RUTHFULLY YOURS

Barack Obama’s foreign-policy failures, and those of his predecessors, regarding North Korea, are coming back to bedevil Donald Trump’s new presidency. Trump administration spokesmen have rightly said that Obama’s policy of “strategic patience,” a synonym for doing nothing, is over. But they have not yet articulated a replacement strategy.

Analysts across the political spectrum now believe that North Korea is perilously close to fabricating nuclear devices — at least five of which have already been detonated — small enough to mount on intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking targets within the continental United States. Some estimates posit this capability as early as 2018, with targets closer to the Korean Peninsula, including Japan and Hawaii likely at risk earlier.

Time is thus in desperately short supply, one of the fruits of 25 years of wasted efforts negotiating with Pyongyang. The harsh reality is that Kim Jung Un and his predecessors were never going to be chit-chatted out of their nuclear-weapons program, which they have always regarded as essential to regime survival. Neither persuasion nor coercion, nor any mix of the two, has succeeded before, and we have no reason to believe they will start succeeding now.

There are any number of suggestions about how to increase military pressure on North Korea, including scenarios for pre-emptive attacks against its nuclear and ballistic-missile assets. Certainly, no American president should be willing to countenance the risk to innocent U.S. civilians, and those of our vulnerable friends and allies in the region, that Pyongyang’s erratic leadership increasingly poses. Moreover, we must be sure China understands President Trump’s determination — reportedly explained in person to Chinese President Xi Jinping during the recent Mar-a-Lago summit — not to be held hostage by Pyongyang.

Unfortunately, however, years of savage Obama Administration defense budget cuts have rendered U.S. military options far from optimal. Obama underfunded national missile-defense programs, thereby rendering this last line of defense woefully inadequate compared to how President George W. Bush originally conceived it.

President Donald Trump said Thursday he has decided to withdraw the U.S. from the “draconian” Paris climate accord in an effort to boost American industry and independence, making a dramatic shift in policy despite intense lobbying from business leaders and close U.S. allies.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Mr. Trump said, calling the decision a “reassertion of our sovereignty.”

Mr. Trump said he would begin negotiations to either re-enter the agreement under new terms or craft a new deal that he judges fair to the U.S. and its workers.

Framing the decision mostly in economic and political terms, the president focused on the agreement’s benefits for the world’s other leading carbon emitters, China and India. He voiced his concern for protecting the environment and eschewed any reiteration of his past claims that climate change isn’t real, but he said his decision is rooted in protecting the country’s interests.

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the U.S.,” Mr. Trump said.

The president’s “America first” stance was aimed squarely at his own political base, as he claimed a political win by delivering on a bold campaign promise after several others have thus far been unfulfilled. He has muddled the NAFTA trade deal and declaring China a manipulator, and was talked down from moving the embassy in Israel.

Mr. Trump’s action represents a 180-degree turn from the agenda of former President Barack Obama. It was cheered by some domestic industries, notably independent coal, oil and gas companies, including Murray Energy Corp., the country’s largest privately held coal miner.

But many large U.S. corporations opposed the move, including Exxon Mobil Corp. , General Electric Co. and Apple Inc., whose chief executives all publicly argued in favor of remaining in the pact. After Mr. Trump’s announcement, Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk said he was withdrawing from the president’s advisory councils, saying the decision “is not good for America or the world.”

Many big companies said exiting the Paris deal would have little immediate impact on their investments and strategies because they are facing customer and shareholder demands to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. They also operate in other countries, and in U.S. states, where climate rules remain a fact of life, so they continue to face government pressure on the issue. CONTINUE AT SITE

It has become routine for Palestinians to name public places, including streets, schools, parks and public squares after hard core terrorists convicted of the most heinous offenses. Over the years, Israel has vigorously protested these outrages to the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States. The latter, particularly under the Obama administration, offered faux sympathy and little else, while the UN and EU were routinely dismissive of Israel’s objections. In the eyes of the UN and EU, the Palestinians could do no wrong and the Obama administration, by its deafening silence, gravitated toward this obscene position. This shocking inaction further encouraged the Palestinians to engage in what can only be described as depraved and aberrant behavior.

