Americans are Slowly Losing Their Freedom of Speech

Featured

The constitution lists out the Rights that every American citizen has. Citizen is a key word in this language of law, because persons do not inherit these rights. This is one of the key arguments for the legality of abortion, since the unborn do not have social security numbers they are considered ‘persons’ and do not have any rights. However, even citizens are losing these supposed ‘rights’ little by little. Many don’t even realize they’re pushing Legislation that may seem like ‘good intent’. Yet, is really a step forward when it comes infringing on their own rights.

One of the most ‘sacred’ of our Amendments, it is pushed back every single day. Free speech is ‘free’ so long as no one is injured physically as a result of it. On our college campuses, a place where free speech is supposed to reign supreme, is being silenced. Obama policies such as the 2011, 2010 Dear Colleague Letters and everything dealing with Title IX has largely had a negative effect. A specific line in the 2010 Dear Colleague letter states

Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents

So basically, any speech that is interpreted as offensive can be classified as ‘hate speech’. All it has to do is be within earshot of a person who found it offensive. Also, unlike legal harassment, which is a repeated unwanted act; a person does not have to inform the individual that they find something offensive and request they stop beforehand. This creates the perfect environment to violate both the second Amendment and due process. A person not having to prove they were offended by something, puts the accused in a position of guilty unless proven innocent. Clearly NOT what the creators of this country wanted.

It’s not just on college campuses, it’s in State Legislation now too. Massachusetts is attempting to pass legislation that fines you if you use the word ‘Bitch’ in a “derogatory manner”.

This reduces the status on whether you’re guilty or not to your accuser’s opinion. It’s the perfect opportunity for false accusers to create allegations on people they don’t like. The law violates the first amendment and should be knocked down. It’s still only in its ‘hearing’ phase but the fact it’s even gotten this far shows how much feminism has become a tool to oppress others. Its intent is to discourage the use of a name commonly given to women, and in this push is shutting down people’s freedom to express themselves. Yet, why not ‘dick’, ‘asshole’, or ‘douche-bag’, because this law was designed to push an ideological agenda to benefit women.

Large media platforms are flagging more and more content as being ‘hateful’. It has been shown that even if content did NOT violate Facebook’s community standards, some were censored anyways. Many have used the excuse that since they are a private publishing company they have the right to censor whomever they want. However, this is no better than what the Nazis did. Now getting a 30 day ban on Facebook is considered a ‘badge of honor’.

On one positive note, Facebook cannot insist they are a publishing company, which allows them to censor whoever they wish, but keep the protection of not being regulated. This is a privilege reserved for a public platform. So either they give up their right to censor and dodge regulation; or they face being regulated, but gain the power to censor. This applies to every form of social media.

A study found that some are calling to reform the First Amendment to ‘reflect cultural norms’. If this were to have been petitioned and enforced earlier in Americas history, there wouldn’t have been a civil rights movement at all. The reality is, when free speech is gone, a culture doesn’t evolve at all. There would be no such thing as a new ‘cultural norm’ because as a person you’d have no right to speak out against current norms. It would create a rise in mob mentality, as it would allow the majority to control whatever happened to the minority. Being that hate speech is based on perception, the ones who define what speech is hateful are the ones to silence the rest.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment was put in place, to protect the first Amendment. A nation is as good as dead when their citizens are no longer truly free to speak.

Advertisements

Why Transitioning a 7 Year old Should be EVERYONE’S Problem!

Featured

A father in Texas recently lost his fight to stop his ex-wife from turning his 7 year-old son into a girl. The child will now be on his way towards transitioning into a girl and eventually chemical castration. The father was court ordered to switch pronouns from male to female, and custody is attempted to be stripped from the father. In a world, where fathers already have very little rights, the fight was already practically non-existent for him.

This is a SEVEN YEAR OLD! How is the mother assessing his sexual orientation based on outward observations? I played with legos, I loved getting messy, I built things, and I dressed in ‘boy’ clothes. This doesn’t mean I want to miss out on the rest of my life because someone assumed this meant something it didn’t. I’ve kissed other women, but this doesn’t mean I’m sexually attracted to them, I was simply curious. We are human beings and we LIKE to try new things.

