This popular post was originally published May 2.

Last week, you couldn’t turn on the television or get on the web without being subjected to some sort of coverage of the royal wedding. It was truly a global phenomenon, and the American fascination with it was remarkable. What other event would prompt 22.8 million viewers across the country to wake up at an ungodly hour to witness an event taking place thousands of miles away? (Worldwide viewership is estimated at a staggering 2 billion, reportedly making the ceremony the most-watched event in history.)

In addition to the media frenzy, there was much consternation and speculation about the deliberate omission of Barack and Michelle Obama from the guest list for the wedding. Explanations for the snub ranged from the fact that the wedding was not a state occasion to possible security concerns. But I can’t help but wonder if the reason for not inviting the Obamas runs much deeper than those reasons. After all, Barack Obama has presided over a stunning and shameful deterioration of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“Special relationship” is the term often used to describe American-British relations. Winston Churchill used it frequently, though the term itself goes back to the 19th century. The phrase is a tip of the hat to our nations’ shared heritage and intertwined history, as well as a nod to the unique military, diplomatic, and economic alliance between the two countries. From the World Wars to the Reagan-Thatcher friendship, to Britain’s support of the War on Terror, the “special relationship” has been an obvious one.

Unfortunately, President Obama has done severe damage to the “special relationship.” A series of gaffes in diplomacy and protocol on the part of both Barack and Michelle Obama have strained the bond between the US and Britain:

Obama has been criticized by some for not embracing the ‘special relationship’ that has existed between the U.S. and Britain since the Second World War. Shortly after he arrived in the White House, the president presented Queen Elizabeth with an iPod and then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a bundle of American DVDs that would not work on British players. He also returned a bust of Winston Churchill that had stood in President George W. Bush’s Oval Office.

Last year, Mrs. Obama also touched the back of Queen Elizabeth’s back which, as White House watcher Keith Koffler notes, is considered a major breach of protocol when dealing with the royals.

The Obama administration has strained the US-British friendship with a series of political moves as well. In 2010, the administration, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refused to acknowledge British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, a territory that has been a source of tension between the UK and Argentina for years.

During the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico last summer, many Britons were offended by the Obama’s continual references to “British Petroleum,” in spite of the fact that BP is a truly international corporation that hasn’t called itself “British Petroleum” in ages. And this year, those upstanding folks at Wikileaks released evidence that the United States shared with Russia secrets about Britain’s nuclear capability.

Last week, you couldn’t turn on the television or get on the web without being subjected to some sort of coverage of the royal wedding. It was truly a global phenomenon, and the American fascination with it was remarkable. What other event would prompt 22.8 million viewers across the country to wake up at an ungodly hour to witness an event taking place thousands of miles away? (Worldwide viewership is estimated at a staggering 2 billion, reportedly making the ceremony the most-watched event in history.)

In addition to the media frenzy, there was much consternation and speculation about the deliberate omission of Barack and Michelle Obama from the guest list for the wedding. Explanations for the snub ranged from the fact that the wedding was not a state occasion to possible security concerns. But I can’t help but wonder if the reason for not inviting the Obamas runs much deeper than those reasons. After all, Barack Obama has presided over a stunning and shameful deterioration of the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“Special relationship” is the term often used to describe American-British relations. Winston Churchill used it frequently, though the term itself goes back to the 19th century. The phrase is a tip of the hat to our nations’ shared heritage and intertwined history, as well as a nod to the unique military, diplomatic, and economic alliance between the two countries. From the World Wars to the Reagan-Thatcher friendship, to Britain’s support of the War on Terror, the “special relationship” has been an obvious one.

Unfortunately, President Obama has done severe damage to the “special relationship.” A series of gaffes in diplomacy and protocol on the part of both Barack and Michelle Obama have strained the bond between the US and Britain:

Obama has been criticized by some for not embracing the ‘special relationship’ that has existed between the U.S. and Britain since the Second World War. Shortly after he arrived in the White House, the president presented Queen Elizabeth with an iPod and then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a bundle of American DVDs that would not work on British players. He also returned a bust of Winston Churchill that had stood in President George W. Bush’s Oval Office.

