Crossing the Rubicon: Godwins Law.

Godwin’s law

American attorney and author Mike Godwin coined his eponymous law on Usenet in 1990

Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”;[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin’s law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
Generalization, corollaries, usage

There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.[8]

Godwin’s law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9][10] Similar criticisms of the “law” (or “at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes”) have been made by the American lawyer, journalist, and author Glenn Greenwald.[11]

The Fifth Column Treasonous Marxist Media as well as prominent Liberal Marxist Democrats and many imbeciles in general have taken to comparing President Donald Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy on immigration to the horrific genocide known as the Holocaust.

This disgusting and reprehensible behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged by the Marxist left because of their core ideological principal. The End Justifies the Means.

During the 1960’s a new and fresh wave of Marxist revolutionaries were cultivated in the Ivy League colleges and universities of the United States of America. These new leftist radicals were guided by the Marxist revolutionary propaganda artists Saul Alinsky. Who in 1971 wrote his seminal treatise on radical Marxist strategic tactics to be employed by Marxist radicals in the overthrowal of the United States Constitution.

This strategic book of tactics is known as “Rules for Radicals“.

10 Rules for the Ethics of Means and Ends, from Saul D. Alinsky

Saul D. Alinsky is most widely known as the founder of modern community organizing, with his most noted work being his 1971 book, Rules For Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.

Alinsky graduated from the University of Chicago in 1930, in the midst of the Great Depression. Unable to find work in his scholarly focus — archaeology — he eventually began working as a labor organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations. In the late 1930’s, he retrained his focus toward general community organizing, focusing heavily on improving the living conditions in the poor areas in the South Side of Chicago before spreading his organization tactics to other inner-city communities across America.

Alinsky has been very influential in modern politics and with prominent politicians of today. He helped organize the initial Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) in the late 1940’s, of which Bernie Sanders was chair of during his time in Chicago in the 60’s. Sanders has been noted as using “Alinskian” tactics on state and national levels for his US Senate campaigns in Vermont and his 2016 Presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton’s 1969 BA senior thesis at Wellesley was wholly inspired by the Alinsky model of organization, for which she personally interviewed Alinsky. President Obama once did work for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky’s work.

In the wake of all that 2016 has piled onto us, from a local and personal level to a global level, it’s worth visiting Alinsky’s writings to glean some ideas that can be used or repurposed today. Radicals begins with a discussion about general class distinctions — the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores (the middle class) — and what each wants. I can go into these distinctions later in another piece. The list of rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends below should be taken in the contextual framing of this interclass struggle.

Alinsky notes the perennial question on whether, “the ends justify the means,” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, “do these particular ends justify these particular means?” He goes on to say, the person of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms; he or she thinks only of the resources available and the possibilities of various choices of action.

So, in structuring a strategy in seeking a desired end, one should first frame their ideas of what they are willing to do in order to achieve those ends in an ethical framework so as to keep their means defensible to others and, to a greater extent, themselves. Here are Alinsky’s 10 rules:

“One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” — When we are not directly concerned, our morality overflows. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement.” Eg., the Declaration of Independence as a glorious document, affirming human rights to us, whereas to the British it was deceitful and full of omission to the benefits the empire provided: food provided during famines, medicine during times of disease, etc.

“In war, the end justifies almost any means.” — During WWII, when Winston Churchill, a staunch anticommunist, was asked how he could reconcile being on the same side as the Soviets, he replied, “I only have one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

“Judgement must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

”Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”– If one lacks the luxury of a choice and is possessed of only one mean, then the ethical question will never arise; automatically the lone mean becomes endowed with moral spirit. After all, what else could be done?

“The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.” — Mostly a reiteration of the first rule; with more distance from a problem, the less important the problem is.

“Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.” — There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father.

“The morality of a mean depends upon whether the mean is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” — The means employed with victory seemingly assured may be defined as immoral, whereas if they had been used in more desperate circumstances to avoid defeat, the question of morality would never arise.

