Trump vs the Queen?

There is apparently a movement in Britain to prevent President Donald Trump (love that this name can give liberals the yips) from a state visit to Queen Elizabeth.  The libertarian-leaning folks at Spiked note “Better an elected president than an unelected monarch.”  Hear hear.  This is just so.

The sentiment in Britain among some, at least, is that The Donald just isn’t classy enough to break bread (or tea and crumpets) with Her Majesty. Those who think about such state meetings, as the folks at Spiked do, know better.

Yes, Donald Trump can be rude and crude. As they say, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. In large part, it’s why we Yanks elected him: he is the very opposite of a polished mainstream politico. Does he know which fork to use for the oysters? Don’t know; don’t care.

Bigger question: will he learn the art of political leadership? Right now, he is clumsy, but with good intentions. My English cousins should not complain; Trump appears to be profoundly pro-Anglo.

Unlike his predecessor, who acted very much like a hostile colonial, resenting the fact that Britain used to own Kenya.


What to do about the Norks

Kim Jong Un, the apparently unstable heir to the throne in North Korea, has been babbling quite a bit lately. His babblings, in a sane society, would result in him being institutionalized for his own good. Sadly, this crazy is the head of a rogue, terrorist state. A state that may soon possess working nuclear weapons.

Here’s a recent sample of that wacky, fun-loving Kim, according to this news item,

attending an “urgent operation meeting” with senior generals late last month, during which he signed a rocket preparation plan and ordered his forces on standby to strike the US mainland, South Korea, Guam and Hawaii.

Well, should the Norks successful invasion of the United States as reported in Red Dawn give us pause?

Oh, right. That was fiction. Actually, the Red Dawn remake was so ridiculous in concept as to give the Norks a few more years breathing room before the adults in the room take away Kim’s toys. The fundamental problem? There are no adults in that crazy room. Red China is the closest thing we’ve got, and they seem in zero hurry to reign in Lil’ Kim.

But if you’re in South Korea, the Norks pose a real and present danger. If you’re in Guam, we love ya but don’t think we’re going to nuke Pyongyang if they take you out. And what, exactly, do you think the OBambi administration would do should the Norks make war on us or our allies?

Therein lies the fundamental problem: the Norks have zero respect for us. Where “respect” should mean they stain their chuddies just thinking about what the United States might do to them if they actually used a nuclear weapon against us or our allies.

If the Norks actually nuked Seoul, I suspect that our State Department would issue a really, really strong letter demanding that they don’t do that again, but providing a toll-free number for South Korean survivors to call in to request help.

If we had a president with sand, we would nuke every major city in North Korea, and tell the Chinese to clean up the mess in their back yard. Strong message to follow.

But, sadly, we have a community organizer who wants to be loved by the world community, whatever that might be. In the meantime, we can only hope and pray that sending Dennis Rodman will suffice…

Bahamas Tussle

Vacationing here at our digs in Nassau, we landed in the middle of a political hurricane. Elections for the country’s assembly will be held on Monday, and the political rhetoric is, well, steamy is not too strong a word.

The two major parties are the Free National Movement (pro business, strong defense) and the Progressive Liberal Party which is exactly what one would expect: social democrats, populist, a chicken in every pot paid for by the commonwealth.

FNM are most like our Republicans, even though they are reputed to be socially liberal. PLP are the kind of party in which Obama and his Chicago cronies would likely feel most comfortable in.

Then there’s a third party, the DNA, but right now they’re about as relevant as our Libertarian Party. By which I mean great ideas, lousy execution, a little outside the mainstream.

All that said, it’s a very good thing to see a free people tussling for the right to represent.


Chen Guangcheng, a man much braver than I’d likely be, has apparently taken sanctuary in the American embassy in Beijing. Chen has been pursuing legal means to get the Chinese dictatorship to stop forcing Chinese women to have abortions.

And, because he’s run afoul of a brutal dictatorship intent on forcing women to have abortions to enforce China’s one child policy, Chen has been hounded, harassed, and imprisoned without even the semblance of due process.

In short, Chen’s human rights have been trampled on. Now that he is in our embassy (assuming that is true), it falls to us to stand up for human rights. This isn’t something that’s happening in Syria or Egypt. This is happening on the equivalent of U.S. soil: our sovereign embassy.

What to do? China is a big dog economically; they are the dominant military power in Asia. Our relationship with them is not the best, but it’s not too bad, either. Should we jeopardize that relationship because of one man?

The answer depends on whether our president believes that all should have the rights our founding documents claim belong to all.

