Senator vows to kill U.N. arms treaty

Ratification 'will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate'

By: Taylor Rose / WND

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, “will only be ratified if the Senate votes to, which will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told WND.

Lee describes the treaty as “extending far beyond the basic purposes for which the U.N. was created,” adding that the sole purpose of the U.N. is to be a “forum to discuss and resolve international problems.”

The ATT creates universal standards for the transfer of any type of weapon and munitions and requires countries to evaluate cross-border arms contracts in an effort to prevent violations of human rights and hinder terrorists.

However, many senators have grave concerns about the treaty infringing upon America’s ability to sell weapons to its allies, such as Israel and South Korea. Additionally, many fear that it could serve as a precursor to domestic gun confiscation here at home.

Lee called the United Nations “a threat to our sovereignty” and said legislation development should not rest with the international body of the U.N. General Assembly or the Security Council, but rather, “We should be legislating through our own body.”

Lee said he also believes it’s time the United States “should start cutting funding to the United Nations,” claiming “the United Nations is not consistent with American values” where “national sovereignty is destroyed incrementally.”

WND has reported on the actions of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is attempting “to work toward the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law” via U.N. legislation with considerable approval from the U.S. State Department.

However, until the U.S. Senate determines to alter America’s relationship with the United Nations, Lee said we should “keep a careful watch over the U.N.’s activities.”

The ATT passed the U.N. General Assembly following a 154-to-3 vote, with 23 abstentions. The three nations voting against the ATT were Iran, Syria and North Korea, while some of the abstaining nations included Russia, China, Cuba, India, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

President Obama supported the ATT, and America’s U.N. ambassador voted in favor of the treaty. However, it will not apply to the United States until the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty.

In discussing the president’s relationship with the United Nations, Lee said he won’t “judge the president’s motivations.” Nonetheless, he said “the president’s affection” with the U.N. and the ATT “certainly” makes him nervous.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a recent interview with WND, also took a massive swipe at the president’s relationship with the U.N., saying Obama’s “happiest days are when he is in front of the United Nations,” adding “that he does these types of things to advance an ‘internationalist agenda.’”

Inhofe said he sees the president’s relationship with the U.N. and his “leftist” ideology as wanting “to erode our sovereignty, and he does it every day. I cannot think of one U.N. treaty that he has not supported.”

What Is “News”?

By: Derek Hunter / Townhall Columnist

When the massacre in Newtown occurred, it received wall-to-wall coverage, as well it should have. We’d never seen anything like this before – a mentally ill gunman shooting tiny children and their teachers in an elementary school. It shocked the senses and dominated the national conversation – as well it should have.

And aside from opportunistic leftists, such as Michael Moore and Piers Morgan, the original coverage leaned toward what caused the murderer to act and how such mental illness might be addressed in the future. But just as a serious and productive conversation was beginning, the political agenda of those in the mainstream media overtook it.

This was not an opportunity to address mental illness in this country and truly head off such disasters – that’s not all that compelling a story and nobody really has the answer – but it was time to talk gun grabbing. It was time to dust off all the old measures that never worked, all the “solutions” that never could move forward under the democratic process and try to use this tragedy to accomplish them.

It’s hard to blame politicians. They can’t help themselves; they can’t let a good crisis go to waste. But we ought to be able to expect a little more from our media – something a little closer to real life than the political agenda of far-left members of Congress.

So, instead of seriously addressing what makes the Adam Lanzas of the world tick, we put a Band-Aid on cancer in pursuit of decades-old liberal causes. And the media cheerleads as if this were a useful use of leaders’ time. Shame on all of them.

Meanwhile, back at Atrocity Ranch, we have Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the butcher of Philadelphia, charged with eight murders and accused of more than 100. Yet the media – until being publicly shamed into switching course late this week – has been silent.

What was missing from the Gosnell story? Why did it not measure up? The details of Gosnell’s actions are so gruesome, so inhuman, as to defy belief. Were they too horrific? Did we not get pretty into the weeds on the Jeffrey Dahmer story?

And why are babies screaming as their spinal cords are snapped to “finish the job” considered not a story by the same people who bring us every shot, slice and stab of the Jodi Arias trial. The world had never heard of Arias or her boyfriend before his murder and, frankly, never should have after.

