pdf

Coonan, C. (2018, 12 5). Kim Jong-un’s first visit to South Korea linked to denuclearisation. (The Irish Times) Retrieved from IrishTimes.com: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/kim-jong-un-s-first-visit-to-south-korea-linked-to-denuclearisation-1.3720997

Cooper, H. (2007, December 6). Bush Writes to North Korean Leader. (The New York Times Company) Retrieved from NYTimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/asia/06cnd-korea.html

Copp, T. (2018, September 10). 2 more service members ID’d from North Korea remains. (Sightline Media Group) Retrieved from MilitaryTimes.com: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/11/two-more-service-members-idd-from-north-korea-remains/

Council on Foreign Relations. (2018). North Korean Nuclear Negotiations. Retrieved from CFR.org: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations

Davenport, K. (2018, July 19). The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance . Retrieved from ArmsControl.org: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework

Denyer, S. (2018, November 3). North Korea threatens to restart nuclear program unless U.S. lifts sanctions. Retrieved from WashingtonPost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/

DePetris, D. R. (2018, December 7). North Korea Is Building More Nuclear Weapons and Missiles (Don’t Be Shocked). Retrieved from NationalInterest.org: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/north-korea-building-more-nuclear-weapons-and-missiles-dont-be-shocked-38212

Friedman, U. (2018, June 14). About That Movie Trailer Donald Trump Gave Kim Jong Un. Retrieved from TheAtlantic.com: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/trump-kim-jong-un-trailer/562697/

Gamel, K. (2018, July 31). War dead remains from N. Korea ‘likely to be American,’ DPAA official says. (Stars and Stripes) Retrieved from Stripes.com: https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/war-dead-remains-from-n-korea-likely-to-be-american-dpaa-official-says-1.540377

Griffiths, J., Cohen, Z., & Berlinger, J. (2017, September 15). North Korea launches missile over Japan. Retrieved from CNN.com: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

Hamblin, A. (2017, August 10). North Korea: How Obama, Bush, Clinton dealt with the rogue nation. (The San Diego Union-Tribune) Retrieved from SandiegoUnionTribune.com: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-north-korea-obama-past-presidents-20170810-htmlstory.html

Harden, B. (2009, May 25). N. Korea Conducts ‘Successful’ Underground Nuclear Test. (The Washington Post) Retrieved from Washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/24/AR2009052403054.html

Illmer, A. (2018, June 23). North Korean propaganda changes its tune. (BBC) Retrieved from BBC.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44557818

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies . (2018, October). North Korea Nuclear. Retrieved from NTI.org: https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/nuclear/

Jie-ae, S., Florcruz, J., Chance , M., & Neill , M. (2009, May 25). World outraged by North Korea’s latest nuke test. (Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc) Retrieved from CNN.Com: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/24/nkorea.nuclear/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Kirgis, F. L. (2003, January 24). NORTH KOREA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY . Retrieved from ASIL.org: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/2/north-koreas-withdrawal-nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty

Korte, G. (2015, February 6). Obama embraces doctrine of ‘strategic patience’. (USA TODAY) Retrieved from USAToday.com: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/06/obama-national-security-strategy/22976909/

M.D., D. A. (2017, March 6). The Danger of Manipulative Love-Bombing in a Relationship. Retrieved from PsychologyToday.com: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201703/the-danger-manipulative-love-bombing-in-relationship

Malice, M. (2017, October 5). North Korea: What You Need to Know (Michael Malice Pt. 2). (D. Rubin, Interviewer) The Rubin Report. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhS3fRkJraQ

Moore, M. (2009, April 14). North Korea quits six-party talks and threatens to restart nuclear programme. Retrieved from Telegraph.co.uk: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/5151406/North-Korea-quits-six-party-talks-and-threatens-to-restart-nuclear-programme.html

Morse, F. (2014, January 3). Kim Jong-un’s executed uncle Jang Song Thaek ‘stripped naked, fed to 120 dogs as officials watched’. Retrieved from Independent.co.uk: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/kim-jong-uns-executed-uncle-jang-song-thaek-stripped-naked-fed-to-120-dogs-as-officials-watched-9037109.html

Obama, B. (2015, February 6). NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY. Retrieved from OBAMAWHITEHOUSE.archives.gov: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf

Paolo, J. d. (2017, August 8). North Korea threatens to strike US territory of Guam after Trump ‘fire and fury’ warning. Retrieved from Independent.co.uk: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/north-korea-us-donald-trump-guam-strike-nuclear-missile-kim-jong-un-a7883516.html