Last year, Mrs. Obama also touched the back of Queen Elizabeth’s back which, as White House watcher Keith Koffler notes, is considered a major breach of protocol when dealing with the royals.

The Obama administration has strained the US-British friendship with a series of political moves as well. In 2010, the administration, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refused to acknowledge British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, a territory that has been a source of tension between the UK and Argentina for years.

During the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico last summer, many Britons were offended by the Obama’s continual references to “British Petroleum,” in spite of the fact that BP is a truly international corporation that hasn’t called itself “British Petroleum” in ages. And this year, those upstanding folks at Wikileaks released evidence that the United States shared with Russia secrets about Britain’s nuclear capability.

In the wake of the Japan earthquake, and the resulting tsunami, members of the media, some scientists, and environmentalists have posited some … interesting theories as to the root cause of the earthquakes and aftershocks that devastated Japan.

The science behind earthquakes, like the science behind magnets, is a mystery to some. In 2010, Iranian Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told his followers that “Many women who dress inappropriately […] cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.”

While no link between tectonic activity and cleavage has been found by scientists, I imagine that the quest to prove or disprove this hypothesis got many young men interested in geology, at least for a short amount of time.

Before I go any further, I should explain what scientists know to be the cause of an earthquake. The earth below our feet may appear to be static, but in reality, the Earth is what geologists call “geologically active.” That is to say, the Earth is a planet which has an active, hot core, and tectonic plates which are always moving around—just so slowly that it’s imperceptible to the naked eye.

Because our planet’s innards are active and hot, the continental plates that make up the surface layer, or the lithosphere, slowly move around on a layer of molten rock called the athenosphere. At the places where the continents meets, they will move apart, push together, or slide orthogonally against each other. These points where continents meets are called “faults.”

Over time, the pressure from two faults hitting or rubbing against each other builds up, and is released explosively.

Japan, as well as all of Western Asia and the entire west coasts of North and South America, sits on what is called the Ring of Fire, which is a giant, circum-Pacific belt of earthquake fault lines. An estimated 90% of the world’s earthquakes are caused by North and South America’s slow westward collision with the plate beneath the Pacific Ocean, as well as Australia’s eastbound collision with the same plate. Japan is, tectonically speaking, part of North America, not Asia, and sits right on the fault line where North America is colliding with the Pacific Plate.

That is—by and far—the most likely reason that Japan suffered a massive earthquake—a naturally occurring release of built-up kinetic energy. But could global warming, and by extension, Western civilization, have been responsible for the Japanese earthquake? Let’s explore, in descending order of “completely off-the-wall crazy” to “it’s somewhat plausible,” some of the theories espoused by the Left.

Yes, I will keep HAARP-ing on this issue…

In the wake of the Japan earthquake, and the resulting tsunami, members of the media, some scientists, and environmentalists have posited some … interesting theories as to the root cause of the earthquakes and aftershocks that devastated Japan.

The science behind earthquakes, like the science behind magnets, is a mystery to some. In 2010, Iranian Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi told his followers that “Many women who dress inappropriately […] cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes.”

While no link between tectonic activity and cleavage has been found by scientists, I imagine that the quest to prove or disprove this hypothesis got many young men interested in geology, at least for a short amount of time.

Before I go any further, I should explain what scientists know to be the cause of an earthquake. The earth below our feet may appear to be static, but in reality, the Earth is what geologists call “geologically active.” That is to say, the Earth is a planet which has an active, hot core, and tectonic plates which are always moving around—just so slowly that it’s imperceptible to the naked eye.

Because our planet’s innards are active and hot, the continental plates that make up the surface layer, or the lithosphere, slowly move around on a layer of molten rock called the athenosphere. At the places where the continents meets, they will move apart, push together, or slide orthogonally against each other. These points where continents meets are called “faults.”

