Viktor Orbán: “The Center of the New Internationalism is Brussels”

On Sunday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave his annual State of the Nation speech in Budapest. Below are excerpts from the speech that have relevance for a non-Hungarian audience.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

French Legislator Recommends the Targeted Assassination of “French” Jihadis Before They Return From Syria

Pierre-Henri Dumont is a deputy in the French National Assembly for Les Républicains (formerly UMP), the party of former presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy.

In the following television talk show appearance, Mr. Dumont makes the case for the targeted assassination abroad of “French” mujahideen, rather than letting them return to France. The death penalty has been abolished in France, and the longest stretch a criminal can do in prison is twenty years. Mr. Dumont is in favor of solving the problem by killing the jihadis before they can return to France, but the horrified female moderators are steadfastly opposed to the idea.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Non-NeoCon Philosophy

Senator Rand Paul addresses the controversy surrounding Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria —

This is passing strange: an MSM mouthpiece seems to be making the case for keeping our military deployed in futile battles far from home. What happened to the long-held leftist “no-blood-for-oil” arguments and their mockery of the neo-Conservatives’ philosophy regarding the maintenance of American troops across the globe?

The Birds Fly Over Sderot

Hamas is currently at war with Israel, launching missiles and incendiary kites on a daily basis into southern Israel. The news about the attacks only makes it onto the world’s TV screens if one of the puir wee bairns among the Palestinians gets killed — usually because the child’s school or crèche is used to store missiles or arms, making it into a target for the IDF.

Our Israeli correspondent MC sends this report on the situation, literally from his own front yard.

The birds fly over Sderot

by MC

It was a rough night. It started at 10pm and finished at 10am after some twenty missiles were launched in five attacks.

The small arms shooting is still going on as I sit here (8:20pm).

These are photos from about a minute after multiple Iron Dome intercepts occurred right overhead. The photos were taken from the front garden!

This is where the ‘humanitarian’ aid to Gaza ends up. That is your tax money up there burning up.

Islam is incorrigibly malicious. Its doctrines are the doctrines of evangelism by violence and coercion. It seeks to conquer and forcibly convert, and if genocide is necessary, then so be it.

Shooting missiles at random against a civilian population is acceptable in Yemen, Syria, and against Israel. And the world looks on complacently: Not my front door —Yawn!

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

Viktor Orbán: “We Shall Refuse the Ideology of Globalism”

Yesterday — October 23, 2018 — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a speech on the occasion of the 62nd anniversary of the 1956 uprising against Soviet occupation.

CrossWare, who translated the video for subtitles, sends this explanation for the choice of venue for the speech:

The location for Mr. Orbán’s speech was the “House of Terror”: Andrassy Street 60 was the headquarters of the Gestapo, and later that of the Communist Secret Police as well. The shift between the two socialist regimes was very smooth. They even had a changing room where the Nazis changed clothes into the uniform of the new regime. They also reused the torture and execution chambers.

Wikis for some of the names and historical events for reference:

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

John Bolton’s Policy Speech on the Eve of 9/11

John Bolton is a forceful conservative. Some discount him as a neocon, but that dismissive sobriquet fails to do justice to his principles.

He grew up in Baltimore, the son of a fireman, so Bolton learned early what an aggressive defense is and how to employ it effectively. He is the quintessential tough guy you want on your side. In other words, he is one answer to Barack Obama’s dithering lack of a genuine and robust foreign policy.

Bolton’s principled sense of justice included taking Clarence Thomas under his wing during their friendship at Yale Law School and then, later, offering advice and comfort during the ugly mess that constituted Thomas’ eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court. As Thomas said, what he endured in the bullying during his hearings was a “high tech lynching”.

Bolton’s speech came on the eve of 9/11, and that is not coincidental. America is standing up to globalists and trans-nationalist criminals like the ICC, founded in the year after 9/11. Such thugs are long overdue to be disbanded. Many of us agree with Bolton: the ICC and the UN need to go away, joining the other extra-national groups in a vast political graveyard, interred there along with The League of Nations.

