Trump and the ICC

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s easy to lose sight of some of Trump’s actions in the three weeks – is it only three weeks? – since he was inaugurated. So much has happened.

But I don’t want to ignore this EO of Trump’s concerning the International Criminal Court:

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC. Neither country has ever recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war. The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. …

The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

The ICC is one of those Orwellian institutions so prevalent these days. Under the guise of “international law,” it manages to allow corrupt dictatorships and countries that trash human rights to sanction countries such as the US and Israel, particularly the latter. The UN and the ICC and other international groups such as Amnesty are responsible for a great deal of the propaganda success of terrorists.

Trump sanctioned the ICC during his first term. The Biden administration lifted those sanctions as one of its early moves (the linked article is from April of 2021):

President Joe Biden on Friday lifted sanctions and visa restrictions on officials of the International Criminal Court, reversing another foreign policy move by former President Donald Trump.

The Biden administration move will please human rights activists as well as many of America’s allies in Europe, a group Biden is determined to reconnect with in the wake of souring relations under Trump.

Still, the Biden administration, like other Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, remains wary of the ICC, whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize. Just weeks ago, the U.S. slammed the ICC for moving toward investigating Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, noting that Israel also does not submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The Trump administration had imposed the penalties in part because of ICC efforts to investigate actions of the U.S. and other parties in Afghanistan.

So, why did the Biden administration lift the sanctions, if it remained “wary” of the ICC and “slammed” it? The answer highlights one of the many many differences between the Biden administration and Trump:

“We continue to disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement that announced an end to the sanctions. “We maintain our longstanding objection to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United States and Israel. We believe, however, that our concerns about these cases would be better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.”

Aha! You see, they “disagree strongly.” They “maintain” their “longstanding objection.” Disagreeing and objecting are mere words, quite meaningless in the real world – as events later proved. Do sanctions work? Probably not all that much. But they certainly have a better chance of doing something effective than mere words.

The news cycle …

The New Neo Posted on by

… outruns me every day.

But I keep trying.

By the way, the problem with the bot attacks is a bit better. I added still another layer of protection, courtesy of my host. But it’s not perfect. Time will tell if I have to do more.

But in the meantime, my apologies for any delays you might experience. It’s a frustrating problem.

Trump and women’s sports

The New Neo Posted on by

This involves one of Trump’s campaign promises. The Democrats had chosen to support a form of “transgender rights” – biological men in women’s sports as long as the men claimed to be women – that harmed the girls and women the party had always claimed to defend, a position so extreme it even troubled some Democrats. With an EO, Trump banned federal funding for entities that allow biological men to compete in women’s sports.

Note how that CBS News article frames it in the lede – not as banning biological men, but as banning girls and women who just happen to be trans girls and women. Many readers probably wouldn’t even know that this means biological boys and men:

President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order to ban transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity, marking his latest move targeting transgender rights.

I wager a lot of trans people don’t like how far the movement went when people like swimmer Lia Thomas pushed for being considered a woman when there was no question Lia was a post-pubescent male with the body of a post-pubescent male. It’s only much further down in the story that CBS News even attempts to explain what the EO really refers to.

Allowing biological males who identify as women to compete in girls’ and women’s sports is a very unpopular hill that the Democrat candidates chose to die on [emphasis mine]:

A recent New York Times/Ipsos survey found the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don’t think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women’s sports. Of the 2,128 people polled, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports.

Here’s the signing ceremony. Note how relaxed Trump is:

Voting for Kamala: the interviews

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “JohnTyler” observes:

Even in the edited version [of her 60 Minutes interview], Kamala comes across as a stupid, ignorant moron.

I still do not understand how any sentient human could have cast their vote for such an incredibly dumb and ignorant individual; and over 49% of voters did exactly that.

It’s interesting to hear all the reasons, supplied by democrats, why Kamala lost the election. You will note that not one commentator states the obvious; that she is just plain stupid and ignorant.

It is really frightening that someone of her “intelligence” could garner such a significant percentage of all the popular votes.

I think I’ve got an answer.

Harris had a fairly low profile as VP. Only political junkies on the right would have seen some of her inane exchanges, and it was easy to have missed most of her off-the-cuff statements and only seen a teleprompter speech or two, if that.

