Kris Kobach Rips Reports of Mass Boycott of Trump Voter Fraud Probe as ‘Fake News’ By Debra Heine

News reports claiming that 44 states have refused President Trump’s Election Integrity Commission’s request for voter data are “fake news,” the vice chairman of the commission declared on Wednesday.

In a statement released by the White House, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said only fourteen states have actually refused thus far.

“At present, 20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws,” Kobach wrote. “In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission’s work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system.” The vice chairman concluded:

While there are news reports that 44 states have “refused” to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more “fake news.” At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission’s request for publicly available voter information. Despite media distortions and obstruction by a handful of state politicians, this bipartisan commission on election integrity will continue its work to gather the facts through public records requests to ensure the integrity of each American’s vote because the public has a right to know.

News outlets that made the “44 states” false claim include CNN, NBC, The Week, Forbes, Vox, NY Daily News, Mic, CBS, and Yahoo.

On CNN’s “New Day” Wednesday morning, co-host Chris Cuomo said that Trump’s allegation of voter fraud is “B.S.”:

“Is there a second line to this story in terms of what this commission is about other than the obvious, which is trying to put meat on the bones of a B.S. allegation?”

CNN Political Commentator Errol Louis agreed, saying it is worse than that. The real objective of the administration’s voter fraud commission is voter suppression.

After the election Trump claimed that he would have won the popular vote if “the millions of people who voted illegally” were deducted.

Democrats really want that to be a “B.S. allegation.” But is it? From NewsBusters:

The Daily Signal has reported on the many cases of voter fraud and other studies have found that there are potentially large amounts of noncitizens registered to vote.

An Old Dominion University study found that noncitizen voting “is at times substantial enough to change important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races.” As Tom Fitton points out, using this study’s math, 1.41 million noncitizens would have voted in 2016.

The Pew Center’s 2012 election survey found that:

“Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.”

“More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.”

“Approximately 2.75 million people have active registrations in more than one state.”

Additionally, as the Washington Times reports, investigations in Maryland and Virgina have found thousands of aliens registered to vote.

Hamas-Linked Women’s March Organizer Calls for ‘Jihad’ Against Trump By Tyler O’Neil

This past weekend, a Muslim activist who helped organize the “Women’s March” this past January actually called for Muslims to engage in a “jihad” against President Donald Trump.”

“I hope that we — when we stand up to those who oppress our communities — that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,” Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, declared in a speech at the annual Islamic Society of North America convention over the weekend.

“We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House,” the activist added.

Sarsour argued that if Muslims did not wage a kind of jihad against Trump, they would be effectively siding with the “oppression” of every liberal group.

“If you sit back idly in the face of oppression, if you maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims but oppresses black people inside our community and outside our community, undocumented people, other minority groups and oppressed groups, then you — my dear sisters and brothers — are then identified with the oppressor,” Sarsour declared.

“If you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country, you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America.”

Sarsour mentioned “jihad” more than once, and explained what she meant by the term. She quoted the prophet Mohammed’s response to the question of “what is the best form of jihad or struggle,” saying that “a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad.”

This liberal activist was not calling for violent attacks on Trump, his administration, or Republicans in general. But if their policies constitute “oppression,” and if no patriot can support those policies, and if a Muslim calls for jihad against the president, it stands to reason that violence is, to some degree, implied.

Mere weeks after the politically motivated shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise, who remains in the hospital today, this Muslim activist behind the Women’s March called for jihad against the “oppressive,” “tyrant,” “fascist,” and “white supremacist” Trump. Talk about turning politics into a religion and demonizing your opponents.

Sarsour has supported a political enshrinement of sharia (Islamic law), has ties to the terrorist organization Hamas … and lectures Westerners about women’s rights, after she tweeted that Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali “don’t deserve to be women” and should have their vaginas taken away. But if you sit idly back in the face of what she considers injustice, no peace be upon you.

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’ You’d think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers—but apparently not. By Julie Kelly

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways.”

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”

Scientists puzzle through effect of ‘deep solar minimum’ on earth’s atmosphere By Thomas Lifson

There haven’t been any sunspots for the last 44 days, and some scientists believe that the sun is entering a period called a “deep solar minimum,” with unpredictable, but potentially devastating effects. But don’t worry: even if we don’t know what’s going to happen over the next couple of years, it is still “settled science” (ask Al Gore, if you doubt this) that in a century the “earth’s temperature” will rise and cause catastrophe.

Meanwhile, in the ort run, the science isn’t looking very settled. The New York Post reprints a story from the UK Sun:

The sun might soon batter us with a shower of deep space rays so intense, it could cause part of our atmosphere to collapse.

