RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Galindez writes: "There is a madman in the White House threatening fire and fury. Kim Jong-un may be a nut job, and the world is a more dangerous place with him in power. However, the new problem is Donald Trump, a nut job with a more dangerous military at his disposal."

President Trump. (photo: AP)
President Trump. (photo: AP)

Take the Nukes Away From the Madman in the White House

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

11 August 17


have always argued that we are hypocrites to say other countries can’t have nuclear weapons but we can. People have always said we were not crazy enough to use them. Um ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if you ignore those bombings, the argument can no longer hold true.

Now there is a madman in the White House threatening fire and fury. Kim Jong-un may be a nut job, and the world is a more dangerous place with him in power. However, the new problem is Donald Trump, a nut job with a more dangerous military at his disposal.

The North Korean regime, like many others in history, depends on fear to remain in power. They need their people to believe they are strong leaders, and they depend on propaganda to feed that belief. The bluster that comes from North Korea is designed to give the North Korean people the impression that their country is a world power.

North Korea’s missile tests are part of that propaganda campaign. The rhetoric out of North Korea has not gone unnoticed, and the responsible response has been isolation and sanctions.

Donald Trump depends on the same formula to govern the United States: propaganda, irresponsible rhetoric, and outright lies. He knows how to push all the right buttons to keep his angry white base motivated. The rest of the country and the world are disgusted by his actions, but his angry white base loves what he is doing.

This is nothing new with Trump. Everything he does is calculated to fire up his bigoted base of support. I am not saying all Trump supporters are racist or bigoted, but the base of his support is. Let’s look back to his support of the birther movement. I don’t believe he ever doubted that President Obama was born in the United States. He did know that if he championed the issue, he would become a hero to people who didn’t think a black man should be president.

During his campaign, he fired up his base with anti-immigrant rhetoric designed to fire up the same voting bloc. That angry white voting bloc believes that people of color are taking their jobs and are a drain on their economy. They also are likely to be very patriotic and pro-military. They are the cab driver who tells you we should nuke all the Arabs, or the business owner who thinks all his taxes are going to lazy people and not to his community’s infrastructure.

Those same people react positively to irresponsible militaristic rhetoric. As Donald Trump acts like a schoolyard bully and threatens to crush North Korea, these people are fired up and proud to be Americans again.

Kim Jong-un likely sees through it. He knows exactly what Donald Trump is doing. The North Korean leader has the same leadership style. But what if one of them believes the rhetoric they are throwing out there? I think they are both phony cowards who are all show. I believe that they both just want their people to believe that they are tough. The problem is they have access to nuclear weapons, weapons that could end life on this planet.

Neither Donald Trump nor Kim Jong-un should have access to the powerful militaries that they lead. Jong-un becomes stronger every time Donald Trump ratchets up the rhetoric. Sanctions and isolation are the right responses to North Korea. Threats and bluster only increase the chance that a catastrophic event will take place.

It is time once again to work toward ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction. We have become lazy; there has not been much of an antiwar movement since the Iraq War. It is time to focus not only on nuclear nonproliferation but also on disarmament.

We can no longer count on the current nuclear powers being sane enough not to use nuclear weapons. Any country can elect a nut job like Donald Trump.

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+30 # No Go 2017-08-11 13:28
Lock Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in a room together and let them duke it out.
Once they have come to an agreement we can let them out on supervised release, with one condition, that they stop threatening us with nukes.
-2 # futhark 2017-08-12 22:58
What would be the prize accorded the winner? Maybe a bicycle race would do just as well as wrestling, be a lot more fun to watch on television, and do more to encourage physical fitness to boot.
-13 # Anonymot 2017-08-11 13:34
Oh, yes, Scott. And which of the war hungry candidates did you vote for? I chose Stein after Bernie buckled.
+20 # No Go 2017-08-12 09:28
Quoting Anonymot:
Oh, yes, Scott. And which of the war hungry candidates did you vote for? I chose Stein after Bernie buckled.

Whatever you may think of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders said,
"on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day."

