Historians tell us that the predecessor of the Mother’s Day holiday was the spring festival honoring mother goddesses.
In ancient Greece, the spring festival honored Rhea, wife of Cronus and mother of the gods and goddesses.
Cybele was honored in Roman festivals. This Roman celebration, known as Hilaria, lasted for three days – from March 15 to 18, and began several hundred years before Christ was born.
England observes “Mothering Sunday”, observed on the fourth Sunday in Lent. It is possible that the ceremonies to honor Cybele were adopted by the early Church in honor of Mary, Mother of Christ.
In seventeenth century England, young men and women would bring small gifts to their mothers in observance of this day. This British holiday would not carry over to America. One explanation is that life on the American frontier was simply too harsh to take time out for this celebration. Some also believe this conflicted with rigid Puritan beliefs. It would be several centuries later before Americans redesigned their own day dedicated to the memory of their mothers.
Julia Ward Howe
Julia Ward Howe, author of Battle Hymn of the Republic, after the death and destruction of the Civil War, asked mothers to come together and protest sons killing sons of other mothers. In 1870, twelve years after writing the Battle Hymn, she issued a call for an international Mother’s Day to celebrate peace. Howe funded celebrations, but they did not continue. Though her idea did not catch on at the time, Howe had planted the seed that would grow into what we know as Mother’s Day today.
Anna Reeves Jarvis holding Anna Marie
In West Virginia, a women’s group led by Anna Reeves Jarvis, began to celebrate Mother’s Friendship Day in order to re-unite families and neighbors divided between the Union and Confederate sides of the Civil War. After the death of Anna Reeves Jarvis, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis began a campaign for the creation of an official Mother’s Day in remembrance of her mother and in honor of peace. In 1908, Anna petitioned the superintendent of the church where her Mother had spent twenty years as a Sunday School teacher, and her request was honored.
Andrew’s Methodist Church
On May 10, 1908, the first official Mother’s Day celebration took place at Andrew’s Methodist Church in Grafton, West Virginia and a church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Two white carnations, the favorite flower of Anna Reeves Jarvis, were given to every Mother in attendance.
Today white carnations are used to honor deceased Mothers, while pink or red carnations pay tribute to Mothers who are still alive. I remember the sadness in my mother’s eyes the first time she pinned a pink carnation on me, as she wore her white one.
Today we pause and honor our Mothers, those who are still with us, and those who are not. If I wore corsages, mine would be white. How I wish that were not so. I was blessed to have had two mothers in my life, for my mother-in-law was a second mother to me, as beloved as the woman who gave birth to me.
Today I pray for those women who gave me so much, the one who gave me life, who sacrificed and did without many things so that I could have what I needed, or maybe just wanted. I pray for the woman who gave birth to and raised the wonderful guy I married. He would not be the man he is without the mother God gave him.
Here in the Treehouse, we join in prayer for the mothers we love. We unite in thanks for their selfless love and sacrifice. We pray for mothers of the unborn, that God might give them the strength and wisdom to hold onto that precious life, that unique gift to our world. We offer thanks to all our mothers. May your day be spent with the ones you love.
Share a story of your mother here. Remember with us, that we may never forget the sanctity of life, and that sacrifice to bring it forth.
QUESTION: I am studying to become a lawyer. I find your legal writings fascinating. You provide a far deeper understanding of the rule of law that I am taught in school. I suppose that is becoming obvious in economics as well. Can you recommend and legal writing that may have influenced you greatly?
OH
ANSWER: That is a hard subject to reduce to a single work. It is the evolution of law that is also important to understand for only then do you see the corruption that we currently live under. The Biblical story of King Solomon deciding the month of a child illustrates the legal structure. You appeared before the king who was the judge and part of his duty was to settle disputes among the people. The state was not the prosecutor, it was the arbitrator. Today, governments profit from prosecutions and therein lies the problem.