Space scientists reckon we are on the verge of a “deep solar minimum,” which is a period of low activity.

Unlike the name suggests, this could cause an outer layer of the atmosphere called the thermosphere to contract — and it’s not entirely clear what the effects of this could be on our planet.

Professor Yvonne Elsworth at the University of Birmingham in England believes that a “fundamental change in the nature of the [sun’s magnetic] dynamo may be in progress.”

It’s backed up by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory’s daily snaps, which have shown a spotless sun for 44 days in a row.

This led scientists to believe that it’s nearing a tumultuous period not seen since 2008.

There is too much “may” and “might” floating around here for me to be 100% confident that the atmosphere will “collapse.”

One finding that I have arrived at (and I am a “social scientist” with a PhD in Sociology, after all) is that claiming catastrophe is a good way for a scientist to get attention. Maybe even some grant money.

The Deconstruction of Western Values By David Prentice

Western Civilization is extraordinarily complex. From Greece to Rome to Europe and America, a long, multifaceted, and rich line of thought has dominated. In 1909 Harvard (oh, the irony) published a series called the “Harvard Classics” that began a major emphasis on what we now call “the great books”. Many universities nationally and worldwide used this book list as the basis of understanding who we were and how the West had come to be what it was. It was a list worthy of teaching each generation. In today’s jaded academic world, these courses barely exist.

This was the epitome of Western thought. From Plato, the Judeo/Christian writings, Epictetus, Augustine, Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and many more, and with such depth, the list was genuinely incredible. I remember asking a professor why we didn’t study more contemporary books, rather than these stuffy old tomes. He replied, “Because they have stood the test of time.” Checkmate. You could say that they once formed the basis of thought for both liberals and conservatives in the country, that they helped make America great. Post-World War II, most boomers studied the great books.

Enter the deconstruction. It had begun prior to the 1930s. It was the critical theory of the Frankfurt School that began our slow death march. Our academics fell for this critique of Western thought. Howard Zinn and the current group of “historians” all put their stamp on calling these books as the progeny of “dead white men.” The left, being who they are, readily accepted this new history. It was not necessary to debate or discuss actual historical ideas. It was more important to call them old, dead, and white. The democrat party may as well call its platform the epitome of the deconstruction of the West.

The deconstructionists have been winning. Our universities have literally gone insane, teaching every new critique about our culture that pops up. Just look at any liberal arts college course list. Most are pretty sick, intent on salting the mental constructs of their students so they can be good leftist role models. They want students spouting the aphorisms of ignorant live professors who forgot how alive the classics are, if they ever knew. If you want to know the fruit of this teaching, just look at what the universities have instituted in recent years: safe rooms, therapy dogs, crying sessions, counselling. They are still melting down. A generation lost in space, in the mentally “safe”, and very demented spaces of the professoriate.

C.S. Lewis saw this budding phenomenon back in the 1930s. In his writings, professors spouting the deconstruction theories were the villains, universities were the vehicles, bureaucracies were the model for Hellishness, and leftist politicians rounded out the whole bad barrel of apples.

In his novel, That Hideous Strength, there are powerful scenes where his hero, Ransom, battles a professor/politician who has given himself over to these new forces. Ransom watches as the professor deteriorates mentally and morally, finally realizing what this new philosophy leads to. He sees the formerly brilliant professor becoming sotted with viciousness, self-indulgence, and foolishness. Ransom finally understands he has to fight this man, and his philosophy, to the death. Literally.

These scenes are powerful foreshadowing of what has happened in our deconstructed country. C.S. Lewis and his good friend Tolkien envisioned the great earthly battles to come, writing fiction about the courage of those who would fight against deconstructionist enemies.

Donald Trump this week gave a speech in Poland lauding Western values, stating our vulnerabilities, and wondering if the West has the will to survive. He is encouraging those in the West who have the mettle to rise up and reclaim our heritage. He is engaging the battle against those who would tear it down. Trump knows the stakes. When he talks about making America great again, it’s likely because he understood the courses of great books, and knew the greatness of what was once handed to us.

Pope John Paul II gave some great speeches about what he called “the culture of death. How fitting that Trump would give his latest call to arms in Poland. How fitting that Poland, so historically war-torn, sees the battle clearly. How fitting that they are already in the fight to preserve the West, one of the few European countries to do so.

