Earlier this past week, President Donald J. Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un had their second historic summit to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Unfortunately, the talks fell apart when Kim Jong-un made a proposition that Trump thought was simply not good enough, prompting the President to walk away from the deal.
In specific, what the North Koreans wanted was full removal of all U.S.-led sanctions in exchange of shutting down nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, but not outside of that area. President Trump in a presser later said he was not willing to make a deal without the Norks committing to giving up their other secretive nuclear facilities and their missile and warhead programs.
“I’ve been saying very much from the beginning that speed is not that important to me,” Trump said before the summit. “Speed is not important to me. What is important is that we do the right deal.”
After the talks fell through, he again noted the importance of making the right deal, saying: “It wasn’t a good thing to be signing anything. We had some options, and at this time we decided not to do any of the options, and we’ll see where that goes… Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”
However, many (though surprisingly not all) on the Left criticized Trump for this and began calling the summit a collapse in talks and a disaster. Some on the Right also expressed criticism, though it’s very asinine to criticize Trump for NOT caving to Kim Jong-un.
Still, the Left makes it a point to call this summit an absolute failure, Trump a complete buffoon for failing to make a deal with the Norks (which they would’ve criticized had he made a bad deal with them anyway, so he can’t possibly win with them), and overall, they are repeating history.
Let’s not forget that President Ronald Reagan also held talks with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, in which Gorbachev demanded Reagan give up his Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan proposed by Reagan in 1983 of a missile defense system in space to counter nuclear weapons launched by the Soviet Union targeting America.
Gorbachev knew full-well that the Soviet Union’s economy simply couldn’t compete with America’s economy, so the Soviet Union couldn’t compete with Reagan’s “Star Wars” program. However, Reagan knew this as well and decided to walk away from the table, for which he was soundly criticized by the Left and the fake news media (before they were called the fake news media, but the name still applied).
The fake news media said Reagan messed up, that he was an idiot, that he was a national security threat, that those talks were a massive failure, etc. They are doing the exact same thing with Trump.
Now, there are some major differences that need to be pointed out between the Reagan-Gorbachev talks and the Trump-Kim talks.
First, there basically was a third, non-present party at the Hanoi summit this past week: China and Russia.
On its own, North Korea’s economy would absolutely collapse. They barely have anything as it is, only managing to stay afloat thanks to trades with Iran, Russia, and particularly China, because North Korea is essentially China’s puppet state.
The Reagan-Gorbachev summit featured a Soviet Union that essentially stood alone and was 5 years removed from completely collapsing (and the SDI is actually accredited for having been what finally destroyed the Soviet Union. The Communists couldn’t match the SDI and sank trying to). I don’t think North Korea will collapse in the next 5 years, especially if they are essentially being subsidized by China and Russia.
Second, and really the only thing that I can even remotely excuse the fake news media for, we are under no threat from North Korea in these talks, unlike with the Soviet Union. I can realistically see the fake news media being afraid of the Soviets launching nukes at America if Reagan is seen making some sort of mistake. Of course, they thought his entire presidency was a mistake, but Reagan walking away from a bad deal with the Soviets could realistically be seen as a scary thing, particularly if Gorbachev was furious with Reagan afterwards, as the media was reporting.
While Reagan, like Trump, very much had the upper hand going into the summit, the Soviet Union still posed a nuclear threat to America. North Korea, on the other hand, barely does. They JUST figured out how to keep their rockets from exploding mere seconds after launching them and do not have the nuclear capability America has.
Notice how all the threats from Kim Jong-un stopped pretty soon after Trump pushed back against him? Notice how North Korea stopped testing their nukes less than a year into Trump’s presidency (or around that time. It’s been over 400 days since North Korea tested a missile according to multiple sources)?
And another thing to notice is the fact that China outright said that they would not support North Korea if they made the first move against America.
So North Korea does not present anywhere close to the same threat that the Soviet Union presented. As a result, while I can realistically see why the fake news media might’ve been afraid of a Gorbachev retaliation of sorts, there is no reason for the fake news media to think that this summit essentially puts us back in square one with the Norks or this “failure” by Trump could present any sort of threat to the country.
Not that I’m seeing much of that from the fake news media, but it should be noted that the stakes are lower in these talks than they were in the Reagan-Gorbachev talks.
