Would DeNiro have got the same rapturous applause at the Tony’s for saying “F&ck Trump” if it were held this evening? Most likely answer is yes. Hollywood and the liberal mainstream media outlets can’t wipe the bitter taste from their mouth that the man they despise so much has done something not seen since Reagan and the fall of the Berlin Wall. While details of any negotiations are sketchy it is without a doubt a milestone in history.
They say “it takes one to know one.” Even if it holds true that both are narcissistic madmen, that’s what it took to achieve these talks. This is the power of unpredictability. Unlike the gutless and all too predictable diplomacy of recent decades, expediency has not been put before principle. It took a horses’s head in the bed to make Kim realize that he must reform. Better to do so on terms that are in his favour than face military reprisals. Sometimes being the most powerful military in the world has its advantages. After all Al Capone said, “I grew up in a tough neighborhood where I learnt you could get much further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.”
How political elitism has been exposed since he took office. While Trump has had a volatile revolving door in his own administration, how telling to see the smiles wiped off the face of G-7 cronies. Instead of working for the greater good of constituents they seem insistent on padding future careers in bodies they have set up for life outside politics. Spineless and literally “brow” beaten.
Unconventional, brash, rude, petulant, moody or whatever else the liberals want to rightly or wrongly categorize Trump as, DeNiro would be well advised that the global audience witnessing Trump shaking hands with Kim are probably overwhelmingly applauding the President indirectly saying “F*ck DeNiro”
Will liberal media go back to reruns of Stormy Daniels or admit they have been so wrong? Expect belittling articles downplaying the significance of these talks. Whatever they scribe the script for the 2020 re-election is already written, even if Bill Maher gets his wish for a recession.
Given it is the Marxist state of Victoria we should not be surprised, yet the government funded University of Melbourne allows an artistic performance that requires “paying” white customers access on the basis of signing acknowledgement of white privilege. The Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen writes,
‘On Saturday afternoon, about 30 people waited to enter a theatre in the centre of a big, cosmopolitan city for a matinee session of a modern dance performance. A voice in the lobby invited people of colour, brown people, indigenous people and members of the Asian diaspora to enter the theatre. The white people were forced to stay behind, denied entry on the basis of their skin colour. The same people were then harangued for their skin colour by four young women aiming a volley of accusations at them about their white privilege….After this, the people with white skin were invited into the theatre, but only if they first signed something acknowledging agreement with a particular set of views…
…Race-based identity politics in the 21st century is toxic because it is untethered from the fine aims of the civil rights movement of the 20th century. Back then, activists fought for equal rights for people regardless of colour, creed or sexuality. Today we have returned to a dark place of defining people according to inherited characteristics such as skin colour. Isn’t that what racists do?”
Somehow the radical left believes that in today’s world of inclusivity and diversity that they push so hard for allows for a caveat emptor with respect to blatant exclusion, identity based and resent ridden ideologies. The types of teachings where students are marked down for not using appropriate gender neutral language (compelled language) rather than the quality of the content and reasoned argument (which no doubt must gel with the radical leftist professors).
The Holy Trinity of diversity (not of thought, but sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity), equity (not of opportunity but outcome) and inclusion (quotas not based on ability) will somehow level the playing field by their activism. We as taxpayers are underwriting this Marxist rubbish. We need not remind ourselves of the success of such application of said ideologies in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela or Cambodia.
The $600mn+ taxpayer funded University of Melbourne’s motto is Postera Cescam Laude, which is Latin for “We shall grow in the esteem of future generations.” It is not clear whether the founders of the UoM had Marxist theories at the forefront of their minds in 1853. Growing the esteem of future generations was not to come by cutting down those whose passions as individuals cause them to strive for greatness. Yet the radical leftists believe esteem comes not from effort but from allocation.
On May 25th, CM wrote after the spat between Trump & Kim, “It will be China sending Kim back to the meeting table with Trump because it will ultimately be managing the protectorate after any peace is signed for its own geopolitical aims. China does NOT want US friendly forces on its border. Best keep the buffer by getting Kim to accept a lesser deal where he gets to keep his life. For a man in his early 30s he can either choose to go down fighting or see out his days with the embezzled billions and bevy of beauties in his concubine.”
Shouldn’t the fact that China provided Kim Jong Un with a “private” jet to get to the summit speak volumes about who his interests represent? While the US State Dept might quibble over minibar expenses at his hotel in Singapore, President Xi is showing he’s truly behind the outcomes from North Korea’s side. The Chairman is but a puppet.
China only wants reunification if that means US Forces leave the South. That is unlikely to be on the cards so Kim can de-nuclearise and clutch to the bosom of Xi.
As CM wrote back in August 2017, China will turn North Korea into a puppet state. Kim knows it is best to hitch his wagon to the world’s most ruthless regional power in coming decades. He only needs to bear 6.5 years of Trump. President Xi will be around for decades.
Should Japan just close its eyes? The Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) has had to scramble jets almost 3x a day to intercept Chinese PLAAN aircraft flirting with Japan’s sovereign borders according to the 2017 Defense White Paper. Since 2007, the JSADF has seen an almost 30-fold jump in activity. With respect to the disputed Senkaku Islands, the PLAAN and PLAAF have been operating drones “inside” Japanese sovereign territory. While Japan can take some comfort with the US Forces stationed throughout the country, China’s increasing belligerence in the region is obvious.
With respect to China, the JMoD wrote,
“China is believed to be making efforts to strengthen its asymmetrical military capabilities to prevent military activities by other countries in the region, denying access and deployment of foreign militaries to its surrounding areas (“Anti-Access/Area-Denial” [“A2/AD”] capabilities), and recently, pursuing large-scale military reforms designed to build its joint operations structure with actual combat in mind. In addition, China is rapidly expanding and intensifying its activities both in quality and quantity in the maritime and aerial domains in the region, including in the East and South China Seas.
