The white-bearded guy with the ill-fitting red suit and the ample belly has officially joined the social media craze. The North Pole's most famous resident Santa Claus has his own Twitter account and he has been busy, unleashing a snowstorm of tweets that have raised a few bushy eyebrows.
In an exclusive interview with Drew's Diatribe, Mr. Claus revealed he turned to social media after Fake News outlets skewered him for not releasing his federal tax return. "The Washington Post claimed I paid no taxes despite my yuge income from licensing my image," Mr. Claus said.
Dressed in his familiar lumpy red suit, Mr. Claus said he had no income in 2016 because a couple of his newly opened North Pole golf courses went belly up. "As a result of the losses, my deductions offset my income. So my tax bill was zero. Get over it Jeff Bezos," Mr. Claus harrumphed.
Bezos is the billionaire owner of The Washington Post and is the chief executive at online retailer giant Amazon, which has refused to use reindeer to deliver its packages.
"I knew if I wanted the real story to get out, I had to bypass the news media and talk directly to the little people and I'm not just talking about my elves," Mr. Claus said.
Here are some of the tweets Mr. Claus posted during the most recent 11 months:
@realSantaClaus 26 December 2016
The establishment is going crazy because some nosy reporter discovered that I left Presidential Inauguration mugs under a few million trees on Christmas. MY BAD! I didn't have time to remove Hillary Clinton's image. It was NOT deliberately mean-spirited. WHO KNEW?
@realSantaClaus 14 February 2017
Happy Valentine's Day to Harvey Weinstein, who visited the North Pole today handing out candy to all the little girls. A few of the lucky ones got invitations for a screen test in Harry's office in Hollywood. WHAT A GUY!
@realSantaClaus 29 June 2017
The FBI arrived at the North Pole today to question me about the email server stowed in the basement of the toy workshop. I didn't know I had a server. WHO put that in there? I suspect Rudolf because he started a blog this year called, "Red Nose This You Giant Tool." He needed a big server to handle all the emailed comments.
@realSantaClaus 22 July 2017
Some of you SNOWFLAKES have taken to social media to demand I rip down the North Pole statue of St. Nicholas, who inspired the legend of Santa Claus. You claim he was a product of white privilege. Some of you even blame him for the Civil War in America. We don't have a Democratic Party mayor in North Pole. I'm the mayor. The statue STAYS.
@realSantaClaus 13 August 2017
Some guy named Putin from Russia showed up unannounced today. He practically swooned when Mrs. Claus opened the front door. (She looks pretty hot in red, if I may say so myself.) This big shot tried to get me to vote twice in the American presidential election to help his candidate win. ILLEGAL! Except in Illinois, where even out-of-state reindeer can vote twice.
@realSantaClaus 9 September 2017
During a trial run for Christmas, my sleigh almost was destroyed by a North Korean ballistic missile as we flew over Japan. It splashed harmlessly in the ocean but it caused a couple of reindeer to lose their racks. A lump of coal for the LITTLE ROCKET MAN this year. And for his barber.
@realSantaClaus 8 October 2017
Have you seen the stock market? The Dow is going crazy. North Pole Railroad is up nearly 150 percent. I am having to remake the Monopoly Game this Christmas because real estate value is skyrocketing. We also will need to print more play money, just like the Federal Reserve.
@realSantaClaus 30 October 2017
Dancer and Blizten were both accused of sexual assault today by Prancer. They immediately resigned from the reindeer team. That makes four reindeer I have lost. At this rate, poor old Rudolf will be pulling my giant sleigh by himself. Good thing he settled the harassment suit with Vixen by tapping the North Pole hush fund.
@realSantaClaus 11 November 2017
Working on my Naughty List for this Christmas. Some of the folks who are sure to make it include Al Franken, Andrea Ramsey, John Conyers, Joe Barton, Gloria Allred, Jim Comey and Robert Mueller. Permanent names on the list every year are Scourge and everyone who works at FAKE NEWS outlet CNN.