Finally, there is the Otto Warmbier tragedy in place in this summit. I do not know if the Soviet Union ever had a case similar to Otto Warmbier in which an American student was arrested in the Soviet Union and horrendously mistreated to the point that he was in a coma and died as a result. But that’s what the North Koreans did and something that was discussed at least somewhat in the summit.
The one criticism I have of Trump in this summit is his defense of Kim Jong-un when the dictator said he was not aware that this happened. However, I can absolutely understand why Trump wouldn’t outright attack or accuse Kim Jong-un in this situation.
Trump is trying to get the Norks to denuclearize. And while I do not like Trump’s defense of Little Rocket Man, who very much reminds me of Obama when he said he did not know about Hillary’s e-mails until he learned from the newspapers, what exactly is Trump supposed to do here?
Kim Jong-un doesn’t trust America and Trump all that much because he’s been raised not to trust Americans. Trump wants to get Kim Jong-un to trust him so that they can get deals done that are mutually beneficial. In order to do that, he wouldn’t call Kim a liar to his face (or even to the media), risking derailing and setting these talks back significantly over this issue, bad as it is.
In order to get anything substantial done with North Korea, as he promised during the campaign trail, he has to do things even he himself might not like. I seriously doubt he takes pride and pleasure in saying that he believes Kim Jong-un when he says that he was not aware of the Otto Warmbier situation. No person in his right mind would believe Kim Jong-un here, but Trump has to play nice if he wants to get things done. It’s what he often has to do when dealing with foreign leaders like Putin or Xi Jinping, etc. It may not be a pretty sight to see the President of the United States cozying up to them, but the alternative is nothing positive gets done at best and things worsen at worst.
If you want to get things done, you don’t attack the one other person who can help get things done, much as they might deserve it.
And it’s not like Kim Jong-un is not willing to appease Trump either. In a rare interview with press that is not North Korea’s, Kim Jong-un, through a translator, of course, said that he wouldn’t be in that summit if he wasn’t willing to give up his nukes.
Both sides want to make progress, obviously, so it’s not like Kim Jong-un is yanking Trump’s chain on this.
Now, one final thing I want to mention is that Trump himself is an intelligent businessman. He knows how to negotiate and knows when to walk away from a bad deal. Reagan was smart to walk away from that SDI deal and Trump is smart to walk away from this sanctions deal.
Because let’s be honest, had Trump signed a bad deal, as was honestly expected from the Left, he would’ve been attacked just as much for that as he is for having walked away, or maybe even more so. He simply cannot win with these people.
If he cured cancer, the Left would attack him for putting millions of doctors out of a job. The Left will always find a way to make a good move by Trump appear to be catastrophically bad for him. He will never win them over no matter what he does and he knows that pretty well at this point.
Better to have walked away from a bad deal than sign a bad deal just to make “progress”.
“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There is a very good reason I have ceased calling people who work in the media, at least mainstream media, “journalists”. A journalist is someone who digs into issues, asks tough but fair questions, and looks for the objective truth. They can be wrong, but they were looking for truth. People who work in the mainstream media, in this day and age, don’t look for the truth. They look to fabricate it.
So, when anyone from an MSM source writes an opinion piece about Trump that is neither overly critical of him nor overly supportive of him (I admit to doing the latter pretty much all of the time), it is seen as a breath of fresh air.
Grady Means wrote such an article on the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, while it’s not CNN, the NYT and other major MSM sources, given this is coming from the city where the phrase “full of crap” is taken literally, it makes sense to make certain presumptions about this California-based news source.
His article, titled “In defense of Trump’s foreign policy” notes the interesting way the POTUS goes about dealing with other nations in comparison to his predecessors (particularly Obama) and what results such dealings bring about to the security of not just the United States, but perhaps even the rest of the world.
In his second paragraph, he makes it known that he is not an apologist for Trump; that he did not vote for Trump nor Hillary. He notes: “I didn’t and still don’t think he has a firm grasp of history and global issues, and so I have no dog in this fight…”
So it is clear that Grady is not exactly a Trump supporter, but he is not a Leftist whacko either and can recognize good work when he sees it, even if it derives from questionably confusing tactics.
