Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

[estesbob]

One need only read this thread to realize what a disaster it would be if Barack Obama is elected. We see his supporters tell us again and again that the solution to all of America’s problems is more government regulation, higher taxes on everybody but themselves, and complete government control of every aspect of our lives.

We already have a government that tells us when and where we can smoke, how much water we can have in our toilet, what, lightbulbs we can use, what kind of cars we should drive, where the poor, middle class have to send their children to schools, what the racial makeup of institutions of higher earning must be, how powerful our showers can be, that people can be forced to join unions, how fast we can drive. under what circumstances we can own guns , that allows women to kill their unborn children while forcing people of faith in the medical profession to participate in the slaughter whether they want to or not, force acceptance of deviant sexual behavior, penalize companies that they beleive don’t have the proper number of racial minortes and women working for them, telling companies where they can locate new plants to and on and on and on and on. And we’re told the problem is were not regulated enough???

Meanwhile we have a president who has accumulated more debt than all other presidents combined and his supporters tell us we are not compassionate because we don’t think that the 53% of the people who already paying 100% of federal income taxes should be taxed even more to provide more government largess fo the 47% who don’t. Count me out

 

[SamH]

Meanwhile we have a president who has accumulated more debt than all other presidents combined and his supporters tell us we are not compassionate because we don’t think that the 53% of the people who already paying 100% of federal income taxes should be taxed even more to provide more government largess fo the 47% who don’t. Count me out

Now that’s just racist.

 

[scipio337]

One need only read this thread to realize what a disaster it would be if Barack Obama is elected. We see his supporters tell us again and again that the solution to all of America’s problems is more government regulation, higher taxes on everybody but themselves, and complete government control of every aspect of our lives.

We already have a government that tells us when and where we can smoke, how much water we can have in our toilet, what, lightbulbs we can use, what kind of cars we should drive, where the poor, middle class have to send their children to schools, what the racial makeup of institutions of higher earning must be, how powerful our showers can be, that people can be forced to join unions, how fast we can drive. under what circumstances we can own guns , that allows women to kill their unborn children while forcing people of faith in the medical profession to participate in the slaughter whether they want to or not, force acceptance of deviant sexual behavior, penalize companies that they beleive don’t have the proper number of racial minortes and women working for them, telling companies where they can locate new plants to and on and on and on and on. And we’re told the problem is were not regulated enough???

Meanwhile we have a president who has accumulated more debt than all other presidents combined and his supporters tell us we are not compassionate because we don’t think that the 53% of the people who already paying 100% of federal income taxes should be taxed even more to provide more government largess fo the 47% who don’t. Count me out

But…

But President Obama said in his speech in Osawatomie last week that it is all the rich’s (and baby-eating Booosh’s) fault!

That 4.6% tax hike in marginal rates for “the rich” will cure all of our ills! That alone would have lowered our defecit this year from $1.3 Trillion to $1.2 Trillion!

 

[estesbob]

But…

But President Obama said in his speech in Osawatomie last week that it is all the rich’s (and baby-eating Booosh’s) fault!

That 4.6% tax hike in marginal rates for “the rich” will cure all of our ills! That alone would have lowered our defecit this year from $1.3 Trillion to $1.2 Trillion!

actually the 4.6% i andn hibm and increase on the so-called rich would take 10 years to pay next year’s payroll tax reduction. the payroll tax reduction, by the way, was a brilliant maneuver by the Congress to cut taxes of the 47% who were not paying any federal income taxes.

 

[CMatt25]

Very well done. Politics 101 according to Cmatt. I think you have done a good job of explaining how left/liberal Democrats feel. Judging from your posts this is no surprise. I think this election is indeed about two conflicting views of the future of America.
Ishii

Thank you Ishii and to you as well with your perspective. Every election is about conflicting views to some degree. The pendulum swings. In 80, 84, 88 we had Republican presidents. In 92 and 96 a Democratic one . In 2000 the Democrat won more votes than the Republican in the popular vote. In 04 a Republican. 2006 and 2008 were big yrs for Democrats. 2010 was a Republican yr. 2012, 2014, 16, 18, 2020 and beyond… who knows? My point is only that even if the Republicans were to take the WH, hold the House, and take the Senate, based on a long history, the pendulum will likely swing back.

 

[CMatt25]

Kudos to you for such a massively excellent post, Matt. The kind of post I wish I had written.

Thank you.