“Any effective mean is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.” — Francis Marion, a war hero of the American Revolution from South Carolina was immortalized as “the swamp fox,” for his guerrilla tactics used against the British. Cornwallis and the British Army were made harried and disorganized by Marion’s tactics, denouncing him as a criminal. They said he lacked ethics and morality for his revolutionary guerrilla means.

“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” — Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive resistance or active resistance–or whether you will move at all. As many upstarts have alluded to in their speeches and theses–

when they have the guns, we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot; when we have the guns then it will be through the bullet


I hope you noticed in the above quote the very specific inclusion of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as individuals with profound connections to Saul Alinsky’s radical Marxist strategic tactics. It is profoundly important to understand and grasp the full significance of this, but to also understand, that Sanders, Clinton and Obama were and are by no means outliers or the exception to the Alinsky disciple rule.

The individuals who read and now practice Alinsky’s rules for radicals infest like a cancer all levels of Academia, Government and the Media. They took Saul Alinsky’s advice to heart wherein he advised them, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”.

As you read Alinsky’s rules for radicals, especially his treatment of the concept of “The End Justifies the Means” there is only one rational or logical conclusion that any sane individual can come to. Having chosen ones desired end goal, those following Alinsky’s rules for radicals have abandoned any semblance of moral, ethical or principled behavior as a guideline to their rules of engagement in achieving that desired end.

The last time the world was given a full frontal view of that ideological justification was Hitlers Nazi Germany. So it becomes something of an ironic application of Godwins law when the disciples of Saul Alinsky accuse their political opponents of being “White Supremacist” which is of course synomous with accusing them of being Neo-Nazi’s and then of accusing them of applying Nazi Germany’s genocidal holocaust behavior and tactics.

It cannot be over-stressed what the logical conclusion of “The end Justifies the Means” is. It eventually find but one single solitary conclusion, just as the Nazi’s themselves concluded, there is no atrocity that cannot and eventually will not be justified and embraced in achieving the end goal. The greater the resistance to that end goal by those that end goal is being inflicted on, the greater the atrocity that will eventually be embraced and justified.

Suffice it to say, in Alinsky’s world, there is no atrocity that is not justifiable if it advances the cause of Marxist Socialism. Saul Alinsky was Hilary Clinton’s mentor in college, and Barack Obama’s mentor was William Ayer’s, former “Weather Underground” Alinsky terrorists from the 1960’s.

The American Liberal Left are Marxist Socialists. More importantly, they are Saul Alinsky Marxist Socialists which are an even more violent faction of Marxist Socialism. The #Antifa crowd are Alinsky Marxist Socialists. They have a single goal, the violent bloody overthrow of Capitalism and the Unite States Constitution by any means necessary.

[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7]

When you are willing to commit any atrocity to achieve your end goal, the one thing that can and will spur you on to commit ever more reprehensible atrocities, is the fear that you are losing. The Mainstream Media and the Marxist Liberal Left have evoked Godwin’s law upon themselves by comparing President Trump and his supporters to Nazi’s and the Holocaust. They have lost the debate and in doing so entered the stage where their only remaining options are those of crimes against humanity and atrocities.

They have crossed the Rubicon and begun a scorched earth campaign of vile rhetorical accusations that can only lead to actual bloody violence. I do not know what the Trump administration can do to halt or prevent the violence that the Fifth Column Treasonous Marxist Media and the Liberal Marxist Democrat Party are even now fomenting. But I can say with absolute moral authority, that if the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party are not held criminally liable for any violence provoked by their hyperbolic rhetoric, that in itself will be a crime against humanity and an atrocity.


To declare oneself a Domestic Enemy.

The single most incontrovertible way to declare oneself a domestic enemy of the nation to which one is a citizen, is to advocate for the destruction of that nation. There are numerous ways in which an individual can advocate for the destruction of their own nation.

They can engage in acts of espionage on behalf of a hostile foreign nation. They can engage in acts of sabotage against the government or infrastructure of their own nation. Or, as has become the preferred method of America’s liberal Marxist Left, they can advocate for and engage in acts of sovereign suicide.