Grady writes: “As opposed to his immediate predecessors, he has not gotten us into a huge catastrophe in Iraq (in fact, he has not gotten us into any big shooting war). He has not gone on an embarrassing global apology tour to autocratic Muslim countries who treat women like dirt. He has not telegraphed our moves in Afghanistan and Iraq, emboldening our enemy and leading to loss of American lives. And, for the moment, he has stopped nuclear and missile expansion in North Korea as opposed to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, who all claimed to have stopped North Korea’s nuclear program. Not to ‘conflate’, but he is way ahead of his more articulate predecessors on many counts – the ones that actually count.”
Clearly, we can see Grady had some issues with the way Obama particularly dealt with foreign policy. That paragraph leads me to believe he is not a Leftist, seeing as pretty much all Leftists saw Obama’s apology tour not as embarrassing or degrading but as justice for decades of “stealing” and “cheating” from other countries.
Then, Grady makes the point that he is not entirely certain what Trump is thinking most of the time. “So what is Trump’s foreign policy? It appears to have something to do with positioning and making deals, although we would need to use IBM’s Watson computer running a million variations of game theory to fully understand his logic and approach. But that does not make it wrong. It just makes it confusing.”
He then details the way Trump treats Putin and Xi Jinping, the leaders of America’s two most notable enemies. He, in person, flatters them to no end and strokes their egos, calling them “good guys” and saying he trusts them in front of cameras.
Part of the reason the Left believes Trump is a traitor or a Russian spy is due to how he treats Putin and Xi Jinping in person. But they always leave out what Trump does in his policy, which is actually against the interests of Russia and China.
Grady notes that Trump’s actions seemingly contradict his personal words of flattery for the rival nations. One moment, Trump is stroking their egos, and the next, “he dramatically expands the defense budget (aimed at China and Russia), takes the advice of the command leadership to streamline military response and effectiveness, moves a good portion of the Pacific fleet to the coast of China and North Korea, and directly challenges China over the islands in the South China Sea. He TWICE draws a red line on chemical weapons in Syria and enforces it (as opposed to his feckless predecessor) with cruise missile attacks, and then attacks and kills Syrian and Russian forces committing genocide. He provides lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russians, creates a better balance between the Shiite and Sunni forces in the Middle East, re-strengthens our alliance with Israel, starts a mini trade skirmish with China to force a needed discussion on intellectual property theft that his predecessors were afraid to have, refocuses foreign policy on Asia and firms up the alliance with Japan.”
Grady goes on and on, listing off Trump’s foreign policy achievements such as expanding our energy resources by dealing with Saudi Arabia, “kicking NATO and EU leadership (which led his predecessors around by the nose) in the rear for their historically cynical and mercantilist policies, expands NATO funding and strengthens it significantly,” strengthening our cyberwarfare systems and strengthening the U.S. economy, which is a crucial factor in any dealings, with the strengthening of the value of the dollar.
Then, Grady openly admits: “I have no idea what the guy is thinking.”
That’s fine, but I would like to try my hand at explaining the Don’s logic. I think Trump, above other things, wants to remain unpredictable. Creating confusion is a part of remaining unpredictable. What I believe he intends to do is to make a deal every single time he meets with someone. He’s not going to meet with world leaders just to get a photo-op. His mission is to make a deal with them. Granted, that’s what world leaders tend to do anyway, but given that he wrote the book on making deals, he sees it as his number one priority above all else for the duration of the meeting.
And in these meetings, as I have said in his defense of the Helsinki meeting, he does not want to antagonize the opposing party. He would do the same with the Democrats if they were not so stuck up as to deny to give him anything he wants and then whine when he does things they don’t like. When he meets actual world leaders, he looks to make a deal because he feels that he really can. Frankly, we’ve seen everyone from Emmanuel Macron to Vladimir Putin to even Kim Jong-un be friendlier with Trump than the Democrats have.
The way Trump thinks is this: “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy”. In personal meetings, he does his best to be friendly unless he is attacked for no reason. He meets with our supposed “allies” in NATO and the EU and treats them the same way they have been treating us for ages: poorly. Then, he goes to our enemies and treats them nicely. He is sending our “allies” a message that he can find other allies apart from them. That he can befriend others and treat them well. That they have not been fair with the U.S. and he’s not taking crap from them.
He could easily be Europe’s greatest ally if they were making fair deals with us.
And at the end of the day, Trump, knowing that Russia and China are still our greatest rivals, enacts policy and actions that go against their best interests. That still stand up for American interests and for world interests.