@realSantaClaus 22 November 2017
Lots of you have pleaded with me to stop tweeting. You think it tarnishes my image because you consider it un-Santa like. But presidents do it. Pro athletes do it. Actors do it. Heck, even the talentless Kardashians do it. Before Twitter, I was just some fat guy who hung out with stinky reindeer. Now LOOK at me!
@realSantaClaus 24 December 2017
It's snowing and the reindeer are eager to show off their perfect landings on the rooftops of homes all over the world. MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone. And if you don't believe in me, Santa Claus, then I feel sorry for you. Even grownups could use a little Christmas magic.
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Monday, December 18, 2017
CBO: Too Often The Numbers Do Lie
Your local weather forecaster has better odds of being right than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Despite its lousy prediction record, the media continues to tout the CBO's estimates as unimpeachable numbers not subject to skepticism. Even a meterologist knows better.
The budget office issues an annual deficit prediction 12-months ahead of the fiscal year, yet it errs by billions of dollars. Its yearly economic growth models are just as inaccurate. CBO predicted 3.2 percent GDP from 2010-2016. Actual GDP performance was 2.1 percent, a yawning disparity.
Notwithstanding its slipshod record, the CBO claims to be "strictly objective and impartial" in its role of producing 'independent' analysis of issues to support the Congressional budget process. Lawmakers are supposed to look to the CBO to provide the cost to taxpayers of proposed legislation.
From its beginning in 1975, the CBO has clung to antiquated scoring methodologies that skew the results and raise questions about the accuracy of its forecasts. Like many government agencies, the CBO has resisted calls to change its calculus to fit today's economic realities.
Many of the CBO's problems can be traced to its founding. The creation of the CBO was a Democratic political ploy to wrest control of the budget process from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which reported to President Nixon at the time.
With lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 birthing its own budget agency to weaken the OMB and to jigger cost estimates to fit its agenda. Democrats named a director, who built a team of party loyalists.
Since its infancy, the CBO has been the epitome of the Deep State, a reference to government employees who influence federal agency policies to reflect their own political views. Even if the media uses the words "non-partisan" to describe the CBO, it serves its masters in Congress.
By its own admission, the CBO "consults" with members of Congress before it produces its estimates. Lawmakers can and do manipulate assumptions that the CBO bakes into its projections and forecasts on legislation. So much for an unbiased, nonpartisan estimate.
Take the CBO's infamous forecast of the 10-year price tag of Obamacare. Shilling for the proposal, President Obama vowed the legislation's price tag would be $940 billion. Magically, the CBO crunched the numbers and guesstimated the cost would be $938 billion.
That was in 2010. Two years later the CBO did a "whoops" and restated its estimate. In 2012, the ten-year cost had escalated to $1.76 trillion. It turned out many of the original assumptions in the formal estimate were provided by one of Obamacare's architects, Jonathon Gruber.
When Republicans launched a legislative battle to repeal Obamacare this year, the CBO stepped in and effectively handed the Democrats a sledgehammer to smash the effort. The CBO calculated 23 million people would lose health coverage in the insurance exchanges under the GOP plan.
The media used the figures to tar Republicans and scare Americans. No journalists bothered to look at the CBO assumptions. Agency bean-counters inflated the forecast for enrollment in Obamacare exchanges to make the losses appear larger than realistically expected over a 10-year horizon.
With tax reform blinking on Washington's legislative radar, the CBO has dredged up findings that match the Democrat narrative of exploding deficits. After examining the House and Senate tax plans, the CBO has projected 10-year deficits totalling $1.4 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively.
The same Democrats who applauded President Obama's $1 trillion budget deficit in a single year, are appalled and shocked at the estimated shortfall caused by tax reform. However, the CBO's flawed analysis does not assume the reforms will fuel economic growth that will increase tax revenues.
The charade has lasted too long.
Virginia Representative Morgan Griffith and two of his colleagues recently offered legislation to abolish the Budget Analysis Division at the CBO. "Too often predictions made by the CBO turn out to be far off the mark," Griffith told the House in pleading his case.