 

[CMatt25]

You know when almost everyone in a group speaks out,such as in this particular forum,as a Republican, it is very hard for a Dem to get very far edgewise, so I admire the mettle of posters like Matt who persevere in their right to exercise and put forward their beliefs and opinions when opposed by such groups as the one here in this forum.
Wishing you all peace and goodwill this Advent season.
Carlan

Thank you Carlan and for your earlier words as well. The politics of this forum vastly being what it is, I have no illusions that anything any of the rest of say matters with this group. As you know they can be a tough crowd to hang with. In any case peace and His blessings to you as well and to all during this season and beyond. God blessings everyone.

 

[CMatt25]

While I don’t agree with CMatt25 totally, he provides a strong antidote to much of the far right extremism we read here on CAF. Thank God America still has room for various points of view. I may have to settle for Obama myself, certainly if Gingrich is his opponent. Or, maybe a third party?

Thanks Roy. I often find your own posts inspiring. God bless you and all of His people of various POVs everywhere.

 

[Roy5]

SamH

 **Sorry that I did';t document my assertions re Bolton**. I assumed everyone here is aware of his views.

 **Some on CAF obviously will agree with him. He is an extreme nationalist who seems ready to assail almost everybody else.** Just listen to him rant. How undiplomatic, incendiary, and accusatory can one be? If you agree with him, that is your right. But I thought I should express my view in the strongest terms (as Bolton would) because he is such a threat to the USA. That Gingrich would pick him as Secretary of States was the final straw as far as Newt's candidacy is concerned. Dangerous for my beloved country.

** The USA has been in a position to lead the world into some sort of era of good feeling**. I recall how Eisenhower managed to do that in my youth. He brought the war to a close in Korea, wrote a letter strongly opposing US ground troops in Vietnam and fostered an atoms-for-peace program. He pushed for humanitarian aid to hungry people around the world.

** I disgree with Ron Paul on various things (too ‘anarchistic’ for me) but when it comes to foreign policy his advice that we not become entangled in every quarrel overseas is smart counsel.**

** As Christians we should revamp our thinking to include the question: “What would Jesus do?” I** doubt if he would have suggested that we kill 100,000+ civilians in Iraq - for example. I recall a ‘cartoon’ following the Korean War when I was very young. It showed the two Koreas, north and south, with corpses and ruins on both sides of the border. Beneath it read simply" “There must have been a better way!”

** I believe that, and if Christians were more inclined to 'love our neighbor' instead of killing him, who knows what miracles might result.** We criticize the liberals for adapting too quickly to the culture. What about those who look to military victory as the answer to international problems?

**
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” I wonder who said that! **

 

[scipio337]

I also doubt Jesus would kill 1 million + unborn in the US, every year, for over 3 decades.

50 million dead since 1973, the silent holocaust of our times.

Suppose Republicans started a war that killed 1 MILLION Americans in a year…

now suppose Republicans did that EVERY YEAR.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

SamH

 **Sorry that I did';t document my assertions re Bolton**. I assumed everyone here is aware of his views.

 **Some on CAF obviously will agree with him. He is an extreme nationalist who seems ready to assail almost everybody else.** Just listen to him rant. How undiplomatic, incendiary, and accusatory can one be? If you agree with him, that is your right. But I thought I should express my view in the strongest terms (as Bolton would) because he is such a threat to the USA. That Gingrich would pick him as Secretary of States was the final straw as far as Newt's candidacy is concerned. Dangerous for my beloved country.

** The USA has been in a position to lead the world into some sort of era of good feeling**. I recall how Eisenhower managed to do that in my youth. He brought the war to a close in Korea, wrote a letter strongly opposing US ground troops in Vietnam and fostered an atoms-for-peace program. He pushed for humanitarian aid to hungry people around the world.

** I disgree with Ron Paul on various things (too ‘anarchistic’ for me) but when it comes to foreign policy his advice that we not become entangled in every quarrel overseas is smart counsel.**

** As Christians we should revamp our thinking to include the question: “What would Jesus do?” I** doubt if he would have suggested that we kill 100,000+ civilians in Iraq - for example. I recall a ‘cartoon’ following the Korean War when I was very young. It showed the two Koreas, north and south, with corpses and ruins on both sides of the border. Beneath it read simply" “There must have been a better way!”

** I believe that, and if Christians were more inclined to 'love our neighbor' instead of killing him, who knows what miracles might result.** We criticize the liberals for adapting too quickly to the culture. What about those who look to military victory as the answer to international problems?

**
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” I wonder who said that! **

I know this hurts for me to say this: but in June 1950, the army of North Korea made an unprovoked attack onto South Korea and their invasion took them all the way to the southern tip [the tiny Pusan perimeter].