It may be confusing, considering we likely have not seen any other President before him deal with foreign powers, enemies and allies alike, in the way that he does (I say likely because I can only realistically compare Trump to Obama and don’t know how the previous Presidents after our period of isolationism dealt with foreign powers).
However confusing it may be, it’s working like a charm. Iran, despite their threats and being “unimpressed” with Trump’s all-caps tweet against them, is crumbling with their currency imploding on them and their people visibly ticked off at the leadership. North Korea has recently been dismantling key launching facilities because of the June 12 summit. ISIS has been almost entirely wiped out, with no large terrorist attacks having occurred in America since Halloween of last year (there have been some smaller ones, but nothing ISIS can claim responsibility for).
So with all of these major threats to our nation either being destroyed (ISIS), denuclearized or defunded and on the brink of collapse, even Grady has to admit: “… I feel a lot safer today than I did under his past predecessors.”
In the span of less than two years, Donald Trump has destroyed the “JV” team, reached a deal to get North Korea to denuclearize and stopped funding the terror-sponsor that is Iran’s nuclear capabilities (though I fear Obama has done too much damage here).
Our biggest foreign threats, at this point, are horrendous tariffs from other nations imposed on American products, but that is being taken care of with a trade war that we are in prime position of winning, given our strong and improving economy.
Grady’s article overall is a breath of fresh air regarding coverage of Trump. Usually, people are either overly critical of him (on both sides, for some reason) or overly supportive of him (I do this largely because he does a lot of great things for this country that heavily outweigh any “character flaws” he may have and sins of the past such as Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal).
It is hard to find honest coverage of a sitting President, especially in today’s world of rhetoric and narrative over objective truth.
“Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Late this past Monday, President Donald Trump met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in a historic summit in Singapore. In this meeting, the North Korean dictator signed an agreement to begin working towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. While this is a good sign for the future, it’s not necessarily a guarantee.
Not to burst anyone’s bubble here, I am very happy with this summit, believe it to be a major achievement for Trump and the world – and I’ll explain why I think Trump did a lot of things right in his approach – and I am hopeful for the future for a number of reasons, but I simply must remain cautious regarding this deal.
Previous promises and deals have been made in the past (not quite like this one, however) in which the dictator of North Korea verbally promised to denuclearize. They have been promising that for ages but they never made good on that promise. Like with Republicans promising to end Obamacare, the North Korean dictators have promised to denuclearize in the past and failed to keep that promise.
However, part of the reason I can be hopeful about this being different is that Kim Jong-un might not be the same as his father and grandfather. Make no mistake, their whole family is horrible, but you occasionally have a generation of people who don’t want to follow the same guidelines set forth by their previous generation. I’ll still remain skeptical over this, since Kim Jong-un is still the leader of a nation that has enslaved its people and maintains an iron grip on their throats, but he could be different enough from his father and grandfather to actually seek peace and not start World War III.
Now, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro wrote an article about the summit either being a masterstroke by Trump or a bad debacle that may lead us nowhere. In this article, he wrote three reasons why we shouldn’t celebrate this whole thing just yet. The first thing is in regards to not getting any serious concessions from Kim. Like I mentioned above, there’s the possibility for this being different due to Kim’s new generation. But that isn’t everything I’m banking on for the success of this summit for the benefit of the future of the world.
I’m also banking on the fact that Kim got first-hand experience in dealing with Donald Trump before this summit.
One of Shapiro’s concerns with Trump’s attitude towards Kim Jong-un is that the leader of the free world is legitimizing a dictator and equating him with other world leaders. I don’t see it that way.
When it comes to Donald Trump, I have learned that he always thinks a few steps ahead. During this summit, President Trump said that it was a “great honor” to meet Kim, adding that Kim is “very talented” and “very smart”, as well as a “very good negotiator.” He gave credit to the dictator in making the Olympics a “tremendous success by agreeing to participate.” He ended by saying that “his country does love him. His people, you see the fervor.”
The only thing I did not like about what Trump said is that Kim’s people love him. They love him in the same way that a captured person with Stockholm’s syndrome loves their captors. He’s a brutal dictator that forces fake love out of his people, else they go to the gulags. However, while Ben Shapiro sees this as a pathetic show of diplomacy, I see it as something entirely different. I see it as “this is who I can be to you if you play ball.”