But a doctor on trial for eight gruesome murders with the implication of hundreds more approaches a serial killer level of fetish for death. Had Gosnell used a gun, we would know all about what he did.

The president, the media and the leftists in Congress would have seen to it.

But the weapon here wasn’t a gun; it was progressive sacred cow – abortion. Think what you will of abortion, but there’s a reason the late-term partial birth abortion is performed the way it is – with the baby being brought out backwards to the neck, then piercing the skull to vacuum out the brain – and it’s because if the baby, so near to natural birth, came out head first it would breathe on its own and, even by the old liberal definition, be considered legally alive. And that would make the next step – the step Gosnell seemed all too willing to take – murder.

Details aside, the fact you had heard literally zero about the Gosnell trial until late in the week tells you all you need to know about how utterly corrupt the media has become. Politico economics reporter Ben White tweeted Thursday night, “This Gosnell story which I just began to read up on is unbelievably awful and horrifying.” You wouldn’t expect an economic reporter to write about it, but you’d think a journalist would’ve at least heard about it. But not at Politico. To that day, his employer had not published a single story on the topic.
 
On Friday, the media began to face the music. Anderson Cooper did the first 15 minutes of his show on these atrocities. But one of his guests, CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin, tried to explain the media’s lack of interest in the case when he said, “It’s a business decision. We are not operating with a political agenda here. We pick stories, by and large, for reasons that we think people will be interested. I don’t think we’re covering this up. So I just think that’s a way of ginning up their (pro-life groups) supporters.”

Somehow the Trayvon Martin case warranted hours of coverage, but an alleged stationary serial killer operating in the political left’s favorite vocation is passé. The media created a new race of human, the “white Hispanic,” in the Martin case to give it a racial spin it could use to stoke racism. But Gosnell is black, as were most of his victims. The media, filled with liberal progressives, doesn’t care about black victims of crime unless they were victims of a white criminal. How else can you explain the relative silence over the murders in Chicago?

The media has devolved human life into a stereotype template – white criminal, minority victim = news; white criminal, multiple adult or child victims = news; female, attractive, large-breasted, white criminal or victim = news; any other configuration of victim or perp, unless they’re famous, isn’t news.

How many stories of busty blondes disappearing have we heard of? Are black women never abducted? Of course they are. But the racist media doesn’t care. This can be applied to any sort of crime. If it doesn’t fit the template, if it doesn’t look like a good “business decision” to cover, then crickets.

There is a genocide happening in the black community. Not only do half of all pregnancies end in abortion, the majority of gang- and drug-related murders in this country are of young black men, by young black men. Yet few politicians bother to address this slaughter because the media doesn’t deem it newsworthy. Or vice versa. The chicken-and-egg argument doesn’t matter here. The result is the same – young people dying unnecessarily.

Toobin is fine with this. It’s a “business decision” to him, and anyone who wants to talk about crimes other than those deemed worthy by him and his ilk, merely want to “gin up supporters.”

So why what Kermit Gosnell is accused of isn’t news to those who decide what warrants news is fairly simple: 1) What he did was committed in the name of abortion, and everyone in the media knows the only gruesome and newsworthy acts involving abortion are committed by those who oppose it; And 2) What he did – killing poor black people in as gruesome a way as is imaginable – leaves the Toobins of the world less “interested.”

It’s that mindset that separates crimes into levels of priority based on the leftist mainstream media’s perceived importance of the victims. In the big scheme of things, that might be the most disgusting part of the whole story.

Al-Qaeda Acknowledges Syrian Rebels Are Part of Its Network, Fighting to Establish Caliphate in Syria

By: Tiffany Gabbay / The Blaze

After the carnage unfolded at the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, a potential gun running scheme to arm Libyan and perhaps even Syrian rebels was uncovered. The troubling aspect of arming said rebels is the fact that, according to some intelligence experts, those rebels are actually al-Qaeda. 

Now, al-Qaeda in Iraq has acknowledged for the first time on Tuesday that al-Nusra Front, the rebel faction fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, is indeed part of its network.