So, if we had done nothing … or perhaps surrendered … then what? Would other totalitarian regimes been deterred from invading somewhere else?

Or would our passivity merely encouraged violence elsewhere?

Revisit the Russian/Soviet blockade of Berlin and the Berlin Airlift. Better to have done nothing?

Revisit the Battle of Lepanto. For a change, the Christians actually won one.

Or the Battle of Vienna. Ditto.

 

[Tsuwano]

I remember when John Bolton was our ambassador at the UN; he certainly did NOT pull any punches! I’d want someone who is not afraid to speak his mind and defend our interests!

As another poster here has already said, ‘He would be an improvement over the one we have now.’

Good choice, Newt!

You make a good point . . . and that is one reason I wouldn’t support Bolton. He wasn’t afraid to pull punches and mouthed off, rather loudly, about everything. What he didn’t realize is that sometimes it is not in our interest to punch as hard as we can and yell louder than everyone else. Teddy Roosevelt realized this, but Bolton doesn’t. Soft power, or the power to influence the world in ways other than through the use of military power, is real and effective power. If the U.S. is able to influence movements in its own favor without using military power, and even without most of the world realizing it, then this is a good thing. Bolton is a man who stomps his feet and shouts loudly. This plays well for the folks back home who think things are finally getting done, even when they aren’t, but it is not the best method to use if you truly wish to effect change in your favor.

 

[ishii]

I know this hurts for me to say this: but in June 1950, the army of North Korea made an unprovoked attack onto South Korea and their invasion took them all the way to the southern tip [the tiny Pusan perimeter].

So, if we had done nothing … or perhaps surrendered … then what? Would other totalitarian regimes been deterred from invading somewhere else?

Or would our passivity merely encouraged violence elsewhere?

Revisit the Russian/Soviet blockade of Berlin and the Berlin Airlift. Better to have done nothing?

Revisit the Battle of Lepanto. For a change, the Christians actually won one. the Battle of Vienna. Ditto.

Very well said, Monte. What liberals don’t understand is that its not warmongerism to defend your interests or come to the rescue of an ally. Indeed, there must have been a better way in Korea - maybe if north Korea wasn’t run by trigger happy nuts and not invaded south Korea then there would have been peace. (I understand Dean Acheson’s speech may have emboldened Kim Il Sung to invade). Had we not come to the rescue of the Koreans, what would have the communists have done? Hard to say. If they had not not encountered any opposition then its likely that they would have been emboldened to keep marching into other areas. We had a monopoly on nuclear bombs at the time and were in a position to use them without “mutual assured destruction” happening. We obviously didn’t but I read that Eisenhower hinted through diplomatic channels that he was considering using nuclear weapons if the north didn’t agree to a ceasefire.

A shameful episode in our history is the abandonement of South Vietnam by liberal Democrats in the 1970’s. The liberal Democrat Mcgovern wing of the Democrat party tied the hands of Nixon and later Ford so that they couldn’t even provide crucial air support to repel the North Vietnamese army as it marched south in an invasion that broke the Paris Peace Accords. But communists do that, don’t they. And liberals call themselves peacemakers because they refuse to do anything to defend their allies. Shameful.

The liberal Democrats called Reagan a warmonger. All he did was support a strong military, research and fund SDI, conspire with Pope John Paul 2 and Thatcher to give the crucial push to topple the Soviet communist empire once and for all. Without a shot, almost. And the Nobel Peace prize goes to Carter of all people

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Now, as to the original subject of this thread—John Bolton was frequently labelled “Bonkers Bolton” by Gordon Prather, when Gordon still had his regular column at antiwar.com and wnd.com.

To find out why, people need to go read Mr. Prather’s archived columns.

Is it Prather or Blather?

 

[ishii]

But what about World Net Daily? They don’t exactly fit your scenario there.

And you’ve obviously never read a significant sampling of Prather’s columns. His political stance is pragmatic. Go get educated. Read them.

The burden is on you to show how great this Prather guy is. Talk is cheap. Why don’t you give us a paragraph or two of some of his best columns? And a link. You are expecting a bit much, I think.

Ishii

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Is it Prather or Blather?

Are you, too, afraid to read his archived columns?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The burden is on you to show how great this Prather guy is. Talk is cheap. Why don’t you give us a paragraph or two of some of his best columns? And a link. You are expecting a bit much, I think.

Ishii

Nuts. I won’t do your homework for you. Do it yourself.