What do I mean? After Kim Jong-un started making threats against the U.S. and its allies, Donald Trump pushed back with equal or greater force. He showed Kim that he is not someone he wants as an enemy. He showed Kim that he is not spineless like Obama. That the POTUS was done bending over backwards to appease allies and enemies alike.
In this summit, Trump acted as though he and Kim Jong-un were best friends. I don’t see that as a bad thing whatsoever. The message Trump is sending, in my opinion, is that he can be Kim’s worst enemy (as evidenced by his behavior in the past) or Kim’s best friend. Treat him and the U.S. right, with respect and honesty, and Trump can be your biggest friend and supporter. But treat him and the U.S. wrong, with disrespect and lying about these promises, and Trump can be your worst nightmare.
This is the way he treats everyone. Canada, Europe, Mexico, Russia, whatever. If you remember, Trump met Kim shortly after leaving the G7 summit. He showed more respect and friendliness to Kim than to America’s allies. Again, I don’t see this as a bad thing.
During the G7 summit, he showed that if our friends aren’t fair with us, we won’t be fair with them. During the NK summit, he showed that if our enemies are friendly with us, we will be friendly with them.
This is demonstrated by the tariffs Trump has imposed on Canada and other countries. This is the kind of diplomacy that we like seeing from Trump.
Now, returning to the North Korean dictator, like I said in the title, I shall remain hopeful but cautious.
Kim Jong-un hasn’t shown much in regards to his trustworthiness. He did promise to cease nuclear ballistic missile tests until the summit, and he stayed true to that promise. However, Reagan puts it best in these sort of situations: “Trust, but verify.”
In reality, we have little to no reason to trust Kim, but we should. However, we should also ensure that he does stay true to this new deal. And that is something that I can be certain Trump will employ as well.
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Trump made the decision to pull out of the Iran nuke deal, which sent the Left for a loop. As an example, the New York Times attacked the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not being there when Trump made the announcement. Because I guess the President needed his hands to be held by his Secretary of State as he was giving the announcement.
The Failing New York Times ran the story titled: “At a Key Moment, Trump’s Top Diplomat Is Again Thousands of Miles Away.” The story reads as follows: “Senior State Department officials were momentarily speechless on Tuesday when asked why Mr. Pompeo did not delay his trip by a day to be in Washington during Mr. Trump’s Iran deal announcement.”
Again, why would Pompeo being there even matter? So he might witness it? He certainly wasn’t going to stop it. Why would it matter? For no other reason than it makes Trump look bad… In the Left's mind. I mean, that’s what the MSM is always striving to do, so they are making this to be a far bigger deal than it really is.
Pompeo not being there during the announcement isn’t a big deal. You know what is a big deal? Obama not getting support from HIS OWN PARTY when signing the Iran deal in the first place. Which is, by the way, the reason Trump can so easily pull out of the Iran deal. No one in Congress ratified it and made it a treaty. Even the Iranians never signed it, it was just a promise from Obama to give hundreds of billions of America’s dollars to help Iran “build bridges and roads”. Obama was pretty much on his own regarding the deal. THAT is a big deal.
But Pompeo not being present is not a big deal. And considering what he was actually doing, that story only makes the New York Times look even worse.
What was Pompeo doing, exactly? Well, it really is no secret today. He was in North Korea negotiating the release of three Americans detained in North Korean prisons. I’m hesitant to call it “negotiating”, since we didn’t really give anything in return. Unlike Obama, who also said the Iran deal was to free some American hostages in Iran, Trump and Pompeo didn’t have to give up a king’s ransom and the safety of the civilized world for these Americans.
So excuse Mr. Pompeo for not attending something he had nothing to do with while he goes to rescue three Americans detained in a horrible place. His fault, I guess.
But still, I do want to point out how ridiculous that story was in the first place. Ignore the fact that Pompeo was rescuing American hostages in North Korea. He could’ve been sitting at home playing Call of Duty for all it mattered. His absence doesn’t mean anything in the long-run. But why was this a story published by the NYT to look as though it was a scandalous thing? Because that’s just how they treat the Trump administration.
Seriously, the NYT (and the MSM as a whole, really) could make Trump choosing to drink Sprite over Coca-Cola seem like a disqualifying factor for presidency. Well, that’s not entirely true. They can TRY and write stories about how disqualifying it is but they couldn’t really make most people believe it.