So, you voted for the unelectable, unqualified Stein, placing you squarely among the people we have to thank for giving us Trump for President.
-13 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 11:08
And you voted for a Wall Street warmonger. Let's move on.
0 # Brice 2017-09-09 02:21
This line you have been spewing all over RSN, and probably elsewhere that "Hillary is a warmonger" comes right out of the Russian troll army on Facebook and Social Media from the newly discovered fake accounts.
-15 # SHK 2017-08-12 12:38
Which would you rather have, a megalomaniac without a brain or a power/money-hun gry one with a brain? That was our choice. We allowed Bernie to be run off the "stage" by that woman—did you see her fighting to suppress...what ?...when she stood to Bernie's right when he caved? That, in the way I saw it, was an effort to suppress her scream of triumph and joy at what she had managed to accomplish by driving the far more qualified by virtue of intent Bernie Sanders out of the way. The people at the bottom of that accomplishment should be tried for treason. It gave us Trump. Clinton, please remember, gave us Trump. Bernie would have walked all over him.
-8 # SHK 2017-08-12 12:52
No, the people who voted/finagled/ abetted Hillary becoming the candidate (pay attention, you women—and I am a woman) who were so obsessed with getting a woman into the WH that they and no one else are responsible for Trump. If the Dems in the general populace who backed Hillary in the primary had seen any sort of reality about the two Dem candidates, Bernie Sanders would be our president and all of this would not ever had happened. Many of us would NOT vote for the difference between two evils. Bernie would have won in a landslide. The Democratic Party and conniving Hillary Clinton are responsible for the current mess and no one else.
-15 # SHK 2017-08-12 13:04
A smart crook can be just as dangerous as a madman and equally unpredictable. I admire Bernie but I can't say voting between a crazy elephant and a calculating leopard as a way to die has a lot of difference in the end.
-5 # SHK 2017-08-20 04:42
So y'all. How're you doing now that the Trumper whupped your darling? Bernie would have taken charge and this nincompoop would be back playing golf and brag/whining about his wonderfulness that went so unappreciated. But no. Y'all had to have Hillary or she cheated her way in, whatever. Just always think, you down-voters, YOU are responsible for the Trumpster. How's that feel?
-2 # SHK 2017-08-31 17:30
The problem is, we shot ourselves in the collective foot. Hillary Clinton wan't better than Bernie. Impatient women are to blame & I say that as a woman. A woman can run a country just as well as a similarly qualified man. However, a semi-honest, self-interested woman (i.e. Hillary) is NOT better than an honest, concerned-for-t he-people man (i.e. Bernie). I, a woman of 79, who has had my share of shoves aside in favor of the men, STILL think a good man is better in power than a semi-good woman or a rotten man. Elizabeth vs. Bernie? I would have licked my wounds, sat down, shut up and voted for Elizabeth. However, it was Hillary. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. How could I when I was around—a real live grown up woman and politically active—during the Clinton administration. It wasn't that great. Not really. Too much distraction with blue dresses and the like for no good reason. Also, I read books about the way Arkansas had been run. Not that savory. Any of you red-mark-dealin g ladies do that? Hmmm? She's not lily white reputation-wise . The Clintons are "us, ourselves and we" people. The only difference is they are just a lot more clever about it and do cover themselves with enough camouflage to put off the less-than-obser vant public. Trump is an in your face, spoiled brat creep. Motives are not that different. Trump is just more out there. I didn't give you Trump. YOU gave you Trump by not going with the best person for the job in the first place.
-9 # futhark 2017-08-12 22:55
Why am I STILL seeing 3 to 4 times as many cars driving around with BERNIE stickers on them than I ever saw with Hillary stickers? And yet Hillary was declared the winner of the California Presidential Primary of 2016.
-2 # SHK 2017-08-31 17:38
The women were too impatient, I have to say, even though I am one and have been waiting a lot longer than most of the impatient young ones. They couldn't wait for Elizabeth. They had to have it NOW. Nevermind that they gave us this terrible jerk as a consequence. Now they blame Trump on ME! One vote. My my. Had no idea I had so much power. What about my husband who didn't vote for Hillary either but voted Green as well? No, couldn't be that he and many other people didn't think Hillary was right for this country and so allowed Trump in. Why is that okay with them? They got their candidate. She didn't win. Trust me, my vote for Jill Stein (a woman, by the way) didn't lose it for Hillary, now did it? There were a couple of other people who didn't vote for her either, wouldn't you say? Why do you think that was?? Please give me some answers to that question. I am seriously interested in the reasons you have.
0 # futhark 2018-01-20 12:06
When I voted for Jill Stein I thought I was voting for a woman, but that was not why I did it. She seems to me a very intelligent and wise person, running on a platform that would, if enacted, do more to promote peace, tolerance, environmental protection, and a sustainable and widely shared prosperity than any other candidate in the race.