What’s more, the militant jihadist group said it is fighting to establish an Islamic state in the country.

The remarks, made by Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and published in Al Aribya have finally confirmed longheld suspicions that the two groups are one in the same.

“It’s now time to declare in front of the people of the Levant and [the] world that the al-Nusra Front is but an extension of the Islamic State in Iraq and part of it,” the SITE Monitoring Service quoted Baghdadi as saying in a speech released on jihadist forums Monday.

The two groups will now reportedly merge and be called the “Islamic State in Iraq” and the “Levant.”

The Syrian rebels aren’t the only ones who could receive support from al Qaeda. Baghdadi said that al Qaeda would furnish support to other jihadists “on the condition that the country and its citizens be governed according to the rules dictated by Allah.”

Al-Nusra Front was labeled a “terrorist” group by Washington back in December over its suspected affiliation to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Back then, U.S. State Department dubbed al-Nursa as simply a “new alias” for al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying it was “an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes.”

Al Aribya also notes that jihadist forums online reveal that hundreds of radicals have traversed from Iraq into Syria to lead the charge against Assad’s regime.

U.S. may be wittingly funneling millions of dollars to Taliban in Afghanistan

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Of course. Why not? What's to stop this? There is no reliable way to discern jihadists from "allies" in Afghanistan, as the numerous green-on-blue attacks indicate. And even to try to institute some control would be "Islamophobic." "US May Unwittingly Fund Terrorism in Afghanistan: Report," by Lee Ferran for ABC News, April 12 (thanks to Lookmann):

The U.S. government may accidentally be funneling millions of dollars to the very terrorists and insurgents it's fighting in Afghanistan through sloppy contracting regulations, according to a new government report. 

The report, called "Contracting With the Enemy" and published Thursday by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), examined the system designed to make sure that the U.S. reconstruction is not providing business for any individuals or groups associated with terrorist or insurgent organizations.

SIGAR said that due to "several weaknesses" in the long and complicated process, "millions of contracting dollars could be diverted to forces seeking to harm U.S. military and civilian personnel in Afghanistan and derail the multi-billion dollar reconstruction effort."

The report centered on what's known as Section 841, part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that describes how the U.S. government is supposed to identify individuals or companies with suspected ties to insurgents, confirm that information, pass it along to the head of the contracting activity, then to the primary contractor and finally to the targeted subcontractors whose business deals would then be voided or restricted based on guidance from higher up.

SIGAR said Section 841 was part of a "variety of efforts" undertaken by the government to keep American contracting money out of terrorists' hands in the wake of incidents like the $2.16 billion Host Nation Trucking contract. In that instance, SIGAR said, the U.S. government paid several companies to ship more than 70 percent of food and materiel to American troops in Afghanistan, only to realize that some of those funds were "widely believed to have been funneled to insurgents."

Section 841 is still full of holes, SIGAR said, from the military not telling the head of contracting activity about potentially shady actors to the head of the contracting activity not telling their prime contractors....

Survey: Legalizing Illegal Aliens Risky for GOP
Newsmax.com 
 
Nearly 80 percent of Republicans would be less likely to vote for a member of Congress who supports giving legal status to undocumented aliens, a new survey reveals.

The poll of more than 1,440 likely voters by Pulse Opinion Research asked respondents if they support reducing the illegal immigrant population “by enforcing immigration laws including requiring employers to check the legal status of workers, fortifying the border, and getting the cooperation of local police.”

Overall, 54 percent of respondents “strongly support” this approach, and another 18 percent “somewhat support” it.

But among Republicans, 88 percent said they strongly or somewhat support the approach, compared to 56 percent of Democrats.

They were also asked if they support giving legal status to aliens who pay a fine, study English, and undergo a background check. Only 29 percent strongly support that approach, while 31 percent somewhat support it. Among Republicans, just 18 percent strongly support the approach and 29 percent somewhat support it, for a total of 47 percent, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.

And when respondents were asked which of the two approaches they preferred, 58 percent chose the enforcement approach and 31 percent preferred legalization with conditions. Republicans, however, favor the enforcement method by a wide margin, 82 percent to 12 percent for conditional legalization, while just 37 percent of Democrats opted for enforcement.