Hidebound members of the House rebuffed the measure. The swamp takes comfort in sustaining bureaucracies, particularly those that serve its purposes at the expense of taxpayers.
The CBO and its 250 analysts, economists and budget specialists have failed to publish accurate forecasts Congress can rely on in making decisions. Axing the CBO will remove an obstacle to Washington reform. And it will have the added benefit of lowering the water level in the swamp.
The budget office issues an annual deficit prediction 12-months ahead of the fiscal year, yet it errs by billions of dollars. Its yearly economic growth models are just as inaccurate. CBO predicted 3.2 percent GDP from 2010-2016. Actual GDP performance was 2.1 percent, a yawning disparity.
Notwithstanding its slipshod record, the CBO claims to be "strictly objective and impartial" in its role of producing 'independent' analysis of issues to support the Congressional budget process. Lawmakers are supposed to look to the CBO to provide the cost to taxpayers of proposed legislation.
From its beginning in 1975, the CBO has clung to antiquated scoring methodologies that skew the results and raise questions about the accuracy of its forecasts. Like many government agencies, the CBO has resisted calls to change its calculus to fit today's economic realities.
Many of the CBO's problems can be traced to its founding. The creation of the CBO was a Democratic political ploy to wrest control of the budget process from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which reported to President Nixon at the time.
With lopsided majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 birthing its own budget agency to weaken the OMB and to jigger cost estimates to fit its agenda. Democrats named a director, who built a team of party loyalists.
Since its infancy, the CBO has been the epitome of the Deep State, a reference to government employees who influence federal agency policies to reflect their own political views. Even if the media uses the words "non-partisan" to describe the CBO, it serves its masters in Congress.
By its own admission, the CBO "consults" with members of Congress before it produces its estimates. Lawmakers can and do manipulate assumptions that the CBO bakes into its projections and forecasts on legislation. So much for an unbiased, nonpartisan estimate.
Take the CBO's infamous forecast of the 10-year price tag of Obamacare. Shilling for the proposal, President Obama vowed the legislation's price tag would be $940 billion. Magically, the CBO crunched the numbers and guesstimated the cost would be $938 billion.
That was in 2010. Two years later the CBO did a "whoops" and restated its estimate. In 2012, the ten-year cost had escalated to $1.76 trillion. It turned out many of the original assumptions in the formal estimate were provided by one of Obamacare's architects, Jonathon Gruber.
When Republicans launched a legislative battle to repeal Obamacare this year, the CBO stepped in and effectively handed the Democrats a sledgehammer to smash the effort. The CBO calculated 23 million people would lose health coverage in the insurance exchanges under the GOP plan.
The media used the figures to tar Republicans and scare Americans. No journalists bothered to look at the CBO assumptions. Agency bean-counters inflated the forecast for enrollment in Obamacare exchanges to make the losses appear larger than realistically expected over a 10-year horizon.
With tax reform blinking on Washington's legislative radar, the CBO has dredged up findings that match the Democrat narrative of exploding deficits. After examining the House and Senate tax plans, the CBO has projected 10-year deficits totalling $1.4 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively.
The same Democrats who applauded President Obama's $1 trillion budget deficit in a single year, are appalled and shocked at the estimated shortfall caused by tax reform. However, the CBO's flawed analysis does not assume the reforms will fuel economic growth that will increase tax revenues.
The charade has lasted too long.
Virginia Representative Morgan Griffith and two of his colleagues recently offered legislation to abolish the Budget Analysis Division at the CBO. "Too often predictions made by the CBO turn out to be far off the mark," Griffith told the House in pleading his case.
Hidebound members of the House rebuffed the measure. The swamp takes comfort in sustaining bureaucracies, particularly those that serve its purposes at the expense of taxpayers.
