Amb. John Bolton: Two critical conclusions from Orlando terror attack

Fox News ^ | June 12, 2016 | Amb. John Bolton

[jazusamo]

Sunday brought the latest terrorist attack in America, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, with all its attendant tragedy. Words cannot adequately describe the horror that engulfed the scene of this massacre, caused by one Omar Mir Seddique Mateen.

Beyond the human cost, however, also lies the tragedy that Barack Obama, speaking even as it became clear that the murderer was a radical Islamic terrorist, is still unable or unwilling to draw the appropriate conclusions. The president’s remarks omitted any linkages between the cold-blooded murders, the terrorist’s ideology, and the broader international threat that motivated the Orlando killer and perhaps others yet unknown.

We will, in the coming days, doubtless hear that the terrorist was a lone wolf, that he did not belong to any known terrorist organization, that there are no wider threats. In particular, those who are blind to the terrorist threat will downplay even the incontrovertible fact that Mateen pledged loyalty to ISIS as he committed his murders.

Two critical conclusions follow immediately from Sunday’s tragic reality, one with immediate implications for our domestic safety, and one for conducting the broader international war against terrorism.

[trebb]

And, don’t forget, Ambassador Bolton, they were gay guys. It could never happen to the rest of us, could it?

?????

Curious about the post - is there a special meaning?

I see it as the first one that was specifically aimed at the homosexual community and Obama's (and Hillary's) reticence at calling it what it was may push a number of them our way come November if/when they fail to make it an "evil republican/Christian plot"....

[miss marmelstein]

I wrote that yesterday. It doesn’t have special meaning just that it was gays yesterday, tomorrow it will be another group depending on locale and opportunity. I’m still unconvinced that it was targeted because it was a gay club and not targeted because it was a well-known, crowded venue that apparently was a gun-free zone.

Of course, today it’s all about banning guns and homophobia and nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.

I’m also interested in his dodgy family.

[trebb]

Thanks - like a lot of what I might write, it wasn't as obvious to others as it was to you.

Have a great day.

[petercooper]

bttt

[fuzzylogic]

You assume those filled with hate will see clearly. They wont. They will reaffirm that “Islam is peaceful” and that a small percentage are trying to “hijack the religion” and that we now need to be careful about “muslim backlash”.

If the media isn’t aggressive about exposing Islam’s attitude about homosexuality then you have your answer. They will not go after the truth, I’ll be shocked if they do.

[fuzzylogic]

...take a look at what the gay community are saying, see the comments section.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/06/latest-50-killed-orlando-gay-club-deadliest-mass-shooting-us/

They’re in complete denial.

[Elsie]

...take a look at what the gay community are saying,

Take a look at what GOD has said...

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---

The Health Risks of gay sex.                           (I guess lead poisoning will have to be added to this list...)

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know John Bolton well enough to question his character. I do, however, question his motives and his agenda. There's more than sufficient evidence in his public statements, including the damning information at the links I posted, to serve as the basis for this.

Go back to the information about Bolton's statements and positions from the late 1990s on U.S. military intervention in the Balkans. There is no reason to trust a man who publicly calls upon a disgraced, impeached personality disorder in the White House to deploy military assets against a nominally Christian government in Serbia on behalf of radical Islamic extremists in Kosovo. There's every reason to question his motivations and his agenda when this has been part of a recurring pattern with these big-government globalists to replace secular governments all over the Middle East with radical Islamic regimes -- even while insisting on maintaining open borders here in the U.S.

John Bolton has been a Beltway hack for his entire adult life. I'd like to know who pays his salary, and I'd like to know what their agenda is. There's nothing irresponsible or inappropriate about it, and there's nothing I need to be ashamed of. Anyone who doesn't question the motivations of people like this isn't a responsible citizen, as far as I'm concerned.

[Just mythoughts]

I agree with you!!!

[Alberta's Child]

He didn't address the issue of immigration because he's an open-borders globalist who can't acknowledge what is obvious to everyone who looks at this issue objectively. Calling for U.S. military intervention all over the world in response to a terrorist attack by an American-born mutant from an Afghan family with diplomatic ties to Washington, D.C. is nothing more than an attempt to change the conversation to something that has nothing to do with the problem.