When asked which political party they would be more likely to vote for, 82 percent of Republicans said a party that supports enforcing immigration laws, and just 12 percent said a party that supports legalization.

They were also asked: “If your member of Congress supported legal status for illegal immigrants, how would it affect your vote in the future?”

Results: 79 percent of Republicans would be less likely to vote for that member, including 59 percent who would be “much less likely” and 20 percent who would be “somewhat less likely.”

A paltry 5 percent said they would be “much more likely” to vote for that member.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, examined the poll results and observed: “GOP leaders who support legalization risk alienating not only the general public, but the overwhelming majority of their own party.”

New documents point to Indonesian citizenship

Mother dropped Obama from U.S. passport when being American dangerous

Jerome R. Corsi / WND Exclusive

Ann Dunham with Barack Obama Jr.

Documents released by the State Department in two separate Freedom of Information Act requests bolster evidence Barack Obama became a citizen of Indonesia when he moved to the Southeast Asian nation with his mother and stepfather in the late 1960s.

In a passport amendment submitted Aug. 13, 1968, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, identified her son with an Indonesian surname and asked the State Department to drop him from her U.S. passport.

The transaction could have been part of an effort by Dunham to obtain Indonesian citizenship for her son. It took place before the State Department began requiring all citizens traveling abroad, regardless of age, to obtain their own passport.

Several court cases challenging Obama’s presidential eligibility have argued he gave up his U.S. citizenship in Indonesia and used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in the early 1980s. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.

The amendment was submitted less than a year after Dunham joined her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia. It requested “Barack Obama II (Soebarkah)” be removed from her U.S. passport, No. 777788.

A letter from Lolo Soetoro to immigration officials in Hawaii pleading for an extension of his student visa, because anti-American sentiments in Indonesia could endanger his family, offers a possible reason for seeking Indonesian citizenship for Obama.

Meanwhile, an Indonesian school registration card that surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign presents evidence Obama was an Indonesian citizen during his time in the country as a child.

Indonesian school registration for “Barry Soetoro” (AP photo)

WND reported in August 2008 the Associated Press published a photograph purportedly of Obama’s registration card at Indonesia’s Francis Assisi school. The card showed he was enrolled as “Barry Soetoro” and listed as an Indonesian citizen whose official religious identification was Muslim.

An AP spokesman affirmed to WND that the photograph of the registration card was authentic.

Turbulent politics

Lolo Soetoro’s letter to Immigration and Naturalization officials in the Department of Justice in Hawaii explained his wife’s U.S. citizenship could be a problem in the turbulent politics of Indonesia in the mid-1960s.

“My wife, Ann Soetoro, is a citizen of the United States and has resided here all her life,” Soetoro wrote the immigration officials, pleading hardship should he be forced to return to his Indonesian home. “It is presently impossible for my wife to return to Indonesia with me.”

Soetoro argued “anti-American feeling has reached a feverish pitch under the direction of the Indonesian communist party, and I have been advised by both family and friends in Indonesia that it would be dangerous to endeavor to return with my wife at the present time.”

“Complicated internal problems are causing the Indonesian government to crumble rapidly,” he pleaded. “The anti-Western forces are gaining in strength and have brought about government conviscation (sic) of all United States industry in Indonesia as well as sacking of the United States embassy, and burning and sacking of United States Information Service libraries. The United States Peace Corps has recently been asked to leave because the Indonesian government is no longer able to guarantee the safety of corps members.”

The newly released State Department records show Obama and his mother traveled to Indonesia to join her husband in October 1967, with Obama listed on her passport as her son and an American citizen.

When Obama’s mother returned to the U.S. Oct. 20-21, 1971, she entered with State Department forms allowing her to travel with the passport she used in 1967 to go to Indonesia, even though it had expired.

The expired passport contained no reference to Barack Obama, although he had traveled with his mother on the October 1967 flight from the United States to Indonesia.

The only known testimony that Obama returned home from Indonesia alone and on a U.S. passport is his own account in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.” That source, however, has proved to be unreliable in various material aspects.