Over time, the pressure from two faults hitting or rubbing against each other builds up, and is released explosively.

Japan, as well as all of Western Asia and the entire west coasts of North and South America, sits on what is called the Ring of Fire, which is a giant, circum-Pacific belt of earthquake fault lines. An estimated 90% of the world’s earthquakes are caused by North and South America’s slow westward collision with the plate beneath the Pacific Ocean, as well as Australia’s eastbound collision with the same plate. Japan is, tectonically speaking, part of North America, not Asia, and sits right on the fault line where North America is colliding with the Pacific Plate.

That is—by and far—the most likely reason that Japan suffered a massive earthquake—a naturally occurring release of built-up kinetic energy. But could global warming, and by extension, Western civilization, have been responsible for the Japanese earthquake? Let’s explore, in descending order of “completely off-the-wall crazy” to “it’s somewhat plausible,” some of the theories espoused by the Left.

Yes, I will keep HAARP-ing on this issue…

“…we have seen in the past – over and over again – that evil seeks out evil, that they create secret combinations and make blood oaths against the good people of the earth. They bond together in their mutual treachery, and no malevolence is too much for them to consider.”

I wrote that, 8 years ago in one of my first ever articles, part of a three-piecer that Joseph Farah asked me to write for World Net Daily.  Most of my friends laughed.

That was then….

The recent announcement by North Korea has confirmed more than just the obvious conclusion from the past 15 years of weapons/technology sharing.  It wasn’t the announcement so much as it was the phrasing that forever laid to rest any doubt:

One month after a deadly exchange of artillery fire, the two Koreas ramped up their rhetoric, with South Korea’s president pledging unsparing retaliation if attacked again and a top North Korean official threatening a “sacred” nuclear war if provoked.

Sacred war. This was a message for us, a Judeo/Christian nation, and a signal to their ally Islam, whose use of “holy war” is so overplayed we scarcely even notice anymore.  North Korea is a country of Godless communists, where religious freedom is brutally oppressed, marched out only as a showpiece for the press and foreign dignitaries.  The term is a relatively recent one, and no coincidence if you’ve been a careful observer of communism’s growing alliance with Islam.

It is a stir-fried non-aggression pact for the new century, but not between three Communist countries bent on conquering and dividing European spoils.

Three of the creepy faces of Islammunism

This is Islammunism, and the world is its spoils.

They may be outnumbered by their leftist counterparts, but Hollywood does have its share of conservatives. Among the most vocal and unapologetic is Jon Voight, who appeared on last night’s “Hannity” (guest-hosted by the incomparable Mark Steyn to discuss President Barack Obama’s deadly ineptness on nuclear proliferation, as characterized by the White House’s precious START Treaty:

VOIGHT: I hear Obama trying to convince the American people that if we give up our nuclear weapons, this will set a fine example and all other countries will follow suit. What a dangerous and naive notion that is. If President Reagan wasn’t such a powerful force of strength, we never would have seen Premier Gorbachev take down the Berlin Wall […] every American citizen should be up in arms and calling their senators to reject this Obama’s START Treaty. It’s, you know, without our nuclear might, we would be subject to becoming a weak nation and what would follow would be much more severe than what we are currently going through with 9.6 unemployment, add that to the idea that our allies are very concerned about their safety and they are warning us not to reduce our nuclear power because their very protection is dependent on our strength.

At Mediaite, Mark Joyella is perplexed that Fox News would bring in a mere actor to discuss foreign affairs:

These are weighty issues, and fittingly, Fox News’ Hannity wasted no time Monday night rolling out just the right person to provide desperately needed perspective–a guy who’s literally been on the front lines in the war on terror as Jack Bauer’s father: Jon Voight.

Uh, what now? Introduced by fill-in host Mark Steyn as “the sanest man in Hollywood,” and asked him the critical question when you’re talking nuclear arms agreements with a guy best known for being in Deliverance and, of course, for doing his part to deliver unto the world Angelina Jolie: “is it even relevant to the world we’re living in today?”

