Archive for the ‘Elitism’ Category

NO TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Saturday, October 13th, 2018

 

We don’t hear much about the International Criminal Court but it is extremely important that we do not allow it to overrule our Supreme Court and to prosecute our citizens.  Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
AMERICANS’ RIGHT TO SELF-RULE
By Clifford D. May  Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. September 25, 2018

 

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…)

Share

KAVANAUGH THE COLD ANGER AND THE RECKONING

Friday, September 28th, 2018

 

Kavanaugh, Cold Anger and The Reckoning….

They’ve gone too far.  “Donald Trump’s supporters are angry“, or “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”, or (fill_In_The_Blank). This hate-filled sentiment is clear within the latest vile,… nay,… evil and horrific smears directed toward Judge Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh and their cherished children.  Now the media narrative controllers are fully engaged along with their political brethren.  Do not look away.

The vulgar lies and filth are now extreme as the ideological entities utilize their microphones in a brutal attempt to tear down the Kavanaugh family.

As we bear witness, anyone trying to convince us this entire assembly of our union is headed in the right direction, well, they might want to revisit their proximity to the 2018 election ballpark. Because they’re not just out of the city – they’re also out of the same state the election ballpark is located in….. Then again, the media know that.

David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience.  Denial of truth allows easier trespass.

This hate-filled Democrat ideology relies on your willingness to reconcile their presentations and grant benefit within their seeds of doubt. Do not look away.

(more…)

Share

THE U.N. AND HUMAN RIGHTS – NATURAL LAW AND POSITIVE LAW

Monday, September 10th, 2018

 

What Went Wrong With Human Rights

The conflation of ‘natural law’ with ‘positive law’ handed communism a philosophical victory after the end of the Cold War.

by James Taranto  Mr. Taranto is the Journal’s editorial features editor.
  August 18, 2018

When the U.S. withdrew in June from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Ambassador Nikki Haley described the council as “a protector of human-rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.” Aaron Rhodes agrees but thinks Ms. Haley was too gentle.

“The Human Rights Council has become a cover for dictatorships,” he says. “They assume the high moral ground of standing for ‘dialogue’ and ‘cooperation,’ a tactic for smothering the truth about denying freedom. Raising human-rights concerns is dismissed as divisive and confrontational, and a threat to ‘stability.’ Most of the debate there is technocratic blah-blah about global social policy—not about human rights at all.”

To U.N. watchers it’s a familiar critique, but Mr. Rhodes, 69, applies it far more broadly. In his recent book, “The Debasement of Human Rights: How Politics Sabotage the Ideal of Freedom,” he argues that virtually the entire human-rights enterprise has been corrupted by a philosophical error enshrined in the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and that this explains the travesty of the Human Rights Council.

That error is the conflation of “natural law” with “positive law.” Mr. Rhodes explains the difference: “Natural law is a kind of constraint on positive law.” Think of America’s Bill of Rights, whose opening clause is “Congress shall make no law.” The idea is “that laws have to answer to a higher law,” he says. “This is a vision of law that is very deeply embedded in Western civilization,” finding premodern expression in the ideas of the Greek Stoics and the Roman statesman Cicero, as well as in biblical canon law. Natural law is universal—or at least claims to be.

“Positive law,” Mr. Rhodes continues, “is the law of states and governments.” A statute like the Social Security Act of 1935 creates “positive rights”—government-conferred benefits to which citizens have a legal entitlement. Positive law is particular to a nation or other polity: “I live in Germany,” says Mr. Rhodes, a native of upstate New York whom I met during his U.S. book tour. “I enjoy a lot of economic and social rights there, but they reflect the political values of that community.” The Germans are “keen on being a moral society, where the state helps people. They’re statist. This is their mentality, but I don’t think it’s the same mentality here.”

(more…)

Share

MOVIE – REVELATION – DAWN OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

Sunday, September 2nd, 2018

 

This is a movie that was produced during the Obama Administration and warns of  the many  dangers facing our country  – Socialism, Marxism, Globalists, Globalism, Agenda 21, Sustainability, The Secret Society, Bilderberg, the push for a National ID and Biometrics, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia Law, Open Borders, Gun Control, the Federal Reserve system  and most of all, Collectivism versus Individualism.
Today, President Trump is addressing many of these dangers and is it any wonder he is facing such hostility from the entrenched elitists in our country ?
Believe or disbelieve, you be the judge.    Nancy
NEW WORLD ORDER – ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
MOVIE – REVELATION  
Share

DEVIN NUNES, WASHINGTON’S PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

 

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 .

Devin Nunes, Washington’s Public Enemy No. 1

What did the FBI do in the 2016 campaign? The head of the House inquiry on what he has found—and questions still unanswered.

July 28, 2018   by Kimberley A. Strassel

Tulare, Calif.

It’s 105 degrees as I stand with Rep. Devin Nunes on his family’s dairy farm. Mr. Nunes has been feeling even more heat in Washington, where as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence he has labored to unearth the truth about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s activities during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Thanks in large part to his work, we now know that the FBI used informants against Donald Trump’s campaign, that it obtained surveillance warrants based on opposition research conducted for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and that after the election Obama administration officials “unmasked” and monitored the incoming team.