Questions

Did Obama’s mother remove him from her passport to establish him as an Indonesian citizen, both for his safety and his acceptance in Indonesian schools?

If Dunham had wanted her son to retain U.S. citizenship, she could have kept him on her passport and avoided the trouble of filing an amendment with the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta.

On Aug. 13, 1968, the date Dunham filed the amendment, there was no reason to anticipate she would send her son home alone, something she did not decide to do until three years later, in 1971.

In her own handwriting on the passport amendment, Dunham declared, “I intend to continue to reside abroad for the following period and purpose,” stating her stay in Indonesia is “indefinite” because she is “married to an Indonesian citizen.”

Lolo Soetoro also appears to have had an influence on convincing Dunham to change her mind about sending Obama to school in Indonesia. Both were worried about that prospect when they were pleading for Lolo not to be forced home in 1966.

A letter to the file by INS/DOJ investigator Robert R. Schultz, dated May 24, 1967, documents a telephone call he had with Dunham in Hawaii on May 12, 1967.

“She also indicated that her son is now in Kindergarten and will commence the first grade next September and if it is necessary for her and the child to go to Indonesia she will educate the child at home with the help of school texts from the U.S. as approved by the Board of Education in Honolulu,” Schultz wrote.

Obama would not have needed Indonesian citizenship to study in Jakarta at home with his mother.

Clearly, from the registration record from the Assisi school, being listed as an Indonesian citizen was useful to Obama, much as his mother and stepfather had pleaded to U.S. officials before Lolo Soetoro was denied the waiver he needed to stay in the U.S. legally past 1966.

Rubio Evolves on Immigration, Qualifies Support for Senate Bill

By JAVIER MANJARRES / Shark Tank Media
 

Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio is now the official ‘tip-of-the-spear’ for the illegal immigration reform bill that is expected to come out of the U.S. Senate. Rubio appeared on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ with host David Gregory, where he got right into the weeds of the immigration reform debate.

Rubio’s evolution on immigration reform continues, as the Senator is now using the term “undocumented” instead of illegal to identify immigrants who have come here illegally.

This bill once introduced as agreed to, I think, will show a broad base of enforcement measures unlike this country has ever seen. And what it does is create a way for us to address millions of people that are here undocumented , in a way that is compassionate, but also in a way that is responsible.-Senator Marco Rubio

He then qualifies his support of the  immigration bill, by stating that these illegal immigrants who are granted the chance to get on the pathway to citizenship, will not be awarded any special privileges, once they have applied.

It (the bill)will allow them to ultimately earn access to our legal immigration system, they will still have to apply, it doesn’t award them anything, but it does give them access to our legal immigration system to a process that will not encourage people to come here illegally in the future and though a process  that isn’t unfair for people who have done it the right way.

The status quo is horrible for America. The only people benefiting from the Status quo are in immigration today, are the people trafficking human beings across the border and the people hiring illegal labor for purposes.

Amnesty is the forgiveness of something, and there will be consequences for having violated the law, and their will be reasonable consequences, but the type of consequences that ensure there is no incentive to do it this way again.

Rubio reiterates his point that those who are already waiting in line to enter the US legally, that “no one who has done it the wrong way will get it before you.”

But then Rubio’s own words are used to put him in a bit of a bind. Host David Gregory asked Rubio what has changed in his immigration messaging since  his 2010 Senatorial campaign. Gregory reminded Rubio that during one of the Senatorial debates, Rubio stated that to earn a pathway to citizenship, “you have to leave this country if you are here illegally, go back home and then come back.”

Rubio answered that during his campaign, he was against “blanket amnesty” and this bill is not blanket amnesty, because “you pay serious consequences for having violated the law.”

The existing law does not prohibit someone who has violated the immigration laws from getting a green card it simply says you have to leave the US and wait ten  years.  What we have done is created an alternative to that.

Forces you to wait more than ten years, forces you to pay an application fee, forces you to pay a significant fine, forces you to not qualify for any federal benefits of any kind.

Rubio then says that there would be “no access to anything until there is a universal E-Verify system in place.”

Gregory then asked Rubio what we here at the Shark Tank have also asked of Rubio, in respect to the almost certain possibility that this immigration bill will eventually morph into a bill that would force him to back off.

