North Korea And Iran: The Nuclear Duo, Europeans Turn Against Immigrants After Wave Of Violence

North Korea and Iran: The Nuclear Duo

North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on January 6th, which it claimed was a hydrogen bomb. Despite some skepticism as to North Korea’s claim that it had actually tested a hydrogen bomb, the Obama administration acknowledged that North Korea had indeed tested some sort of nuclear device. The administration condemned North Korea’s latest testing as a violation of a series of past United Nations Security Council resolutions.

North Korea has had an active nuclear arms program for nearly a decade and has conducted three of its four nuclear tests during President Obama’s time in office. None of the sanctions contained in the Security Council resolutions have stopped North Korea from thumbing its nose at the so-called “international community” and conducting as many nuclear and missile tests as it wishes.

The administration’s solution to the North Korea problem is to double down on its failed strategy of relying principally on the UN for concerted “international” action. It joined Japan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, in calling for the December 6th emergency session. After about two hours of closed door consultations, the Security Council issued a press statement condemning the test and vowing further unspecified measures in response:

North Korea regards the UN Security Council, and the Obama administration for that matter, with about as much contempt as Iran does.

Indeed, all North Korea’s leaders have had to do is look at how Iran has been treated when it behaves badly. Iran was rewarded with a deal that merely postpones its nuclear arms program in return for the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of many billions of dollars. Moreover, Iran suffered no consequences to speak of from its recent violations of the Security Council resolutions prohibiting it from developing or testing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

The Security Council held meetings but did nothing. As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last December, “Beyond having Security Council discussions on the matter there’s been no follow-on action. Discussions are a form of U.N. action.”

The United Nations Security Council, as well as the Obama administration, tend to compartmentalize flashpoints erupting in different regions of the world. They refuse to acknowledge that Iran and North Korea have long been joined at the hip when it comes to the development of nuclear material for bombs and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them.

The Security Council holds separate meetings on Iran and North Korea, as if their respective nuclear activities have been completely unrelated to each other. And, as demonstrated by the following exchange between a correspondent and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest at the January 6th daily press briefing, the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to the dangerous risk of continuing cooperation between Iran and North Korea:

Iran and North Korea have been cooperating for decades on nuclear technology. As Ilan Berman, a leading expert on the Middle East and Iran, wrote last August in the National Journal, “over the past three decades, Iran and the Stalinist regime of the Kim dynasty in North Korea have erected a formidable alliance—the centerpiece of which is cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated during an April 2015 interview that North Korea and Iran could still be cooperating to develop a nuclear weapon. Moreover, according to an assessment of “Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation” published by the Congressional Research Service last May, “U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concern that North Korea might export its nuclear technology or fissile material.”

North Korea has also conducted several tests involving nuclear explosive devices, a technology in which Iran has reportedly shown interest and would be in a position to procure from North Korea.
In short, rebutting the claims by the Obama administration that its nuclear deal with Iran cuts off all its pathways to the achievement of a nuclear weapon capability, the title of Mr. Berman’s National Journal article says it all – “North Korea: Iran’s Pathway to a Nuclear Weapon.”

There is no reason to believe that, as a result of the deal Iran is already sidestepping, Iran will suddenly stop all dealings with North Korea with regard to both countries’ nuclear programs. The Obama administration and the United Nations upon which it relies ignore the close relationship between the two rogue nations at the world’s peril.

Europeans Turn Against Muslims

Jan Segers, an editorialist with Het Laatste Nieuws, a Dutch language newspaper based in Brussels, is bucking the PC trend in Europe. He has come down hard on rampaging Muslim rapists.

On Thursday Segers wrote about the rape of over a hundred women in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve. A similar incident also occurred in Hamburg.

“It’s about Muslims” he writes, males who are demonstrating an “unwillingness or inability to respect the fundamental principles of our society. Such men are not at home here.”

The issue is “the illusion of a German society in which diverse cultures [share] harmonious and equal coexistence,” Segers explains.

This illusion was shattered by the rapes in Cologne. “The confidence of the Germans is shocked, even in their police, their politicians and their media.”

Meanwhile, the German government is attempting to censor growing animosity toward lawless migrants.

The New York Times and other corporate media have attributed the outrage to the right.

“Far-right and anti-immigrant groups and other Germans who oppose the influx seized on the attacks, saying they demonstrated the dangers associated with accepting huge numbers of migrants,” the newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The danger is quite real and has been corroborated by a leaked confidential police report revealing a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure, according to the Gatestone Institute, amounts to more than 100 crimes a day and is only a part of the entire picture due to the fact many crimes are not reported.

On Wednesday The Washington Post reported prosecutors are launching investigations into “inflammatory comments” as judges exact fines, even probation time, to the “worst offenders.”

The Merkel government has reached out to Facebook, Twitter and Google. It wants them to block people who criticize Muslims. The Post reports the social media networks have agreed to apply German law to critics taking to the popular platforms.

Following the mass rape in Cologne many “Germans are questioning whether their online comments could be taken down, or whether they could be charged with incitement, for publicly pondering whether refugees could have been among the assailants.”

The effort by the government to crack down on criticism and uphold its multicultural policies is overshadowed by the fact average Germans are now arming themselves in self-defense.

“All across Germany, a country with some of the most stringent gun-control laws in Europe, demand is skyrocketing for non-lethal self-defense weapons, including pepper sprays, gas pistols, flare guns, electroshock weapons and animal repellants. Germans are also applying for weapons permits in record numbers,” Soeren Kern noted prior to the New Year’s Eve mass rape rampage.