Ryan, M. (2017, July 19). Why the US’s 1994 deal with North Korea failed – and what Trump can learn from it . Retrieved from TheConversation.com: https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578

Sanders-Zakre, A. (2018, November 16). Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy . Retrieved from ArmsControl.org: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

The Associated Press. (2009, April 24). UN panel agrees to blacklist 3 North Korean firms. (Fox News Network, LLC) Retrieved from FoxNews.com: https://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Apr24/0,4670,UNUNNorthKorea,00.html

The BBC. (2010, May 20). ‘North Korean torpedo’ sank South’s navy ship – report. (BBC) Retrieved from BBC.com: https://www.bbc.com/news/10129703

UNITED NATIONS. (1968, July 1). Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Retrieved from UN.org: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text

UNITED NATIONS. (2011). Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Retrieved from UN.org: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/

Vitali, A. (2017, September 17). Trump Threatens to ‘Totally Destroy’ North Korea in First U.N. Speech. Retrieved from NBCnews.com: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-un-north-korean-leader-suicide-mission-n802596

World Affairs Institute. (2012, April). Korea’s Third Kim: Will Anything Change? Retrieved from WorldAffairsJournal.org: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/korea%E2%80%99s-third-kim-will-anything-change

 

‘Ring Hollow’: Democrats Still Fail to See Why People Are Angry With Them

No matter what the president does, it’s like he can never win. Even though it’s been the Democrats that have been the increasingly violent through out these times, the President has been blamed for these attacks. The Democrats are complete hypocrites, they don’t understand the reasons behind why these suspicious packages were sent in the first place. He has currently condemned those who sent suspicious packages to Democrat leaders and called for the parties to put their differences aside, but it hasn’t stopped the Democrats from condemning him still.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, in a joint statement, refused to set their political differences aside, regardless of the fact the President extended an Olive Branch.

“Time and time again, the President has condoned physical violence and divided Americans with his words and his actions…”,    “…dictators around the world who murder their own citizens, and referring to the free press as the enemy of the people… “, “President Trump’s words ring hollow until he reverses his statements that condone acts of violence,” – Parts of The Joint Statement Issued by Chuck Schumer and Nanci Pelosi

Let me note, that all Presidents of the past have made their fair share of contributions when it comes to cozy-ing up to dictators that enforced an inhumane standard for its common citizens. This is common-place, it is a must when it comes to negotiations and every leader has their own way of forming relationships with these foreign adversaries. What we ask is, did we get anything out of it? Trump is one of the few who actually got something in return. (Which I will write on and link here in the near future).

It is exactly this type of denial, and their failure to acknowledge their own arrogance that has pushed someone over the edge. I don’t condone what this person did, however, they fail to acknowledge that they are the main factor behind the polarization in this country. It started the moment he got elected, they never had a problem with the electoral process until he won.

Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and other well-known Democrats have invoked violence. Countless Democrat Hollywood stars have called for ‘resistance’ (a militia term) through violence, military coups to overthrow the government, and even the assassination of the President. Their failed acknowledgement in these activities is what is driving people from their party.

May I also point out, that in their refusal to put the past in the past, that they are the party that keeps the violence in the present. The president has acknowledged the violence, and even if he does NOT acknowledge everything in the past (which I understand why they don’t like real jokes they ARE the punchline), if he is making an “attempt” to wash away his supposed ‘sin’ (which I see none from my point of view to begin with) wouldn’t the opposing party with the alleged moral superiority attempt to meet in the middle? Yet, these politicians have made no attempt to acknowledge this “good act” and have instead, have insisted on pointing fingers. A sign that they have no intention to cooperate, even IF given the opportunity.

The more they try to place the division and violent behavior on the Republicans, the more they point fingers without acknowledging the part their own supporters and representatives are playing, the more their party will shrink.

Twitter Bans Alex Jones, A Few Questions For Them

Twitter has, as we all knew they would eventually do, suspended Alex Jones’ account and banned him from Twitter.

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1037806327584776193

What was the reason for this banning? Apparently, Twitter accused Alex Jones of violating their “abusive behavior policy”.

This is the foundation of the policy that Twitter claims Alex Jones violated.

Basic POlicy

However, the left views “abuse” differently than what is realistic. Realistically abuse is being targeted by someone, involuntarily having to submit to them in some way, and having an inability to fight back.