Here is a list of John Bolton’s Ten Rules of Statecraft. They belong to a world neither Obama nor Clinton understands, and these rules are peculiarly American in their sentiments and form:

1.   “My philosophy is not a bean-counting, accounting ‘look at this.’ It is a philosophy that smaller government is better government, and government that is closer to the people is best of all.”
2.   “Our biggest national security crisis is Barack Obama.”
3.   “People say you favor assassination, what do you think war is? Except that it’s assassination on a much larger scale—a much more horrific scale.”
4.   “Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.”
5.   “Negotiation is not a policy. It’s a technique. It’s something you use when it’s to your advantage, and something that you don’t use when it’s not to your advantage.”
6.   “My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have.”
7.   “Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States.”
8.   “You could take several stories off the buildings of most U.S. government agencies and we’d all probably be better for it too.”
9.   “As somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that… there is a limit to what that accomplishes.”
    And the pièce de résistance:
10.   “There is no United Nations.”
 

If you would understand John Bolton’s worldview, read this brief book. You’ll grasp the sense of solidarity that is the fundament of conservatives and others on the Right. You may even understand President Trump and those who voted for him.

Meanwhile, this major policy speech is an elucidation of Trump’s ruling philosophy. To understand what Trump’s about, listen to Ambassador Bolton.

When The New York Times Was Prescient About Donald Trump

A long essay from 1984 on Donald Trump from The New York Times, no less.

There are so many possible things one could extract from the meandering piece, but on this Fourth of July the following [edited for clarity and spelling] snip seemed most appropriate:

…“The football thing is cute, Trump Tower and the piano and all of that, it’s all cute, but what does it mean?” he says, sounding what borders on a note of uncharacteristic despair.

Asked to explain, he adds: “What does it all mean when some wacko over in Syria can end the world with nuclear weapons?”

He says that his concern for [a] nuclear holocaust is not one that popped into his mind during any recent made-of-television movie. He says that it has been troubling him since his uncle, a nuclear physicist, began talking to him about it 15 years ago.

His greatest dream is to personally do something about the problem and, characteristically, Donald Trump thinks he has an answer to nuclear armament: Let him negotiate arms agreements — he who can talk people into selling $100 million properties to him for $13 million. “Negotiation is an art”, he says, “and I have a gift for it.”

The idea that he would ever be allowed to go into a room alone and negotiate for the United States, let alone be successful in disarming the world, seems the naive musing of an optimistic, deluded young man who has never lost at anything he has tried. But he believes that through years of making his views known and through supporting candidates who share his views, it could someday happen.

He is constantly asked about his interest in running for elective office. Absolutely not, he answers. All of the false smiles and the red tape. It is too difficult to really do anything.

He dislikes meetings and paperwork and is in the enviable position of being able to avoid both.

Well, it took more than thirty years before The Donald changed his mind, rolled up his sleeves, and decided it wasn’t too difficult after all. Now it’s “President Trump”, if you don’t mind… and I don’t. As he transformed New York real estate in that period, perhaps he will transform Washington politics, finally beginning the overdue change of the socialist skyline and the swamp begun under FDR. We can only hope he’ll have enough time.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to lead in crucial domestic areas: his executive orders (a practice his predecessor used to move our country leftward) have, for instance, made it easier to fire incompetent civil servants, and harder for immigrants from terrorist countries to gain entrance (not all of those countries are majority-Islam, despite what the news says).

And then there is his appointment of federal judges. You can see from the wiki that many of those appointments languish in the bowels of our legislative branch. Makes you wonder what they will do to his eventual second choice for the Supreme Court. Have no doubt: it will be brutal.

There’s a great deal to ponder in this, the 242nd year of our independence. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s harried answer a woman’s inquiry at the time they were hammering out the details: “it’s a republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Happy Fourth of July, y’all.

Hat tip: Thread by @ThomasWictor

Horst Seehofer and Angela Merkel Went Eyeball to Eyeball — And Mutti Blinked

The following report by Egri Nök was published earlier today at Vlad Tepes in a slightly different form.


Angela Merkel on her way to a crisis meeting this morning

Germany: Agreement Between Merkel and Seehofer

by Egri Nök

This agreement below between Angela Merkel and Horst Seehofer was handed to the press moments ago and tweeted out by the CSU MP Dorothee Bär.

Original translation:

In order to better regulate, control and prevent secondary migration, we come to this agreement:

1.   We agree to a new border regime at the German-Austrian border, which ensures that asylum seekers whose asylum procedures are the responsibility of other EU countries, will be refused entry.
2.   To do so, we will establish transit centres, from which the asylum seekers will be directly sent back to the responsible countries (refusing entry on the basis of the legal implication of non-entry). We do not want to act in an uncoordinated fashion, but come to administrative agreements, or establish communication, with the countries concerned.
3.   In those cases where countries refuse administrative agreements, the rejection at the German-Austrian border will be on the basis of an agreement with the Republic of Austria.
 