Rubio said that if the bill changed for the worse and abandoned his principles, he “would not support it, but doesn’t think that will happen.

Again, when President Obama, who is in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, is the biggest cheerleader for this immigration bill, expect his agenda to be addressed.

Op-ed:

As the children starve... tomorrow it all most likely will come to a head

By: Diane Sori

As the world's eyes remain focused on North Korea, especially with some action expected to happen tomorrow during 'The Day of the Sun' commemoratives for North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung, the time has come for a long-term resolution to the Korean problem.  Must we be forced to face 40 or more years of extortion, blackmail, and threats from the man-child 'Supreme Leader' Kim Jong-un...I think not.

The gauntlet has been thrown down...we need to pick it up and end this once and for all.

And now that China has as much at stake as we do, for if there's war millions of refugees, a humanitarian tragedy of unimaginable proportions, would cross the border into China, something that China does NOT want nor can afford...it's high time for China, one of North Korea's biggest allies and economic supporters, to halt the shenanigans of this joke of a leader.  The sad reality is that if they do NOT work with us to step down Kim Jong-uns bloviating threats and hollow rhetoric, a disaster on a worldwide scale could be in the making. 

On a worldwide scale...let that register, really register, because North Korea's other ally of substance is none other than the infamous isamic regime in Iran.  And much to our and our allies consternation, the two countries are indeed collaborating on nuclear weapons and long range missiles.  That collaboration coupled with the aggressive and irrational threats from both rogue nations sets-up a pre-war scenario NOT unlike Germany and Japan did in the late 1930s when their alliance forced us to fight on two fronts...this time though the fronts would be the Far East and the Middle East, thus stretching our and our allies military forces and dollars thin. 

And even with North Korea's many weaknesses...primary of which is that it's wallowing in poverty and has NO economic infrastructure to speak of...those weaknesses are actually the North's main strength, something Kim Jong-un is counting on for the strength of his country lies with the people's unwavering support of him, their 'Supreme Leader.'

Remember, misplaced ideology and blind ambitious patriotism spurred on the Third Reich, almost allowing them to conquer the world, and this is all Kim Jong-un has to really fight with for militarily even his million+ man army is NO match for our and our allies modern weaponry.

And so Kim Jong-un is ready to go to war with both South Korea and the US for he sees a 'wag the dog' scenario unfolding...a scenario where he can divert attention from what should be of greater importance (his starving people), to something of lesser importance (the North becoming a nuclear power), and by doing so, the lesser is shoved into the limelight, overshadowing proper attention being paid to what really is the more important issue.

In this case, Kim Jong-un's saber-rattling takes the eyes of the world off how he's starving his own people as he diverts whatever dwindling resources he has to his military so that he can push forward his nuclear ambitions...and in doing so he's forced the world to cower under his threats.

And what of the North Korean people...the real victims...the losers in all this saber-rattling...a brutally oppressed starving people...a desperate people with one in three children severely malnourished...a people dependent on foreign aid for whatever food they have...a people tired of constantly hearing that war is eminent and that they must sacrifice even more in the name of the 'Supreme Leader.'  And with the North Korean military diverting almost all foreign humanitarian aid to feed its million+ man army rather than feed those who need it the most, Kim Jong-un really has NOTHING to lose by going to war with the South and the US.

Go to war with the US and have the US rebuild you, feed you, and take care of you after you surrender.  Kim Jong-un is NOT the idiot many make him out to be...he's western educated and sees the sad reality of his country and its people, and as such his youth actually works in his favor for in the end all will be forgiven of this young inexperienced leader who just wanted to 'save face' for his country.

So, does Kim Jong-un really want North Korea to become a nuclear power...undoubtedly, for he is of the mindset of his father and grandfather before him...meaning in his eyes all strength comes through the power of weapons on hand...weapons that can cause untold numbers of deaths in a blink of an eye.  

But, and this is critical, Kim Jong-un knows that we will NEVER allow him to reach that goal...at least we hope Kim Jong-un knows that because with Barack HUSSEIN Obama as president almost anything is possible...or sadly NOT possible.