In the movie, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Mr. Spock brings up an old Vulcan proverb: “Only Nixon Could Go to China.” That’s probably a joke on the Soviet habit of claiming to have created or done things from the West. Mr. Chekov made similar jokes several times. In this case, the Spock proverb refers to the fact that only rabid anti-Communist President Richard Nixon could open China to the rest of the world, without having America’s anti-Communists destroy him.
I bring it up now, because Donald Trump has just, basically, invited North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to come on over.
Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he would welcome North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to the US for negotiations if he were elected president.
Speaking to supporters at a rally in Atlanta, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that while he would not meet with the dictator in North Korea, Trump would host Kim for talks in the US, albeit without the fanfare of a traditional meeting. . .
“Who the hell cares? I’ll speak to anybody,” Trump said on Wednesday. “There’s a 10% or 20% chance I could talk him out of having his damn nukes, because who the hell wants him to have nukes?”. . .
For her part, Hillary Clinton criticized Trump’s suggestions as naive.
This is an example of two things. First, it shows that Hillary Clinton is the NeoCon in the race this year. She wants to continue George Bush’s practice of refusing to talk to people who don’t agree with us. Duh. I tend to like to talk to people who are different. When I talk to people who agree with me, I feel that at least one of us isn’t necessary.
More importantly, you can’t “negotiate” if you don’t have any communication. As we’ve said elsewhere, the established parties don’t really want change—they like having the same exact unresolved issues to run on, year after year after year.
As a Republican, and as someone with a reputation for being, well, xenophobic, Trump can meet with anyone, without being criticized as an “appeaser.” It’s quite possible, despite the bluster toward both, that Trump could work together with China to convince North Korea that it has no future if it continues its threats and idiocy.
The second thing this shows is that, despite current polls, Democrats should be very, very frightened, by a candidate who is willing to do the unthinkable. Another example is Trump’s decision to meet with the NRA—about gun control!
“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns,” Trump tweeted.
His unprompted announcement pressures the gun lobby to help reach a compromise on the contentious proposal in the wake of the worst mass shooting in American history. While the gunman, Omar Mateen, was not on a terror watch list at the time of the shooting, he had previously been investigated by the FBI on concerns he had been radicalized. . .
It’s not known whether Trump will push for a form of the ban that will be palatable to Democrats, but his general stance aligns with President Barack Obama.
“The president does believe that the notion of preventing people who are on the no-fly list from buying a gun is a pretty common sense proposition,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, though he notably deflected questions about Trump’s NRA meeting. “It is the kind of thing that even people who have profound political differences should be able to agree on,”
Note the wording, “pressures the gun lobby to reach a compromise.” To many, “compromise” means surrender. To a negotiator, it’s “I get what I want; you get what you want.” Imagine if we could “negotiate” our way to solutions to our national problems, instead of just hurling insults back and forth.
And the NRA is not as intransigent as they are portrayed.
NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director Chris W. Cox reiterated as much in a statement. . .
“The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing,” Cox said in the statement.
“If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist,” he continued.
Likewise, Trump is not alone. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is right there.
“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” he said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.”
“That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals,” he continued. “They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people.”
O’Reilly said new laws were “definitely needed” in the face of new terrorist threats and mass murders.
Gretchen Carlson, also on Fox News, agrees.
“Every time we have a mass shooting we talk about guns. Right? Yes,” she said. “The Orlando massacre was terror. But there’s no doubt that Omar Mateen was able to kill so many people because he was firing an AR-15, a military-style assault weapon, a weapon easier to buy in the state of Florida than buying a handgun.”
“Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer?” Carlson asked. “Do we need them to protect our families?”
So while Democrats are filibustering, Trump and the Right are looking for solutions.
The world is a mess. We need solutions. We won’t find them by doing the same-o, same-o. Democrats, beware.
Donate Now to Support Election Central
- Help defend independent journalism
- Directly support this website and our efforts