I’ll be the first to agree that Voight’s insight is no substitute for that of, say, Steven Emerson or Daniel Pipes, and those of us on the Right who’ve been mocking empty-headed celebrity blowhards for opining beyond their expertise for years ought to be consistent and acknowledge that conservative actors, like liberal ones, have no greater political qualifications than the average American (though in Voight’s case, his opinion is at least informed by his own experiences at the other end of the spectrum).

Sean Hannity in particular overdoes it, but in the grand scheme of things, opinion programs showcasing the occasional celebrity opinion is no big deal. It’s when we start governing with the stars that we’ve got a real problem—see, for example, the EPA meeting with James Cameron, Stephen Colbert testifying before Congress, or Jon Bon Jovi joining Obama’s new community-organizing board. Poke fun at Hannity’s star-studded guest lists all you like, but let’s keep in mind who’s really subjecting the most critical issues of the day to the wisdom of Hollywood.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also writes for the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

First we had this:

HONG KONG, Dec. 14 (Yonhap) — North Korea has agreed to China’s proposal to hold emergency discussions among chief envoys to the six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear disarmament in a bid to defuse tensions on the Korean Peninsula, China’s foreign ministry said Tuesday.

Beijing proposed on Nov. 28 that the lead negotiators from the two Koreas, the U.S., Japan, China and Russia meet at an early date to discuss ways of easing inter-Korean tension sparked by the North’s shelling of a South Korean island.

“The agreement was reached when Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang last week,” Jiang Yu, spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, said in a regular press briefing…

And this:

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun will visit Moscow on Dec. 12-15 for talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, the Interfax news agency reported Friday.

Lavrov invited Pak to discuss a plan for inter-ministerial exchange for 2011-2012, as well as economic projects.

“We stand for further development of the traditional friendship and cooperation between the two countries, which meet the core interests of our people and facilitate peace and prosperity in the region,” Pak was quoted by Interfax as saying.

He stressed that Pyongyang saw economic relations with Russia as a very important part of bilateral cooperation…

Sounds good, right?  I mean, except for the utter absence of any mention of the shelling of Yeonpyeong, which in itself is suspicious.  But what harm could come from NoKo “talking” to fellow Communists?

Think again:

The U.S. urgently sent its Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth to Seoul after North Korea unveiled a huge facility for uranium enrichment. A senior South Korean government official said Monday the rapid response came because the facility “highly likely” indicates a nuclear connection between the North and Iran.

According to South Korean and U.S. intelligence agencies, the facility the North Koreans showed to nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker “appear similar in design to those used at Natanz, the Iranian nuclear fuel production site,” the New York Times said Sunday…In March, Leonard Spector, the deputy director of the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said in a column on the center’s website North Korea delivered 45 tons of unenriched uranium concentrate known as “yellowcake” to Syria and subsequently moved the material to Iran via Turkey. A North Korea-Iran nuclear connection could gravely undermine international nonproliferation efforts, he added…

It gets worse:

North Korea has dug a new tunnel more than 500 m deep at a nuclear test site in Punggye-ri, North Hamgyong Province, intelligence sources said Tuesday. The North is also reportedly accelerating massive excavation work and construction of a new building at its main nuclear site in Yongbyon.

“North Korea seems to be busy digging even in winter when the ground is frozen” at Punggye-ri and Yongbyon, a South Korean intelligence officer said.

Based on an estimate of the amount of earth dug up, the intelligence officer speculated that the North has already dug a cave more than 500 m deep in Punggye-ri.

“If progress goes on at the current pace, the North will have dug a cave 1 km deep, the depth where it is possible to conduct a nuclear test, between March and May next year…”

And of course, we snapped into action:

The U.S. Air Force moved a WC-135 Constant Phoenix reconnaissance jet from the U.S. mainland to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, in September in preparation for another nuclear test by North Korea, the Sankei Shimbun reported Tuesday.