Civil Asset forfeiture today is a distortion and abuse of the foundation of the law from which it is justified by even the Supreme Court against the foundation of liberty. Criminal forfeiture is justified when the property is some gain from an act that someone is found guilty of a crime. However, civil forfeiture is an abuse of every legal principle for it rests not on the person being guilty, but the property. Law enforcement officers they declare the cash in your pocket might be from a drug crime without having to prove you did anything so they just seize it. This is a complete distortion of the old legal foundation upon which it was based known as “deodand” from the Latin Deo dandum, “that which must be given to God.” If you owned a horse and wagon and the horse suddenly ran off and killed a person, then the horse and wagon were forfeit to pay for the funeral of the person. What the government has done is effectively declared itself to be God. Any asset that might have been involved in a crime is to be forfeited to not God but the State.
Governments have gone way too far with the law. I would say the one book that impressed me the most was something I read on my own – not in class. I fully agree with John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) whose work, On Liberty, is one of my classic favorites. This is what is wrong with socialism. He made it clear that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
The prisons are filled with people buying, selling, or using marijuana. There is absolutely no evidence of it creating some great harm. It is certainly of a scale of personal harm below smoking and drinking. Even people who use cocaine can just stop. Heroin is an opioid drug, which is a completely different class. They allowed pill-mills for things like OxyContin which is the brand name for oxycodone hydrochloride, an opioid, and then outlawed the pill-mills. The people were addicted to this stuff and then turned to Heroin and the death-toll mounts from overdoses. I have a friend who was injured in a car accidence and his back was seriously hurt. They put a pump in him that had to be refilled once a month. Now, because of the abuse with pill-mills, they simply come down on doctors and nobody wants to fill his pump with the same medicine he has had for 20 years all because of these policies.
Prohibition was another example of countless lives were lost all because of a law to abolish drinking. That funded the Mafia and created organized crime. It really does not matter what the issue is for once you make something illegal, you create an underground economy that is tax-free. NO LAW will ever change human behavior. The women’s movement to outlaw drinking blamed the booze for men who were abusive, to begin with. You can pass a law and declare death penalty to kill another. It will never work because that will never cross the mind in the heat of the moment or there will always be people who think they can get away with it.
Any Government can NEVER be trusted with the prosecution of crimes. Boston Strangler of 1965, is the classic case in point. The police could not catch the guy and Albert DeSalvo was a known mental case who would often confess to crimes he never committed. The police even knew that but were frustrated to be looking like fools in the press unable to catch the culprit. The police charged DeSalvo to satisfy the press who couldn’t describe a single crime scene and there was never any physical evidence to link him to any crime.
The government should NEVER be allowed to prosecute crimes. There MUST be a fully independent body that makes the charging decisions so it is never personal ego of a prosecutor involved. Laws should be prohibited that pretend to protect people from themselves. The only laws should be restricted to harm against another. On top of that, the Supreme Cout should rule on the constitutionality of any law BEFORE it is enforced.
Mr. Dan Bongino appears on Fox News Morning to discuss revelations about how the FBI conducted a politically motivated counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump.
.
Bongino also discussed more details on his podcast – SEE HERE
Knowing what we know now – how Stefan Harper (a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6), randomly reached out to contact Trump low-level campaign aide George Papadopoulos; and how that contact was likely part of a coordinated effort by political operatives within the U.S intelligence apparatus to start the counterintelligence operation against Trump; this prior interview with Chairman Devin Nunes is well worth re-watching.
About a month ago, April 22nd, 2018, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation (July 2016) against the Trump campaign.
This interview follows a mid-April FBI release of “some information” about the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents that underpinned the origin of the FBI operation. The first half of the interview contains stunning information about how the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his ‘raw intelligence product’ with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.
.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?
We now know the originating structure involvedStefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor deeply connected to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.
We must also remember CIA Director John Brennan gave congressional testimony last year where he explained how he delivered the raw intelligence product itself. We spotted several issues, and Brennan’s obfuscation, a year ago, when Brennan first gave his testimony.