As for being unelectable, it is supposed to be for the people to decide this, not the professional power manipulators, here exemplified by the Democratic National Committee. My vote for Dr. Stein did not put Donald Trump in the White House, as I live in California, but I hoped to signal to the power elite that at least one regular voter is fed up with having his choices restricted to pawns and active supporters of Wall Street and the MIC.
+32 # Larry 2017-08-11 13:50
Trump doesn't have a "base." He has a cult. They will obediently follow him even to nuclear oblivion, because they are as mad as he.
+1 # Brice 2017-09-09 02:23
I'm doubting that he does have a cult ... at least in the US ... the cult is Russian Trolls on Facebook and other social media sites. One of the things they repeat is that Hillary was a warmonger.

There is no evidence of that, but that line we have been reading RSN, and probably elsewhere that "Hillary is a warmonger" comes right out of the Russian troll army on Facebook and Social Media from the newly discovered fake accounts.
+26 # Shorey13 2017-08-11 14:16
This mess is proof positive that our democracy is in the toilet, and Trump has his hand on the flusher.

I'll admit I'm wrong only if the Congress does its duty and removes him. but I'm not holding my breath.
+38 # janie1893 2017-08-11 14:30
Trump's mental illness is one that allows him to believe that if he, personally, makes a statement, it must be true because he said it. He also cannot understand that he is fallible. After all, he is the President! He is the most dangerous man on earth today.
+33 # elkingo 2017-08-11 14:34
This guy is the real-life Dr. Strangelove. This is no exaggeration. His ramblings get more paranoiac every day. Is there no legal means to remove him from office short of protracted impeachment proceedings? As commander in chief, can't he be removed by his second in command on grounds of mental incapacity?
+1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-11 14:36
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis." - Harold Pinter, 2005 Nobel Lecture

Yes, take away Trump's power to start a war or use nuclear bombs. That's actually what the constitution says. And it was the intent of Barbara Lee's effort repeal the post-9-11 AUMP (authority to use military force) which gave a president unchecked power to start a way wherever he wanted to if it was in pursuit of terrorism. Or of anything he said.
+1 # economagic 2017-08-11 15:19
Kim Jong-un is a tyrant and Donald Trump seeks to become one, but that is just about the extent of what they have in common. North Korea is not a threat to any country except possibly South Korea, and to the US if Trump's insecurities lead him to take foolish action and his generals can't dissuade him.

The US is the Number One rogue nation in the world, with the biggest nuclear arsenal, one of the largest numbers of people in military uniform (not to mention our police), a thousand military bases (one or more in nearly every country), and the largest empire the world has ever known, enforced by political, economic, and military sanctions at least for the moment.

Can anyone explain how Congress can restrain the constitutional power and mandate for the president to act as Commander In Chief? I don't think so. And as much as I would like to require a declaration of war from Congress before the president can undertake any military adventure, the feasibility of that arrangement ended in the 1950s, when ICBMs reduced the time to respond to an all-out attack from a few hours to a few minutes. Nuclear warheads only made the consequences of a wrong decision either way more apocalyptic.
+28 # mim 2017-08-11 15:19
At least with the Cuban missile crisis, cooler heads were in charge - those of Kennedy and Khrushchev. Now, who knows what will happen?
+23 # Texas Aggie 2017-08-11 15:54
In the short run, there is a bill being brought up for consideration that would limit drumpf's ability to set off a nuclear explosion just on his own say so
+14 # tedrey 2017-08-11 18:18
When even Scott Galindez doubts there is a strong antiwar or disarmament movement today, a little reminder is in order.

We're very active, and Win Without War, for example, is very visible in RSN articles.
+15 # Scott Galindez 2017-08-11 22:56
I didn't meant to imply that there is no anti-war movement I just don't think think it has any traction since the Iraq war. I am guilty of having not been active in anti war issues since then.
+24 # DongiC 2017-08-11 20:25
Many fine comments at RSN with several focusing on Trump's mental derangement. Imagine, our beloved democracy may succumb to a pathetic nut job.
+14 # EternalTruth 2017-08-12 07:42
Our "beloved democracy" (not beloved by its victims nor actually a democracy), has succumbed to a combination of racism, stupidity, brainwashing and voter suppression. tRump is merely the result of that toxic combination.
+19 # Wise woman 2017-08-12 00:52
Two little boys bragging about their toys. Kim inherited his position but, in our case, fraudulent voting and angry American white boys gave trump his. What is given can be taken away and should be. Vile as pence is, I don't consider him a bully boy.
+7 # tclose 2017-08-12 08:29
The problem is that there is no practical way to take the nukes away from the madman in the White House.
-5 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 11:13
Ed Markey, D-OR, and Ted Lieu, D-CA, have introduced the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" which would require Congressional approval for a first strike. This would, properly, restore Congress' authority to declare war,