But on May 28, something strange but surprisingly decent happened at the UN. UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a stinging rebuke to the Palestinian Authority for naming a women’s center after Dalal Mughrabi, a notorious terrorist. In 1978, Mughrabi along with seven other Arab terrorists commandeered a bus packed with civilians and mercilessly murdered 37 people, including 12 children.

For the Palestinians, this act of debauchery warranted praise and Mughrabi was elevated to the status of heroin and martyr. On May 26, the watchdog group, Palestinian Media Watch revealed that a women’s center named after Mughrabi in the Arab town of Burqa was constructed with funds provided by the UN and Norway. A prominent sign posted on the building bore the logos of the Palestinian Authority, the UN and Norway. Worse yet, PMW quoted a village council member who stated that “the center will focus especially on the history of the struggle of Martyr Dalal Mughrabi and on presenting it to the youth groups, and…constitutes the beginning of the launch of enrichment activities regarding the history of the Palestinian struggle.”

Upon learning of the outrage, a spokesperson for Guterres released a statement that termed the naming “offensive” and “unacceptable” and described it as a “glorification of terrorism” and an “obstacle to peace.” Guterres also demanded the immediate removal of the UN’s logo. Just two days prior, Norway issued a similar rebuke to the Palestinian Authority demanding not only the removal of the Norwegian logo but the return of all Norwegian funds earmarked for the project.

Berlin — Germans do not seem too friendly to Americans these days.

According to a recent Harvard Kennedy School study of global media, 98 percent of German public television news portrays President Donald Trump negatively, making it by far the most anti-Trump media in the world.

Yet the disdain predates the election of Trump, who is roundly despised here for his unapologetic anti–European Union views.

In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey of European countries, Germany had the least favorable impression of America. Only about 50 percent of Germans expressed positive feelings toward the U.S. Former president Barack Obama, who visited here last week to lecture the world on diversity and tolerance, never changed negative attitudes much from the unpopular George W. Bush years.

Germans apparently do not appreciate that fellow NATO member America still subsidizes their defense. Nor do they seem appreciative of their huge trade surplus ($65 billion) with the United States.

Germans seem to have forgotten that American troops for 45 years kept the Soviets from absorbing all of Germany. The Berlin Airlift is now premodern history.

Why, then, do confident Germans increasingly dislike the United States?

It is complicated.

Since 1989, Germany has worked hard on its post-unification image as a largely pacifistic country. It is eager to teach other nations how to conduct themselves peacefully and to pursue shared global goals such as reducing global warming or opening national borders to the world’s refugees.

Implicit in Germany’s utopian message is that postmodern Germans know best what not to do — given their terrible 20th-century past, with the aggressions of imperial Germany and later the savagery and Holocaust perpetuated by Hitler’s Third Reich.

Yet being guilt-ridden does not equate to being humble (never a German strong suit).

The same conceit of an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally uniform state that drew Germany into conflict with the U.S. (whose late entry into both World War I and World War II helped ensure German defeats) has never quite disappeared.

Instead, German condescension merely has been updated.

What you find is that behind every jihadist, who usually starts out as a young, often angry, Muslim seeking a purpose, lies a pulpit ideologue promising rewards and threatening punishments both on earth and in the afterlife.

Violent jihad may be postponed not out of concern for its victims, but rather if it might adversely affect a Muslim community. This view is frequently mistaken as “moderate.”

Use the press and social media to expose young Muslims to facts other than those they are fed in mosques and the textbooks of their native countries, including the humanistic values of the West, such as freedom of speech and of the press; equal justice under the law — especially due process and the presumption of innocence; property rights; separation of religion and state; an independent judiciary; an independent educational system and freedom of religion and from religion — for a start.

On March 22, when Khalid Masood rammed his vehicle into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge in London before attempting to stab his way to the Parliament building, it was as if the heart and soul of British democracy were under assault.