On May 23rd, 2017, Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP. We now know Stefan Halper was part of the group assembling that raw intelligence. All of it was, as Nunes outlined, “through unofficial channels”.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan May 23rd, 2017, during his testimony to congress. Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In the last paragraph of the testimony above Brennan is describing raw intelligence gathered prior to the Carter Page FISA Application/Warrant (October 21st, 2016).
In hindsight, and against the known facts from research, we can clearly identify two central motives surrounding why the intelligence apparatus needed the FISA warrant. First, the FBI and larger team of co-conspirators needed to have a retroactive legal basis for political surveillance that was happening long before the warrant was issued. Second, this was all part of an insurance policy to create the illusion of a Russian Conspiracy – that would later be used -if needed- in an effort to eliminate President Trump.
The unlawful foundational FBI surveillance, which happened prior to October 2016, included the use of unauthorized FISA-702 queries of the NSA and FBI database for political opposition research by contractors. Again, much like the unofficial origin of the Stefan Halper raw intelligence that began the July 2016 counterintelligence op, the FISA(702) abuse was simply more ‘unofficial’ use of the intelligence apparatus.
Once the FBI Counterintelligence operation began, it was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating intel reports, likely included in the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB), as evidenced by Page and Strzok messages saying: “POTUS wants to know what we’re doing”.
The CIA provided the false raw intel, via Stefan Halper, to start the operation, and the FBI and DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD and approved by FBI FISA-Title 1 warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. That’s why all the unmasking requests. Those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were leaked to the media by political operatives in the IC (and specifically FBI) throughout the deployment of the “insurance policy”, by Lisa Page, Mike Kortan, James Baker and Peter Strzok – with the guiding hand of Andy McCabe.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his congressional testimony John Brennan was smartly (and intentionally) positioning himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper while rubbing his face and scratching his head had taken the same route earlier. That approach would leave James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the small group within the DOJ-NSD and FBI.
The CIA and DNI wanted all traceable fingerprints to be from DOJ and FBI. And that’s exactly what happened…. so far.
In his May 2017 testimony, Director Brennan goes on to say the main substance of those Gang of Eight briefings (2016) was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified Russian intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA (intelligence community).
The January reference was the infamous 17 agencies report, from CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers), all who had confidence -except Rogers- according to the report, that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. The intelligence report was finished January 4, 2017, the day before the White House meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. and documented by Susan Rice.
A skeptic might think John Brennan is informing congress on one thing (Russian investigation), and James Comey due to his March 20th admissions (Trump counterintelligence investigation), is NOT INFORMING congress on another.
However, that angle of obfuscation is rebuked by Brennan’s own testimony that his specific intelligence product (CIA) was given to the FBI who were exclusively in charge of the “counter-intelligence investigation“.
What Brennan was doing in May 2017 was actually creating his defense, and positioning James Comey as the primary person who is to blame for any outcome therein.
However, the central risk of sunlight from revelations aboutStefan Halper, cannot be assigned to James Comey – hence the current severity of angst from John Brennan.
In May 2017, while this testimony was happening, deploying the “insurance policy” was still plausible – but it was becoming less likely to succeed.
In May 2017 CIA Director John Brennan was making James Comey own the “Counter-Intelligence ‘Muh Russia’” claims about the Trump campaign. As a consequence, Brennan was trying to make Comey the fall-guy for a Robert Mueller investigative outcome in case everything fell apart and their deployment of the “insurance policy” failed.
Brennan knows there’s no ‘there’ there. However, the problem with Brennan’s approach is within Stefan Halper. Director James Comey used the raw intelligence provided to him by Brennan to start the investigation, but he did not originate it; Brennan did. That’s the risk to Brennan if Devin Nunes is successful in getting the information aboutStefan Halper into the investigative psyche.