Lieu says this bill was written in 2016 -- when it was thought Hillary Clinton would be president.
+14 # Sunflower 2017-08-13 01:27
Quoting librarian1984:
Ed Markey, D-OR, and Ted Lieu, D-CA, have introduced the "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" which would require Congressional approval for a first strike. This would, properly, restore Congress' authority to declare war,

Lieu says this bill was written in 2016 -- when it was thought Hillary Clinton would be president.

Markey is from Massachusetts. The bill is certainly worth supporting!!
-3 # librarian1984 2017-08-13 21:50
Oops! Got him mixed up with Merkeley (sp?). I *saw* Lieu on a show but only *heard* the other name, so I may have it wrong. Thanks!
+1 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 12:48
Okay, I checked it out. Senate bill S.200 was introduced By Ed Markey, D-MA. House bill H.R. 669 was introduced by Ted Lieu, D-CA-33.

Thanks again, Sunflower.
+14 # Rcomm 2017-08-12 11:34
Well, Anonymot, your RSN name is understandable. You are as responsible for the idiot in the WH as the republicans who voted directly for him. Now you want to find fault with others instead of accepting your blame.
My concern for my country is more important than feeling sorry for you.
-1 # SHK 2017-08-31 17:43
Hmmm. Why is it that everyone is blaming everyone else for the Dem loss? Why is no one considering that they just insisted on the WRONG D**N CANDIDATE, admit their mistake, do as much damage control as possible and learn their lesson. Also, why was D. W. Schultz cheating in favor of Hillary? Did that not bother anyone? Did women want to win by trickery??? What real good would that do us? Isn't that what many men think—that we are conniving, etc? Well? Wasn't the Wasserman-Schul tz/H. Clinton thing connivery? If not, what was it? Please look at the facts and not your hurt feelings. Aren't we women stronger and smarter than this? Why the whining and puling? Lick wounds, check facts, fix faults and get out there to fight fair and win honorably!
-1 # SHK 2017-08-31 18:04
[quote name="Rcomm"]We ll, Anonymot, your RSN name is understandable. You are as responsible for the idiot in the WH as the republicans who voted directly for him." No, I'm sorry. The people who insisted on Hillary because female, putting Bernie the extremely qualified seriously correct candidate aside, because it was "our turn". What a thing to base this enormous decision on! Such frivolous idiocy is what has helped keep us down all these years!! Don't you see that? We need to work with facts—you know like the guys do (or are rumored to do). Now you have proven that you are girly girls. I didn't want to align myself with girly girls because I am a woman, grown and inclined to consider facts, not sex.
-4 # Dale 2017-08-12 13:41
Well any leader of any country that has been circled by U.S. troops and weaponry, sanctioned, and isolated might be a bit paranoid, but justifiable so. Their weapons are a simple defense against the overwhelming power of the imperial colossus. The sensible thing is to declare an end to the Korean War, remove the shit from the border, lift sanctions, and make a real peace. This will end the paranoia on both sides, and threat of nuclear destruction to the entire world.
0 # DongiC 2017-08-14 09:09
Eminently reasonable. Follow this line of reasoning and we might well survive.
0 # SHK 2017-09-25 00:18
Okay. I accept my plethora of red marks. Didn't expect anything different from Hillary hounds. What I did expect was at least ONE reason for ONE red mark. I gave you my reasons. Have the courtesy one or all of y'all who red marked me tell me you at least HAVE a reason for voting for her, even if it is simply her possession of a vagina. I have said that that is of no weight when put up against her taste for war, her past "adventures" as First Lady, in the State Department, email troubles, rule-following, etc. etc. etc. Please at least put forward any counter hypothesis you based your red mark ON. It's called "debate" don't you know, an exchange of ideas, etc. etc. etc. Waiting........

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.