Replies

Alberta's Child:

One problem with the internet is that we post what we please anonymously behind the curtain of screen names. This encourages us to indulge in irresponsible nonsense and to fill in the blanks with our fantasies when we have insufficient information. We indulge conspiracy claims, use inappropriate descriptive terms with abandon, make claims beyond all artional restraint, etc.

I became acquainted personally with John Bolton when he was a Yale undergraduate and continuing through his time at Yale Law School. He is the son of a Baltimore fireman, making him of somewhat more modest background and upbringing than most at Yale back then (late 1960s, early 1970s) when he also served as Executive Director of Lux et Veritas, Inc., a student-alumni group slamming the genuinely "globalist" Yale Administration of Yale President Kingman Brewster. Brewster spent his tenure on his knees before Yale's radical left and substantially damaging the university. You can read a lot about it in books of the late Robert Bork.

I have not seen or talked with John Bolton in decades but character counts and he has and always has had character. He is quite bright and quite principled and always has been. Likewise, he is a man of measured judgment. It is not without reason that the left fears a John Bolton in charge of American foreign policy, a man who understands that all is not diployakkery.

You and I have often agreed here and sometimes disagreed. On this matter of John Bolton, and knowing John Bolton as I do, I can tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself. Your characterizations of John Bolton are quite inaccurate and quite unjust. I gather that you are a "paleo" and therefore allergic to interventionist assertions of American military strength. You are entitled to that opinion but it is hardly in synch with modern American conservatism of the Bill Buckley era and forward. The conservatism of James Burnham, of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, of Ronald Reagan, ad not that paler defensive variety that was forever blasted to smithereens by the attack on Pearl Harbor coupled with Hitler's depradations in Europe and the unrelieved evil of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, and now bin Laden and the Islamofacisti.

Protecting Americans certainly requires strict border enforcement. exclusion of all immigration of Muslim immigrants unless and until there is a reliable test for radicalism (not likely) and such immigration somehow serves OUR American interests as a nation and not merely those of the business "community."

Sitting around doing nothing by way of interventionism makes no more sense than open borders or encouraging Muslim immigration. 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.

Thanks, BlackElk, well stated.

One problem with the internet is that we post what we please anonymously behind the curtain of screen names. This encourages us to indulge in irresponsible nonsense and to fill in the blanks with our fantasies when we have insufficient information. We indulge conspiracy claims, use inappropriate descriptive terms with abandon, make claims beyond all artional restraint, etc.

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 was not attacking Bolton per se in my post, but wondering mightily why he would omit mention of immigration. And I also categorize him as more a neoconservative, and hence his greater inclination to engage in use of the military.

I have admired him in the past, especially when he was at the UN. But why didn't he address the #1 issue? And I realize all aspects of our war with radislam are connected, but there still is a hierarchy.

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.

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.