http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/why-he-should-run-for-president.html
****

** **
August 08, 2011**** Why He Should Run For President****

In my view, John Bolton must run for president. The focus for 2012 so far
has been exclusively on which Republican candidate is most electable. This
is hardly the issue. The next presidential election is far more historically
significant than a mere Presidential election. The next presidential
election is not an election of a person, but a referendum on American
independence and statehood.****

The next American president must vow to return to the founding principle of
the American idea: individual rights. The next American president must
advocate and cheerlead for the most benevolent and productive human system
in the world, capitalism.****

The next American president must be a great patriot. He/she must have
integrity, political will and spine (something in very short supply in
Washington). We have to think out of the box. ****

On Deck:  Why I May Run for
President<http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45373>

by John R. Bolton
August 8, 2011

Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “the first duty of the
sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of
other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military
force.”  Today, failing to protect our national security inevitably
endangers our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to global
adversaries.

It is clear that President Obama does not agree with Smith’s wisdom.
Obama’s policies are jeopardizing not only our national security and
economy, but our constitutional sovereignty too.

That is why I have been considering running for President.  The Republican
Party must nominate a leader who, unlike Obama, understands instinctively
that America’s liberty, prosperity and national security are inextricably
linked.

Sadly, last week’s debt-ceiling legislation, potentially resulting in
catastrophic cuts to our defense budget, only reinforces my deep concerns.
This may have been the best we could get, and it is far better than we
feared.  But the deal risks massive defense cutbacks, potentially pointing a
dagger at the heart of our security and sovereignty.

We now face a minimum of $700 to 800 billion more in defense cuts, in
addition to the $400 billion Obama has already imposed, with potentially
catastrophic consequences.  The joint committee established to fashion the
second tranche of spending cuts (or tax increases) is not likely to protect
us from massive defense cuts.  The liberals will be working feverishly to
put conservatives on the committee in an untenable position: a Hobson’s
choice between tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending.

The debt-ceiling legislation’s trigger mechanism, with its grave risk of
disproportionate cuts in defense spending, is potentially even more
draconian.  America’s national security is not just another wasteful government
program, especially in perilous times like today.  We are heavily involved
in two major conflicts, the long-term global War on Terror and the critical
effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons.  Recent confirmation that Iran, on the verge of becoming a nuclear
power, is materially aiding al-Qaeda only underlines the risk of massive
U.S. defense cuts.

President Obama, unlike all his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, does
not treat national security as his top priority.  He does not see the world
as threatening to U.S. interests.  And he is comfortable with America’s
“inevitable” decline in the world, rather than being determined to prevent
it.  Obama is our first post-American President.  He fancies himself to be
above mere “patriotism.”  He is less an advocate for American interests than
a “citizen of the world,” in his own phrase.

For two-and-a-half years, Americans have witnessed the devastating results
of Obama’s “post-American” worldview.  Russia has taken advantage of his
naïve “reset” policy, while Iran and North Korea continue to aggressively
pursue nuclear weapons.  Staunch allies such as the Czech Republic, Poland
and Japan question our resolve.  Even France thinks he lacks leadership.
China and the International Monetary Fund now openly cast doubt on the U.S.
dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  And Obama’s policy toward Libya has
been an abject failure to date.  He entered the conflict for the wrong
reasons, failed to allow our military to accomplish its mission, invited
Russia in to mediate, and now seems content to allow Muammar Gaddafi to
remain in Libya.  An Obama adviser called his approach “leading from
behind.”  Indeed it is, but it is not the American way.

Israel Victimized

No ally has been more victimized by Obama’s worldview than Israel.  As our
most anti-Israel President, bar none, Obama fundamentally misunderstands the
nature of the security threats to Israel and the United States in the Middle
East.  Iran’s support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons goes
unanswered.  Radical groups around the region have been emboldened in the
face of sustained incoherence in U.S. policy.  In addition to Israel, Arab
friends in the region, especially those producing   oil and gas critical to
the international economy, are shocked at the Obama administration’s
treatment of close friends and its inability to comprehend, let alone
defend, core American interests.

In addition, Obama is enamored of European-style schemes for global
governance.  He has naïvely called for a world in which America voluntarily
gives up its nuclear weapons in hopes that our adversaries do so too.  He
yearns to join the International Criminal Court and risks subjecting
America’s warriors to prosecutions and trial.Unable to achieve national
gun-control legislation at home, he is seeking a backdoor route through an
“arms trade treaty” now under negotiation at the United Nations.  Despite
his pro forma denials, Obama fundamentally does not believe in American
exceptionalism, nor that American strength has ensured our peace and
security since World War II.

Americans should understand that Obama’s international policies have a
direct and profound impact on our economic prosperity.  One obvious example
is the devastating impact of another terrorist attack here at home,
especially one with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.  Instability
abroad has a profound impact on oil and gas supplies, and therefore the
price we pay to fill up the family car with gasoline.  Global supply
chainsvital to America’s jobs are threatened when our Navy is unable
to protect
U.S. shipping and vital sea lanes.  Our failed border security policy allows
the violence of drug cartels to spill across our borders and endanger our
families.  Obama’s existing cuts in our defense budget, and the ones surely
coming under the debt-ceiling bill, will only magnify our inability to
protect ourselves.

No GOP Candidate So Far

In 16 months, Americans will again go to the polls and vote for the person
they believe can best lead our country.  Beyond question, Obama’s economic
policies have failed to renew the economy and are now a principal reason the
recovery is stalled.  His national security policies are even more
dangerous.  The American dream is under assault, and Obama is not fighting
back. We need a real President in the Oval Office, someone who knows
instinctively and by experience that, as Adam Smith said, “the first duty of
the sovereign” is to protect and promote American sovereignty and national
security.  Otherwise, economic prosperity will count for little.

To date, in my view, no Republican candidate has persuasively argued that
our economic recovery and long-term prosperity are completely intertwined
with a strong national security posture.  If no one else is prepared to make
that case, I will.****

** **

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to