In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

(more…)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQbAhqHoAo

What crime did Manafort allegedly commit?

As jurors deliberate the fate of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, it’s a bit of a letdown for Trump critics that Manafort wasn’t charged with anything having to do with alleged Russia collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign. So what’s his prosecution all about?

To understand, it helps to know a bit more about the murky universe in which Manafort and his closest colleagues operated.

It’s illegal for foreigners to directly give money to U.S. politicians and political parties. But there’s a legal way around that. Believe it or not, foreigners — even Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean President Kim Jong Un — are permitted to pay big money to hire well-connected U.S. public relations firms, law firms and lobbyists to act as their “foreign agents.” From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, more than 15,000 foreign entities have hired thousands of Americans to do just that.

What do these foreigners get for the money? The kind of access of which most Americans can only dream: Meetings are arranged with powerful, influential people in politics and media, at think tanks and universities. U.S. tax money gets directed their way. Laws are written in their favor. Arms deals are made. Trade policies are developed. Positive op-eds appear in American newspapers, and sympathetic articles are published in the press to sway public opinion. Rarely are we — as taxpayers and consumers of the information — told about the money that traded hands in the shadows. We’re left to believe it’s all just organic.

Our government says it’s all good as long as the U.S. foreign agents disclose their business ties to the Department of Justice as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The idea is that as long as the relationships are made known, it’s not subterfuge. Problem is, few Americans read the disclosures or would even know where to find them, and have no idea about the extent to which foreign governments are secretly pulling strings in America every day.

(more…)

VIDEO  – JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO – HILLARY’S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER

LAWCOMMENTARY

The Clinton State Department’s Major Security Breach That Everyone Is Ignoring

Hans von Spakovsky   / @HvonSpakovsky /

see bio of author of this article:    www.heritage.org/staff/hans-von-spakovsky

  July 22, 2018

Peter Strzok’s testimony about the email server scandal involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised headlines because of his defiant, disrespectful, and unapologetic attitude about the bias revealed in his text messages that permeated his work at the FBI.

Then, there was the verbal combat between him and Republican members of the two committees holding the joint hearing, and between the Republicans and Democratic members who were running interference for Strzok and acting as his defense counsel.

The news media jumped on an exchange in which Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked Strzok if he lied to his wife about his affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in the same way as he was in testifying to Congress. That was too much for the Democrats and the media, who leaped to Strzok’s defense.

The media, however, virtually ignored another exchange between Gohmert and Strzok that revealed a potential bombshell. Gohmert asked Strzok about his meeting in 2016 with Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan, an investigator and lawyer, respectively, for then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough (an Obama appointee).

McCullough sent them to see Strzok, who was the FBI’s deputy assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division, to brief him and three other FBI personnel about an “anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in Clinton’s server.

According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of Clinton’s emails—more than 30,000—“were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.”

In other words, according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general, something was causing Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”

(more…)

This interview with Devin Nunes by Kimberley Strassel (one of our top journalists) goes to the essence of the battle going on between the Congressional investigation and the FBI, the Justice Department the media and Democrats in Congress.  Amazing cover ups are going on in Washington and this article sheds light on much of it.  I’ve highlighted certain paragraphs in the article but the entire article is well worth reading.  Nancy .

Just How Far Will the Left Go?

There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.

Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.

U.S. intelligence operative Peter Strzok has been outed this week as a CIA counterespionage section chief who served closely under John Brennan, the Obama CIA director who led efforts to stop President Donald Trump. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time).

Big League Politics reporter Tore Lindeman reported, based on a high-level source and former co-worker of both Strzok and Brennan, that Peter Strzok grew up in Iran, where his father was influential in the CIA effort to overthrow the Shah and install the Ayatollah in 1979. Strzok served as Obama and Brennan’s middle man in dealings with the Iranians.

 

The fact that Peter Strzok answers to John Brennan (whom President Trump called a “bad person” in his interview Tuesday night with Tucker Carlson) puts Brennan squarely in the center of the controversy surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the failed Deep State plot to quash Trump’s campaign. The conspirators, including Strzok, named their effort Crossfire Hurricane because they were all using Hurricane Electric computer servers. The conspirators, including Fusion GPS, all had access to Obama’s FBI facial recognition and fingerprint analysis programs, which stored personal identifying information from American citizens in at least 14 states. The Russians managed to hack that database during the general period in which the Hurricane conspirators were using it.

Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime

 

Let’s look at the key roles that Strzok played for John Brennan, and also for James Comey and for Obama, in his effort to work against Trump and to take down General Flynn and others in Trump’s inner circle:

by Patrick Howley   July 18, 2018