A New Fantasy of Power By Eileen F. Toplansky

In his book titled Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary, editor Steven R. Weisman cites an October 5, 1973 letter of Moynihan’s affirming that

[Norman] Podhoretz is at the height of his form. He has it. He knows what has been going on in America since 1932 when Edmund Wilson, becoming Marxist, exulting in the Depression, pronounced that ‘we now have a chance to take our country away from the businessmen who took it from us.’ A score from Walden time, now to be settled, because the normal sources of strength of the republic had been shaken. A fantasy of power. So the 1960s. The radicalization of the intellectual community was not a response to a new perception of evils of bourgeois society, but a response to a new fantasy of power . . . .

The issues of ‘poverty,’ ‘war,’ ‘racism,’ were manipulated by intellectuals to establish their new politics. He is right. The main political values of the American intellectual community are anti-democratic or non-democratic [.] The armies of youth of the 1960s were commanded.

Fast forward 44 years later and Matthew Vadum explains how sharia-supremacists collaborate with Leftists to destroy the United States. He lays out the information in Volume 10 of the Civilization Jihad Reader Series from the Center for Security Policy.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center writes in the foreword that “the jihadists’ success… owe much to the decades-long march of cultural Marxism through the key pillars of American society: academia, faith communities, government (especially national security), law enforcement, and media.”

It is clear that Hollywood leftists have long displayed intentional ignorance of the crimes of Communist and Muslim regimes, as noted by Norman Berdichevsky in his 2013 article at the New English Review.

How is it, though, that two seemingly opposing groups could come together? It is because “communists, leftists and progressive operatives see Judeo-Christian principles as a force for ill in the world” and want them eliminated. Likewise, jihadists have vowed to destroy Western civilization. Consequently, “this shared antipathy to the traditional religious values that inspired and nurtured Western civilization, allow Islam and the left to make common cause.”

This Red-Green axis was strengthened as America’s Intelligence Community’s ability to “protect against propaganda whether of the communist or taqiyya varieties” has been severely weakened.

The real story of Russian influence into our world is routinely overlooked. Yet the “ties between Western leftists and jihadists who were recruited, trained and, in some cases… managed by the Soviet Union and the KGB has led to a decades-long collaboration that for too long operated mostly in the shadows.” Declassified information like the Mitrokhin Archive and the Venona Papers have “illuminated how communist agents stoked the flames of Islamic terrorism and infiltrated deeply inside the ranks of the U.S. government.”

Thus, America finds itself confronting “cultural Marxists and jihadis now working hand-in-hand to demean our culture, destroy the nuclear family, trash the nation’s heritage and undermine non-Muslim religious communities.” And this is being underwritten by the “left’s wealthy donors and foundations.” Their “shared loathing for America” and the Constitution has resulted in millions of dollars going towards weakening America.

Specifically, Matthew Vadum highlights the following by which the Red-Green Axis works to weaken American resolve.

Trump Provokes CNN’s Self-Immolation, America Relieved By Roger Kimball

A couple of weeks ago in this space, I speculated that CNN, the Crackpot News Network, had reached the terminal stage of malevolent implausibility. “[I]t would be a good thing,” I wrote, “were CNN humiliated and sued out of existence. It performs no journalistic function, merely a destructively partisan one.”https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/05/trump-provokes-cnns-self-immolation-america-relieved/

As usual, I was too kind. CNN will not have to be sued out of existence, as Gawker Media, another disgusting purveyor of malicious gossip and fake news, was a year or so back. No, CNN seems to be performing a species of hara-kiri or seppuku in public.

Actually, CNN’s behavior is closer to the behaviour of the fanatic Naphta in his duel with the suave humanist Settembrini in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain. The two antagonists confront each other, pistols in hand. Settembrini calmly delopes; Naphta screams “You coward!” and shoots himself in the head. Everyone is happier.

Several people have suggested to me that the whole travel ban drama, in which Trump’s legally formed and disseminated executive order was stomped upon by a couple of grandstanding district judges run amok, was actually a cunning plan™ devised by Democrats. The idea, the hope, was that Trump would be so enraged by the obvious affront to his constitutional authority that he would overreact, do something legally culpable, and thus give his enemies grounds to call for his impeachment.

It didn’t work. Trump did issue his ill-formed “so-called judge” tweet, but beyond that, he sat back, fumed, and let his lawyers loose on the preposterous temporary restraining orders. Last week, the Supreme Court vindicated Trump (more or less), allowing a modified version of the travel bans to proceed (which they did as of last Thursday).

But two can play at the provoke-your-enemy-into-doing-something-stupid strategy. The media keep telling us how thin-skinned and volatile Donald Trump is. Just about everybody wishes he would Tweet less and enjoy it more. But when it comes to the art of provocation, Trump is a Supreme Galactic Master and the media are weenie pikers.