On Twitter, onlookers voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones and viewed his content. They also had just as much freedom to block him as soon as they made an account. Realistically if the left had a distaste for his content they would have taken the two seconds it took out of their day to simply block him and never heard from him again. If a person voluntarily engaged with Alex Jones with full knowledge that he has had signs of what Twitter calls “abusive behavior” in the past, are they not consenting to the possibility of their engagement also being hostile? Not saying that he WAS hostile, many who reported him were just as hostile as they accused him of being. So the reality is, they weren’t mad at his content being offensive, so much as they were angry at him having a voice at all. They were angry that he had a right to speak his mind!

Can we really say anyone is abusive if the party in question is being voluntarily approached by their opponents? Is the approach of a person’s platform or reply to their tweet not technically consent to their alleged ‘hate speech’ (I do not believe in the left’s version of hate speech)?

However Twitter seems to think, like many leftists, that a person doesn’t need to be the target of the content for the speaker to be considered abusive.

screenshot-help.twitter.com-2018.09.06-22-01-31

In Twitter’s own words, as long as there is a possibility you’ve offended someone, there is a possibility your account is getting suspended. Depending on the demand, Twitter will ban you based on the amount of people who deem your content as hateful.

And Twitter is filled with little cupcakes waiting to press that ‘Report’ button.

This leads me to question, does Twitter have the right to even make this standard on their platform since twitter considers itself a platform and NOT a media? Yes, they’re a private company, but there are laws when it comes to platforms. They claim not to be a media simply because they don’t produce content. However, if they regulate the content that IS produced, can they not be established AS a publishing platform regardless of owning the actual creators who are producing the content? And if they are truly a free speech platform, do they have a right to regulate content like this at all within the sovereignty of the United States? In either direction, did they have a right to rip the rug out from under Alex Jones’ feet over unfounded claims he violated their policy? Does he not have the right to see the evidence, a right to dispute the claims?

When it comes to their platform, they’re either one or the other. It is a slippery slope and they cannot crawl their way out of the rabbit hole they, and other social media platforms, have created for themselves.

 

Why Are We Showering John McCain With Honors?

I, like many others, heard about John McCain’s death from terminal brain cancer. The flags were lowered to half staff. Representatives of both parties  gave their condolences and commemorated his memory, in respect to his participation.

However, some Senators went even further, Chuck Schumer went so far as to petitioning to renaming a senate building after him. There’s another petition that wants to Award Senator John McCain with the Congressional Medal of Honor. People showering him with compliments, saying he had a “great sense of humor”.

I only have a few questions, my first being Why? He drug his feet on policy, he bent to the will of people who happened to be in power at the time, and his only accomplishment was staying in office for thirty years. John McCain has only had a total of 53 pieces of legislation passed as law. In comparison Mitch McConnell has been a Senator since 1984, roughly the same amount of time, he has had 150 bills become laws. Over this same time period, John McCain has missed 11.7% of his votes compared to other senators which is 1.5%.

Honoring government officials when they’ve done little to no work to deserve it, other than staying in office, is like giving an MVP award to a team member simply for running up and down the field. This may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but John McCain was a lazy senator whose only accomplishment was getting re-elected for thirty years. Why should his legacy change simply because he’s not here anymore?

There were many instances when he ‘voted his conscience’, instead he could have formulated answers to go along with that conscience. For example, he disagreed with the ‘repeal and replacement’ of Obamacare, yet, at no time had he put forward any effort to establish any answers to solving the problem. He made himself out to be a critic of other people’s solutions.

Does this make him a bad person? No, I’m simply saying someone should have to do more than simply exist within the senate for an extended period of time to be sensationalized as we are currently doing with John McCain. The last thing we need is for a monument of Maxine Waters when she passes away. I can only imagine a statue of her with the statement “Impeach 45” on it!

However, simply overnight, I saw the tone about John McCain switch from extreme criticism towards stroking his ego. The only thing that he has done in his life worth honoring was his military career, however, he has done little for the country when it comes to his political career. It may be respectful to honor the dead and recall memories that were true about a person’s life, but honoring a person for something they don’t rightfully deserve is irritating. It dishonors the people who do sacrifice in order to accomplish things. Like suggesting to give a purple heart to Peter Strzok.

The Far Left Is Creeping Up Even On Some of the Most Conservative Campuses

Featured

I was picking up my school books for this fall at the local University known as Quincy University. It is a Catholic Private School, meaning it is probably going to be as conservative and as open-minded as I’m going to find within fifty miles. They are pretty even keeled and very pro-free speech, which some find hard to believe when I tell them this, because they’ve never seen anything beyond their own town. The amount of support it had for Trump was through the roof.