The entire construct of the “Russian Investigation” was the political use of manufactured intelligence, used to create an investigation in order to eliminate, President-Elect Trump or President Trump. This was their “insurance policy”.
However, there simply was no ‘there’ there because there’s no substantive evidence to support a “Trump Campaign Collusion Narrative”. Eventually, all avenues to prove the existence of something, that doesn’t exist, hit a dead end.
Comey made a March 20th, 2017, admission to congress that the FBI intentionally kept congress in the dark during the construct of the counter-intel narrative.
Congress was kept in the dark during this phase because the narrative can only thrive with innuendo, rumor, gossip etc. The appearance of the investigation itself was the political need; the substance was non-existent and immaterial to the creation of the narrative.
If Comey notified congress, via the Gang of Eight oversight, the counter-intel narrative would have been harder to manufacture as details would have to be consistent; and people like Devin Nunes would know what was going on. That was the benefit to keeping any oversight away while creating the politically useful narrative.
In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan, facing the underlying Russian ‘collusion evidence’ being non-existent, was trying to give the appearance that he briefed congress on larger Russian election interference issues. However, the trouble for Brennan is his own admissions. He is saying it was his raw intelligence that underlay the principle for the FBI counter-intelligence investigation.
Brennan specifically says he gave his raw intelligence product to the FBI. That raw intelligence product is now under scrutiny (along with what the FBI did with it).
There is something profoundly sanctimonious about Benjamin Witte and fired FBI Director James Comey sitting under a the banner of “Lawfare” and pontificating about the need to save beloved “institutions of government”. Even the terminology “Lawfare” describes the intentional use of the legal process to wage ideological war against your enemies; in this example, political enemies.
In this soundbite captures from a Brookings Institution symposium break-out session sponsored by Benjamin Witte and the Lawfare Blog, Witte interviews James Comey about the threats posed by the sunlight of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.
.
The Lawfare group is mentioned several times in text messages between corrupt FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel Lisa Page. The group of like-minded, politically motivate, lawyers was used frequently by Lisa Page to frame arguments within their investigative endeavors during the Clinton exoneration and Trump investigation.
Accordingly, recently resigned FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker announced after his departure he was going to work for Wittes at Lawfare. Birds of a feather.. etc.
The position espoused by James Comey in the video snippet is almost identical to the espoused motives of his friend Robert Mueller. Both officials reconcile allowing the politicization and weaponization of the FBI and DOJ around the premise of ‘defending the institutions’. It’s an absurdly circular framework of ideology.
There is no doubt Comey allowed, and at times promoted, the political use of the FBI in an effort to achieve goals based on his own corrupt standards and values. One only needs to look at the conduct of the upper-tier of officials within the agencies to see the breeding ground for agenda-based institutions.
FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Chief Legal Counsel James Baker, Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki, Director of Public Affairs Michael Kortan and embattled FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok are all clearly outlined as participating in some of the most corrupt internal schemes in the history of the agency.
This “tight group” as Comey describes, have all been fired -or demoted then resigned- with clear evidence of misconduct outlined by the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility.
The sole remaining person (on the FBI side) central to the “small group” endeavors is demoted FBI agent Peter Strzok; likely due to cooperation at some level with the ongoing internal investigations. We have yet to fully understand the scale of the corruption therein; but the parts we do know are astounding.
The mindset in this Wittes/Comey interview is bizarre to say the least. Corrupt the institution for political motives – then decry transparency demanded of the corruption therein in an effort to preserve the institution. To quote Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
Dinesh Joseph D’Souza (born April 25, 1961) is an Indian American political commentator, author and filmmaker. From 2010 to 2012, he was president of The King’s College, a Christian school in New York City.
Kimberley Strassel expands on her Wall Street Journal piece raising the question of whether the FBI used human intelligence which included placing a mole within Trump’s 2016 campaign.
.