The WC-135, a modified aircraft, is able to detect nuclear explosions from the air by collecting samples from the atmosphere. It was stationed in Okinawa about a month before North Korea carried out its second nuclear test in May 2009. Apparently the U.S. believes that another nuclear test is imminent after unusual movements were detected at the North’s test site…

You don’t have to be a freakin’ genius to know what this is adding up to.  Just don’t  ask our leaders, who can’t tell a contrail from an enemy threat.

Brace yourselves, people; cloudy days ahead…

Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.

Bombing of North Korean village August, 1950

Defense Minister-designate Kim Kwan-jin expressed firm resolve to take a strong retaliatory action, including air strike, in the event of another North Korean military provocation during his parliamentary confirmation hearing Friday…Noting that South Korea is in the most serious crisis situation since the 1950-53 Korean War, Kim said that he will set up an operational plan to bolster military capabilities to protect the five border islands in the West Sea…Immediately after the artillery attack, the military sent some 400,000 anti-North leaflets to the North in a reversal of its cautious stance. The military had been cautious about fully resuming the psychological warfare as it could seriously provoke the reclusive state.—Kim warns air strike on North Korea, The Korea Herald

So it has come to this.  For the first time in 60 years, the specter of air war is a reality over the Land of the Morning Calm.  This is highly significant; it is the first time in almost six decades that South Korea has put the option of air strikes back on the table.  The first time this century.

Shelling civilians, hidden under water nuke factories, NoKo tunnels under the DMZ, and the South Korean decision to stage air raids on any further NoKo provocations—at long last—certainly makes for exciting times.  The promise of air strikes opens the possibility of a repeat of history:  the first known jet vs. jet air battles that occurred 60 years ago and came to be known famously as MiG Alley.

Of course, back then the NoKo MiG-15 used during the active phases of the still-going Korean War were piloted by Russian pilots, who went to tremendous efforts to pretend to be Korean.

The USSR masquerade clearly did not work.  Our soldiers often laughed camp-side about the 6ft tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed Koreans, and eventually even the Ruskies gave up on the charade, USSR claims that they were not in Korea be damned.

USAF pilots had great respect for the MiG’s superior maneuverability.  They loved the instant response of the wire-controlled MiG over the slower electronic responses of our F-86 Sabre, and that combined with its swept-wing design made it any pilot’s dream.

The MiG is a plane not to be underestimated, ridiculed, or discounted.  I’m sure ROKAF knows that well.

Our pilots had an advantage then, and ROKAF has it now, that you will never find in Communist nations:  thinking for themselves, using imagination, creating new maneuvers, and utilizing that ingenuity only free nations know.  The desperate cover-ups and lies of the Soviets led to the Russian pilots not being allowed to pursue the Sabre into the Yellow Sea or any area considered American or South Korean territory.  Their hands were tied by leaders who punished them if they got it wrong and punished them even more if they succeeded without permission.  These are those from whom the NoKo’s learned to fly and whose Stalinist delusions they still follow.

Earlier this year Secretary Gates stopped production of the F/A 22 Raptor a 187 aircraft. The replacement, the F/A-35 Joint Strike Fighter is mediocre at best, relative to a Raptor, but must save money. Recently China succeeds in reverse engineering Russian technology, the Sukhoi-27 fighter, in cheaper form, as China does with many technologies.

You may argue China steals technology and can’t innovate it’s own. You may argue China is doing what China does best, make products affordable using a cheaper and abused labor force. But China is doing what’s best for China, making money. (Strange how communism is doing capitalism better than capitalists.) The same goes for Russia selling it’s technology to turn a buck. But aside from an intellectual property discussion this gives way to bigger issues on US national defense.

In a world where weaponry is being globalized, the US will soon no longer rely on superior weapon technology. This will make US military encounters much more costly in both in budget and lives as fighting terrorists driving jeeps is easier than flying fighters. With US’s resolve for war fading, here’s where it gets dicey.

