Tag Archives: John Bolton

James Rosen from Fox News made subject of DOJ inquiry

skpy (CC)

skpy (CC)


The Washington Post broke the story that Fox News Washington Correspondent, James Rosen, had been the subject of an inquiry into leaks out of the State Department. The original article that drew attention to Rosen was on North Korea’s nuclear testing plans in 2009, and the investigation apparently continued on from there. The presumption of the FBI was the Rosen had been acquired classified information from former State Department contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who has been indicted as a result of the investigation.

The implication is that the Obama administration is apparently considering the possibility of leveling charges against journalists in general, in it’s relentless search for “leaks”. However, in spite of the recent information that has come out about investigations into the actions of Associated Press journalists, these may be partisan investigations. It has already been stated that the information that Rosen acquired from Kim wasn’t particularly sensitive:

John Bolton, the former undersecretary of state for disarmament, and a noted hard-liner on all matters North Korea, said the disclosures in the Rosen story about North Korean intentions were “neither particularly sensitive nor all that surprising.” It involved the kind of information that could have been gleaned from reading stories in the South Korean press at the time, he noted.

That point is made in contrast with the sensitive and theoretically “classified” information that made its way into Bob Woodward’s book, “Obama’s Wars.”

Brit Hume commented on the situation earlier today on Fox News: [Video]

The Fox News response to the government tracking Rosen’s emails and movements was as follows:

“We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,” Fox News executive vice president Michael Clemente said in a statement. ”In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

Read the warrant for the investigation of Rosen here:

1-10-mj-00291-AKwarrant

Also, for bloggers, and anyone else interested in information to prevent attracting this sort of attention from the government, Fox News has offered a page of advice.

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

John Bolton: 2012 Presidential Profile

As I have stated before, I am fairly new to the “political scene”. The fact that I am actually writing about politics and researching political candidates absolutely blows my mind!

I’m one of those that I gripe about now. I had my head in the sand for years. I honestly did not care to know, because my thought process was, “Hey, I can’t change things anyway, what’s the point?” Unfortunately, too many people have had that attitude in the last 4 decades or so, and I firmly believe that is why we are in the position we are in.

What changed things for me was the 2008 election. I was appalled at the comments from women who said they were voting for Obama because he was “cute”. Well, looks are subjective, so I will not even comment on that side of things. However, I knew that this man was not good for our country!

My husband is a Political Science major, so when we married almost 9 years ago I got quite the induction into politics. Let me just say I did not go willingly! Then, as I said, the 2008 election came along. Things really did not change for me until Sarah Palin came on the scene. I was so disgusted with having to once again choose the lesser of two evils. I had even told my husband and my dad that I was not even going to vote. Oh, I’m sure you can imagine the outrage from both of them!

So, with all this being said, I knew John Bolton as a Fox News commentator. My husband has tried to give me a “crash course”, so to speak, to catch me up on “who’s who” in politics, what positions they’ve held through the years, the good that they’ve done, the bad that they’ve done, and all other information in between. My husband is a very “black and white” kind of guy- no grey areas! He’s very objective in his views. It’s quite a unique for me- a woman- who is obviously more “emotional” in my opinions. Hey, it’s just a fact ladies, our emotions play a major role in our decisions.

I’ve always like John Bolton’s commentaries on the various Fox News shows, but I would not have thought of him as “Presidential” material. However, I have determined that what many consider “Presidential material” are found lacking in many areas. So…. maybe it’s time we look outside what we see as normal “Presidential material”. Maybe John Bolton fits that bill!

Let’s explore the facts about Mr. Bolton and then decide!

PERSONAL INFORMATION

John Robert Bolton was born November 20, 1948 in Baltimore, Maryland. He is the son of a fireman, and the family grew up in a working class neighborhood in Maryland.

Family
Mr. Bolton is married to Gretchen, and they have one daughter.  They currently live in Bethesda, Maryland.

Religious Affiliation
Lutheran


Education
1966- Graduated from the McDonogh School in Owings Mills, Maryland
1970- Graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude from Yale University
1974- Graduated with a J.D  degree from Yale University

Early Political Activist
1964- In high school, Mr. Bolton ran the school’s Students for Goldwater campaign
Member of the Yale Political Union

College Classmates and Contemporaries
Clarence Thomas
Bill Clinton- at Yale Law School
Hillary Rodham- at Yale Law School
A “protege” of Conservative North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms

Military Career
Mr. Bolton supported the Vietnam War and enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but avoided serving in Vietnam. He later said that by the time he was graduating it was clear to him that the opponents of the war had made sure we could not prevail.