Trey Gowdy follows up Strassel, quickly dancing the Potomac Two-Step WATCH:
Interesting new developments in the growing story of the FBI and DOJ conducting a surveillance operation against candidate Trump in 2016, to include the use of an FBI and CIA informant.
Contrary to previous reporting, representative Peter King (R-NY) reveals that yesterday Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy were not allowed to see the originating documents during their visit with the DOJ and FBI officials. Representative Trey Gowdy (U-DC) reluctantly admitted moments ago, the statement by Peter King was true.
The DOJ refused to allow Nunes & Gowdy access to the “EC” (electronic communication) document that initiated the FBI counterintelligence operation. Instead, Nunes and Gowdy were given an opaque description of the EC process; and told to come back next week if they wanted to talk more.
Additionally, Peter King reveals the DOJ and FBI are manipulating President Trump, and tricking him to believe declassifying information would endanger sources. WATCH:
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has just dropped a sunlight grenade into the prosecution of Michael Flynn with a jaw-dropping request letter (full pdf below) to FBI Director Christopher Wray. [Judiciary Link Here]
Within the letter Chairman Grassley outlines a prior briefing from fired FBI Director James Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and contrasts the false presentations of Comey -regarding Michael Flynn- against recently known evidence.
Additionally, Grassley is requesting: ♦the transcription of the phone call(s) intercepted by the FBI between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak; ♦the FD 302’s written by the FBI in their interview with Michael Flynn; ♦and testimony from Special AgentJoe Pientka, likely the second FBI agent who was partnered with Peter Strzok for the Flynn interview.
The name of the second FBI agent was previously unknown, and it’s likely Chairman Grassley outed the name for a very specific reason. This is a BIG shot across the bow.
Previously the Justice Department was refusing to provide any information to the committee pertinent to Grassley’s requests, citing the ongoing investigation. However, the Senator is now outlining his request against the backdrop of the Judge in the Flynn case demanding the Special Counsel turn over all exculpatory information.
Judge Contreras was presiding judge on the initial guilty plea, then “was recused”. Judge Sullivan took over and demanded the DOJ turn over all exculpatory evidence.
Senator Grassley outlines the February 15th, 2017, briefing provided by James Comey to the committee:
[…] Like the Flynn interview itself, that briefing was not transcribed. Also like the Flynn interview, there are notes taken by a career, non-partisan law enforcement officer who was present. The agent was on detail to the Committee staff at the time.
According to that agent’s contemporaneous notes, Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, “saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying.” Our own Committee staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.”
Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview. In the months since then, the Special Counsel obtained a guilty plea from Lt. General Flynn for that precise alleged conduct.
It is important to remember – there a widely held belief that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the FBI agents (Strzok and Pientka) to shape their FBI reports of the interview (FD-302’s) to assist a “Flynn lied” narrative.
There is a great deal of debate surrounding the guilty plea as an outcome of a carefully constructed and coordinated plan by FBI and DOJ officials to target Flynn.
The letter continues:
[…] The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. With Flynn’s plea, the investigation appears concluded.
Additionally, while we are aware that the Special Counsel’s office has moved to delay Lt. General Flynn’s sentencing on several occasions, we presume that all related records already have been provided to the defense pursuant to Judge Sullivan’s February 16, 2018 order requiring production of all potentially exculpatory material. Thus, although the case is not yet adjudicated, the Committee’s oversight interest in the underlying documents requested more than a year ago now outweighs any legitimate executive branch interest in withholding it. So too does the Committee’s interest in learning the FBI agents’ actual assessments of their interview of Lt. Gen. Flynn, particularly given the apparent contradiction between what then Directory Comey told us in March 2017 and what he now claims.
Then comes the hammer:
[…] In addition, please make Special Agent Joe Pientka available for a transcribed interview with Committee staff no later than one week following the production of the requested documents…
Regarding the “widely held belief” that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told the FBI agents (Strzok and Pientka) to shape their FBI reports of the interview (FD-302’s) to assist a “Flynn lied” narrative…. evidence of that is within the most recent text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:
♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!
♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails…(Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)
♦Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails if everything was by the book?
BECAUSE IT WASN’T!
It was a conspiracy to entrap Gen Mike Flynn. All Strzok needed was an excuse to speak w Flynn. Everything in the 302 was likely fabricated.
♦February 14th, 2017, there is another note about the FBI reports filed from the interview.
Peter Strzok asks Lisa Page if FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is OK with his report: “Also, is Andy good with F-302?”
Lisa Page replies: “Launch on F 302”.
And we know from their discussions of manipulating FBI reports a year earlier, inside the Hillary Clinton investigation – that Peter Strzok has withheld information, and manipulated information, through use of the 302 reports:
Today, after a briefing session between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his counterpart from South-Korea, Secretary Pompeo and Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha held a joint press conference. Serious discussions with resolute heart. WATCH:
.
[Transcript] SECRETARY POMPEO: Good afternoon. It is my honor to welcome Foreign Minister Kang to Washington. It is important to meet with such a critical ally so early in my time as Secretary at this incredibly critical time as well. Our alliance with the Republic of Korea was forged in the crucible of war 65 years ago. Tens of thousands of Koreans and Americans sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of freedom for South Korea.
In the years since, the citizens of South Korea took the hard-earned freedom and transformed their war-shattered country into an economic wonder. The Republic of Korea is now the 11th largest economy in the globe, the sixth largest trading partner of the United States, and a key force multiplier for U.S. leadership in the world. The U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance has been fortified by the trials of history and is unequivocally now stronger than ever. Over 28,500 men and women of the United States Forces Korea serve as the forward-deployed face of the ironclad U.S. commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea, its people, and indeed to the entire region.
The prospect of peace and security in the Korean Peninsula and across the Asia Pacific region is why we have stood shoulder to shoulder for more than six decades. Just yesterday, I returned from Pyongyang, where I had productive discussions with Chairman Kim Jong-un in preparation for President Trump’s summit with him. It was an honor as one of my first actions as Secretary of State to negotiate the safe return of three U.S. citizens and bring them home to freedom. We wish these Americans and their families the best as they reconnect after a very difficult time apart. On behalf of the American people, we say welcome home.
The release of these three citizens helps set the conditions for a successful meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim. We look forward to our continued preparations with the DPRK to make the summit in Singapore on June 12th a true success for the American and Korean people and for the world. I congratulate South Korea and North Korea on their historic meeting last month. The United States is encouraged by President Moon and Chairman Kim’s stated goal of complete denuclearization in the Panmunjom declaration.
Today, Foreign Minister Kang and I discussed the summit, my trip to North Korea, and the bold step President Trump is about to take when he meets with Chairman Kim. We would not be where we are today without the close and coordinated leadership of Presidents Trump and Moon. The United States and the Republic of Korea remain committed to achieving the permanent, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. If Chairman Kim chooses the right path, there is a future brimming with peace and prosperity for the North Korea – North Korean people. America’s track record of support for the Korean people is second to none.
If North Korea takes bold action to quickly denuclearize, the United States is prepared to work with North Korea to achieve prosperity on the par with our South Korean friends. The United States looks forward to continued close cooperation with our South Korean allies on this issue and many others.
Foreign Minister, thank you for being with me today. It was a pleasure to work with you.
♦FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for the very warm welcome. Let me reiterate my congratulations on your becoming the top diplomat of the United States at this historic moment. Secretary Pompeo, you have already been at the center of our joint efforts on North Korea, and I very much look forward to working closely with you.
We spoke on April 28th right after the momentous inter-Korean summit, and today we met just after Secretary Pompeo’s return from Pyongyang. During our meeting, I congratulated him and President Trump for the successful release of the three U.S. citizens, all Korean Americans, from North Korea. This is a promising signal for the upcoming summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim.