State sovereignty is defined as, “the ability of the state to be independent and have autonomy and control over itself and its decisions. The word sovereign means autonomous, or independent.”

There is nothing more antithetical to the concept of State sovereignty then the concept of “Open Borders”. Control of ones national borders, who and what enters into ones nation is a bedrock foundational principal of “autonomy and control over itself and its decisions” it abides within the context of “control over itself and its decisions” and cannot be separated from it without the loss of State sovereignty.

Cable News: 22 Comparisons of Immigration Policy to the Holocaust, Slavery

The pundit class have officially snapped over the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy. Since Friday, the collective breakdown has yielded a total of 22 instances in which cable news commentators compared the separation of parents and children illegally entering the country to World War II-era war crimes and human rights violations.

The Holocaust was invoked 12 times across CNN and MSNBC between June 15 and the 18th, generally in the form of comparisons between DHS detention centers and Nazi concentration camps. There were also six mentions of Japanese-American internment camps, as well as four comparisons to slavery.

On Friday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough opened Morning Joe with a tasteless Holocaust reference. “Children are being marched away to showers,” he intoned, “just like the Nazis said they were taking people to the showers, and then they never came back. You’d think they would use another trick.”

Make no mistake about this. There is nothing “Humane” about open borders. It is a straight up tactic out of Karl Marx play book for the subjugation of capitalist societies by Marxist extremists. A nation that does not control its borders is not a nation.

The American Mainstream Media has declared itself to be domestic enemies of the United States Constitution in its advocacy of Open Borders. That Europe should engage in national suicide by open borders should come as no surprise to anyone, most of Europe has already subjugated itself to Marxism in the form of Democratic Socialism.

Let me be perfectly clear on this. Marxism, Socialism, Communism, are all the same political ideology, simply wearing different halloween masks. They are the Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry ice-cream of the political world, each a different flavor, but no matter how you dissect them, they are ice-cream.

Marxism is the political equivalent of the Emperor’s New Cloths. Predicated upon a false premise of political intellectual enlightenment, it is in fact, nothing less than the justification of sovereign overthrowal and conquest born of greed and class envy.

Neither Marxism, Socialism nor Communism have ever produced the equitable societies that they promise. They have as a matter of indisputable documented record, in fact, produced more suffering and deaths of more innocent human beings than any other political or religious ideology in human history, bar none.

Yet, like those characters in the story of the Emperor’s New Cloths, its advocates relentlessly deny the painfully obvious results driven on by the exact same motivations as those who looked upon the naked emperor yet refused to concede that e was naked for fear of having it said of them, they lacked the sophistication to see the Emperors new cloths, except with Marxism and it sick evil derivatives, it isn’t just a lack of sophistication, but having their intelligence cast as being sub-par, or subhuman that drives the vast majority to viciously advocate for a political ideology of violent subjugation and ruthless oppression.

For the entirety of its 242 years as a sovereign nation the United States of America has had control over its borders and who and what it allowed to cross those borders. The Mainstream Media and George Soros “Open Society Foundation” are aggressively attempting to bring that control to an end.

The disgustingly dishonest talking points claiming that the United States is a nation founded upon immigration intentionally obscure the fact that those very immigrants they cite were in fact required to enter the United States through specific ports of entry where they were documented and verified before being allowed into the United States and that not everyone who attempted to enter the United States was permitted to.

No, Do not even think of doing it. Do not point to the Statue of Liberty and what is written on the plaque she holds. The Statue of Liberty stand directly above Ellis Island. Ellis Island was a designated immigration port of entry, and every immigrate that passed through Ellis Island was questioned and had their identity and motivations for entering the United States checked and verified to the best of the ability of those working at Ellis Island.

There is a profound difference between entering a nation legally, and entering a nation illegally. The rank and reprehensible hypocrisy of those screaming that America should not be separating the children of illegal immigrants from their parents when apprehended make this assertion is beyond disgusting, as those making it do so knowing full well that it is a dishonest and disingenuous argument.