 

[ishii]

Thank you Ishii and to you as well with your perspective. Every election is about conflicting views to some degree. The pendulum swings. In 80, 84, 88 we had Republican presidents. In 92 and 96 a Democratic one . In 2000 the Democrat won more votes than the Republican in the popular vote. In 04 a Republican. 2006 and 2008 were big yrs for Democrats. 2010 was a Republican yr. 2012, 2014, 16, 18, 2020 and beyond… who knows? My point is only that even if the Republicans were to take the WH, hold the House, and take the Senate, based on a long history, the pendulum will likely swing back.

Well, that’s true. The pendulum does swing back (and forth). But I think this election is about even greater conflicting views than before. It is largely about two different visions: that of the secular left which seeks to make faith in government the new religion, or the other vision, which still believes that while government is necessary, what really matters is faith, family, community and country. You might say, “but people of faith support the leftist secular vision you describe.” And that is true. The secular leftists have hoodwinked those of faith who believe that government is the best route for helping the poor and elderly, providing healthcare, etc. into looking the other way or otherwise apologize for the views of the secular left which are a 180 degree turn away from faith - such as the social engineering, the support for abortion, the increasing hostility toward the Church, the undermining of the family unit in favor of the government unit - “free govt daycare for all children!” We can do better, Cmatt. We ought not to choose a system that the secular leftists want. It is a system that doesn’t recognize God as the ultimate arbiter but government. Both cannot exist together. The secular leftist system cannot survive with a robust and flourishing Church. We must choose which side we are on. This choice is not like choosing what flavor ice cream to eat. It is not like choosing to vote for a Democrat or Republican in the 50’s, or even the 70’s. It is simply a choice between enabling the ideology of the secular left by voting for Obama or of opposing the secular left by not voting for Obama. It may come as a surprise to you that the GOP is not the opposite of the secular left. There are scoundrels on the GOP side just as on the Democrat side. But the GOP is not controlled by the secular left like the Democrat party is, and, in the final analysis, what else is there? What party represents the strongest opposition to Obama and the secular left? It is the GOP. Ultimately, all Catholics and Christians must choose which side they are on.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Nuts. I won’t do your homework for you. Do it yourself.

You’re the one telling us to read this Prather guy. If he’s so great, provide a link or a quote to enlighen us. If the quote is interesting then I’d explore it. That is generally how it works. If I truly want to turn others on to who I am reading, then I provide a quote and a link. On the other hand, suit yourself: Prather will probably go on being an obscure columnist for an obscure website.

Ishii

 

[dmelosi]

Well, that’s true. The pendulum does swing back (and forth). But I think this election is about even greater conflicting views than before. It is largely about two different visions: that of the secular left which seeks to make faith in government the new religion, or the other vision, which still believes that while government is necessary, what really matters is faith, family, community and country. You might say, “but people of faith support the leftist secular vision you describe.” And that is true. The secular leftists have hoodwinked those of faith who believe that government is the best route for helping the poor and elderly, providing healthcare, etc. into looking the other way or otherwise apologize for the views of the secular left which are a 180 degree turn away from faith - such as the social engineering, the support for abortion, the increasing hostility toward the Church, the undermining of the family unit in favor of the government unit - “free govt daycare for all children!” We can do better, Cmatt. We ought not to choose a system that the secular leftists want. It is a system that doesn’t recognize God as the ultimate arbiter but government. Both cannot exist together. The secular leftist system cannot survive with a robust and flourishing Church. We must choose which side we are on. This choice is not like choosing what flavor ice cream to eat. It is not like choosing to vote for a Democrat or Republican in the 50’s, or even the 70’s. It is simply a choice between enabling the ideology of the secular left by voting for Obama or of opposing the secular left by not voting for Obama. It may come as a surprise to you that the GOP is not the opposite of the secular left. There are scoundrels on the GOP side just as on the Democrat side. But the GOP is not controlled by the secular left like the Democrat party is, and, in the final analysis, what else is there? What party represents the strongest opposition to Obama and the secular left? It is the GOP. Ultimately, all Catholics and Christians must choose which side they are on.

Ishii

Well said, but if I may add to this. The secular left says that abortion is a choice.
Another way of putting this is that the secular left says it is ok to take a life if it makes your life easier. I have never understood how a group that should know better that the leaders of their party are brainwashing them to accept the taking of a human life.
I really feel that most of the democrat leaning Catholics continue to be democrats because they have the attitude that hey will vote based on “what is in it for me” rather than what is right.