Chen’s story is summarized nicely in today’s Wall Street Journal editorial:

American officials have stayed quiet about the case, which is the right initial approach as senior U.S. diplomat Kurt Campbell arrived in Beijing Sunday. But the media analysis is also full of hand-wringing about “the tricky diplomatic bind” for the U.S. and China, as if Mr. Chen shouldn’t have so rudely intruded on the world of realpolitik. The U.S. cannot turn Mr. Chen over to Chinese control without betraying its own principles and the millions of Chinese who are quietly cheering his escape.

This is not something that should even be up for discussion. Our position should be simple: Mr. Chen has taken refuge in our embassy, we will not have him leave until we get iron-clad assurance from the Chinese leadership that he will be free, that he and his family will not be touched or harassed.

We should do that. Does anyone see the mealy-mouths from our State Department doing this? Will Obama do this? Don’t hold your breath.


This ABC News headline says it all: President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’.

And by flexibility, those cynics among us who think that Obama starting running for reelection on January 20, 2009 may be excused from the obvious thought: Obama doesn’t want to held accountable by the voters for anything. He wants to continue his surrender of American power, one bit at a time.

Missile defenses? We don’t need no stinking missile defenses, so sorry we insulted your client, Iran, Mr Putin. But, wink wink, nudge nudge, I can’t really say that now. Those stupid hicks in flyover country will vote against me. You know, those evangelicals who cling to their God and their guns and hate people who look like me.

Foreign policy is this neophyte’s boring subject, the one where he has been a dismal failure. With Russia, Obama has given up our nuclear superiority for some vague promises that Ivan will likely never keep. In the bargain, Obama abandoned a missile defense network in Eastern Europe for no discernible gain from the Russians.

Oh, did I miss that part where Russia voted with us in the United Nations Security Council to impose meaningful sanctions on Iran? Or where they have helped us in the Middle East? Guess not.

Our relations with the Russian Bear have, indeed, been “reset.” To our detriment. It is clear that tough-guy Putin, the man who’s been in charge during Medvedev’s time as president, has little regard for one he likely considers a girly-man. At least that’s the way Putin has been acting.

Well, getting back to that wonderful “reset” button. It was supposed to presage the Russkis falling over themselves in a swoon over Obama’s coolness and greatness. After all, he wasn’t George W. Bush. Seems that some idiot in the State Department used the wrong word. The Russian word on the button actually means “overcharged.” How appropriate.


The crisis in the Euro zone continues, with France and Germany now laying down an ultimatum to the lazy and profligate southerners. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

A day ahead of a crucial gathering of European Union leaders in Brussels, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have outlined their plan for solving the euro crisis through deeper fiscal integration.

In an open letter to European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Mr. Sarkozy and Ms. Merkel issued an ultimatum to the 27 EU governments, saying they must decide whether they will accept greater central control over their national budgets (emphasis added).

Because we all know that “greater central control” always results in a stronger economy. Look at the success of the former Soviet Union…

Getting past the seriousness of the Euro situation, is it not passing strange that the French are now the paragons of economic virtue? That is, the one-month a year paid vacation, 32-hour work-week, retire at age 50 French. One supposes they had to give protective coloration to the Germans.

It’s just so unseemly for a resurgent Deutschland to be telling the weak sisters of Europe such as Greece, Italy, and Portugal that they’re just not fit to run their own countries any more.

But there it is: absent German discipline, the Euro dies. And with it the uber-Socialist dream of great minds, appointed and thus unencumbered by needing to be elected, running an entire continent from Brussels.

Elections? Accountability? Sovereignty? What Twentieth Century, outdated concepts.


People are beginning to notice: our president continues to vote “present” when tough issues present themselves. It might have been acceptable in the Illinois state senate or the United States Senate. As president, it’s dereliction of duty.

The latest instance of voting “present” is the crisis in Libya. This is rather straightforward: here’s an avowed enemy of the West, an enemy of America, a long-time supporter of terror, on the verge of being overthrown. And we are nowhere to be seen. We’re not enforcing a no-fly zone so that Qaddafi’s air force can’t bomb and strafe protesters.

What we are doing is sending a diplomat to Geneva to talk things over with some U.N. mokes, and here at home starting to form committees who will recommend members of a task force who will possibly recommend the drafting of some really, really nasty notes.

Other nations, especially France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy, have at least been clear: Qaddafi must go. We haven’t even gone that far. As the Wall Street Journal editorial summarizes today, “What the world really needs is for an American President to lead.”

Too bad for those innocent Libyans who will be murdered while Obama sleep-walks through his term.