The CBO and its 250 analysts, economists and budget specialists have failed to publish accurate forecasts Congress can rely on in making decisions. Axing the CBO will remove an obstacle to Washington reform. And it will have the added benefit of lowering the water level in the swamp.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Russian Collusion: A Big Fat Nothing Burger
Since November of last year, Democrats and Washington insiders have thirsted for revenge against voters who dared to elect outsider Donald Trump the President of the United States. Their mission, aided by news media saboteurs, is to oust Mr. Trump from office and overturn the election results.
The instrument they have chosen for this subterfuge is Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, who is leading a fishing expedition to uncover evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to influence the election outcome. The usurpers hope the witch hunt will trigger an impeachment.
Mueller, who was anointed on May 17, and his army of 16 lawyers and dozens of FBI agents have produced zero proof of any collusion. The FBI along with House and Senate Committees have reviewed the allegations and have not a shred of evidence that Russia altered the election result.
After spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, Mueller's minions have charged a couple of former Trump campaign officials with lying to the FBI. The indictments have nothing to do with Russian collusion, but the coup masters claim the president is in mortal danger of being toppled.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
There is no denying the Mueller investigation has strayed far from its original mandate, an indication the empty suits are desperate to justify their jobs. It also is clear Democrats concocted a Russia boogieman as an excuse for Hillary Clinton's defeat and as a way to delegitimatize President Trump.
Ironically, Mr. Obama knew in 2016 that the Russians were planning to interfere in the election. However, he did nothing. Why? The answer is he believed Ms. Clinton would win and thought Russian intervention would have no material impact. The tune changed after Mr. Trump's victory.
The impetus Democrats needed to launch the investigation came after Mr. Trump fired bungling FBI Director James Comey. In retaliation, Comey engineered a behind-the-scenes plot to appoint a special prosecutor. His choice was Robert Mueller, who has close professional ties with Comey
Mueller stacked his "independent" team with many attorneys with professional conflicts because of their ties to Democrats. (One conflict that has never been mentioned is that Mueller's former legal firm also employed lawyers for both Jared Kushner and ex-campaign chair Paul Manafort.)
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, looked the other way as the special counsel built a jaundiced gang of prosecutors and lawyers. His hit squad included members of the FBI and Justice Department who had worked on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
Constitutional legal scholar and Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz remains appalled. "In a partisan atmosphere like this, you have to be so careful not to give the other side the ability to claim prejudice. And I think they have given the other side the ability to claim prejudice."
As if to underscore Dershowitz's point, Mueller had to part ways with a member of his team who once oversaw the FBI probe of the Clinton email scandal. Peter Strzok, formerly the FBI chief of Counterespionage, was caught texting thousands of anti-Trump rants to his FBI paramour.
Although he knew about the texts in June, Mueller waited months before he jettisoned Strzok. He hid the existence of the obvious bias from Congress, including the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department also failed to disclose the information. Doesn't that smell like collusion?
On the heels of that disclosure, it was learned that one of the attorneys on Team Mueller was a personal lawyer for a top Obama official and also represented the Clinton Foundation. The attorney, Jeannie Rhee, like others was recruited for her Democratic Party loyalty, not legal credentials.
Despite rules that require the special counsel to operate in secrecy, Mueller and his legal squad have leaked stories about progress of the probe to the news media. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor, has scolded Mueller for acting unethically by disclosing confidential information.
With the clock ticking on his probe, a vindictive Mueller has let it be known that his lawyerly mob is now trying to pin a charge of obstruction of justice on the president. When Dershowitz heard about that strategy, he had some choice words of warning for Mueller.
"If Congress were ever to charge him (Mr. Trump) with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis," Dershowitz opined. He added that an obstruction case against Mr. Trump was a matter of "hope over reality."
According to Dershowitz, as president Mr. Trump had the constitutional authority to fire Comey and was within the law to ask the FBI director to refrain from investigating members of his own campaign. There is nothing illegal about either action, Dershowitz points out.