Merkel Flashback: Germans “Have to Accept” Migrant Crime Wave

The mass molestation of dozens of German women by Arab and North African men in Cologne and other cities on New Years Eve has served to throw fresh spotlight on comments made by Angela Merkel in 2011 when she said that Germans would “have to accept” the fact that migrants will commit more cr

Commenting on concerns about high crime rates attributed to migrants, Merkel stated, “We have to accept that the number of crimes committed by young migrants is especially high.”

Five years ago Merkel vowed to “guarantee the safety (of Germans) in all public areas” and institute a “zero tolerance (policy) towards violence,” a promise that fell woefully short last week when up to a thousand migrants went on a sexual assault rampage that targeted dozens of women.

The attacks in Cologne, Stuttgart, Hamburg and other areas were not in isolation. Since Merkel opened Germany’s borders to a flood of “refugees,” rapes in and around migrant camps have exploded.

Merkel’s comments are of a similar nature to remarks made by Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker, who was widely derided for implying some of the blame fell at the feet of the victims and that German women should follow a “code of conduct” to include keeping potential rapists “at arms length”.

Meanwhile, regressive leftists continue to make equally inane comments in an effort to avoid acknowledging that the west is importing a real rape culture via the migrant red carpet.

Forbes journalist Frances Coppola even went so far as to suggest that anti-immigration Germans had conspired to organize the attacks as a means of forcing Merkel to close the borders.

Militia in Oregon: Constitutionally Right

The issue in Oregon, where an armed militia is standing up to the federal government, as they did at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada, isn’t as much about ranchers burning a fire line on the edge of their property to protect their own property (and it getting away from them and burning into “federal land”), whether or not the Hammond family even wants the “armed militia” there in their town, or that the “armed” militia is willing to occupy a ranch on the edge of federal space in the first place. 

I don’t believe, as the media and some of the police does, that these militia members want to overthrow the county and federal government hoping for some kind of nationwide “blood in the streets” coup.  It is really all about government authority, and if the federal government is functioning within the “realm of authorities granted by the Constitution.”

We do have to remember that in this world of political correctness, liberal left media, and a progressive political ideology that is willing to put the President of the United States on stage with fake tears rolling down his cheeks as he talked about shredding the Constitution and taking upon himself (because Congress won’t) unilateral actions to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, everything is about perception.  Being “right” is not enough, sometimes.  The militia in Oregon is 100% right when it comes to the Constitution, and they are 100% right in what they are doing in the sense of the right of the citizens to stand up to a tyrannical federal government.  But, I am not 100% convinced that their tactics are 100% right for the perception part of the game.

What amazes me is how quickly the federal government moved on this issue in Oregon, while showing no such expediency when it came to “Black Lives Matter” protests that ultimately destroyed communities, and destroyed private property.  The federal government also showed no such expediency when it came to taking control of our borders (as they are tasked to do in Article IV., Section 4, where the Constitution demands that the States must be protected from invasion).

Oregon is mostly owned by the federal government (53.1%).  The Western States are largely, in the terms of percentage of property ownership, owned by the federal government.  This was partially the result of the federal government strong-arming the States when it came time to become a State.  The new States were basically told, “If you want to become a State, you will surrender this land (allow the federal government to retain control over this land) - or else, we will not grant you your statehood.”  Declaring some of the land for preservation under Theodore Roosevelt was another method of how the federal government seized the property.

The militia, and the local ranchers, say that the federal government is managing the property in question unconstitutionally.  According to Article I, Section 8, they say, the government can’t own plots of land larger than 10-miles square.

That “10-miles square” argument being used by some of the folks has a flaw, even though they are quoting the proper clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings.”

According to the clause in Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, there are certain criteria required to be met in order for the federal government to own land within a State.  The three requirements follows the phrase “and to exercise like Authority over all Places” in the clause.  They are:

1. The land must be “purchased.”
2. The land must be acquired with the “Consent of the Legislature of the State.”
3. The property must be for the purpose of “the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.” (emphasis added)

So, regarding the stand-off in Oregon (and Bundy Ranch in Nevada) the first question must be, “does the federal government have the authority to defend their ownership of that land?”  If the land was not acquired legally, the answer is, “No.”

Property retained by the federal government as a condition for statehood was never “purchased,” there was no “consent of the legislature” because the legislature of the State did not exist yet when the deal was made, and most of the property is vast stretches of land that are not held by the federal government specifically for the purpose of erecting “needful buildings.”

The same goes for National Parks, and land seized for the stated purpose of “conservation” or other “environmentalism” reasons.

If it is so important that the federal government must own all of that land, then why did they seize the property in the manner they did?  Why not simply amend the Constitution of the United States, so that the procurement of the property was all legal-like?

Since the land was ill-gotten, federal ownership of the land is unconstitutional.  By unconstitutional, I mean to say “illegal.”  Therefore, the rightful owners, the States, and the people, have a right to retrieve their stolen property.  The militia, based on my immediate observations, is constitutionally in the right.  They have every reason to do what they are doing, except one.  How is the public perceiving this?  Is what the militia is doing best for the cause?

I am not saying that the alternative is the opposite.  This should not be a situation where either the militia is there, or they are not.  But I must ask, “does the militia have the blessings of the property owners (Hammonds)?  Did they exhaust all other attempts to resolve this first?  Did the militia reach out to the State of Oregon seeking an alliance in this effort?  What about the county, or the town?  Was there a campaign of townhalls and other meetings to ensure that this “last resort of occupation” was the only remaining avenue regarding how to handle this situation?

Most of all, was there any consideration or work done regarding the messaging part of this campaign?

Messaging is the primary part.  Without proper messaging, it doesn’t matter how good you are, how right you are, or how horrible the opposition is.  If your messaging is not correct, you could be the best, or the right guy for the job all you want, but you won’t win the war in the end.