Thanks in part to the Left, the US is spending with two hands, while China is spending with one hand and profiting with another. For the US to compete, we need to either ensure our war endeavors benefit us ten fold, which will create an even more imperialistic view of the US, something the left won’t like. Or we innovate war such as disabling fighters from the ground using a viral tactic Mike uses like Jeff Goldblum used on alien invaders in “Independence Day.” (Note cyber-attacks are also being explored by China.)

Exploration of creating new weaponry such as this increases spending, and defense is an area the left spends conservatively. If we are we looking at Regan-esque military spending in the near future, there’s even more call for tightening of the government belt and stabilizing the economy through less intervention.

The Huffington Post is running an interesting article today entitled “The WikiLeaks Release: Blame the State Department, Not the World’s Media,” by a writer for the Guardian and the London Sunday Times, Simon Jenkins. He pointed out that the material leaked by WikiLeaks, and published by the New York Times and other newspapers, not only lacked top-secret classification. The State Department itself had made them available to some 2-3 million authorized users of the State Department’s own worldwide intranet.

Jenkins observed that the material went out uncensored, with names and sources disclosed, on the State Department’s intranet with an unsophisticated coding system. The material was downloadable and presumably capable of being forwarded on to anyone.

In short, Jenkins concluded,

The recklessness of such a casual approach to secrecy beggars belief… If I were an American source, I would be far more afraid of the State Department than the world’s media.

I think that there is even more to the story about the WikiLeaks releases than Jenkins does. I believe that the leaks serve the Obama administration‘s purposes to get certain so-called confidential materials out in the public arena, knowing that the media outlets most likely to publish the materials would spin them in a way that would help buff Obama’s image of himself as a strong leader even if it meant embarrassing foreign leaders and diplomats in the process.

Obamamedia like the New York Times would be expected to use the materials to show the Bush administration’s foreign policies in the worst possible light, and the Obama administration’s policies in a highly favorable light.

Previous WikiLeak releases regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have been spun as supporting the Obama administration’s narrative that Bush had acted in an irresponsibly unilateral, militarist manner. The current selective leaks of State Department materials run through February 2010. Theyappear designed to show the futility of Bush policies towards our enemies and to elicit sympathetic media analyses emphasizing the virtues of Obama’s “multilateralist engagement” approach.

And that is precisely what the New York Times has done with its reporting on the first batch of leaked cables.

In explaining its decision to publish the diplomatic documents, the Times says that for it:

to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.

But what passes for “careful reporting” and “thoughtful analysis” at the New York Times is to blame the Bush administration for whatever has gone wrong and to give credit to the Obama administration for supposedly fixing the mistakes of the past. The leaked cables are used as a pretext to portray the Obama administration’s brand of multilateralism, such as the offer to Iran of unconditional negotiations, as a success.

This post was published on November 26, here.

Let’s dispense from the beginning with the idea that more “sternly-worded letters,” sanctions, condemnations, or talks (serious this time!) are the answer to North Korea’s dual declarations of war.  They have never worked, because when dealing with evil, you must speak to it in the language it understands.  Evil only understands violence.

And yes, it’s time for violence.

It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the pattern of history has borne out this truth:  there will never be peace so long as only one side is willing to abide by the rules for peace.

The pictures coming from Yeonpeyong, South Korea, are chillingly reminiscent of Pearl Harbor.  But did we get the “a date which will live in infamy” speech, which Pres. Roosevelt delivered only 1 day after the December 7, 1941 attack?

Nope.

Here’s what we got from the Eunuch in Chief:  “…too soon to discuss ways the U.S. military might deter the reclusive communist state from another strike.”

And from his lapdog Stephen Bosworth:  “I would not at all accept that our policy toward North Korea is a failure,” Bosworth said after flying to Seoul to meet South Korean officials. “They are a difficult interlocutor,” he said of the North, “but we’re not throwing our policy away.”

While the North’s uranium program is disappointing and provocative, he told reporters, it isn’t surprising. “This is not a crisis.”

