On John Bolton - It's What He Said In 2001 !! (one of the best arguments on the need for BOLTON!)

MENS NEWS DAILY.COM ^ | MAY 28, 2005 | JOHN LONGENECKER

[CHARLITE]

What Under Secretary of State John R. Bolton said publicly in 2001 could explain the Left’s 2005 opposition to his confirmation to a post at The United Nations.

He’s a Constitutionalist.

The brouhaha over Bolton is puzzling at first. But the rat in the woodpile is often found when you think about Liberty and rights of Americans. That’s the scent trail to follow, and this trail stinks, because it sees a furtherance of rights of Americans being attacked from abroad.

Liberals have fairly good memories, and they hold a grudge. They’re patient in many respects and they take the hand-off to each other well in their continuum to undermining democracy wherever and whenever they can.

A little research into John Bolton uncovered an interesting speech he turned in as a statement to the U. N. It is titled: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATEMENT by John R. Bolton, U.S. Statement at Plenary Session Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects July 9, 2001. You can read his entire, brief piece at this link.

http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/smallarms/statements/usE.html

You can gain some insight to the man by his writing and speaking. You decide if he is cogent or facile; direct or meandering; bullying or purposeful.

I am for Bolton, and how. Because he will stand up where we need to be represented. In short, the United Nations wants to confiscate guns around the world. This means, of course, undermining the Constitution of the United States.

Because criminals don’t obey laws, this would leave entire nations at the mercy of criminals, including rogue governments. Bolton explains our unwillingness to cooperate with worldwide total disarmament by noting that the vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic. Nations have the right to make and export arms for the legitimate purpose of their national defense, and that includes individual self-defense as the citizen of a nation is it's greatest asset. .. and its first line of defense.

There is a lot of violence in the world, but we need to remember that such violence is often a product of oppression or coercion meeting righteous resistance, or people who don’t want to be oppressed or coerced. As long as you have ambitious persons or governments who want to take control, you may have whole peoples who don’t quite agree. Threats to those nations become threats to us all, because oppression spreads. Look at the world of today to see the ratio of oppressed nations to free nations.

This is why there is a worldwide movement to discourage resistance. They want to make it easier on themselves to further their aims non-violently; as the WW II Japanese Command put it, attacking the United States by invasion would be impossible; they have too many guns. They were right.

And such an observation would be right today, too. We would resist.

But as part of the non-violent persuasion, citizens are talked out of resistance, punished for arguing or resisting, and generally misled on the history and how liberty was won through resistance. How it is won worldwide through resistance.

The very idea of violence and conflict is being painted so unseemly that people are actually misreading them as useless, undesirable social dynamics.

They are, in fact the redeeming values of freedom, intellectual discovery and societal health.

The anti-violence, anti-conflict movement is a sham, a lie to talk people out of quarreling when resistance is just. And it’s just and righteous when you want to self-govern.

Also, as another example, Bolton explained, "Perhaps most important, this proposal [universal disarmament of small arms] would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government. Distinctions between governments and non-governments are irrelevant in determining responsible and irresponsible end-users of arms." And, "What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles."

In short, if there is total international disarmament of peoples (not governments, now), where does it leave the People of any nation who have a righteous need for arms? The evidence of confiscation of weapons is clear in the United Kingdom, the Philippines, South Africa, Australia, even Washington D.C. where violent crime skyrockets.

The people of the U.K. are working hard to re-arm it’s citizenry, and D.C. is examining restoring handgun ownership to constituents there.

But the restorations are most difficult. Not only do their recent ten year histories undisputably reveal an intolerable rise in violent crime, but they also exhibit undisputably how hard it is to win back self-defense. It usually is.

Why is the will of the people being blocked so?

What in the world do the gun grabbers worldwide have in mind?

Could this be why the Left is against John Bolton?

When it seems that everyone is selling us out, some do their job, and do it well. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. I like her. John Bolton is another.

These courageous individuals threaten to upset the left’s picnic of looting America a little at a time as we are forced to join the rest of the picnic in looting the world.

The fight is that we don’t want to cooperate, and we’re being forced against our will. We’re being coerced. We’re being sold out.

And we’re resisting.

And they don’t like that.

I’ve said that Gun Control has nothing to do with guns: it’s not really about guns, which is why I place my Liberty views in this column. And the blocking of John Bolton’s appointment has nothing to do with his management style. It has everything to do with his practical approach to defending our country against further intrusion and international mating up with the American gun control movement.

This caring about what happens to others is a hallmark of conservatives. Bolton’s observations are inclusive for the peoples of other nations as well as our own. Liberals cannot match this kind of personal integrity, and they never will. And it’s hard enough just to find friendly nations around the globe who believe in our concept of Liberty. They are so few.

Confiscation of weapons worldwide is a reflection of a hostility to all, in that it ties the hands of those who would resist oppression and places the power exclusively into the hands of the oppressors. This cannot spread democracy, but just the opposite.

Like liberalism spreads intrusion, over-reach and failed policies here, with the net result being purely the opposite for more than forty years.

It’s no accident.

Part of just how to further protect our nation, and other nations who wish to live free, is to appoint John Bolton to his proposed post at the U.N.

[CHARLITE]

For your interest.

Char :)

[therut]

I have thought this is one of the BIG reasons they are aganist him. This has not gotton a mention in the MSM or talk radio but it should. Most people do not realize that the UN really does want to take our firearms very much. This is a REAL goal of theirs not some tin foil hat idea. The info is out there but, I would say 90% of Citizens of this country know NOTHING about this.

[Albion Wilde]

BUMP

[CHARLITE]

Yes. This author realizes that the gun issue really IS behind the liberals' opposition to John Bolton. The rest of it is low-grade, "B" movie acting. It is a distraction from their true reasons for fearing this great American!

Thank you very much for your excellent observations!

Char :)

[Fred Nerks]

The UN Disarmament Campaign - The New American - (snip)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/08-13-2001/vol7no17_disarmament.htm




"Many critics of the United Nations are aware that the world body seeks to confiscate firearms from civilians around the world — including those owned by citizens of the United States. Indeed, any visitor to UN Headquarters will see a prominent, tangible symbol of that design in the form of a statue entitled "Disarmament." A gift from the government of Luxembourg, the statue depicts a revolver with its barrel twisted into a knot. The sculpture leaves little doubt as to the designs of the UN. What is less widely understood, however, is that the drive for UN-administered global civilian disarmament was conceived and initiated by American globalists.

One very important figure who met that description was Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations) who composed the 1962 report A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. Bloomfield’s blueprint for a UN-dominated world dictates that "all nations scrap their armaments down to the police level" — and that "a significant UN presence" will exist in all countries to enforce these disarmament decrees..."

[Fred Nerks]

correction to link:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/08-13-2001/vo17no17_disarmament.htm

[thoughtomator]

As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, "just as the First and Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

In other words, barely, and mostly symbolically...

[Fred Nerks]