This is what happens when empires die, folks.

[Alberta's Child]

There are solid reasons why wimpy Neville Chamberlain and his American counterparts (Lindbergh, McGovern, etc.) are reviled by sensible Americans for their knee jerk pacifism in the face of external threats and why Winston Churchill, MacArthur and Patton are admired.

Interesting that you should mention those three names in particular. By the time World War II ended, Churchill was presiding over a British empire that was about to vanish, and Patton had died under mysterious circumstances.

It took almost 35 years for MacArthur's legacy to be cemented, when it was revealed in 1979 that he had received a payment of $500,000 in 1942 from the Quezon government of the Philippines while he was serving as the Commander of U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. So he was really nothing more than a globalist after all ... like Hillary Clinton, but without the family foundation and the private server in the basement to help facilitate these payments by foreign interests.

[BlackElk]

I am betting that Pee Wee Herman is and Tiny Tim was each "paleo""conservative." Think how much better World War II would have worked with Tiny Tim up against Tojo and Pee Wee Herman taking on Hitler. Tiny Tim and Pee Wee Herman would have shared that patented "paleo" tactic of relying on diployakkers to buy a little time over champagne, Lobster Thermidor, and Baked Alaska to lead the troops and navy in full scale retreat, fleeing helter skelter for "safety" to hide their heads in the sand until the BAAAAAAAD MEN GO AWAY!!!

"Paleos" despise Churchill because he fought, Patton because he fought, MacArthur because he fought. Worst of all, all three of them WON and that is just inexcusable as their critics, not only of the Bund and "America First" but also latter day critics and allies of "paleos" like Code Pink, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, Abbie Hoffman, Gerry Rubin, George McGovern, Frank Church, John Sherman Cooper, UpChuck Percy, et al., would be the first to tell you.

What passes for your "foreign policy" died with the first sailor to be slaughtered at Pearl Harbor. Now we have Obozo sitting idly by while the Islamofascists score again and again and again against Western Civilization and our nation and all Obozo can do is force the retirement of military officers with a shred of observable morality and/or military capability and/or patriotism in favor of Heinz/Kerry's 57 varieties of wimps, fruits, nuts and vegetables while starving military contractors into bankruptcy and all the rest of the misadventures of the last 7 1/2 years.

I don't think there is much mystery as to Patton's death. My parents (FDR Democrats) brought me up to believe he had been murdered. My parents were right. The only (maybe) mystery is why. It is a lead pipe cinch that it was NOT because anyone suspected that he wanted to make nice with Stalin's sycophants, sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

$500,000 from the Philipines government to MacArthur in 1942. Is that supposed to be shameful? For the freedom of their nation, it was worth a lot more, Mother Superior. What this has to do with the constant "paleo" weeping, kvetching, moaning about "globalism" (the boggieman'll getcha if you don't watch out!) is beyond me. Maybe it is because WW II was a WORLD WAR???? Did Douglas MacArthur DO anything for the $500,000 that was not in the interests of the US? You would actually compare MacArthur to the Clinton Family Crime Foundation? And you call yourself ANY KIND OF CONSERVATIVE?????

Must suck to be you.

[BlackElk]

I did not intend to suggest any such thing as to you. I pinged you simply as a courtesy because I was responding to a ping that had been addressed to you.

If being a "neo"conservative has morphed from meaning "elderly former socialist but anti-communist, mostly Jewish, NYC college professors who fled the Democrat Party after McGovern's communists took control" to anyone willing to use the organized force of the United States military with or without a by-your-leave from the "world community," then John Bolton must be the latter form of "neoconservative" and so am I and damned proud of it.

The purpose of the military is to kill our enemies swiftly, efficiently and relentlessly and break his things and confiscate enough assets to pay for every last nickel of expenses incurred in the exercise, get the hell out and repeat as regrettably necessary.

John Bolton's emphasis has always been on armaments, military deployment and thwarting the panty-waisted diployakkers who will sell this country, its people and its BORDERS down the river every time in service to their Chamber of Crony Commerce patrons.