Most Democrats hate Trump and knew they wouldn’t be voting for him. But a lot of them tuned into the Harris/Trump debate in order to see how it would go. Kamala lied quite a bit during it, but that was the usual propaganda that most Democrats already believed, and other than that she acquitted herself fairly well and Trump was fuming and talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs. So the debate would have only solidified their confidence in their choice of Kamala for president.

So, why waste time watching interviews? I’ve asked quite a few people I know – all of them intelligent – what they thought of Kamala’s interviews, and none of them had watched a single one. And why should they? They’re busy people, Trump was a disaster or Hitler, Kamala was fine and cleaned his clock in the debate, so why waste time watching an interview with only her?

Therefore they simply had no idea how awful she came across. To this day they have no idea, because they certainly weren’t about to watch her interviews after the election.

That may even have been part of the reason Trump sued CBS: in order to expose the entire interview and draw attention to it.

Kamala’s CBS editors made her sound semi-coherent

The New Neo Posted on by

We now have have the unedited footage of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview.

It’s about what you’d except. Instead of relatively succinct – although nevertheless vague – answers, we have meandering, lengthy, vague and often meaningless responses. Plus, some of the worst ones were left out. CBS edited the interview to make her look better, but even then she didn’t look good.

Here’s an article that describes some of the cuts.

And here’s the original:

Here’s an example of her answering the “why do you want to be president?” question:

A few more details on Trump’s Gaza plan

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t think the word “plan” is exactly correct. Vision? Suggestion? Proposal? Fantasy? Negotiating tactic?

At any rate, here are more details:

Writing on the Truth Social platform, President Trump announced that no U.S. troops would be needed to implement the plan. …

“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting,” President Trump said on Truth Social.

“The Palestinians … would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free,” he said. “The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the World, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth.”

Move over, Marshall Plan. Say hello to Gaza-by-the-sea.

Note the “no US troops” statement, which should placate the worst fears of those who voted for Trump to greatly limit troop commitments abroad. I never thought he had any intention of involving US troops, even though he had left it open when he made his announcement. Note also that this assumes an Israeli victory. Plus, unspecified “development teams from all over the world” would be part of it. Trump’s greatest real estate project.

As I wrote earlier, no one knows whether any of this will happen, and there’s an excellent chance it will not. But it certainly has changed the conversation, and one of the most important elements of that change is that it makes it clear there is no 2-state solution in the sense that it’s been used in the past. If this is a 2-state solution, it’s a completely different one.

When Arabs have moved to European countries – or when Palestinians have moved from Gaza or the West Bank to Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon – in the past many have kept to their murderous and destructive ways. If the Gazans move now, will this be the case once again, especially when united with their leftist champions in Europe? Or, with the near-destruction of Gaza, are at least some of them ready to just live their lives in a better place, not continually thinking they have a right to return to Israel itself? I think it’s a longshot. But it’s an intriguing thought. And no one seems to have a better one.

Trump’s second term so far: I guess this is what “draining the swamp” looks like

The New Neo Posted on by

It may have been the most basic and early of Trump’s campaign promises, back when he was first running for president: to drain the swamp. Making illegal immigration less easy was another, of course, and the more general Make America Great Again, which seemed to me to primarily be referring to making the country economically more independent and prosperous, and making us more respected as a superpower abroad that meant what it said and said what it meant and was willing to back it up.

But draining the swamp was, as Trump would say, YUGE. And in his first term he lost that battle, YUGELY. In fact, the swamp came very close to draining him. Meanwhile, he had learned more of the perils of the swamp: where the quicksand is, where the most dangerous creatures dwell. And now he’s fighting them as best he can, with a group of capable people, many of whom have learned firsthand up close and personal how dangerous the swamp can be.

The swamp is bigger than he ever thought, but he has more help this time. The swamp, of course, is fighting back. So far his attack has been a blitzkreig type, very fast. But don’t underestimate the power of the swamp to regroup and fight back very very hard.

The USAID is an especially hidden area of the swamp, and shining a light in there has caused a great deal of turmoil among those who have benefited from its largesse. And the FBI and the DOJ have been attempted agents of Trump’s (and the J6ers) destruction – not everyone in those agencies by any means, but some portion of the higher-ups who decided to twist the law into a pretzel to get those on the right they perceived as enemies.

We on the right used to complain that there were no consequences for any of the wrongdoing we saw. Well, now the attempt is to bring those consequences at last.

I believe there only will be legal prosecution for a few, and that’s okay with me. There also will be many legal challenges from the swamp, and judges on the left (and perhaps even on the right, if the case is sound) may find for the plaintiffs. But nevertheless, an enormous and sweeping effort is being made and I believe a significant portion of it will be successful.

There’s so much going on that I can’t cover everything in depth. What I’ve been doing, and what I plan to keep doing, is concentrating on the efforts I find most interesting or important, and also providing overviews such as this one. And of course links such as these:

From Ace, “USAID and the CIA Funded Trump’s First Impeachment.”

At Legal Insurrection, “US State Department Recalls All USAID Staffers from Foreign Assignments.”

From The Federalist, “The Constitution Vindicates Trump’s Firing Of 17 Inspectors General.”

From The Federalist, “If Presidents Can’t Control Executive Agencies, Elections Are Fake.”

There’s much, much more.

It’s also one thing to make light of the reaction of the left, such as “heads are exploding.” But there’s really nothing light about this. The press and the left are labeling it a coup, a dictatorship, an illegal takeover. The grounds for believing that – even on the part of relatively moderate Democrats – have been prepared for many many years. This is an extremely volatile situation.

Interesting times.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

My attempt to keep up with the incredible pace of the news – another roundup:

(1) Netanyahu has reportedly gifted Trump a golden pager to commemorate the pager explosions that harmed Hezbollah operatives. But would you accept a gift of a pager from this man?

(2) Pam Bondi is the new AG. She’s got her work cut out for her. She hasn’t wasted any time in issuing this directive:

“The discretion afforded Justice Department attorneys with respect to those responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute their personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.

… “any Justice Department attorney who declines to sign a brief, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Justice Department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination.”

This seems reasonable to me. DOJ employees are under the direction of the executive branch and the AG.

(3) Next up on the chopping block: the Department of Education. This is no surprise; it was one of Trump’s campaign promises. Most of my Democrat friends will probably assume this means that Republicans are against education.

(4) About the FBI and J6:

FBI employees who “simply followed orders” with respect to their investigations into Jan. 6 defendants will not be fired or face any other penalties, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove confirmed in an internal memo.

This is about the higher-ups, apparently.

(5) The EU is destroying Europe.

Well, it’s certainly not helping it.

It turns out that many media sites favoring Democrats have been on the USAID payroll

The New Neo Posted on by

Wow.

No wonder Democrats are so incensed at Musk and his Musketeers and their efforts to expose the nuts and bolts of who receives USAID money. It turns out that Politico – the site that broke the story of the 51 “intelligence experts” saying the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation – has been on the taxpayer payroll to the tune of many millions. As has the Democrat-favoring AP.

We assumed that websites such as Politico had private benefactors. But USAID? I can’t say the thought ever crossed my mind, skeptical and distrustful as I am of the left.

See this:

And here’s the scoop on Politico:

Also the NY Times and the BBC. Hey, the more the merrier. Much of this – or at least some – seems to have been in the form of paid premium subscriptions.

Much more here, including this about the legality of what DOGE is doing:

As for Musk and usurpation, attorney and activist Tom Renz points out that the Trump administration planned carefully for this effort. Trump took an existing agency from the Obama era that focused on software development and tasked it instead to do a deep data dive on federal spending. He then made Musk a partner to the US DOGE Service — told you it would be important — to facilitate the effort …

… [T]he real lesson from this is that the executive branch has too much authority over too-huge amounts of discretionary spending. That also means that the executive branch can rescind those spending decisions unilaterally, however. So far, it appears that the USDS has been careful to avoid spending that Congress specifically directs in statute or in budget line items, and instead is taking aim at everything else. That has been the case in every single department that DOGE has touched, especially at USAID, where spending is not only discretionary but has never been effectively checked by executives at State or the White House.