Which leads me to my next point, the LGBTQ community always states that you cannot assume someones gender, isn’t that PRECISELY what this woman is doing to her son? This boy, unless proven otherwise, is merely just curious to find out what he likes. Isn’t she applying gender stereotypes of a female onto the male and assuming that he then wants to BE a girl? If the only person who knows what gender they wish to be is the individual at question then isn’t it a legitimate and responsible judgement to allow that individual to make that choice when their brain fully matures?

Another point, biology itself conflicts with the notion that a 7-year-old can even make the choice of what gender they are since the brain doesn’t fully develop until twenty-five. Also, to have another person make this decision for you, a decision that could ruin your life sexually, productively, and psychologically is simply wrong! There-in falling back on my last argument, the only person who can make this acknowledgement is the individual in question.

Why does this matter? The last thing we need are spiteful parents getting back at their ex-partners by permanently scaring their children. Might I add, using legal and court ordered means to perpetrate their abuse. There are going to be a lot of mentally derailed children all in the name of getting back at your ex.

You know who it’s going to target the most? Boys. Be aware this is only a prediction, but this is based off of the way things are now. Since women are more likely to get custody and men are more likely to favor the same sex child. Toxic parents who are looking for some form of revenge will use their children as pawns. Most likely it’ll be his favorite to make it more painful. Does this sound to disgusting to be true? Well take a look around you, many already beat or kill their children to get back at the former partner. However, this comes with consequences. Transitioning a child is perfectly legal, insane as that may sound, and it’s court enforced so that the other parent looks like the enemy. On top of that, the child lives, and the parent in turn suffers.

There are dark people out there and this is an abusive DISGUSTING thing we are FORCING upon CHILDREN. This is WORSE than child marriage, at least they can get out of it and live semi-normal lives. These individuals will have no way to reproduce, EVER! And IF they change their minds, which studies are SHOWING that many ARE, there is little support to help them de-transition.

If he DOES change his mind, it will only serve the father, because all this documentation shows, the father did his best to save his son. While there is plenty of documentation, that the mother did everything in her power to crush his freedom to choose and stop his potential future.

The Left Keeps their Audience Context Ignorant

I was enduring “The View”, they referred to an unknown comment made by the president. They didn’t show the comment all they showed was the reaction to the alleged “racist comment”.

These are the alleged “racist” tweets (that I had to look up). I’m using CNN simply to be authentic to them. But I replied to the video:

And the response?

Really? This is the propaganda being comprehended from the above tweets? So the comprehension they’re being told is:

” I am presuming you are NOT a citizen already based on your skin color, go back to where you came from we don’t want you here!”

HOWEVER, what was actually said is VERY different when put in CONTEXT!

“If you don’t like our country, then you’re free to make the choice to leave any time. The fact one of you is an immigrant and is praising one of our enemies is disgraceful. Why stay or come to a country you hate?”

I again replied in a way a person the left could comprehend:

My question is if the left hates corporations…why in the HELL would they want Sharia law?! 🤪

Why the Left Will Lose in 2020

Lately we’ve heard the left yell insult after insult. Attempting to attach every negative label under the sun to Trump and his supporters. The irony in this madness is if you have the balls to simply scroll through the comments section of their videos on YouTube. You’ll find how disgraceful they really are.

Walter here, and apparently two others, thinks it makes them less racist as long as they refer to both people as subhuman.

It’s wrong for the right to look like they may be inciting violence. But hey, when the Left calls for it on the YouTube thread (with six people agreeing) let’s just shrug our shoulders.

President Trump said in an interview that Democrats were “moving so far left they’re going to fall off a cliff”. Here is undeniable proof of that statement. When you’re labelling Nancy Pelosi as a Republican because she’s not far left enough and you have people liking your comment instead of criticizing it? You’ve gone off the deep end my friend.

Until Democrats can stop making these moron, because that’s what they are, their main runners. Until this type of thinking is not their mainstream thinking. Their party will eventually collapse either through no one voting for them, or through civil war. I’m a realist, that’s what’s being projected. Many of those who don’t know it are living in a false reality. They’ll say, “But everyone I know…”. That’s right, everyone you know, that doesn’t mean the majority, you must stop thinking like that.

So before anyone on the left starts calling you racist, dehumanizing, or accuses you of inciting violence remind them of having clean hands before they start pointing their dirty fingers.

So for 2020… Democrats are screwed.