Mr. Nunes’s efforts have provoked extraordinary partisan and institutional fury in Washington—across the aisle, in the FBI and other law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, in the media. “On any given day there are dozens of attacks, each one wilder in its claims,” he says. Why does he keep at it? “First of all, because it’s my job. This is a basic congressional investigation, and we follow the facts,” he says. The “bigger picture,” he adds, is that in “a lot of the bad and problematic countries” that Intelligence Committee members investigate, “this is what they do there. There is a political party that controls the intelligence agencies, controls the media, all to ensure that party stays in power. If we get to that here, we no longer have a functioning republic. We can’t let that happen.”

Mr. Nunes, 44, was elected to Congress in 2002 from Central California. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2011 and delved into the statutes, standards and norms that underpin U.S. spying. That taught him to look for “red flags,” information or events that don’t feel right and indicate a deeper problem. He noticed some soon after the 2016 election.

(more…)

Share

JUST HOW FAR WILL THE LEFT GO ? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Wednesday, July 25th, 2018

 

Just How Far Will the Left Go?

By Victor Davis Hanson| July 23rd, 2018

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.

The Mueller Investigation
We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.

 

When we learned that Robert Mueller initially did not disclose to the media why he had fired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and why he had spaced out their firings to prevent the impression that they were connected, we were only reassured of the professionalism of the Mueller investigation.

(more…)

Share

JOHN BRENNAN UNDER FIRE AFTER PETER STRZOK IS OUTED AS A CIA AGENT FROM IRAN

Thursday, July 19th, 2018

 

This information is just coming out and will probably be clarified in the coming days.   Nancy

John Brennan Under Fire After Peter Strzok Outed As CIA Agent From Iran

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

 

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE
Share

THE ROOTS OF AMERICA’S DANGEROUS TURN TO THE LEFT

Tuesday, July 10th, 2018

 

This article  will help you to understand the history behind  how the Far Left has been able to take control of the Democrat Party and what their goals are for our country.     It is a fascinating read .   Nancy

www.thetrumpet.com/13314-the-roots-of-americas-dangerous-turn-left

To understand where the radical left plans to take America, you must understand the source of its ideas. We have been warning America about this for over 50 years!
FROM THE JANUARY 2016       TRUMPET PRINT EDITION

America is in serious decline. Many Americans are deeply concerned. The radical left has gained control of the nation. Look at the Democratic Party today: Its leading personalities promote policies that are weakening the nation economically, socially, morally, militarily and geopolitically. How did they get control? What caused this nation to descend into this condition?

You need to understand what has happened inside this country and why. The problem is far deeper, and has been going on for far longer, than most people realize.

During the Cold War, there was a lot of fear within America about the spread of communism. Today, most Americans no longer consider it a threat of any concern.

But it is of grave concern. Few people realize it, but many mainstream political views in America today are identical to—and trace directly back to—the ideals and beliefs of communism.

One popular candidate running for the Democratic presidential nomination claims to be a socialist. Well, many Communists call themselves socialists. The fact that he has so much support reveals how dangerously ignorant the American people are.

What do you know about communism? A growing number of Americans support the government taking over health care and other major segments of the national economy. They fail to understand the dangers that accompany a Communist system.

Understanding Communism

Socialism and communism are alike in fundamental ways. Both say the centralized government or “the public” should own and control production, rather than individual business owners. Both call for centralized planning and control, which make for powerful governments that are highly susceptible to corruption. Socialism is considered the transition stage from capitalism to communism; in some cases, it is a less radical version that might eventually “mature” into communism.

(more…)

Share

BREXIT IS DEAD

Tuesday, July 10th, 2018

Delingpole: Brexit Is Dead – Strangled by Theresa May and Her Cabal of Remainer Cronies

July 9. 2018
Share

WHY OBAMA WANTED THE RUSSIANS TO HACK OUR ELECTIONS

Tuesday, June 26th, 2018

 

Wow ! This is one you really should read.   Nancy

WHY OBAMA WANTED THE RUSSIANS TO HACK THE ELECTION

How the two deep state intel operations fit together.

June 25, 2018   Daniel Greenfield    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“Why the hell are we standing down?”

That was the question that the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator was asked after Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, issued a stand down order on Russia.

Testimony at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian interference in the election once again raised the central paradox of the Russia conspiracy theory. If Russian interference in the election represented the crisis that we are told it did, why did Obama fail to take any meaningful action?

The White House’s own cybersecurity people wanted an aggressive response before being told to stand down. Obama issued a bloodless warning to Russia while his people deliberately crippled our offense.

Democrats and the media blamed the Russian hacking on Trump. But it was Susan Rice who had told the cybersecurity team to “knock it off” and Obama’s people who hadn’t wanted him to be “boxed in” and forced to respond to Russian actions. Was this just the usual appeasement or was there more to it?

Why didn’t Obama and his team want to stop Russian hacking? Because they needed the Russians.

The 2016 election is really the story of two deep state intelligence operations that dovetailed neatly with each other. One was an ongoing Russian operation that took advantage of a weak president to sow chaos in America and Europe. The other was a domestic political operation utilizing counterintelligence resources in the United States and Europe to spy on, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

Contrary to claims made by Obama operatives, the Russian operation was not new. Russian hackers and spies had done enormous damage to America’s intelligence community. But they had succeeded so well because the mission of the intelligence community had shifted from deterring foreign adversaries to suppressing domestic political opponents. And this new mission made the Russians attacks irrelevant.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories