Time to Take North Korea Seriously

Tough Talk from Tillerson—————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                At last we may have a secretary of state again who actually understands the limits of diplomacy. In talking tough about the existential threat to South Korea and Japan and to U.S. bases and forces in those countries as well as to parts of the U.S. homeland itself, Rex Tillerson has made it clear that the time for further negotiations with North Korea is finally over and that military pre-emptive action is on the table as an option.

 

The strategy practiced by past U.S. administrations of offering aid to North Korea in return for promises of better behavior has simply not worked and has only delayed an ultimate reckoning with the rogue regime of Kim Jong Un. Meanwhile, North Korea has used the time to further enhance its nuclear capability and its ability to target U.S. bases in Japan and possibly U.S. cities on the west coast and Hawaii. Restraint has gained us absolutely nothing while allowing the threat to worsen and increasing the likelihood that South Korea and Japan will develop nuclear weapons of their own. Diplomacy in the absence of a credible military deterrence and the determination to use it if diplomacy fails to eliminate the threat to U.S. vital interests is worthless.

 

It is, therefore, decision time for North Korea and its patron, China. But don’t expect Kim Jong Un to change his belligerent behavior unless forced to by China or by U.S. military action or by the belief that such action is imminent. Building a nuclear arsenal and using it to blackmail the U.S. into concessions and to bully his neighbors is his only key to maintaining control over his military and a population that lives in squalor compared to its prosperous democratic neighbor to the south. Without the support of his powerful military he would likely soon be deposed or assassinated. U.S. and U.N. sanctions aren’t nearly enough because nearly all of his economic support comes from China.

 

So the ball is actually in Beijing’s court and we should hold their feet to the fire. China understandably fears a collapse of the regime in North Korea will result in a flood of refugees into northern China. But that’s China’s problem and it pales in significance compared with ours and those of our Japanese and South Korean allies. Increasing our anti-missile defenses in the area, while essential and overdue, is not enough. Defense against missiles is not 100% effective and only one needs to get through for events to spiral out of control. Nor can we rely on North Korean restraint in the face of a certain overwhelming U.S. response to an attack. Who knows how the mind of Kim Jong Un works? Sooner or later we have to take his threats seriously.

 

Messrs. Trump and Tillerson need to make it very clear to President Xi Jinping that something has to give now and China has to do most of the giving this time. Mr. Trump relishes his role as a deal maker and he has to get this one done. Perhaps continued adherence to the one-China policy, so sensitive and important an issue to Beijing, should be contingent upon China taking firm action now to withhold all support to the regime in Pyongyang until it dismantles its nuclear weapons programs and we can verify that it has done so.

 

China prefers one-on- one talks between the United States and North Korea to defuse tensions but we’ve been down that road several times before and it leads nowhere. There is no reason to expect that things would be any different this time. Kim Jong Un has shown that he is not one to be reasoned with or to be trusted to keep any agreement. It’s time, then, for responsible adults in Beijing and Washington to do what it takes to end this threat now before it leads to disaster.

March 28, 2017

 

                         

 

More Migration Matters

More Myths Regarding Migration Matters——————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                For years Americans have complained about lax immigration screening and border control. And for years politicians have promised and failed to adequately address those complaints by the people who elected them. Then along came a candidate for president who campaigned on a pledge to not just reduce illegal immigration but to stop it, period. To the surprise of most, this former Democrat with no experience in politics, won the GOP nomination and then against all odds, beat the heavily-favored Democratic establishment heir apparent.

 

That should have ended most of the really big surprises but liberals and advocates for immigrants, legal and otherwise, continue to express astonishment and outrage that this non-politician is actually trying, clumsily at times, to accomplish most of what he promised. Not everything, mind you. He’s softened his positions on some matters such as not targeting so-called Dreamers, who were brought in illegally as children or those who have not committed any serious crimes other than entering the country illegally which is, by the way, a crime.

 

Many myths still persist regarding these matters. One is that walls don’t work. But they do, when properly constructed, patrolled and enhanced by sensors. The border wall in the San Diego/Tijuana sector has been quite effective. Another myth is that mass roundups and deportations are taking place. But deportations in January 2017 under President Trump, were down 6% over the same period last year under former deporter-in-chief Barack Obama. The vast majority of those deported had criminal records. About 10% were reported to have no serious criminal history other than entering the country illegally unless you count all those who were previously deported and re-entered illegally, making them felons. Many, it was said, were guilty of no crime other than lying to obtain benefits or using false or stolen identities to get a job. Folks, these are serious crimes and not always victimless ones.  Of course, many could be prevented if employers were required to use e-verify but liberals, naturally, oppose that, too. Why? Could it be because most illegal immigrants are prospective Democrats? Just asking.