Over the past weeks, both Korea and the United States have been engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts regarding North Korea, and we briefed each other on the latest endeavors, including Secretary Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang and the Korea-Japan-China trilateral summit in Tokyo, which adopted a special statement welcoming the outcome of the South-North Korean summit and expressing the strong hopes for the success of the upcoming U.S.-North Korea summit. In this context, Secretary Pompeo and I discussed preparations for the summit meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim in Singapore on June 12th. We agreed that the summit would be a historic opportunity for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue and securing enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula. We reaffirmed that our goal is to achieve the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
In this regard, Secretary Pompeo and I agreed the next few weeks will be critical, requiring air-tight coordination between our two countries. As announced, President Moon will visit Washington, D.C. soon to meet with President Trump. The close communication and trust between Presidents Trump and Moon have been the driving force that has brought us to this point of breakthrough for the denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula. So their meeting on the 22nd will be instrumental in preparing for a successful U.S.-North Korea summit.
Secretary Pompeo and I reaffirmed that the ROK-U.S. alliance, which celebrates its 65th anniversary this year, has long served as the linchpin for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the region. We also reaffirmed that for the last 65 years, the USFK, the United States Forces in Korea, has played a crucial role for deterrence and peace and stability of the region, and we would like to emphasize again that the U.S. military presence in Korea is a matter for the ROK-U.S. alliance first and foremost.
After today’s meeting, I am even more confident that our alliance is as robust as ever and that there is no daylight in our cooperation on the denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Once again, I would like to thank Secretary Pompeo for today’s fruitful discussions and look forward to building a close working partnership relationship with him. And in addition to the upcoming summit meeting in Washington, D.C. on May 22nd, I hope to see him again in Seoul and reciprocate the hospitality very soon. Thank you very much.
MS NAUERT: Thank you. And we have time for two questions total. The first goes to Rich Edson from Fox News Channel. Rich.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You just mentioned and have mentioned before, as have the South Koreans, that you are looking for permanent, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. How does the United States specifically define that? Is it inspections, full facility dismantling? Is it more than that, less than that? And also, you have had more substantive conversations with Kim Jong-un than arguably any other Westerner. What is your impression of him? Do you think he’s rational? And simply, what’s it like to talk to him?
And to the foreign minister, are South Korea and regional allies discussing providing any sanctions relief to North Korea before the summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, and what kind of outcome does South Korea need to secure its security, and does that include the maintenance of current U.S. military assets in the region? Thank you very much.
SECRETARY POMPEO: So I have spent more time with Chairman Kim other than perhaps President Moon working on this incredibly important challenge that lays before the world. President Trump and the world have set the conditions for a successful outcome from June 12th and the activities that are necessary to follow there from. You asked about my conversations with Chairman Kim. This question is sort of undignified, “Is he rational?” Yes, we had good conversations, substantive conversations, conversations that involve deep, complex problems, challenges the strategic decision that Chairman Kim has before him about how it is he wishes to proceed and if he is prepared in exchange for the assurances that we’re ready to provide to him if he is prepared to fully denuclearize. And I’m not sure how to define it fully.
It’s pretty clear what that means. It would be an activity that undertook to ensure that we didn’t end up in the same place that we’d ended up before, or multiple passes at trying to solve this conundrum for the world, how to ensure that North Korea doesn’t possess the capacity to threaten not only the United States but the world with nuclear weapons. And so in order to achieve that, it will require a robust verification program and one that we will undertake with partners around the world, which will achieve that outcome in a way that frankly no agreement before it has ever set forth. A big undertaking for sure, but one that Chairman Kim and I had the opportunity to have a good, sound discussion on so that I think we have a pretty good understanding between our two countries about what the shared objectives are.
QUESTION: What’s he like?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I’m sorry.
