While gathering my thoughts for today’s post, my mind, unique space between my ears that it is, flashed back to this famous scene between the late great Rodney Dangerfield, and the late , great Sam Kinison, in the movie Back to School. Kinison is a history professor, and Dangerfield is the successful businessman father of an under-achieving freshman, who decides to go back to school, to be there for his son.

rodneysamKinison: You remember that thing we had about thirty years ago… called the Korean conflict?

Yeah. Where we failed to achieve victory.

How come we didn’t cross the 38th parallel…and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China…and take it apart brick by brick…and nuke them back into the f!@#in’ stone age forever?

How come? Tell me? Why? Say it! Say it!

Dangerfield: All right, I’ll say it.

‘Cause Truman was too much of a p!@sy wimp…to let MacArthur go in and blow out those commie b!@#ards!

Kinison: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think.  I’m gonna be watching you.

Y’know, if that would have happened, America would not be facing a very real threat of a North Korean Nuclear Attack.

Foxnews.com reports that

Top Democrats called President’s Trump’s harsh warning Tuesday to North Korea “reckless,” but intelligence and military experts said the commander-in-chief’s promise of “fire and fury” was justified given Kim Jong Un’s continued threats and disdain for diplomacy.

Confirmed reports that Pyongyang could put nuclear weapons on the tips of missiles – and thus possibly make good on repeated threats to attack U.S. cities – prompted Trump’s unusually dire threat. But the message had to be delivered, said former CIA station Chief Daniel Hoffman.

“Deterrence is really important,” Hoffman said on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “It’s important for the United States to lay out very clearly how it would act in response to a North Korean attack.”

Kim’s belligerence and continued testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles prompted the United Nations this past weekend to vote unanimously to impose sanctions on the rogue nation. But Kim responded to the global condemnation with more threats to the U.S.

Even after Trump said Tuesday that North Korea faces “fire and fury like the world has never seen,” Kim responded by threatening to create an “enveloping of fire” around the U.S. island of Guam, which has a large American military base.

Key Democrats were quick to find fault with Trump’s warning. 

“We need to be firm and deliberate with North Korea, but reckless rhetoric is not a strategy to keep America safe,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after Trump’s message late-Tuesday afternoon.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, also criticized Trump’s words but acknowledged that isolating North Korea, through sanctions and other measures, has failed to stop the country’s nuclear pursuits.  

“Isolating the North Koreans has not halted their pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Feinstein said in a statement. “And President Trump is not helping the situation with his bombastic comments.”

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House’s No. 2 Democrat, said: “President Trump’s threat against North Korea is reckless and shows a serious lack of judgment.”

Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s deputy adviser on national security affairs, said politicians should not publicly second guess the president on such a grave matter.

“Anybody, whether a member of Congress or a journalist, who thinks [their] politics trumps the national security of America, that’s an indictment of you,” Gorka said Wednesday on “Fox & Friends.” “You need to ask yourself: what’s more important? My political party or America. There’s only one correct answer to that.”

Conservative Review’s Chris Pandolfo said the criticism of Trump was misdirected.

“It’s a funny thing when the American news media and other blue checkmarks on Twitter are more concerned with President Trump’s words than they are with North Korea obtaining nuclear ICBMs,” he wrote. “But here we are.”

Former CIA operative Mike Baker told “Fox & Friends” said diplomacy and sanctions are not enough, and a much stronger message must be sent.

“We’ve allowed this to get to here for years. …Now we have no options,” Baker said. “Past (imposing) sanctions, we have to think about what are our military options short of war.”

Heritage Foundation fellow Bruce Klingner said Wednesday that the president’s statement was good but “the verbiage is concerning.”

“The reaction of many was critical of the words, though not necessarily of the intent,” he told Fox News. “Of course there’s always the political game of supporting or criticizing statements based on the political party that they came from.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders told reporters Wednesday that the tone of the president’s remarks were “discussed beforehand.” 