 

Liberals and immigration advocates argue that the percentage of crimes committed by illegal aliens is less than the percentage committed by citizens. But why is that something to brag about? It should be zero percent because people here illegally shouldn’t be here in the first place. Which leads us to the issue of so-called anchor babies and immigration policy. There is a legal concept known as fruit of the poisonous tree which refers to the inadmissibility in a trial of evidence obtained illegally. If a person is in the country illegally and gives birth, why should that child be a citizen if the mother is not here legally in the first place? Had she not broken the law by entering illegally, the child would not have been born here. Again, just asking.

 

Mayors of so-called sanctuary cities and some church leaders have vowed to oppose actions by the federal government to enforce existing law by deporting those here illegally. This puts sanctuary cities at risk of losing federal grants which cash-strapped cities and their legal residents can ill-afford to have happen. It can likewise put some church leaders on a risky path of opposing federal government law enforcement efforts and perhaps even endangering their tax exemption status. Naturally, they don’t want to see congregation members deported. It’s hard enough to fill the pews these days.

 

Catholic Bishop Robert McElroy of the Diocese of San Diego, for example, has reportedly urged community organizers and immigrant advocates to disrupt the enforcers of laws targeting immigrants. What, then, are Catholics to do? Comply only with laws that their bishop approves of? It is one thing for them to instruct their flocks to oppose, say, abortion which the church equates to murder, or to oppose the death penalty. But it is quite another thing for them to set their own immigration policy and enforcement guidelines and to decide which laws their flocks should obey. Perhaps they should focus first on getting cafeteria Catholics to stop choosing which church teachings they will follow. Surveys indicate that a majority of them, for example, ignore the church’s ban on artificial contraception. So will Catholics follow their own well-formed consciences on immigration enforcement issues or will the bishop prevail? And again, just asking.

March 19, 2017

Driving While Stupid

v

Distracted Driving a Major Menace——————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

I love cars, especially vintage ones, and I love to drive, but self-driving automobiles can’t come soon enough for me. That’s because a lot of the fun has gone out of driving because of the effort it takes to avoid road hazards like bottomless potholes, objects that fly out of the backs of trucks driven by people in too much of a hurry to secure them properly and, worst of all, idiots who are driving while texting, talking. taking photographs or otherwise playing with their mobile devices. The latter, in particular, are causing accidents resulting in thousands of deaths and serious injuries and it is getting worse by the month. It’s a drastically worsening problem that calls for equally drastic remedial action. In the words of one chief executive officer attending a recent insurance industry conference, it is now “an epidemic issue for this country”.

 

Accidents caused by distracted drivers are driving insurance rates higher but not fast enough to keep up with rapidly rising costs, according to some insurers, so we can look forward to even higher rates. Actually, it is inaccurate to refer to these crashes as accidents. When a driver makes a decision to use a mobile device while driving or to engage in any other similar activity not related to driving, there is nothing accidental about the tragedy he or she may cause as a result of being distracted. That driver is responsible for the consequence regardless of lack of intent to cause harm. Such an irresponsible and reckless disregard for the safety of others should result in a loss of driving privileges for a very long time in addition to fines and incarceration.

 

A 2015 survey by the largest U.S. auto insurer (by market share) found that 36% of respondents admitted to texting while driving compared with 31% in 2009. For age group 18 to 29, it was an alarming 64%. That’s nearly two-thirds of young adult drivers who are distracted while in control of what equates to a lethal weapon. And these data probably even understate the problem because some respondents may not be entirely honest in their responses.

 

Aside from the personal tragedies and property damage caused by distracted drivers, the cost in terms of increasing insurance premiums is being borne by all the rest of us, as you may have already noticed from your most recent auto insurance bill. And it will soon get worse. Three leading auto insurers are reporting underwriting results leading to declining earnings and they say distracted driving is a factor. One carrier expects rates to rise by 8% this year, following an average increase of 6.5% last year.

 

There is an abundance of studies that indicate that younger drivers are more apt to be distracted while driving than older, more experienced ones. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are more cars on the road each year and far more mobile devices in use. The correlation between car crashes and mobile device ownership is striking, said another auto insurance company president.

 

So what to do about this growing epidemic and threat to our safety? Forget about just warning young drivers to stop using their mobile devices while driving. You might as well tell them to stop driving while listening to loud music blaring in their ears (and those nearby). They just can’t help themselves. Their mobile devices are part of who they are. There are plenty of laws against such distracted driving but the statistics clearly show that they are simply not working. Young drivers tend to have a greater tolerance for risk, less regard for the safety of others, an inflated confidence level in their ability to multi-task and, of course, they think they are invulnerable. It just won’t happen to them. Until it does.

 

Driverless cars will be safer cars because it’s the drivers that are causing the accidents, especially the distracted ones whose need to be constantly connected overwhelms their sense of responsibility and respect for the lives of others. Meanwhile, you might write your legislators and urge them to put more teeth into the laws we have against using mobile devices while driving. Make the penalties harsh enough to get the full attention of those that can’t seem to resist using their mobile devices while driving and send them a message they can no longer afford to ignore.

 

February 5, 2017