The media wheeled out Kathy Griffin, whose infamous photo shoot featured her holding a bloody severed head in Trump’s likeness. They deployed foul-mouth pundits who, like grubby, ill-bred school boys, emitted various scatalogical epithets about the president of the United States. They published fantastical stories about alleged connections between Trump surrogates and “the Russians,” but then walk them back or, in the case of the latest libel, publically disown the story, scrub it from the Internet, and fire the three senior employees responsible for its writing and publication.

When the avid Bernie Sanders supporter James Hodgkinson goes on a hunting expedition against Republican congressmen, shooting several, the media blame Republicans for creating a “climate of hate.” (One Democratic official was recorded saying he hoped Rep. Steve Scalise [R-La.], the most seriously injured, would die.)

Trump’s Defining Speech In Poland, he asks the West to defend its values of faith and freedom.

The White House description of Donald Trump’s speech Thursday in Warsaw was simply, “Remarks by President Trump to the People of Poland.” In truth, Mr. Trump’s remarks were directed at the people of the world. Six months into his first term of office, Mr. Trump finally offered the core of what could become a governing philosophy. It is a determined and affirmative defense of the Western tradition.

To be sure, Mr. Trump’s speech also contained several pointed and welcome foreign-policy statements. He assured Poland it would not be held hostage to a single supplier of energy, meaning Russia. He exhorted Russia to stop destabilizing Ukraine “and elsewhere,” to stop supporting Syria and Iran and “instead join the community of responsible nations.” He explicitly committed to NATO’s Article 5 on mutual defense.

But—and this shocked Washington—the speech aimed higher. Like the best presidential speeches, it contained affirmations of ideas and principles and related them to the current political moment. “Americans, Poles and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty,” he said. This was more than a speech, though. It was an argument. One might even call it an apologia for the West.

Mr. Trump built his argument out of Poland’s place in the history of the West, both as a source of its culture—Copernicus, Chopin—and as a physical and spiritual battlefield, especially during World War II. The word Mr. Trump came back to repeatedly to define this experience was “threat.”

During and after the war, Poland survived threats to its existence from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Mr. Trump believes that the West today confronts threats of a different sort, threats both physical and cultural. “This continent,” said Mr. Trump, “no longer confronts the specter of communism. But today we’re in the West, and we have to say there are dire threats to our security and to our way of life.”

He identified the most immediate security threat as an “oppressive ideology.” He was talking about radical Islam, but it is worth noting that he never mentioned radical Islam or Islamic State. Instead, he described the recent commitment by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to combat an ideological menace that threatens the world with terrorism. He compared this idea of mutual defense to the alliance of free nations that defeated Nazism and communism.

But the speech’s most provocative argument was about our way of life. It came when he described how a million Poles stood with Pope John Paul II in Victory Square in 1979 to resist Soviet rule by chanting, “We want God!”

“With that powerful declaration of who you are,” Mr. Trump said, “you came to understand what to do and how to live.”

This is a warning to the West and a call to action. By remembering the Poles’ invocation of God, Mr. Trump is clearly aligning himself with the same warning issued to Europe some years ago by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict.

Washington’s Leak Mob Trying to topple Trump, current and ex-officials damage national security. By Kimberley A. Strassel

Today’s Washington is overrun by two kinds of crimes.

The first is the still-speculative kind, which the Washington press corps obsesses over— Trump -Russia collusion, obstruction of justice—despite no evidence of its existence. By all accounts, special counsel Robert Mueller’s growing team of Democratic lawyers intends to devote itself to this fiction.

Yet if Mr. Mueller were serious about bringing down a threat to the nation, or even carving himself a place in history, he’d be tackling the second kind of crime, the real kind. These are the crimes that occur constantly and actually harm national security, even if they’re routinely ignored by a self-interested media. We are talking of course about the serial leaking of sensitive information, the daily profession of a new government elite akin to an organized crime network.

Lucky for Mr. Mueller, he doesn’t even need his army of legal investigators to get an immediate handle on this mafia. He can instead stroll down to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. That’s the purview of Sen. Ron Johnson, who keeps dogged oversight of government among his many self-set tasks.

That mission resulted this week in a shocking staff analysis of the recent deluge of secret-spilling, and the manner in which these unauthorized disclosures are harming national security. It’s the first congressional scrutiny of the leaks—and notable for its straight-up nature. This is no partisan document. It’s a bloodless accounting of a national-security failure, perpetrated by dozens of government employees willfully breaking the law.