No one can be so ignorant or intellectually impaired as to think that the American judicial system places the children of those arrested for committing criminal offenses in jail with their parents. To assert or pretend that those apprehended for illegally entering the United States should be treated any differently is to argue either for the abolishment of the rule of law in the United States, or for the abolishment of America’s national sovereignty.

Furthermore, to compare the separation of an illegal alien adult from their equally illegal alien children upon apprehension to the Nazi extermination of Jewish persons or the enslavement of African’s is a degree of reprehensible and disgusting behavior that can only honestly be defined as a willful intentional and knowing act of domestic sabotage by an individual who for whatever reason has declared themselves to be a domestic enemy of the United States of America and the United States Constitution.

There is simply no other way to describe such behavior.

The Greatest Malapropism of the 21 century.

noun: malapropism

the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one, often with unintentionally amusing effect, as in, for example, “dance a flamingo ” (instead of flamenco ).

Most Malaprop’s are straight up simple spelling errors. Like spelling Wright right, In this age of computer spell check, Malaprop’s which have an tendency to be amusing in their own right, have only gotten funnier, especially what they inadvertently (or ever so cleverly) revel a greater truth than the correct spelling would have.

With June 14th’s release of the long awaited Inspector General’s Report on the Hillary Clinton male investigation, there have been story after story released by the Mainstream Media which in one way of another have tried to either dismiss the serious accusations made by the report, or to mollify the propound unhappiness with which the report has been greeted.

CBS put out this story, clearly of the mollify type, plus a CYA for CBS as public sentiment is nearly overwhelming against the FBI and the Mainstream Media.

Commentary: For Trump supporters, DOJ IG report amounts to “Told ya so”


The actions of the FBI or DOJ may, in the end, be defensible. No legal line may have been crossed.

While the story attempts to pass itself off as a conciliatory and sympathetic one, its author cannot resist the urge in the final paragraph to shot himself in the head with exactly the kind of bias that is exactly what has the FBI in so much trouble at this very moment. ( I guess you really can’t expect a liberal not be be a liberal)

Down in the comment section of this article, is what in my opinion has a very good chance of being the best and greatest malapropism of the 21st century. Whether it was a simple slip of the fingers as its author hurried to type it, or entirely intentional I cannot say. But, her it is… Try not to miss it…

Imagine President Hillary Clinton having her lawyer’s office ransacked by FIB agents and other close associates persecuted or prosecuted by the FIB and the rest of the Deep State. Now we know more about the depravity and depth of our opposition. All must learn about the details and the Deep State must be burned to the ground.

From James Comey, Andrew McCabe, down to Pete Strzok and Lisa Page we have heard nothing but indisputable and documented lies for nearly a year now. So… For a Malapropism that refers to the FBI as the “FIB”… Yup… Gets my vote for best and greatest malapropism of the century, it might even come to define the 21st century.

Inspector General Report: FBI violates Hatch Act to influence Presidential Election outcome.

According to Paul Sperry the Inspector Generals Report will confirm that the FBI violated the Hatch Act in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Now I confess that I do not know who Paul Sperry is, or how accurate his information is. But there are a couple of things I can tell you about what his tweet says that Paul is not saying, and that you can bet your ass the IG report is not going to come straight out and say.

1) If this is true (and yes, I do believe that it is what happened, but not necessarily what the IG Report says) it constitutes the largest political scandal in US History.

2) If the FBI did attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election, they did so on behalf of the Democrat party i.e. specifically Hillary Clinton.

3) Such an act would constitute collusion between the Democrat Party and the FBI.

4) Collusion of this nature would constitute felony level violations of 18 US Code 2384 & 2385.

5) Due to the unparalleled seriousness of these actions there is no way on earth that the IG Report will come directly straight out and make this assertion.

6) Should the IG Report conclude that the FBI colluded with the Democrat Party to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election it would almost certainly mean the legal end of the Democrat Party.

Therefore, the inescapable conclusion here, is that if this is true, the IG Report will amount to nothing less than a whitewash of the events in question in order to prevent the wholesale prosecution senior Obama Administration officials, Senior members of the Democrat Party and senior level federal bureaucrats.