When I read this fact about Mr. Bolton- that he purposely avoided the war, though he supported it, it made me pause. My dad tried to enlist, but had a couple of health issues going against him. Number one, he was underweight. He drank milkshakes twice a day trying to gain weight to enlist. Now we tease him that he would probably love to go back to those days where he was trying to gain weight!
Also- my father-in-law did go to Vietnam. He had a grenade blow up right next to him and he now has permanent hearing loss in one of his ears from it. Oh, he was lucky, I know! Well, let me rephrase that- luck had absolutely nothing to do with it! I know without a doubt the hand of God Almighty was on his life.
Too many men lost their lives in Vietnam. It is a war that we should have never been in! Or, as the politicians of the day put it, a “police action” we should have never been in! (can you see me rolling my eyes from here?!)
I absolutely agree with Mr. Bolton- it was very clear that the opponents of the war had made sure we could not prevail. However, to purposely avoid going when he supported the effort, war, police action, or whatever else you want to call it- it just makes me a bit uncomfortable. By no means am I saying that his life is not worth something- that he should have gone and gotten killed. All I am saying is that a lot of young men went and did not come back- or for those who did come back their lives were never the same. There’s just something about this that makes me very uncomfortable.

Professional Career
1974 to 1981- Associate at Covington & Burling law firm
1983 to 1985- Returned to his position as Associate at Covington & Burling law firm
1993 to 1999- Partner in the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus
Former Executive Director of the Committee on Resolutions in the Republican National Committee
Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Current Positions:

  • Fox News Channel commentator
  • Counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office.
  • Involved with a variety of conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the following:
    Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
    Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
    Institute of East-Wet Dynamics
    National Rifle Association (NRA)
    U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
    Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG)
    Council for National Policy (CNP)

Political/Government Career
1981 to 1982- General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
1982 to 1983- Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, USAID
1985 to 1989- Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice
1989 to 1993- Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State
1999 to 2001- Served on the board of the Committee for International Religious Freedom
2001 to 2005-  Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
2005 to 2006- U.S. Ambassador to the UN
The rumor is Mr. Bolton is considering a run for the office of President in 2012

Public Policy
1997 to 2000- Mr. Bolton worked pro bono as an assistant to James Baker in Baker’s capacity as Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to the Western Sahara.

2003- He was part of the State Department’s delegation to six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program, but was removed from the delegation after describing Kim Jong-il as a “tyrannical dictator” and adding that life for the North Korean’s under  Kim’s rule, “life is a hellish nightmare.”

Served as Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute
Formerly involved with these conservative groups:
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Federalist Society
National Policy Forum
National Advisory Board
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
New Atlantic Initiative
Project on Transitional Democracies

Major Accomplishments
Mr. Bolton led the successful effort to rescind the 1970’s UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism.
Mr. Bolton played a major role in obtaining UN resolutions endorsing the use of force to fight Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
In his position at the Justice department, he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair.
He also helped lead in the judicial nomination process for Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Bolton was a key-figure in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

His Reputation
Mr. Bolton has the reputation of being hawkish on his foreign policy views. He is also described as neo-conservative, but he personally rejects the term, reminding people that he has been a conservative since high school.

He is known to be highly successful in pushing his agenda, but his bluntness has earned him many enemies.
He has been accused of trying to spin intelligence to support his views and political objectives on more than one occasion.
The Economist wrote that Mr. Bolton was “the most controversial Ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations.”
David Kopel praised Bolton as “Horatio at the Bridge, saving the Second Amendment from a full-scale assault at the United Nations.”

I love the fact that Mr. Bolton is “blunt”. I cannot stand someone who does not “say what they mean and mean what they say”. We’ve got more than enough mealy-mouth politicians in Washington, we most certainly do not need any more!
On several occasions I’ve seen Mr. Bolton’s “bluntness”, and I appreciate that! I would LOVE to have a President that did not mince his words! I have no doubt that Mr. Bolton would have no problem accomplishing that task!
I am also very encouraged by the experience Mr. Bolton brings to the table. This is a definite positive, especially with how vigilant he is with addressing the issues that need to be addressed.

His Happiest Moment
Mr. Bolton has said that his ‘happiest moment at State was personally ‘unsigning’ the Rome Statute,’ which had set up the International Criminal Court.

On The UN
Mr. Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career. He has said,

“There is no such thing as the United Nations. there is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United states.”

On A Possible Run For President in 2012
In an interview with Politico, he said:

“As I survey the situation, I think the Republican field is wide open. I don’t think the party’s anywhere close to a decision. And stranger things have happened. For example, inexperienced senators from Illinois have gotten presidential nominations.”

And in an interview with National Review he said:

“Individual liberty is the whole purpose of political life, and I thought it was threatened back then”-in 1964 during the Goldwater campaign which he describes as “my formative political experience”-“and I think it’s threatened now…..I write, I give speeches, I appear on television-but the only way in contemporary American circumstances to make those issues as salient as they should be is to run for president.”

One thing is for certain- the Republican field is DEFINITELY wide open! There is one candidate that is actually running right now that I can see myself voting for with confidence. There are a couple of others that intrigue me, but only one stands out as definitely someone I would campaign for. Only time will tell who all the candidates will be, and if Mr. Bolton will be in the line-up.

On The Web
John Bolton on Twitter
John Bolton on Facebook
In His Words- War-Powers Crisis

_________________________

Sources:

Wikipedia

See the profiles of other potential 2012 GOP Candidates