Mueller was given the specific mandate to investigate Russian collusion. Unless he can present evidence to substantiate the Democrats' homegrown conspiracy theory, then Rosenstein needs to pull the plug by February. An endless inquiry will produce nothing but more media hysterics.
America's constitution does not sanction a coup d'etat. Democrats had their opportunity to win the White House and failed miserably. They should stop acting like spoiled children while endangering the world's oldest democracy.
Monday, December 4, 2017
America's North Korean Conundrum
North Korea and its narcissistic dictator are on a collision course with the United States. The rogue regime continues to lob missiles over Japan in defiance of America's protests. Its hermit leader has conducted nuclear tests flouting past treaties. There is a gnawing fear of a nuclear holocaust.
Despite the burning North Korean crisis, the liberal media and many Democrats naively continue to preach patience. They appear to take comfort in the fact lunatic leader Kim Jong Un has not yet leveled a country with a nuclear-tipped missile. They dismiss his provocations as bluffs.
However, there are lessons to be learned from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. When the Soviets installed a missile base 90-miles off the coast of Florida, President John F. Kennedy acted decisively to head off the prospect of a nuclear Cuba threatening American security.
JFK ordered a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent the Soviets from sending more missiles and arms to Communist dictator Fidel Castro. In response, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev dispatched a naval armada to Cuba. The decision nudged America to the brink of war.
Most military experts warned that an armed conflict was inevitable. After a tense 13-day standoff Khrushchev blinked, offering to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for JFK's promise not to invade the Soviet-backed state. A bargain was struck averting war.
It will require that same kind of steely resolve for America to deal with North Korea. Current political leaders are swayed by public opinion polls that clearly show Americans are not interested in a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But Kennedy's calculated risk was unpopular too.
America needs a strategy that will force Kim to give up his missiles and nuclear weapons. Appeasement has not worked despite treaties and gobs of foreign aid by the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. Agreements and money won't purchase peace.
Efforts to convince China to intervene on America's behalf are fantasies. The U.S. will never be able to force China to abandon its support for North Korea unless it cuts off all trade with the Communist superpower. That won't happen because there is too much at stake for American businesses.
U.S. goods and services trade with China was $648.2 billion in 2016, according to the Department of Commerce. China is currently America's leading trading partner. China holds the leverage in this arena, not the U.S. It is folly to suggest that America can bring China to its knees over trade.
China has the upper hand in another area. The Chinese currently own more than $1.24 trillion in bonds, notes and bills issued by the American government. That figure represents 30 percent of all the debt held by foreign governments. It gives China unparalleled bargaining power.
But that doesn't mean's America's hands are shackled. The U.S. should begin laying the groundwork to kick North Korea out of the United Nations. No member state has ever been expelled from the organization, but there is no better first candidate than North Korea.
The U.N. charter allows for the eviction of members who have "persistently violated" the organization's charter. Tossing out North Korea would rob Kim of the perk of having the U.S. pay for its diplomats (aka spies) to occupy posh quarters in New York, Rome and Vienna.
The expulsion would require a vote from the Security Council, a group of nations that include China and Russia. But it is still worth the effort, if only to send a signal to North Korea that it will be cut off from the rest of the civilized world if it continues its adversarial behavior.
Next the U.S. and its allies should institute a naval blockade around North Korea to prevent any weapons or nuclear materials from reaching the failed state. By targeting military shipments, the move could dent the thriving arms export business that is one of the few sources of state income.
According to military analysts with knowledge of the regime's shadowy arms deals, the Asian nation trades with Africa and Middle Eastern countries, including Syria. Those shipments are launched from ports off the coast of North Korea, most notably Pyongyang.
Although North Korea has a military of 6.4 million men that dwarfs America's force of 2.3 million, it is no match for U.S. naval firepower. North Korea has no aircraft carriers and only a small fleet of frigates and submarines. American naval forces would overpower any threat to the blockade.
On top of these moves, America should tighten the screws of economic sanctions, clamping down on the financial dealings of regime leaders and challenging China to follow suit. If the past is any indication of the future, Kim will thumb his nose at the U.S. and its allies.