Even for their own readers, there is a limit to how ridiculous and bombastic their stories can be. If they ran a story saying that Trump is a Martian from the year 5400, I would find it hard to believe that their readers would start thinking that too.
Don’t misunderstand, there could be a few cooks who would believe literally anything, but the majority of their readers would almost certainly not believe that… at least not literally.
But returning to the eye-rolling NYT piece, even Fox News took note of the idiotic Trump-bashing article, saying: “The story, written by Gardiner Harris, focused on Trump’s top diplomat being absent when Trump ‘made what could be the most significant diplomatic announcement of his presidency’ by pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement… The absence of Mr. Pompeo and other top State Department officials left perplexed European diplomats privately complaining that they were having trouble getting answers from Washington.”
So the reason this is supposed to be a big deal is because some European Globalists were whining that they were not getting many answers from Washington? Why would that matter at all? This was a deal between Obama (one can hardly say this was a deal involving the U.S., really) and Iran. There was no third party involved. To what questions did they seek answers?
“Why did Trump pull out of the deal?” Because it’s a horrendous deal that only strengthens Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons in the future and become an even bigger threat to the region and to the world. They hate Israel, have quarrels with Saudi Arabia, and detest the Western world altogether. Why did we pull out? Because it was a stupid deal in the first place that should never have even happened and only happened through Obama’s dictatorial style of issuing executive orders for things he wanted when Congress told him “no”. He was, in essence, a small child with a powerful pen.
“How was Trump able to pull out of the deal in this manner?” Because Obama signed the deal in the same manner. Trump would not have been able to pull us out of the deal like this if it had been ratified by Congress. Because Obama issued an executive order to make this deal, it was effectively a deal signed with a pencil. As easy as one can write something with a pencil, one can erase something written with a pencil.
This is much in the same way Trump has every right to get rid of DACA. DACA was unconstitutional in the first place and was issued via executive order. That’s why it’s ridiculous for a judge to say that Trump can’t get rid of it the way he is.
Because the Iran deal was never ratified, it doesn’t have to go through Congress to be rid of. And even if Trump decided that this matter should go through Congress, Congress would’ve most likely agreed to pull out as well. Like I said, Obama couldn’t even find much support within his own party. People like Chuck Schumer, as scummy as they may be on other issues, still tend to somewhat favor Israel. The Iran deal only further threatened Israel. So today, even if Congress were to have voted on it, it’s entirely likely that at least a decent number of Democrats might’ve voted to get rid of the deal.
But since Obama was a dictator and was never opposed, he could sign the deal without much trouble. Only problem is that future Presidents could do much the same, even regarding EO’s signed by previous Presidents. Frankly, that’s part of the reason Trump has been so successful so quickly in rebuilding the nation.
After the Democrats lost their supermajority in Congress, Obama refused to make any bipartisan deals with the Republicans. He didn’t want to negotiate or give anything up. So his legislation was largely left up to his pen. And he was able to do that because Republicans were not going to oppose him on that, fearing backlash from the media.
But because Obama was destroying the country by pen and paper, Trump can rebuild the country in the same way. The trick is finding a way to make it permanent, or at least tougher to undo.
Regardless, I will end this article by laughing at the NYT’s pathetic attempt at smearing Trump and Pompeo. If this is the best the Left can offer at this point in time, the Left’s blue wave will be as threatening as a bath’s waves.
“Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Before we begin this article, I’d like to mention two things: first, I’ll take this sort of thing with a grain of salt. I don’t really trust the North Koreans, but I am willing to trust the South Koreans, who are giving this development. I don’t know if such a thing will take place some time soon, but I’ll hold back on celebrating anything until actions take place that will lead to the Norks denuclearizing.
Second, while I’m taking this with a grain of salt, it’s also important to point out what an unbelievable achievement this is. Just talking about this is an achievement in itself. For decades, North Korea has threatened to wipe South Korea off the face of the Earth, has threatened to attack the West and start WWIII. So for this sort of story to be coming up whatsoever is truly noteworthy.
The New York Times (who is surprisingly covering this story) reported: “North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has told South Korean envoys that his country is willing to begin negotiations with the United States on abandoning its nuclear weapons and that it would suspend all nuclear and missile tests while it is engaged in such talks, South Korean officials said on Tuesday.”