Not every government official needs to be deployed on the border matter. Trump has this right. It is relatively simple. Build the damn wall. Build it ASAP. Close the ports of entry and airports to unauthorized immigration. Stop the infernal demand of the colleges and universities (often domestic enemies) for ever more revenue from foreign students wo come to study, hard sciences while our own often major in sex, drugs and rock 'n roll or ethnic and alternative lifestyle studies. Bolton does not need to reform American misedjamakashun either. Or the tax code. Or the regulatory empire. Spread Bolton too thin and he will, despite his talents, become less effective.

[BlackElk]

The reason that you feel like you have been tied to a whipping post is because you ought to be.

Are there any other despicable formerly alive soviet stooges other than Milosevic that have you and Code Pink and Sean Penn weeping rivers of crocodile tears? Well, there was also SoDamnInsane. The closest Milosevic got to being Christian was that his father was a Serbian Orthodox priest (and Tito era communist official).

If John Bolton saw fit to support the effort in Yugoslavia, I'll take his side over any paleoweasel who disagrees.

Maybe he would like to know who pays YOUR salary and what YOUR agenda (other than turning the USA into an impotent force) may be.

If you think that John Bolton is working FOR expansion of Islamofascist control of nations, you need to find your straitjacket, your meds and your handlers and get back to being Paleo Ron Paul's roommate at Sunny Acres.

[AlanGreenSpam]

Ummmm, speak of the devil...

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/former_massachusetts_rep_barne.html

Barney Flank is confirming my point (If we can get that MF’er to rally against Islamic Extremists, that was unthinkable just last week).

Again, this is a watershed moment that could be helpful to conservatives. There may be some gay converts to the Republican side.

[Dr. Sivana]

This is EXACTLY what I would expect from a Reptilian shapeshifter lizard man like you. Stop trying to impregnate the human race with your lizard DNA so you can eventually harvest our flesh for your vast interstellar empire! You eat cats, and that is disgusting enough! Away with you, Reptilian!

I've known BlackElk for many years. He does not eat cats. I have that on the authority of the cats who live with him and Mrs. Elk.

[Dr. Sivana]

The purpose of the military is to kill our enemies swiftly, efficiently and relentlessly and break his things and confiscate enough assets to pay for every last nickel of expenses incurred in the exercise, get the hell out and repeat as regrettably necessary.

Personally, I'd go soft on the confiscate assets part. Just wars are defensive in nature, and at every level, determining and extracting just compensation leads to more wars and more misery for both sides.

France sought compensation for WWI which helped create conditions for a Hitler to come into power. It would have been a better deal if they let up a bit, and let both sides recover. After WWII, the U.S. did not enslave Japan until all was repaid; it would not have happened if we tried. That does not preclude utterly destroying them until the peace can take place, if necessary. But, if we can deal with them magnanimously after, good can sometimes be the result. Japan is a solid nation now, and has learned (compared to other countries) from her sins.

I couldn't even imagine how 1870s Republicans would try to get the Confederate States to reimburse them for expenses. Especially given the unnecessary ruination that was performed to make the point.

Even at lower levels, when low level criminals commit low level crimes that nonetheless destroy property, we cannot possibly recover the money to run that system from most of these incidents. A teenager from a poor family goes in anto a house, performing $10,000 of damage to steal $50 of copper. Besides the $10,000 damage, thousands might be spent on the expense of the investigation. Police, headquarters, district attorneys, court appointed defendant counsel, etc. We take the hit to have an overall functioning system. The current practice of asset forfeiture and things of that sort lead to corruption.

Even in ancient times, the promise of plunder does more to tempt men otherwise in the right to turn bad (think 4th Crusade).

We pay for insurance, whether we use it or not. We pay for police, whether we use them or not. We pay for war, even when we suffer a net loss of money. Requiring complete compensation for every wrong when we win the battle means more battles, and more of the things that made the battles at every level.