#Trump2020

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

 

Mainstream Media SILENT About Conservative Targeted Political Terrorism

In recent events Democrats have been in an uproar over the bombs that were sent to Donald Trumps critics. A man has already been arrested in connection to the act, it has also been acknowledged as an act of political terrorism, it has been acknowledged that he was a huge fan of Donald Trump. What the mainstream media is unlikely to say is that he was arrested for another bomb threat in 2002. The man obviously has a reoccurring pattern of behavior. It has been denounced as an act of political terrorism even by Donald trump

What is not a mystery was Daniel Frisiello’s intent. Never heard of him? That’s not surprising considering he was barely covered by any mainstream media. He JUST pleaded guilty to sending a white powder to Donald Trump’s sons October 17, 2018. Even though the substance was not lethal, this was also an act of political terrorism. However it wasn’t covered as an act of political terrorism, it was simply covered as “sending a white powder” to Donald Trump’s sons.

Why this was political terrorism:

  • The targets were tragically chosen
  • The perpetrator used fear and intimidation as a tool to try to obtain a political goal

These two characteristics qualify Cesar Altieri Sayoc as a political terrorist as well even if the bombs were completely fake. The only difference is Cesar is being acknowledged for what he is, Daniel Frisiello is being ignored!

When you google his name you find next to nothing when it comes to mainstream sources. This event was taken extremely lightly, it received next to no attention. Could you imagine the attention the media would have given to Obama’s family had someone sent a powdered letter to one of his daughters, it had reached her, and she inhaled some of the particles? Regardless of the content being fatal or not, the outrage would have been continuous and it would be forever reached for in future discussions to come as a counter argument.

If we are to unify the country, as Democrats spout we should, then there is a responsibility on their parts to condemn ALL political terrorists equally regardless of who is being targeted! There is also a responsibility to acknowledge these people as individuals and not apply their personalities to the general population. This is what Donald Trump means when he says the mainstream media needs to get its act together.

 

 

Should You Be Able To Sue the Media For Damages For Labeling a Person a Survivor or Victim BEFORE a Conviction?

The presumption of innocence used to be taken very seriously in this country. Recently, however, it has been taken so lightly that a mere accusation has turned the courts into a system of a presumption of guilt. The media has not helped in this situation and in the movement of #metoo any woman who has made an accusation is too often immediately labelled by the media as a ‘Survivor’ or a ‘victim‘.

When a paper is writing about any other criminal act the word ‘alleged’ must be used, the presumption of innocence is taken seriously or else the accused could sue for damages if they’re found innocent in the end.

It is a different story with today’s sexual accusations, as soon as a person makes their accusation the media labels the person either a ‘Survivor’ or ‘victim’ but does not place the word ‘allegedly’ before these words anymore. Is this right? It is apparent that we now instinctively label an accuser as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’, but does this word break the boundaries of presumption of innocence? Many times the process of discovery is just as dirty as the accusation itself, could these how we paint someone cast a shadow on the outcome of their lives? Placing doubt in the minds of enough people IS a political influence itself.

One can only be a survivor if one is FIRST a victim, one can ONLY be a victim if the person they’ve accused has been convicted, calling an accuser a ‘survivor’ without the accused being convicted is a violation of the accuser’s right to due process. So technically you should be able to sue for damages for anyone who used that word or the word ‘victim’ in connection to the accuser’s name for a violation of his or her due-process. If you can sue because a paper does not use the words “allegedly” in violation of due process (which people have) then you should be able to sue for referring to a woman as a survivor/victim BEFORE her alleged perpetrator has been tried and convicted. Anything before this should be considered defamation. She doesn’t become a victim UNTIL he is found guilty.

I petition that any news media channel that uses the word victim or survivor in connection with an alleged perpetrator before they are convicted should be found guilty of Defamation of Character or liable for any damages caused. Apologies not accepted- it’s too easy to be sorry.

 

 

‘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.

 

Trump’s Hollywood Star Is Getting Removed

It’s been vandalized at least twice, with the most recent being the most destructive. Now the snobs in Hollywood, have voted to having it removed. However their vote actually means nothing because they have no jurisdiction. In the statement released to CNN:

“The West Hollywood City Council did not pass the resolution because Donald Trump is a conservative or a Republican. Earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is an honor. When one belittles and attacks minorities, immigrants, Muslims, people with disabilities or women — the honor no longer exists.”- West Hollywood Mayor John Duran

However, all of the previous reasons for removing the star are false. Many of these accusations are based on statements the media has taken out of context.