The original document as it was handed out to the press

Merkel’s part in this agreement is one single sentence: “We do not want to act in an uncoordinated fashion, but come to administrative agreements, or establish communication, with the countries concerned.” This allows her to save face, while still conceding to Seehofer.

The true issue at the core of this was whether Germany has got sovereign national borders and can refuse people entry. Merkel, who ideally would like for Germany to dissolve into a supranational, non-democratic EU superstate, had once again denied national sovereignty two weeks ago (“EU law should always have priority over German law”, on “Anne Will” talk show on Sunday, June 10), which sparked the crisis between her and the new conservative Interior Minister Seehofer. The media onslaught that ensued against Seehofer was so strong that nobody really expected him to come out of this alive.

This is an important day in the fight by Germans for their right to national self-determination, and to even exist as a nation.

Viktor Orbán: Forget the Idea That Islam is Part of Any European Country

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a speech last Saturday at the conference “Budapest Europe-talk”, which was held in the Hungarian capital. The video below contains excerpts from the prime minister’s remarks. It was translated by Dzsihádfigyelo, and a close-captioned version was originally posted. Vlad Tepes has kindly converted the CC to subtitles:

A brief summary of the speech (in English) was posted at the Hungarian government’s website.

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Sweden Prepares for War

The following report on the Swedish apocalypse was published by the Danish site NewsPeek. Many thanks to Tania Groth for the translation:

The Swedish authorities are preparing the population for wartime conditions

Sweden is, at this time, preparing the country and its population for a possible war-like disaster. Back in January, 2018, the Swedish state requested that citizens stock up on enough food for a week — including water. A few weeks ago the authorities also published a brochure, “If there is a crisis or war”, and on the 5th and 6th of June, Sweden sent the entire country’s home guard on a nationwide exercise. 22,000 soldiers were called in for the exercise, which was meant to test the country’s preparedness to deal with a national disaster.

According to the Swedish authorities, such a disaster could be triggered by “climate change” or “tensions in the Baltic states” — allegedly caused by the Russians.

The Swedish state’s warning and recommendation for people to prepare themselves comes hand in hand with public reports by the country’s police that they can no longer handle extremely violent immigrant crime. Furthermore, the police warn that thousands of ISIS sympathisers are wandering about the once safe country. On social media many people suspect that the Swedish authorities are using the threats of climate change and Russia as an excuse to prepare citizens for a real collapse of the Swedish society as a result of extreme and uncontrolled immigrant crime and terror. Neither Swedish politicians, the media, nor authorities are known for their openness and honesty about the consequences of Muslim immigration.

Law and order in Sweden can be compared to a banana republic. NewSpeek was able to confirm, earlier in the year, that only 1 of the 114 reported rapes committed at just four music festivals led to a conviction. The risk for being successfully prosecuted for rape at a festival is thus under 1%. Only 22% of all murders and deaths were solved in 2016. Since 2010 the chance of the ultimate crime’s being solved has been between 18% and 29%. In comparison, the rate at which murders and deaths were solved in Denmark was over 90%.

A leader of South Sweden Industry and Chamber of Commerce plus two lawyers said last year to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that the “the rate of solution for a number of crimes is now so low that we in effect have abandoned numerous laws.” “There is now a definite level of lawlessness in parts of the Stockholm region,” a concerned police inspector says. Another police inspector says that “the justice system, which should be the pillar of a democratic society, is breaking down in Sweden.”

The Danish government has so far not initiated border controls with the ever more destabilized Sweden. This despite the fact that at the same time armed gangs and dangerous Islamists are able to freely travel to Denmark either by bridge or by ferry.

The Swedish border control announced earlier in the year that last year it sent approximately 5,000 criminals and illegals back to Denmark. These were not detected by the Danish authorities because we have no border controls on the Danish side. Criminals and illegal migrants can thus safely return to Denmark and continue their activities here.

Video: The Swedish authorities have published more videos that instruct Swedes about what to pack in order to cope with a “national security crisis”: (the video is surreal — note the happy music)

Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The following article from a German news site discusses the warning signs of catastrophe in the European Union. It was translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who includes extensive contextual notes.

Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The EU is staggering from one mistake to the next. In this form, a political union hardly has a chance of survival.

by Ronald Barazon

Translated by Rembrandt Clancy

Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten
20 May 2018

The weaknesses of the EU are becoming all too obvious in recent days:

  • the EU is helpless against US policy;
  • Brexit negotiations are proceeding;
  • in Italy, an EU-critical coalition is assuming control of the government;
  • in Hungary and Poland, opponents of the EU are in government;
  • the EU Commission presents an unusable budget draft;
  • with the General Data Protection Regulation, the regulatory delusion produces a total meltdown.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many are already predicting the end of the EU. There is no recognizable initiative that could save the “European Integration” project. The duty of the Community to secure peace in Europe is being pushed into the background. Unreasonable rules and regulations are spreading vexation and dissatisfaction, which trigger anti-EU slogans, ultimately leading to anti-EU governments. The anger over absurd regulations combines with a still deeply rooted nationalism among many citizens. In Europe many gravediggers of the EU are at work. This development is made possible by three decisive factors:

  • The actors see only their actual or supposed interests and do not recognize the harm threatening all Europeans without exception.
  • The EU in its current form is a defective construct, which precludes an effective policy: 750 members of parliament and 28 Commissioners — soon to be 27 — are unable to make useful decisions simply on account of their sheer numbers. That need not even take into account that the Parliament and the Commission can decide nothing without the consent of the 28 governments, 27 in the future. Such a construct is unworkable, inevitably inefficient and therefore also ineffective.
  • Even the EU-friendly parties emphasise nation states and thus differ, in the final analysis, only marginally from the nationalists who reject European integration. Also most pro-European citizens’ initiatives do not call the state into question and they barely strive for a factually integrated Europe.

Hence nothing will change. The problems threaten to become a permanent crisis with a catastrophic outcome. For purposes of illustration, a number of mutually related themes follow.

The punitive tariffs against China, which also affect the EU

The US is collecting punitive tariffs of an additional 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum and still plans to do the same with other goods.

Initially the EU begged for a postponement until May 1st and now it has negotiated a further deferment until June 1st. At present it is being haggled over.

A compelling trade policy would have consisted in the immediate imposition of counter-duties. As a consequence, the EU would have had a position of strength in the current negotiations and would have been able to negotiate a reasonable tariff regimen whilst offering concessions to the USA. Now they have become supplicants and are considering how the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be called in. WTO procedures are generally known to last from years to decades.

One of the reasons for this is that even within the Commission itself, the responsibility for customs is distributed among several Commissioners. This shows the absurdity of appointing 28 Commissioners (after Brexit 27), because each Member State must nominate a Commissioner and for each Commissioner a function is needed. As if that were not enough, each country’s government has a voice in the decisions; hence a US president like Donald Trump can turn the EU into a marionette.

The sanctions against Iran

Europe is incensed that the USA has cancelled its nuclear agreement with Iran. In return for Iran’s assurance not to build atomic weapons, the economic sanctions had been anywhere from relaxed to abolished. The EU absolutely insists on a continuing co-operation with Iran, citing economic interests as justification; they would like to realise projects involving billions of euros.

Since Thursday [17 May] there has been a singularly strange initiative: EU-Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker intends to punish European firms should they comply with US sanctions against Iran. Having been moulded by many sets of regulations, it appears that thinking in the Commission is determined exclusively by punishment categories; except, the United States prohibits companies who violate sanctions from being economically active in the USA or from exporting to the USA, and it imposes penalties as applicable. This is ruinous for many companies who therefore submit to the diktat of the USA. That the EU then still threatens them with a penalty is absurd. The issue has no effect on companies lacking interests in the US market.

For Europe the development taking place in the Near East is clearly irrelevant: Iran will have good opportunities, after the armed conflicts have ended, of becoming a major power whose territory extends to the Mediterranean. A change in the balance of power is also emerging, which would also have to be of interest to Europe, especially as Russia consistently emphasises her friendship with Iran and is active in Syria.

Also the tweets of the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Khamenei, are obviously not read in Europe. Only hours after the conclusion of the nuclear agreement on 14 July 2015, Khamenei commented on the agreement with a tirade of abuse against the West. This posture led even the Obama administration into putting the brakes on implementation of the “nuclear deal”[1] and they maintained a portion of the sanctions.

Continue reading

Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc

The Armenian-American writer David Boyajian provides some background for the “color revolution” currently underway in Armenia. See also this translated Bild article.

Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc

by David Boyajian

As we write this, massive peaceful civil actions against Armenia’s establishment have continued under the leadership of Nikol Pashinyan, a National Assembly (N.A.) member who is part of the opposition Yelk (Way Out) Alliance. Though widely unpopular Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan has been forced to resign, his Republican Party (RPA) still has a narrow majority (58 of 105) in the N.A. Most observers believe that the RPA members were elected through fraud, bribery, and intimidation.

The RPA’s politicians and oligarchs are also generally blamed for stealing billions of the country’s wealth; violating civil rights; debasing the judiciary and civil service; keeping the talented Armenian Diaspora at arm’s length; and failing to successfully address Armenia’s many problems: corruption, a less-than-robust economy, unemployment, outward migration, and more.

A bright spot: Landlocked Christian Armenia and its brother Artsakh/Karabagh Republic survive, even though blockaded by genocidal Turkey and Turkic/Muslim Azerbaijan who outnumber Armenians by 90 million people. This miracle is due to the tenacity of Armenia’s people and armed forces.

As Armenia is a long-time friend and admirer of our country, we Americans need to understand it.

Why Armenia Matters

The current revolution is home-grown and purely Armenian. Outside powers — whether countries or organizations — neither initiated nor control the revolution. Still, major nations definitely have strong opinions, usually unstated, about the present crisis.

Russia loathes the revolution. Russia wants Armenia to continue to be highly dependent on it for natural gas, the nuclear power plant and energy grid, investments, sophisticated weapons, and the right to travel to Russia to work and sometimes deposit stolen money. Ongoing corruption in Armenia makes it easier for Russia to bribe, intimidate, and blackmail dishonest leaders and oligarchs, represented mainly by the RPA. A Russian base guards Armenia’s border with Turkey.

Why is Russia so intent on controlling its small ally? Because without Armenia, Russia would lose its grip on the Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and probably Central Asia. The US/NATO/EU/Turkey (“Western Bloc”) would then move in. Thus perched along the Russian Bear’s soft underbelly, NATO would slice it open and have his insides for dinner. Therefore Russia needs Armenia far more than it cares to admit.

Georgia was coopted by the Western Bloc years ago. It has invested billions in Georgia, which desires NATO membership as protection against Russia.

Azerbaijan, corrupt and a virtual dictatorship, but flush with oil and gas income, has also expressed interest in joining NATO. Over 27 years, the Western Bloc has invested untold billions in Azerbaijan in such sectors as energy, banking, hotels, aviation, agriculture, and consulting. The Western Bloc has also constructed major oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan’s Caspian fields through Georgia and into Turkey and beyond. More such pipelines (to supply Europe) are planned.

Interestingly, Israel receives around 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan and sells it billions in weapons. Major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee provide Azerbaijan political support while, sadly, a coterie of Jewish writers constantly and unfairly berate Armenia in the US and international media.

Continue reading

Two Minutes to Midnight

The following essay by Nick McAvelly was published earlier at the Frozen North.

Two Minutes to Midnight

by Nick McAvelly

On the front page of Thursday’s newspapers, under the headline “May’s Great Gamble,” the British public were informed that Theresa May, the current Prime Minister, was about to make a mistake not dissimilar to the one that Neville Chamberlain made in March 1939. Apparently, May was about to set our country on a course that could very well end up in a world war. It was reported that May had ordered British submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles to move within range of Syria, so that Britain can participate in an American-led attack in that country.[1] As we now know, Britain went ahead and participated in those attacks.[2]

On 31st March 1939, Chamberlain stood in the House of Commons and made one of the worst political blunders in British history:

In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty’s Government.[3]

At the subsequent debate in the House of Commons, the former Prime Minister David Lloyd George said:

The Prime Minister said to-day that he has spoken plain words. That is not enough. You must make it clear that you have the means of implementing those words. There are two objects you must have in view. One, of course, is that if Herr Hitler does march you will be able to meet him and beat him. The other is even more important, and that is that you should make it quite clear to him that you can do it. Then he will not attack. Is it clear? If war occurred to-morrow, you could not send a single battalion to Poland. Let us speak quite frankly. France could not. She would be confronted with fortifications which are infinitely more formidable than the Hindenburg line, which took us four years to break through, with casualties running into millions. [Interruption.] I am sorry to speak what is unpalatable, but I owe a duty to myself and to the country.