However, even on a campus that’s insulted with a conservative town, the left is working its way into targeting its next generation. Probably right under this towns nose, these books are signs that the left making its way towards mass indoctrinations:

0815181102-000815181104-00

This would make sense if these were in the school library, but these are books that are in the book store. They were books specifically there to be picked up because they were requested to be used by professors in their classes. I realize today it’s considered a “feminist’s” world, which I don’t agree with, but to have an entire class on it? However, it is a private campus. Yet the second picture is where I get concerned. The fact that this was even on anyones list says that there is a problem, yes there can be a conversation, but to have an entire book for the class? That’s an over reach.

Hate speech is free speech, if you don’t like that speech, then speak your mind. The only way to fight hate speech is with more speech. The moment you start to even think the answer is to close your mouth, our country is dead.

If this is a Catholic Campus, think of how bad a non-religious campus that runs on public funding is. Think of how tied down those students voices are, if this is just a sample of what I’m expecting here.

 

Judge Denies Motion to Detain New Mexico Compound Criminals: After Starving 11 Children, Killing 1 & Training Them For Terror

Featured

Contact the New Mexico Eighth Judicial District Circuit Court and Nag the Hell out of them!

The media was not straight forward leading up to this story, yet now that many see the big picture this doesn’t make America look any better. On top of the media being dishonest, the American Justice system is seriously lacking in morals. Many judges simply need to lose their positions, I wonder how many got to their positions to begin with, and this is one of those times.

Everyone by now has heard of the New Mexico bunker, but if you haven’t read about it, it’ll send a chill up your spine. After several hours in a hearing the judge, Sarah C. Backus, denied the prosecutors’ requests to hold the five adults until trial. Even with evidence of the intent to commit acts of violence in the future, apparently that wasn’t enough to convince this judge that these people were a danger to the community.

You’re telling me, that even though these people have a history of disappearing on others without consulting them, that you’re going to allow them the privilege of their freedom up until their trial dates? That even though they are undeniably guilty of child abuse, you’re going to risk them having the ability to flee to a different state and disappear again?

 

Like last time the media is covering it up:

Washington Post Headline:

“Judge denies request from prosecutors to hold five adults without bond in New Mexico child abuse case”

Although the article is detailed the title is, Very bland, without any detail. Almost as though it was… just another child abuse case not linked in any way to the bunker in the middle of the desert.

This is what you get when you put an activist judge in the court house. It doesn’t matter if the crime was horrendous, the criminals aren’t treated as criminals. They are empathized with through the judge’s ideological lens. This is true whether a judge leans left or right. Of course this is only my opinion, however, actions speak louder than words.

What is even MORE insulting, is what the original article revealed about the defense presented in court and how they pandered to race and religion as a defense. As though those two things inherently made them less violent:

The defense spent their time at the podium hammering home that there is a double standard at play, alleging that if the suspects were white, Christian and had guns, “we might not be here today.”

If these criminals flee, the suffering of those children will be on her.

If you ask me and they DO flee, she should face some consequence right next to them!

Don’t like her decision! You’re not alone!

Here’s that Link AGAIN!

Eleven Children Rescued in New Mexico Were Being Trained For School Shootings

Featured

There was a frantic search for a little boy who had allegedly been taken by his father. Siraj Wahhaj, 39, was suspected of kidnapping his three year old son who was disabled and was in the custody of his grandfather. The chase led to New Mexico, where low and behold, Police found eleven other children, in a compound in the middle of the desert. Without water, disgusting conditions, and practically starving to death.

When this was initially reported, the story was that three women and two men were arrested after finding them with eleven children. However, they only showed the mugshots of the men and the horrible living conditions. Being that we live in a rather feminist society I didn’t think much of it at first.

Mugshot1Mugshot2Horribleconditions1Horribleconditions2

Then, I ran across a blog post on facebook saying that the New Mexico bunker was really a place to train future school shooters. I like looking into these things, only because I like to get my facts straight to know in the future. I found a news article that linked to an article from the UK that showed the mugshots to the three women that were apprehended. Now I see why CNN didn’t put them in their original post, when they say they “asked the captain to confirm a Muslim connection” in their second article (which was in no way in their first) this should have given it away at the very beginning.