Again, I’ll be a bit wary of this, but if true, this is a monumental achievement for the Trump Administration. Not that the MSM or the Left will give him any credit. If anything, they’d run stories that read “Despite Trump’s brutish behavior towards North Korea, Kim Jong-un decided to be the bigger man and is willing to negotiate a deal to denuclearize.” If North Korea does actually denuclearize, this is the sort of story the media will write, just you wait. Either that, or stories that only credit President Moon Jae-in rather than Trump.
But as it stands, the NYT is merely reporting on what South Korean officials have said themselves. The report continues: “During the envoys’ two-day visit to Pyongyang, the North’s capital, which ended on Tuesday, the two Koreas also agreed to hold a summit meeting between Mr. Kim and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea on the countries’ border in late April, Mr. Moon’s office said in a statement.”
“’The North Korean side clearly stated its willingness to denuclearize,’ the statement said. ‘It made it clear that it would have no reason to keep nuclear weapons if the military threat to the North was eliminated and its security guaranteed.’”
Do you know how I take that last statement? That Trump’s “brutish” behavior against the Norks has been working. Think of it this way: the Obama Administration never made any strong retaliatory remarks against North Korea. The Norks have been threatening to start WWIII for a long time now, as I said. Obama never made it seem as though he would strike back against anything the Norks did. He never pushed back against any threats made by Little Rocket Man, but rather, he would try to appease him and be rather submissive.
What I’m saying here is that, before Trump, there was no “military threat” against North Korea. If this is the basis for which he wants to denuclearize, that means he’s truly become afraid of the U.S.
Kim Jong-un is a dog with all bark and no bite, if he’s serious about this. He had free-reign to make wild threats to anyone while Obama was President. With Trump, he’s actually faced some opposition that will not back down. If he’s serious about this, it means that he has finally wised up and realized that Trump is not b.s.-ing him. If Little Rocket Man attacks anyone, the U.S. will retaliate. And the Chinese have already said that if North Korea strikes first and the U.S. retaliates, they will not help out North Korea…
…Though, to be fair, if the U.S. retaliates, there’d be no more North Korea left to help out.
Regardless, Little Rocket Man has seemingly realized what a dangerous position he is in going toe-to-toe against a United States led by someone who’s not afraid to push the big red button if he absolutely needs to.
Now, let’s return to the NYT report: “If the statement is corroborated by North Korea, it would be the first time Mr. Kim has indicated that his government is willing to discuss giving up nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States. Until now, North Korea has said its nuclear weapons were not for bargaining away.”
“’The North expressed its willingness to hold a heartfelt dialogue with the United States on the issues of denuclearization and normalizing relations with the United States,’ the statement said. ‘It made it clear that while dialogue is continuing, it will not attempt any strategic provocations, such as nuclear and ballistic missile tests.’”
Again, I will take all of this with a grain of salt. It, so far, seems too good to be true. I never thought that North Korea would ever be willing to denuclearize. Just writing about this is shocking enough. I don’t know what will come of this. It could succeed and the world will be a bit more peaceful, or it could fail and we’ll continue to assert our strength as a nation to deter the Norks from trying anything funny. I’m hoping for the former. And while I’m more of a realist, I can’t help but to hope for the best here.
The South Korean officials who met with the Norks are scheduled to visit D.C. in order to brief Trump about the meeting. Trump tweeted: “We will see what happens!” Seemingly, he’s also hoping for the best while keeping himself grounded and in reality.
But do you realize how tough a blow this must be to the Left? To even be talking about it, much less possibly achieving it? The Left has been panicking, telling us that Trump will be the reason North Korea launches nukes at us and he will bring about the end of the world. Well, according to this, he’s gotten closer to achieving world peace than the last few Presidents before him.
Now, I’m not so naïve as to believe world peace could actually happen. For as long as there is evil on this Earth, there will not be peace, at least not sustained peace. For as long as evil roams this world, peace will almost certainly not be achieved. And if achieved, it would certainly not last forever. It only takes one evil person with a plan and ideology to throw the world into chaos. How likely is it for WWII to have started if Hitler never rose to power?
His invasion of Poland is what effectively threw the world into a Second World War. Had President Paul von Hindenburg not appointed Hitler to be Chancellor of Germany, thus leading to Hitler’s rise to Fuhrer of the Third Reich, would there have been a WWII, at least in that same era? Probably not. But anyone else could’ve taken Hitler’s place. While Germany descended into utter National Socialism, Italy and Russia well already well into their fascist and communist dictatorships. Either Mussolini or Stalin could’ve started WWII, albeit for different reasons.