An IG Report that concludes that the FBI violated federal law in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election would go a very long way towards explaining the disturbing behavior of AG Sessions and Deputy AG Rosenstein. It would put the veiled threats against President Trump by Chuck Schumer, James Clapper and John Brennan in a disturbingly clear light.

18 US Code 2384 Seditious conspiracy and 18 US Code 2385 Attempting to overthrow the US Government are some of the most serious criminal offenses in US Law, they fall short only of Treason in their serious nature. That senior administration level members of the Obama administration, FBI, DOJ, CIA and NSA all conspired to violate 18 US Code 2384 & 2385 and then failing that conspired to frame duly and legitimately elected President Donald J Trump in order to remove him from office constitute the largest and most politically devastating criminal scandal in American history.

Therefore until proven otherwise, we must conclude that the IG Report even if it does conclude that the FBI attempted to influence the elections outcome will make every attempt to downplay the significance of the FBI’s action. It will throw James Comey and a few of the lowest senior FBI officials to the wolves while attempting to pretend that their actions were not taken on behalf of anyone in either the Obama administration or the Democrat Party.

The Judiciary as a Political Weapon.

One of the criticisms regularly being leveled at former President Barack Obama is that he weaponized much of the Federal Government to be employed against his, and by extension, the Democrat Party’s political opponents. From the EPA and the IRS, now clearly to the FBI CIA NSA and DOJ. And there is every indication that these accusations are not mere political rhetoric designed to inflame the base of either party, but facts for which there is substantial evidence.

However, and this must be taken into account when discussing this subject. This was not an Obama original program. Conservatives have angrily been making the case for literally decades that activist judges have overreached their authority and used their positions to supplant the legal authority of Congress by in effect writing legislation from the judicial bench.

A perfect example of this was when California Justice Vaughn Walker used his position as Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to override the will of the people of the State of California by declaring that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. In that Judge Walker was a Homosexual who personally stood to profit from his ruling, he should never have been allowed to participate in any ruling on Proposition 8, his doing so was as clear and indisputable a conflict of interest as it is possible to exist.

The consistent manner in which various members of America’s judiciary have routinely and regularly overstepped their authority for the purpose of engaging in judicial activism long predates Obama’s weaponization of federal bureaucracies. More importantly, without this long and tawdry history of unchecked judicial abuse, it is unlikely that Obama would have been able to weaponize as much of the federal bureaucracy as he did.

The Mainstream Media in America which indisputably and overwhelmingly leans to the far extreme liberal left of the political spectrum has consistently criticized America’s conservatives for pointing to far left judicial activism as tinfoil hat conspiracy territory. This hyper partisan liberal biased behavior by the Mainstream Media has as its natural consequence resulted in a open and public feud between the media and President Trump.

The Media’s coverage of President Trump has been indisputably documented to run nearly 90% negative and highly antagonistic against Trump. Moreover, Trump, not an individual given to surrendering or ignoring assaults on his character has chosen to fight back against the Mainstream Media, prompting the Mainstream Media to engage in outright lies and distortions of the facts in asserting their innocence in the matter.

The irony of these demonstrably false assertions is obviously intentionally lost on the Media, who have repeatedly been forced to retract negative attack stories against Trump. They hurl unfounded dishonest abusive attack story after story at him, while claiming in the same breath that President Trump is unfairly attacking them.

The AT&T-Time Warner Merger Ruling Is Bad for the Country

In an appalling development for the future of media, telecommunications, and America, Judge Richard Leon approved the $85.4 billion merger between AT&T and Time Warner in full, without conditions, completely rebuking the Justice Department’s effort to overturn it. In a stark display of judicial activism, Judge Leon even told DoJ not to appeal the case, thus allowing the deal to close by a self-imposed June 21 deadline, which otherwise would trigger a $500 million “break-up” fee. I guess the judge wouldn’t want any executives to lose money.