  1. Trump has never “attacked” minorities, the media just likes to put off as though he does. Todays generation have never been scorned by the true wrath of full fledged racism, and have been falsely led to believe that todays culture is what racism looks like.
  2. Trump has been misquoted for calling Mexicans rapists. When Trump was giving his acceptance speech he made a continuing statement where he stated Mexico wasn’t sending their best. He made a pause in his sentence and said “their rapist” when referring to who Mexico was sending and continued with, “and some I assume are good people”. However, the media misquoted him and changed it to where it sounded like, where many Americans today not only believe what they hear but are horrible at catching grammatical errors, “they’re rapists”. He never called Mexicans rapists, he was simply stating a blunt fact, Mexico is sending rapists over our southern border. Of course, the left likes to pretend like rapists don’t cross our borders, however, when you read their source it’s one tweet by a person who’s allegedly been with the caravan for 12 days. Do you really think anything is going to happen with a news crew on site? Realistically, illegals with criminal records who have been arrested for rape have been deported more than once. This is the reality, deal with it. Being that many of these people come from South America, they’re allowing these people to not only cross through their southern border, but to cross through their northern border as well. I’d blame it on Mexico too.
  3. When Obama left the White House, his administration left a list of countries that were considered ‘hot spots’ for terrorism. The “Travel Ban” was based on these countries. India is the largest Muslim country in the world, and it was not on the list.
  4. They’re NOT considered “immigrants” when they cross the border Illegally, they’re considered CRIMINALS.
  5. There was a popular controversy that Trump made fun of a disabled reporter. Of course they used Trump physically mocking him as evidence of specifically making fun of someone with a disability. However, if you do a little research, you’ll find Trump physically mocks everyone in this fashion. This isn’t evidence that he was targeting the disabled, if anything he was holding the reporter to the same standards as any other reporter. If the news hadn’t reported him as having been disabled, I don’t think anyone would have actually given his disability a second thought. Trump wasn’t making fun of his disability he was criticizing a criticizer in a way that criticizes ALL his critics.
  6. I was homeless for four years and I’ve also sold alcohol, during this time period, I’ve heard men talk talk the exact way the President has. He wasn’t talking presidentially because he wasn’t running for president, he was talking like a guy. In my experience, women will do practically anything for a man to get into his wallet. Even Dave Chappelle clarified the President’s statement on Saturday Night Live, “Sexual assault? It wasn’t. He said, ‘And when you’re a star, they let you do it.’ That phrase implies consent. I just don’t like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned it,” It was this incident that caused him to express his regret for voting for Clinton as he saw the media spin articles out of context.

I love how Hollywood is removing his star based on its “superior” values. Specifically when it comes to the issue of women. The most recent Trump star was completely obliterated, which is funny, because not even a few feet from it another star lied on the ground. Not that particularly believe in the #MeToo movement, I think it’s nothing more than a movement where false accusers are free to run rampant. However, now that we’re on the subject of Hollywood, morality, and women, I feel obligated to ask… when is Hollywood planning to remove this star?

KevinspaceyStar

It wasn’t harmed even though there’s an open court case of sexual assault happening right now. It wasn’t even a few inches away from the Trump star. What about Bill Cosby where he was convicted of three counts of rape? His star is still there, yet it hasn’t been removed. Again, I don’t necessarily believe these men are guilty only because Feminism has gotten so out of hand that the mere accusation of sexual assault or rape can lead to a conviction. However, it is a clear case of a double standard when it concerns men, usually just being men, yet only this one man is being picked out.

What’s interesting is no one in my generation actually cares to know the history behind this stretch of tiled walkway. It has names printed on it that date clear back to the 1930s, 40s and 50s. If you were to snap your fingers and request that true racists be erased from the pavement, half of them would probably be gone. However, most of the community probably doesn’t even stop to think about the names they walk on day by day. All they know, is they hate Trump with a passion. If it were actually true about dropping stars due to morality, what about this guys star?

Johnwayne

I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”– John Wayne, Playboy Interview May 1971

If you’re going to get rid of stars for “high morals” you might want to start making a list. …..Or you could admit to the real reason, you just hate the President.