 

 

Of course this doesn’t show the initial intent behind the abduction or that Islam played a part, but with holding information from a story is lying to the public. Nobody said that there were suspicions that Islam could be involved, no, they completely withheld the information completely. I had to find out through a blog circulating on social media, and confirm it through a source, which at the time, was only posted through a different country’s media. Even though the media DID eventually cover it, it was extremely defiant and dishonest in its initial presentation of all the facts. If an alternative news source hadn’t covered it, I doubt there would have been any mention of it at all.


In doing more research, I ran across a video that basically spells out everything in capital letters.

This explains the media’s silence and their reluctance to talk about it afterwards, it comes to show they were silent even when the curtain was pulled back. Even when we thought we knew everything, they were still ‘keeping us in the dark’. It comes to show how dishonest the media has truly become.

 

Illinois Governor Candidate Running on Anti-Parental Alienation

You probably haven’t heard of him yet, but there is a Libertarian Candidate running for Governor who is a victim of Illinois’ disgusting child support courts. Not only would he be willing to work with Trump, but he’s felt the searing pain of losing a child to the political machine known as the Illinois Family Court System.

Before you start to think that all family courts are just as revoltingly biased, know that Illinois’ courts will more than likely land you in a homeless shelter. Imagine paying 40-50% of your paycheck to your ex. An ex that is now holding your child hostage and refusing to let you see them, whether or not you cough up the money. Go ahead and stroll down to the police station to report them denying your rights to see your own child…  you’ll either get laughed at or told they can’t help you. Illinois’ system isn’t just extortion like other states, it’s flat out involuntary servitude… with interest. Good luck in trying to get your payments reduced, you either pay up, get your driver’s license taken away, or go to jail.

This is exactly what happened to the candidate Kash Jackson when his pay was cut. He spent twenty years in the military, with high clearance, and afterwards couldn’t afford his payments. He was sent to jail for contempt, a deadbeat? I’d like to see you pay a couple thousand dollars a month to someone who won’t allow you to see your mutual child. He’s been asked about it, and his answer is nearly always the same.

 

The Democrats are so focused of illegal alien children getting separated, that they forget they themselves are condoning the separation of families through the court process. Many times, these children are separated all the way until adulthood.

This isn’t the only policy he’s running on, he vows to get rid of government pensions. Some may say that this is wrong, everyone deserves to have a pension right? You know how Illinois government officials cut off funds to things you care about to give themselves raises? That’s what they’re doing, they’re raising taxes or cutting funding so they can afford to pay their own pensions. Pensions that in many cases, they don’t rightfully deserve. He’s also appointing an ACTUAL accountant to the position of Comptroller, Claire Ball . Something that hasn’t happened in Illinois’ history!

I once thought that voting Republican in Illinois would be a good thing, however, the most recent Republican Governor acts more like a Democrat than a Republican. He made this State a ‘Sanctuary’ State. Voting for Republican isn’t the way to go, we must vote for the best possible candidate in a swamp filled with swamp monsters.

Let’s knock the Blue out of Illinois, Vote Kash Jackson for Governor of Illinois.

Quincy Coroner Under Investigation

After submitting his resignation, Jim Keller (Quincy Illinois’ coroner), it was found that he was under investigation. Keller’s excuse for his resignation was to “spend more time with family”, what’s not told by the local newspaper “The Herald Whig” was that his wife was one of his own employees. This fact makes you wonder, what in the world is going on here?

Yet, Keller’s wife wasn’t just an average subordinate, she had the next highest position as chief deputy coroner. The title of coroner is a taxpayer funded position, meaning cronyism and nepotism was involved in an official county function. Which you would think is a malicious manipulation of power.

“(Elected officials) get to run the office the way they want,” he said. “If it was an appointed position, it would be totally different. As long as the money is budgeted, (elected officials) are free to hire basically whoever they want.”

Budgeted? There should be oversight on the way these budgets are handled. This in particular, I would call an over reach. This fine detail also has another consequence, if brought before a court neither could be forced to testify against the other. This means anything they would have said to one another, even on a professional level, they wouldn’t have to reveal the other’s conversation. If they were to have done anything illegal within the coroner’s position, they would be insulated from having to reveal it to a court. Due to the top two positions being husband and wife, they can legally refuse to come forward with any illegal activity.

Doesn’t this sound a little suspicious? It’s coincidental that the nature of the investigation is not being revealed and a special prosecutor has already been called to take the case. One woman I personally know claims to have worked with him before and he was a “Very nice man”. Just because someone is a nice person doesn’t mean they aren’t totally corrupt.