I cannot understand why, before committing ourselves to this tremendous enterprise, we did not secure beforehand the adhesion of Russia. […] I ask the Government to take immediate steps to secure the adhesion of Russia in a fraternity, an alliance, an agreement, a pact, it does not matter what it is called so long as it is an understanding to stand together against the aggressor. Apart from that we have undertaken a frightful gamble, a very risky gamble.[4]

In the years immediately prior to Chamberlain’s unsolicited war guarantee, the first priority in the British government’s military plan had been to create a defensive air force to protect the country from German bombers. The second priority, according to the British government, had been to develop the Navy in order to protect Britain’s trade routes. The third priority had been to maintain an Army for “Imperial Police Duties” overseas. Last on the list of British priorities was “co-operation in the defence of the territories of any allies we may have in war.”[5]

So Britain did not have the military capability to stop the Wehrmacht from invading Poland. As the British Chiefs of Staff had reported as early as 1937, a war with Germany would have to be “a long war”. Britain would have to resist an initial German attack (on Britain, not Poland), then use the industrial and economic power of the Empire to build up British forces, before finally launching a counter-attack. As the Chiefs of Staff stated, the military intervention of Russia, and material assistance from America “would go far towards making the Allied counter-offensive possible.”[6]

After the British government made their unsolicited war guarantee to Poland, they tried to get the Soviet Union onside, but that was never going to happen. In a speech in Moscow on 10th March, Josef Stalin had stated that he would “not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.”[7]

Continue reading

“Bolton’s appointment is a brilliant ‘America First’ move”

Caroline Glick appears to have a regular gig at Breitbart. Smart of them to feature an outstanding writer.

Here’s part of her essay on John Bolton’s recent appointment [with my emphases —D]:

President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint former UN Ambassador John Bolton to serve as his National Security Advisor is arguably the most significant single step he has taken to date toward implementing his America First foreign policy.

The news hit America’s enemies and competitors — from Pyongyang to Teheran to Moscow to Beijing — like a wall of bricks Thursday night.

Early criticisms on the political right of Bolton’s appointment have centered on two points. First, it is argued that Bolton, who has been involved in U.S. foreign policymaking since the Reagan administration, is a creature of the Washington foreign policy swamp.

While it is true that Bolton is from Washington – or Baltimore, to be precise – and although it is true that he held senior foreign policy positions in both Bush administrations, he has always been a thorn in the side of the establishment rather than a member of that establishment.

For the better part of three decades, Bolton has bravely held positions that fly in the face of the establishment’s innate preference for appeasement. He was a vocal critic, for example, of then-President Bill Clinton’s disastrous nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.

The 1994 “Agreed Framework” that Clinton concluded with Pyongyang was touted as a peaceful resolution of the nuclear crisis with North Korea. In exchange for shuttering – but not destroying — its nuclear installations, North Korea received light water reactors from the U.S. and massive economic relief. As Bolton warned it would, North Korea pocketed the concessions and gifts and continued to develop its nuclear weapons. In other words, far from preventing North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework preserved the North Korean nuclear program and enabled the regime to develop it effectively with U.S. assistance.

For his warnings, Bolton has been reviled as a “warmonger” and a “superhawk” by the foreign policy elite, which has gone out of its way to undercut him.

President George W. Bush appointed Bolton to serve as UN ambassador in 2005 in a recess appointment. Three moderate Republicans on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Lincoln Chafee (RI), Chuck Hagel (ND), and George Voinovich (OH), signaled that they would oppose Bolton’s confirmation, blocking it.

At the time, rumors surfaced that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had quietly undercut Bolton’s confirmation in private conversations with senators. Those rumors were denied, and Rice publicly supported Bolton’s confirmation. But in 2016, Rice, along with her mentor, former secretary of state James Baker, and her deputy and successor as National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, openly opposed President Trump’s intention to appoint Bolton Deputy Secretary of State. At the same time, all three lobbied Trump to appoint outgoing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Bolton was a vocal opponent of Rice’s nuclear diplomacy with North Korea, undertaken after Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test in 2006. He also opposed Rice’s pursuit of diplomatic ties with Iran through negotiations in Iraq. In both cases, as events showed, Bolton’s criticisms were all in place.

Rice’s nuclear diplomacy with North Korea emboldened the regime and enabled its continued testing of nuclear weapons and development of ballistic missiles.

Continue reading