In particular, China has continued to take assertive actions with regard to issues of conflicts of interest in the maritime domain, as exemplified by its attempts to change the status quo by coercion, and has signaled its position to realize its unilateral assertions without making any compromises. As for the seas and airspace around Japan, Chinese government ships have routinely and repeatedly intruded into Japan’s territorial waters, and China has engaged in dangerous activities that could cause unintended consequences, such as its naval vessel’s direction of fire control radar at a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) destroyer, the flight of fighters abnormally close to SDF aircraft, and its announcement of establishing the “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)” based on its own assertion, thereby infringing the freedom of overflight.
In the South China Sea, China has continued to take unilateral actions that change the status quo and heighten tension, including large-scale and rapid reclamation of multiple features, establishment of outposts there, and their use for military purposes, based on China’s unique assertions which are incompatible with the existing international order, and has made steady efforts to create a fait accompli. In addition, a Chinese fighter is alleged to have flown abnormally close to and conducted an intercept of a U.S. Forces aircraft. These Chinese activities represent serious security concerns of the region encompassing Japan, and of the international community.
For this reason, China is urged to further increase transparency regarding its military and enhance its compliance with international norms. It is a key task to further strengthen mutual understanding and trust by promoting dialogue and exchanges with China, and make further progress on measures to build trust, such as measures to avoid and prevent unintended consequences in the maritime domain.”
Sadly Japan is unlikely to get the answers it wants to hear. So as trivial as submitting to Chinese pressure to change an in flight magazine map might seem to many, the bigger picture is what is happening on the security front. As Churchill once said, “you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth!”
On a flight back to Tokyo this week a copy of The Economist was in the magazine rack. A subscription had long been cancelled for its plunge into yet another group think rag. A long time ago, the magazine was regarded as the go to for objective journalism from economics, geopolitics through to specials. Now it is little more than a cheerleader. A chance was given to see if things had changed. If anything it has gotten worse. This article on the peace deal only reinforces the pathetic bias and wish that Trump losing is preferable to any alternative including world peace.
For no sooner had Trump sent a letter calling the peace talks with North Korea off, The Economist was writing about humiliation. They’ve got to be kidding?
While even the blind can see any postponement is a setback, it is not without reason. Trump has made absolutely clear from the beginning – ‘peace or business as usual. Your move Kim.’
This started when Kim Jong-Un fired angry remarks when long scheduled war games were commenced by the South. If one wanted to gift the upper hand to the North Koreans in the negotiations then stopping annual war games would be a great way to do it. It was tactical.
Glass jaw or not, firing salvos at Vice President Pence or standing up US envoys is not conduct becoming peace talks. Trump’s letter sounded somewhat childish with respect to comparing arsenals again but the point being made to Kim is clear – “we’re not playing. Put up or shut up!”
This is exactly what you’d want Trump to do. Not some Obama era red line which crossed carries no consequences. This is exactly why there is so much geopolitical instability thanks to 8 years of utter weakness in foreign policy. This isn’t about humiliation at all. This about a world leader who is using clear military and economic strengths at the negotiating table with a dictator who 6 months ago threatened to nuke Guam. We should not want Trump to appease at any cost which we’ve seen throughout history carry devastation.
The reason Kim was drawn to the negotiating table was because China realized the new sheriff wasn’t bluffing. Why was Beijing Kim’s first state visit before shaking hands on the 38th parallel with President Moon?? He was seeking assurances from the other dictator on staying in power lest booking a plot of land in exile in Sichuan province if things require him to step down.
Kim needs to realize that the ‘throwing toys out of the cot strategy’ of decades past no longer works. He was hoping to get an apology from Trump along with better concessions ahead of the negotiations. Trump essentially told him the ‘art of the deal’ in that the status quo remains if he doesn’t wake up to harsh realities. Sending home three American hostages was a token.
It will be China sending Kim back to the meeting table with Trump because it will ultimately be managing the protectorate after any peace is signed for its own geopolitical aims. China does NOT want US friendly forces on its border. Best keep the buffer by getting Kim to accept a lesser deal where he gets to keep his life. For a man in his early 30s he can either choose to go down fighting or see out his days with the embezzled billions and bevy of beauties in his concubine.
To take The Economist at its journalistic integrity, it will be secretly happy if North Korea doesn’t sue for peace because any victory for Trump is something it can’t swallow. For the magazine to have that level of disingenuous editorial speaks volumes about turning a once prestigious brand into a tabloid. Reading through the blurb of The Economist’s 2017 Annual Report and the trends tell the story.
June 12. Kim & Trump meet in Singapore. How the North Korean dictator will look in utter awe at how a city state of 5.6mn can build such a vibrant and prosperous economy with no resources of any kind other than grit, perseverance and common sense pro-business policy. The splendor of the skyline, architecture and cleanliness. Singapore will also get billions of people tuned in to the hours of global press coverage and news reruns. Surely Anderson Cooper will prop in front of the Merlion or Marina Bay Sands to convey the live coverage. How can Singapore Airlines not win from this global media freebie for tourism. One would imagine the place they sit down and talk will become a cult fixture for people to say they went to the spot where history was made.
Yet Singapore didn’t win the contest as a fluke. It has shown itself to be the outstanding beacon of independence in the region. Mongolia was a long shot and Switzerland would have caused poor old Kim to take a fuel stop. Let’s hope we get a peaceful resolution and maybe then we see Trump’s approval rating surge beyond the latest reading of 51% (Rasmussen). Ignore the noise around the midterms in Nov 2018. Iran is a separate issue and scrapping that deal was an election promise.