The world can no longer allow a madman to willy-nilly launch missiles over soverign countries. One day Kim will fire a rocket at the U.S. When that moment arrives, public opinion about North Korean intervention will quickly reverse. By then will it be too late to save America?
Despite the burning North Korean crisis, the liberal media and many Democrats naively continue to preach patience. They appear to take comfort in the fact lunatic leader Kim Jong Un has not yet leveled a country with a nuclear-tipped missile. They dismiss his provocations as bluffs.
However, there are lessons to be learned from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. When the Soviets installed a missile base 90-miles off the coast of Florida, President John F. Kennedy acted decisively to head off the prospect of a nuclear Cuba threatening American security.
JFK ordered a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent the Soviets from sending more missiles and arms to Communist dictator Fidel Castro. In response, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev dispatched a naval armada to Cuba. The decision nudged America to the brink of war.
Most military experts warned that an armed conflict was inevitable. After a tense 13-day standoff Khrushchev blinked, offering to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for JFK's promise not to invade the Soviet-backed state. A bargain was struck averting war.
It will require that same kind of steely resolve for America to deal with North Korea. Current political leaders are swayed by public opinion polls that clearly show Americans are not interested in a conflict on the Korean peninsula. But Kennedy's calculated risk was unpopular too.
America needs a strategy that will force Kim to give up his missiles and nuclear weapons. Appeasement has not worked despite treaties and gobs of foreign aid by the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. Agreements and money won't purchase peace.
Efforts to convince China to intervene on America's behalf are fantasies. The U.S. will never be able to force China to abandon its support for North Korea unless it cuts off all trade with the Communist superpower. That won't happen because there is too much at stake for American businesses.
U.S. goods and services trade with China was $648.2 billion in 2016, according to the Department of Commerce. China is currently America's leading trading partner. China holds the leverage in this arena, not the U.S. It is folly to suggest that America can bring China to its knees over trade.
China has the upper hand in another area. The Chinese currently own more than $1.24 trillion in bonds, notes and bills issued by the American government. That figure represents 30 percent of all the debt held by foreign governments. It gives China unparalleled bargaining power.
But that doesn't mean's America's hands are shackled. The U.S. should begin laying the groundwork to kick North Korea out of the United Nations. No member state has ever been expelled from the organization, but there is no better first candidate than North Korea.
The U.N. charter allows for the eviction of members who have "persistently violated" the organization's charter. Tossing out North Korea would rob Kim of the perk of having the U.S. pay for its diplomats (aka spies) to occupy posh quarters in New York, Rome and Vienna.
The expulsion would require a vote from the Security Council, a group of nations that include China and Russia. But it is still worth the effort, if only to send a signal to North Korea that it will be cut off from the rest of the civilized world if it continues its adversarial behavior.
Next the U.S. and its allies should institute a naval blockade around North Korea to prevent any weapons or nuclear materials from reaching the failed state. By targeting military shipments, the move could dent the thriving arms export business that is one of the few sources of state income.
According to military analysts with knowledge of the regime's shadowy arms deals, the Asian nation trades with Africa and Middle Eastern countries, including Syria. Those shipments are launched from ports off the coast of North Korea, most notably Pyongyang.
Although North Korea has a military of 6.4 million men that dwarfs America's force of 2.3 million, it is no match for U.S. naval firepower. North Korea has no aircraft carriers and only a small fleet of frigates and submarines. American naval forces would overpower any threat to the blockade.
On top of these moves, America should tighten the screws of economic sanctions, clamping down on the financial dealings of regime leaders and challenging China to follow suit. If the past is any indication of the future, Kim will thumb his nose at the U.S. and its allies.
The world can no longer allow a madman to willy-nilly launch missiles over soverign countries. One day Kim will fire a rocket at the U.S. When that moment arrives, public opinion about North Korean intervention will quickly reverse. By then will it be too late to save America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)