The best lines are from PJ Crowley:  “…the Obama administration would take its time to assess the available information. He said the revelation of the new uranium enrichment facility would violate Pyongyang’s obligation to stop pursuing nuclear weapons but also may be what he called a ‘publicity stunt.’”

But my personal favorite came from State Department spokesman Mark Toner, who called North Korea’s actions “very, very bad.”

I guess their answer is to send NoKo to bed without any supper.  I did not know this level of denial existed outside of Egypt.

But Obama has a point; I mean, if the sinking of a South Korean navy ship and the killing of 46 South Koreans in March wasn’t enough for us to consider violence against the violent, 200 artillery shells and a lousy 2 deaths certainly won’t qualify.

When I wrote DA PLANE! DA PLANE!  When Did We Become Fantasy Island? last week, I was the only one who believed and warned that the LA missile was from North Korea.  I don’t deny that China aided and abetted, perhaps even supplied weaponry or the submarine.  That’s because China has long told us they would reign in NoKo, but the actions of both countries for over a decade now clearly indicate they were mere words.

I have said it over and over again in past articles:  when the sh*t hits the fan, China WILL back, support, and use North Korean aggression to achieve their goals as outlined in their manifesto.  Goals which have never, ever changed.

But don’t just believe me.  Let’s look at the clues of just the past 8 months that lead any reasonable, NON-psychotic person to that very conclusion.  (Hippies, avert your eyes…logic and truth are NOT your friends.)

Let’s dispense from the beginning with the idea that more “sternly-worded letters,” sanctions, condemnations, or talks (serious this time!) are the answer to North Korea’s dual declarations of war.  They have never worked, because when dealing with evil, you must speak to it in the language it understands.  Evil only understands violence.

And yes, it’s time for violence.

It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the pattern of history has borne out this truth:  there will never be peace so long as only one side is willing to abide by the rules for peace.

The pictures coming from Yeonpeyong, South Korea, are chillingly reminiscent of Pearl Harbor.  But did we get the “a date which will live in infamy” speech, which Pres. Roosevelt delivered only 1 day after the December 7, 1941 attack?

Nope.

Here’s what we got from the Eunuch in Chief:  “…too soon to discuss ways the U.S. military might deter the reclusive communist state from another strike.”

And from his lapdog Stephen Bosworth:  “I would not at all accept that our policy toward North Korea is a failure,” Bosworth said after flying to Seoul to meet South Korean officials. “They are a difficult interlocutor,” he said of the North, “but we’re not throwing our policy away.”

While the North’s uranium program is disappointing and provocative, he told reporters, it isn’t surprising. “This is not a crisis.”

The best lines are from PJ Crowley:  “…the Obama administration would take its time to assess the available information. He said the revelation of the new uranium enrichment facility would violate Pyongyang’s obligation to stop pursuing nuclear weapons but also may be what he called a ‘publicity stunt.’”

But my personal favorite came from State Department spokesman Mark Toner, who called North Korea’s actions “very, very bad.”

I guess their answer is to send NoKo to bed without any supper.  I did not know this level of denial existed outside of Egypt.

But Obama has a point; I mean, if the sinking of a South Korean navy ship and the killing of 46 South Koreans in March wasn’t enough for us to consider violence against the violent, 200 artillery shells and a lousy 2 deaths certainly won’t qualify.

When I wrote DA PLANE! DA PLANE!  When Did We Become Fantasy Island? last week, I was the only one who believed and warned that the LA missile was from North Korea.  I don’t deny that China aided and abetted, perhaps even supplied weaponry or the submarine.  That’s because China has long told us they would reign in NoKo, but the actions of both countries for over a decade now clearly indicate they were mere words.

I have said it over and over again in past articles:  when the sh*t hits the fan, China WILL back, support, and use North Korean aggression to achieve their goals as outlined in their manifesto.  Goals which have never, ever changed.

But don’t just believe me.  Let’s look at the clues of just the past 8 months that lead any reasonable, NON-psychotic person to that very conclusion.  (Hippies, avert your eyes…logic and truth are NOT your friends.)