“General Kelly and others on the NSC team were well aware of the tone of the statement of the president prior to delivery,” Sanders said. “The words were his own. The tone and strength of the message were discussed beforehand.” 

Sanders added: “They [Gen. Kelly and the NSC team] were clear the president was going to respond to North Korea’s threats following the sanctions with a strong message in no uncertain terms.”

 

Yes, boys and girls we should ALWAYS listen to the Democrats when it comes to dealing with North Korea.

NOT.

Yesterday, The Daily Caller reported that

Former President Bill Clinton thought he saved the world from a nuclear North Korea more than two decades ago, but he was wrong.

North Korea now has an intercontinental ballistic missile that can range most of the continental U.S., and a new Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggests that North Korea has successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads for its missiles. The North is, according to a recent defense intelligence report, expected to be able to field a reliable, nuclear-armed ICBM as early as next year.

In the early 1990s, Clinton faced a growing nuclear threat from North Korea, but he ultimately chose diplomacy and deals over the application of military force.

“I was determined to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal, even at the risk of war,” Clinton wrote in his memoirs. He decided to change course after receiving “a sobering estimate of the staggering losses both sides would suffer if war broke out.”

Before North Korea had nuclear weapons, the anticipated casualty count in the event of a renewed conflict on the peninsula was in the hundreds of thousands. Instead of war, Clinton chose the Agreed Framework, promising billions of dollars in aid for a North Korean nuclear freeze.

“This is a good deal for the United States,” he said at the time. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

The North Koreans negotiated in bad faith, however, offering false promises to convince the U.S. to unwittingly subsidize their nuclear program. The country began enriching nuclear material, and North Korea conducted its first nuclear test a little over a decade later. North Korea has since continued its steady march to becoming a fully-armed nuclear power. Evidence suggests that North Korea will achieve its nuclear weapons goals much sooner than analysts and experts previously expected.

North Korea advanced its program throughout the Bush and Obama administrations, bringing the U.S. to the risky situation it now faces.

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Donald Trump declared to the White House press pool Tuesday. “They will be met with the fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state, and as I said, they will be met with the fire and fury and, frankly, power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

While the casualty count in a North Korean crisis might have been high in the 1990s, the cost of a conflict now that North Korea has nuclear weapons would be in the millions.

So, “Bubba” gave the North Koreans the ability to go on with their “Nuclear Enrichment”.

Then, King Barack The First just flat let them do whatever the heck they wanted to.

And now, here we are facing the very real possibility that the little madman, Kim Jong Un, is going to launch nuclear missiles at us.

While no President can control the actions of other countries, in their own affairs, the position of President of the United States has not historically been referred to as the Leader of the Free World for no reason.

That position has historically been the Vanguard in the fight against despotism and tyranny.

Unfortunately, for lovers of freedom the world over, instead of being the leader that the world and America itself needed, Barack Hussein Obama instead was an example of the Peter Principle.

He rose to his level of incompetence.

Obama believed in a “Chamberlain-esque” Foreign Policy of appeasement, consisting of vague warnings, pay-offs, and drawing red lines in the sand.

It didn’t work.

His continuance of the Democratic Strategy which began at the end of the Korean War of “kicking the can down the road”, instead of standing up and dealing with North Korea has led to the 45th President having to deal with a Nuclear North Korea led by a despotic madman with his finger on the button.

Our President’s plain-spoken warning of “fire and fury” to the little Korean Madman, Kim Jung Un, was entirely appropriate and needed to be said.

Regardless of the “Concerned Handwringing” from the usual suspects.

Much to their angst and chagrin, President Donald J. Trump appears to be adopting President Ronald Reagan’s Foreign Policy of “Peace Through Strength.”

And, unlike his ineffectual Democrat Predecessors, President Trump is willing to do whatever it takes to protect our Sovereign Nation.

And, knowing that, I feel safer already.

Until He Comes,

KJ