QUESTION: What’s he like?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We had good conversations. There – it was – there’s some videos that have been released. You can see our conversations were warm. We were each representing our two countries, trying our best to make sure that we were communicating clearly, that we had a shared understanding about what our mutual objectives were. But we had good conversations about the histories of our two nations, the challenges that we’ve had between us. We talked about the fact that America has often in history had adversaries who we are now close partners with, and our hope that we could achieve the same with respect to North Korea.
MS NAUERT: All right. Thank you, Rich. Our next question goes to Yonhap News Agency.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: Could I just —
MS NAUERT: Oh, pardon me.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: — answer that —
MS NAUERT: Yes.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: I think your question about sanctions relief, I think we were very clear that the sanctions remain in place until and unless we see visible, meaningful action taken by North Korea on the denuclearization track. The North Korean leader has committed to denuclearization, and formally so through the Panmunjom Declaration. We very much hope to see further steps, more concrete steps towards denuclearization being produced at the U.S.-North Korea summit. So we’re not talking about sanctions relief at this point.
Your question about what are we looking in terms of for our own security, we are confident of our security through the Korea-U.S. joint security stance, which is why we say the issue of the alliance – any issue of the alliance, including the troop presence in our country, is a matter for our two allies to discuss and not to be put on the table with North Korea.
MS NAUERT: Okay. And our next question goes to Yonhap, to Mr. Lee Seungwoo.
QUESTION: Hello, Secretaries.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Hi.
QUESTION: So I have two questions for each of you. So —
MS NAUERT: We only have time for one, please. Thank you.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah. One for —
MS NAUERT: Yes, one.
QUESTION: Okay. So one for our Minister Kang. Can I say in Korean?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Sure.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: Sure.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Recently, there was a talk that possibly USFK can be reduced. Was it discussed in your bilateral talks today? And when President Moon visits Washington D.C. before the Pyongyang and Washington, D.C. talks, what kind of coordination did you make in the run-up to this upcoming discussion between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C.?
(In English) (Inaudible) Pyonyang and (inaudible) Kim Jong-un, and our historic summit between President Trump and Kim is fully set up. However, the key issue is dismantling North Korea’s WMD. And I guess there’s a quite a big gap between U.S. and north standpoint. So did you actually discuss the issue with Kim, with – this issue with Kim? And have you two narrowed the differences? And do you think he’s willing to give up his WMD? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER KANG: (Via interpreter) So there was no talk about reducing USFK at all. If there was any talk about USFK, it was only about how solid our alliance is, and any issue, any discussion about USFK or alliance should be discussed as such, between our two nations which are in alliance, and not in North Korea and U.S. talks, which was confirmed by Secretary Pompeo. And May 22nd is the day when U.S. President, the South Korean president will meet again. And along the way, President Trump and President Moon have a close relationship and trust with each other, and it played a key role. So in the run-up to the North Korea and the U.S. summit, discussion between the two leaders will play a key role in preparing and setting the tone for the talks. So we are making our best effort to best prepare for this summit.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Your question was about were details discussed. We had quite a conversation about it. I’m not going to share that here; we’re not going to negotiate the details of the agreement in this setting. We’ll do it in conversations between our leaders and our working teams that are hard at preparing for the summit. I am confident that we have a shared understanding of the outcome that the leaders want – certainly Presidents Trump and – President Trump and Chairman Kim, but I think President Moon as well. I think we have a shared vision for what we hope, when this process is completed, the Korean Peninsula looks like. I think we have a good understanding, and I think there is complete agreement about what the ultimate objectives are.
We began to work through the modalities, how we would achieve that, but I’ll leave conversations about that to another time. So thank you for your question.
MS NAUERT: Thank you, everyone. Have a great afternoon.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Historians tell us that the predecessor of the Mother’s Day holiday was the spring festival honoring mother goddesses.
the ceremonies to honor Cybele were adopted by the early Church in honor of Mary, Mother of Christ.
If I wore corsages, mine would be white. How I wish that were not so. I was blessed to have had two mothers in my life, for my mother-in-law was a second mother to me, as beloved as the woman who gave birth to me.