The first 126 days of the Trump administration featured 125 stories that leaked harmful information. Just under one a day. The committee staff judged the stories against a 2009 Barack Obama executive order that laid out what counted as information likely to damage national security. And as it chose to not include borderline leaks or “palace intrigue” stories, that number is an understatement.

For reference, the first 126 days of the Obama term featured 18 stories that met the criteria. Ten of those were actually leaks about George W. Bush’s “torture memo,” which Mr. Obama released.

The Trump leaks show the sweeping nature of this enterprise, coming as they have from “U.S. officials,” “former U.S. officials,” “senior U.S. officials,” “intelligence officials,” “national security officials,” “Justice Department officials,” “defense officials” and “law-enforcement officials.” One story cited more than two dozen anonymous sources. Alarmingly, the titles, and the nature of the information disclosed, indicate that many leaks are coming directly from the U.S. intelligence community.

What’s been disclosed? The contents of wiretapped information. The names of individuals the U.S. monitors, and where they are located. The communications channels used to monitor targets. Which agencies are monitoring. Intelligence intercepts. FBI interviews. Grand jury subpoenas. Secret surveillance-court details. Internal discussions. Military operations intelligence. The contents of the president’s calls with foreign leaders. CONTINUE AT SITE

Madmen and Nukes: North Korean Edition By Brandon J. Weichert

The North Koreans put on their own pyrotechnic display over the July 4th weekend with a successful launch of an ICBM into the Sea of Japan. With a working ICBM, Kim Jong-Un’s regime is now capable of reaching Alaska. If they continue testing and learning from their previous launch, it is only a matter of time before the North Koreans could strike any major American city.https://amgreatness.com/2017/07/06/madmen-nukes-north-korean-edition/

Time is all that stands in the way between Kim and the ability to incinerate Los Angeles or Chicago or New York. It wasn’t that long ago the North didn’t have nukes at all.

In 1994, the Clinton Administration wanted to strike a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon to prevent the North Koreans from recovering the raw materials necessary for making nuclear bombs. However, after looking at his options—the costs, both in terms of lives and treasure, that another Korean war would incur—former President Clinton chose to create a multilateral framework that would encourage the North to abandon its nuclear weapons program in exchange for Western concessions.

The North’s demand was simple: if the United States did not want to see a nuclear-armed North Korea, they had to pay the Kim regime not to develop nukes.

The international community happily agreed. As it is with most blackmailers, however, paying the ransom only encouraged them to double down on bad behavior. The only difference in this instance was that the international community became complacent about the threat that North Korea posed because an “agreement” had been reached.

Meanwhile, the North Koreans took the blackmail money and invested it in their military—including their nuclear program—and in a program of enriching the corrupt members of the regime. They then systematically raised the stakes on the international community.

From George W. Bush to Barack Obama, different combinations of carrots-and-sticks were paraded in front of the North Koreans in an attempt to stabilize relations and bring security and stability to the Korean Peninsula. Each time, the Kim Regime was unfazed. Indeed, in spite of sanctions, the North Koreans successfully tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. So, whether you’re Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump replicate her husband’s schemes from 1994, or if you’re Elliot Abrams insisting that Trump reinstitute the George W. Bush-era sanctions regime, you’re making an argument that—however different in particulars—is the same in its level of utter ineffectiveness. .

Over the last two decades, the North has become the hub of international criminal schemes, a critical point in the global human trafficking system; it has suborned international terrorism; and more importantly, it has become a major player in a global, illicit network of nuclear proliferation. On the international stage, North Korea’s nuclear shenanigans are protected by the Chinese and the Russians. The primary beneficiaries of all this are other rogue states, such as Iran. Clearly, this is not the kind of regime with which Americans should feel comfortable in the knowledge that it possesses nuclear weapons.

Many (until recently, myself included) had hoped China would apply pressure to goad Pyongyang into being more cooperative. It’s clear now that China won’t lift a finger to help (though Beijing will happily string the United States along, so the Chinese can extract more concessions from us). China fears what would happen if the Kim regime collapsed: their worst nightmare is for a human tidal wave of North Korean refugees to swamp their borders and destabilize their country. Plus, the Chinese historically favor “stability” above all else. They cannot be relied upon. And, now with Russia getting involved on behalf of North Korea, there is little hope for an international settlement on this issue. The autocrats will have each other’s backs.

Pyongyang has paid close attention to what has happened to similar autocratic dictatorships around the world that did not possess nuclear arms: America toppled them. Whether speaking about Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, a lack of nuclear arms makes such regimes susceptible to being overthrown by the United States. Meanwhile, similar regimes that may have nuclear arms—such as Iran—are given a wide berth by the United States.