It’s hard to over-emphasize the impact of this ruling. First, the deal itself brings together one of America’s largest telecom and cable companies with a suite of valuable programming to distribute on those networks. HBO, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, Warner Brothers Studios, a stake in Hulu and much more will now be held by the owners of DirecTV, U-verse, AT&T mobile and broadband, Cricket wireless, and more. AT&T has already started bundling HBO for free for wireless users; the entire idea is to leverage things people want to watch by forcing them to watch it on AT&T services.

And so the stage is set for the most recent case of judicial activism as a political weapon, and this time, aimed squarely at President Donald Trump. In a clear display of their far left liberal bias against President Trump and an indisputable case of conflict of interest, the Mainstream Media is smugly touting the judicial activism of US District Judge Richard Leon in his ruling against the Department of Justice in the AT&T Time Warner merger case as a stinging rebuke of the Trump Administration.

Citing the ongoing feud between President Trump and the Mainstream Media as a conflict of interest for President Trump in seeking to prevent the AT&T merger the Mainstream Media gloat over Leon’s ruling while continuing to present the facade of unbiased neutrality.

Judge clears AT&T-Time Warner deal, rebuking Trump administration

A US federal judge approved Tuesday the $85 billion merger of wireless and broadband giant AT&T with media-entertainment conglomerate Time Warner, delivering a stinging rebuke to Donald Trump’s administration in its first major antitrust court case.

At some point, Congress is going to have to step in and put a stop to the Judiciaries usurpation of Congresses Constitutional authority. It is not the place of Judges to legislate from the bench, doing so presents a genuine grave and present danger to both the rule of law, and the United States Constitution.

Judge Leon’s ruling in the AT&T case is clearly intended as a political attack on President Trump and Judge Leon should be removed from the case and the case completely reviewed as a consequence of his blatant judicial activism, furthermore, Judge Leon should be censured and disbarred for willfully abusing his judicial authority for political purposes.

Funny thing happened on the way to last nights nuclear war.

President Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore yesterday. The Marxist infiltrated American Mainstream media and its merry band of Democrat Useless Imbeciles have been proclaiming since Nov 5th 2015 that Trump would start WWIII with North Korea.

The only thing that has exploded since yesterday… Has been the heads of the Marxist Liberal Democrat left.

From the anally retentive pouty boi screed by Josh Rogin over at the Fifth Column Treasonous Marxist infiltrated compost pile known as “The Washington Post” setting his hair on fire proclaiming in essence that Trump was masterfully played by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

To Yahoo’s New’s carry of AFP feed by Richard Carter, who set his own hair on fire to frantically inform everyone that “Trump summit legitimises Kim“.

Reuters likewise came out with their best Eeyore take on the story. “Historic Trump-Kim summit ends with promise, light on substance

However, several experts said the summit failed to secure any concrete commitments by Pyongyang for dismantling its nuclear arsenal. They also noted the statement did not refer to human rights in one of the world’s most repressive nations.


Anthony Ruggiero, senior fellow at Washington’s Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank, said it was unclear if negotiations would lead to denuclearisation, or end with broken promises, as had happened in the past.

“This looks like a restatement of where we left negotiations more than 10 years ago and not a major step forward,” he said.

While personally I do not disagree with Anthony Ruggiero’s quoted comment in the Reuters piece, making it the central point of their reporting on the meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un puts Reuter’s hypocrisy and double standard on full public display. No one at Reuters would have written or published such a article of obvious distrust about Barack Obama. When Obama was making his deal with an even more dishonest and recalcitrant Iran nobody at Reuter’s threw this kind of shade on Obama.

Will North Korea actually denuclearize? They have been disappointingly dishonest in the past, but there are 2 very good reasons to not jump to any concussions just yet.

1) Kim Jong Un is not his father. What I am not suggesting here is that Kim Jong Un is a nice guy and we should start swapping spit and go on a honeymoon. Kim is a hereditary leader of an incredibly oppressive nation. He was educated in Switzerland and has been outside of North Korea enough to know that their propaganda is exactly that.

2) North Korea has nothing to lose by dismantling their incredibly expensive nuclear weapons program. They have proven that they know how to make nuclear weapons. Unlike the process of learning how to make nuclear weapons, which can take 30 to 40 years, once you know how, making nuclear weapons from scratch isn’t that big a deal. North Korea could denuclearize today, completely dismantle everything. And if they suddenly decided that it was a bad idea, have a nuclear weapons program up, running and producing nuclear weapons in probably under 3 years.