As horrifying as the terrorist attack was, however — murdering four innocent people and wounding scores of others — it belied the magnitude of a much larger problem that has been plaguing Europe and creeping up on the rest of the West. Jihadists committing murder in the name of Islam have left a trail of blood across North America, the Middle East, Australia, the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe.In November 2015, a suicide-bombing and shooting spree in Paris left 130 people dead and hundreds wounded; in March 2016, three coordinated suicide bombings targeting travelers in Brussels killed 32 and wounded hundreds; and last December, a truck-ramming at the Christmas market in Berlin left 12 people dead and another 56 injured.

These were just a few of the successful attacks; those thwarted were more numerous.

France’s prime minister said last September that authorities were foiling plots “daily,” while some 15,000 people “in the process of radicalization” were being monitored. Last year, British security services prevented no fewer than 12 other assaults.

The average European now knows the names of Masood and those of other publicized terrorists. But few in the West are familiar with the many people who put those terrorists on their path by leading them up the rungs of a ladder of radicalization.

The Manchester attack – and the widespread abuse of girls throughout the UK by Muslim rape gangs – would also have been avoided if she had used Tommy Robinson as an adviser instead of finding ever more devious ways to criminalise him.

See also:

Manchester attack – media follows script again
Manchester – what happens next
UK bans Spencer and Geller: free speech is dead in the UK and the ban was supported by the Board of Deputies
Geller and Spencer were banned from the UK because of their ‘pro-Israel views’
A Statement on behalf of the UK Jewish Board of Deputies on the banning of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering the UK

Our “Destiny”? As Europeans? Angela Merkel’s brain is on some kind of drug. Perhaps she should also lay off the quart-sized glasses of Bavarian suds.

The New York Post’s story “Merkel: Europe can’t rely on allies anymore” of May 28th reported:

Just days after President Trump lectured NATO members about ponying up more money for defense , German leader Angela Merkel said Europe could no longer count on its allies.

“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out,” Merkel said during an appearance at a beer tent in Munich on Sunday. “I’ve experienced that in the last few days.”

“But we have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans,” she added.

Oh, yes. The plentiful times when Europe could mooch on the U.S. are past. But is Europe’s future to be a European one or an Islamic one? Germany and other European governments want to ensure that the transition from European to Islamic submission is smooth without any speed bumps that would frustrate the conquerors.

The Daily Caller reported on May 19th, “Germany Considers Million Dollar Hate Speech Fines”:

The German parliament is debating a proposal to force social media platforms to either delete hate speech quickly or risk hefty fines.

The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of the term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may have on freedom of speech. Justice Minister Heiko Maas disagrees, arguing it will only help protect freedom of speech in Germany.

It is welcome news that President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. The pact promises to damage the economy while surrendering American sovereignty over climate policy to yet another international, largely anti-American enterprise.

It is unwelcome news, nevertheless, that so much was riding on the president’s decision to withdraw the assent of his predecessor, Barack Obama — America’s first post-American president.

In reality, Trump’s decision is monumental only because America, in the Obama mold, has become post-constitutional.

The Paris climate agreement is a treaty. We are not talking here about a bob-and-weave farce like the Iran nuclear deal. That arrangement, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” was shrewdly packaged as an “unsigned understanding” — concurrently spun, depending on its apologists’ need of the moment, as a non-treaty (in order to evade the Constitution’s requirements), or as a binding international commitment (in order to intimidate the new American administration into retaining it).

The climate agreement, to the contrary, is a formal international agreement. Indeed, backers claim this “Convention” entered into force — i.e., became internationally binding — upon the adoption of “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” by a mere 55 of the 197 parties.

For all these global governance pretensions, though, why should we care? Why should the Paris agreement affect Americans?

Yes, President Obama gave his assent to the agreement in his characteristically cagey manner: He waited until late 2016 to “adopt” the convention — when there would be no practical opportunity to seek Senate approval before he left office. But Senate consent is still required, by a two-thirds’ supermajority, before a treaty is binding on the United States.

At least that’s what the Constitution says.