As I said, it only takes one evil man with a plan and an ideology to throw the world into chaos. If there ever is world peace, I can guarantee with 100% certainty that it won’t last. Even if it manages to last a generation, future generations would eventually forget the reason for the world to unite and their greed might drive them to war. Due to Man’s very nature, as long as mankind is walking on Earth, there will be evil to some degree.
But regardless of whether world peace will ever be achieved, this is a potential good step forward. And I have no doubt that the Left is seething at this, knowing it’s happening during Trump’s time and largely due to Trump’s strong stance against the communist dictator.
“When the Lord takes pleasure in anyone’s way, he causes their enemies to make peace with them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A couple of weeks ago, while we were striking a Syrian air base, the president met with the Chinese president. I won’t go into the details of the meeting, but there are some key takeaways that we see a couple of weeks after the meeting.
The main one being that China in essence ordered North Korea not to test another one of their long range missiles. And the Norks obeyed like good little dogs. But it beckons the question, why, after all this time, did China tell North Korea to not test another one of their missiles?
The answer is simple: the Chinese respect our new president. Going into the meeting, Trump had already ordered the strike on Assad’s air base in Syria in retaliation to his chemical attack on his own people. And coming out of the meeting, Trump said that he believes “lots of very potentially bad problems will go away.”, leading us to believe Trump was able to make tremendous progress with the Chinese government. During the meeting, Trump highlighted the U.S.’s position of strength “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.” Trump said in an interview with the Financial Times after the meeting.
During the meeting, Trump showed that he’s not Obama, and that he’s someone that they can’t take lightly, without showing himself to be an enemy to them. He displayed strength and leadership, as evidenced by the fact that the Chinese president essentially turned on Kim Jong-un and told him to not test another missile. This means the Chinese president views Trump with far more respect than he did Obama. Under Obama, the Chinese president would never have told the Norks to cool it with their missiles.
Now, you may recall that North Korea did indeed launch a missile that pathetically blew up mere seconds after launch. While that part is true, that was not the test Kim Jong-un had planned. That launch was simply in celebration of North Korea’s founding. In essence, it was the world’s biggest and most expensive firecracker.
But reading the headline once again, what does this have to do with the Left? EVERYTHING! It has everything to do with them! Because, first of all, the Chinese president never showed this kind of respect towards Obama. Secondly, Obama never came into a meeting in a position of strength. Obama was the king of belittling the U.S, particularly with foreign nations. Trump is the precise OPPOSITE of Obama. And the fact that the Chinese president has so much respect for Trump that he told one of China’s closest allies to back off a little says a lot.
What this tells you about Trump is that he’s no ordinary president, as we knew he wouldn’t be. I can only think of one other president that would be capable of doing that with China and that’s Reagan. We all know that President Reagan was far more of a patriot than many other presidents we’ve had in recent history. Other presidents would be advised to not come in in a position of strength, because that might give off the wrong impression, one that says we’re better than them, stronger than them. But these two presidents knew and know better.
But the impression the Chinese president got is that the era of Obama’s wimpy and soft policies with no backlash or military action is over. China saw that Syria pushed Obama’s “red line” multiple times with no consequence. And they saw Syria try it again during Trump’s time and were given one hell of a warning: Obama’s gone now, back off. Coincidentally, that seems to be the message China sent to the North Koreans.
And if the Chinese president respects Trump so much, what does this tell the Left? The Left sees China as America’s goal. China is a utopia for them. It’s what every country should strive for: the elites rule and everyone is equal. No one’s outstanding or special. No one’s better than anyone else. Everyone is the same. But if the leader of this utopia respects the very being the Left considers to be the definition of manure, what does it mean for them? Likely, they’ll try to deny it, saying something along the lines of “China is just being polite because they’re not like that disgusting pig named Trump.” Or “The only reason China did that is to thank Obama for his magnificent 8 years in office.” Or some other stupid nonsensical excuse like that. We'll see what they say of this, if anything at all.
Ultimately, it seems there was someone else in that meeting too. He wasn’t American or Chinese, but from another place entirely. God attended that meeting and directed Trump’s steps. He was and is with Trump. God helped Trump win the White House so that he may be able to accomplish these very things.
“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.”
Author: Freddie M.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...