So, do I expect North Korea to denuclearize? I think there is a very good chance that they will find something to object to which causes them to pull out of any agreement that they make with President Trump, and I say this for the exact same reason that Anthony Ruggiero said it. Because that is what they have done in the past.

There is of course 1 very significant difference between the North Korea of Kim Jong Il and the North Korea of Kim Jong Un. Under Kim Jong Il, North Korea entered into agreements it never had any intention of honoring, because they were strategically buying time to complete their nuclear weapons program. That program has run its course and because of that the North Korean’s no longer need to stall to buy time.

Kim Jong Un, hereditary leader of a brutally repressive communist/Marxist fractured tiny little insignificant nation met with the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and he did so as an equal. The national status may be unequal, but Trump and Kim Jong Un met as leaders of nuclear armed nations.

At the end of the day, the fact that the US has perhaps a thousand nuclear weapons and North Korea only maybe half a dozen really does’t make much of a difference. They have them, they know how to make them and denuclearizing will not eliminate the knowledge or skill required to make nuclear weapons that North Korea now possess.

On the other hand, a lot of basic staples have been in short supply in North Korea for a very long time, luxury ideas? Even shorter supply. By giving up his nuclear weapons program Kim Jong Un could literally transform North Korea in almost unimaginable ways practically overnight. Kim Jong Un has opened a dialog with POTUS Donald Trump that could go far beyond merely allowing North Korea to save face over the Korean war. It could give North Korea a reason to stand down militarily. Virtually all of the human rights violation’s North Korea is charged with, stem from the fact that Since the Korean war never actually ended, North Korea is and has been basically living under martial law since the armistice was signed back in 1953. The west, i.e. South Korea, the US, Japan… got lackadaisical a mere decade after the armistice was signed, the North Korean’s did not.

This could be a chance for North Korea to sign an actual peace treaty with South Korea and put an end to the Korean War. The German Reunification could serve as a template for a Korean Reunification.

Do I expect that to happen? No, not really, I make the odds to be somewhere between slim and none. But, stranger things has happened, who knows, maybe the North Korean’s are tired of living under martial law and would like a nice, unstressed date night out with their wives without both of them always looking over their shoulder waiting for the crisis that they expect at any minute. Maybe they would like to get enough to eat, get some restful sleep, do the things that people not at war do.

Only time will tell as President Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify”. My grandfather, father and step father fought in the Korean War, I am only to happy to give the North Korean’s a chance to end the Korean War, even if it means them not “surrendering”. Just as long as it means South Korea doesn’t have has to surrender either.

What really happened at the G7 Summit.

“International cooperation cannot be dictated by fits of anger and throwaway remarks,” President Emmanuel Macron’s office said in a statement to AFP.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she finds President Donald Trump’s tweet disavowing a common statement after the Group of Seven summit in Canada “sobering” and “a little depressing.”

In an interview Sunday on German public television, Merkel also says European leaders won’t be “taken advantage of” on trade.

Trudeau had said Canadians “are polite, we’re reasonable, but also we will not be pushed around.”

Why exactly is it that Germany, France and Canada had these things to say? The answer is painfully simple. Germany, France and Canada are failed socialist states propped up by massive trade imbalance with the United States. Trump basically told them, “This is over” and like heroin addicts suddenly facing the threat of having their heroin supply cut off, the leaders of Germany, France and Canada reacted angrily.

Germany, France, Canada and China have all been putting their thumb very heavily on the “Fair Trade” scales for decades and Trump came to the G7 Summit and told them in no uncertain terms. Either take your thumbs off the scales, or the US will reciprocate in equal measure.

Germany, France and Canada told Trump, but we have always had our thumb on the scale, it’s our right to have our thumb on the scale. Trump told them, No, no it is not and it ends now. If you do not take your thumb off the scale, we will match every single one of your tariffs with equal tariffs of our own.