[BlackElk]

As to the late unpleasantness between (among?) the states, 11 Confederate States passed articles of secession as did their fathers/grandfathers from Great Britain in 1776. NOTHING in the Constitution prohibited them from doing so for whatever reason or none. Lincoln's response was a cornucopia of constitutional violations. He invaded South Carolina on the excuse of "relieving" Fort Sumter which was surrendered (as it should have been) in short order by Captain Anderson of the US Army. Once South Carolina had re-asserted its sovereignty, all that was left for Lincoln and South Carolina was to surrender and/or withdraw federal assets there and submit any squabbles over the value of lost federal property to adjudication or arbitration.

Lincoln also insisted upon "blockading" Confederate ports while simultaneously claiming that secession had not occurred. International law does not allow a nation to "blockade" its own ports. Sherman's "March to the Sea?" Nearly 700,000 American soldiers (Union and Confederate) killed, destruction of the economy of the Southland, military Reconstruction forced by the same nutcases (save Lincoln) who insisted on making war upon the South, and I can can go on and on. If any reparations were due, the Union should have been required to pay them.

Think on a model of crime and punishment.

Every time we go to war, we hear weeping and moaning over the cost of doing so. Those weeping and moaning seem not to care about the criminal misbehavior of our enemies. To that extent, they become complicit in the crimes.

If "Sharia Law" supports claims that it is OK for Allah's minions to rape "infidel" women (and girls) at will and we fail to respond with absolute suppression of such nonsense, vigorous investigation, indictment, conviction and punishment of Islamomiscreants who want to prove their Islamist worth by raping "infidel" women (and girls), we are subsidizing their crimes. If we can make them pay for the costs of investigation, prosecution, trial, conviction, and incarceration (to say nothing of reparations to their victims), so much the better. Tack on years at hard labor with payment first to the victims and then to the state.

Japan? Since Hirohito (in addition to being the living, if somewhat invisible god of Shinto) seems to have been an ignorant figurehead kept in the dark by Tojo, I can understand not prosecuting him just as I DO understand hanging Tojo and his approving colleagues. Although the Imperial Japanese Navy was the instrument of Tojo's attack on Pearl Harbor, the naval leaders appear to have been honorable men. Japan's problems were rooted in Japan's culture and in Tojo's Army which went so far as to cannibalize American POWs, generally o the Army Air Corps.

One might rationalize Pearl Harbor and numerous historians have done so but the question seems to have been our refusal to countenance and subsidize Japan's ambitions for its "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere," a brand name for local imperialism of the land starved Japanese. Given what was known of the Japanese occupation of Korea in the early 20th century, we were not likely to provide the petroleum Japan needed for conquest. Therefore, Tojo broke off negotiations with the US, recalled his ambassadors and ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Enslave Japan? No. The Japanese people bore no specific or collective responsibility for the crimes. Punish Hirohito personally? No. Hang Tojo and its army leaders for crimes against humanity? Absolutely. At the very least, reparations from Japanese tax revenues to those Americans disabled by the war and the families of those Americans killed in that war? Absolutely. Since I don't think that we needed to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that cost is on us. Ditto the incendiary bombing of Tokyo.

Douglas MacArthur imposed other costs on Japan after the war. History and morality will judge the wisdom of the imposed costs which were social and not economic. He broke Japanese patriarchy, imposed birth control (and, I believe, the legalization of abortion in that pagan society). His efforts in Japan and Korea earned him the title "American Caesar" in the magnificent William Manchester biography of that name. The people of the East whom he liberated regard him as practically a god.

When the feral urban punk does $10,000 damage to a home to steal $50 worth of copper and gets a slap on the wrist, we teach him that we don't care about the costs to the victim. Making him pay (by hard labor, if necessary) teaches him that we DO care about his victims and that his crime spree is not free.

We DO pay for insurance and, to the extent that we are reimbursed for our losses by burglary, we are subordinated to the insurance company in making claims against the miscreant responsible. Therefore, the insurance companies should devise methods to impose costs on the miscreants lest we believe that the status quo is only good advertising to get us to pony up premiums.

I do not want government to profit from asset forfeiture.

Crime. Punishment. Closure.