Within a few short days, John Bolton will be the new National Security Advisor, replacing the outgoing Gen. H. R. McMaster. It had taken almost 46 microseconds before the mainstream media decided that this was a terrible thing for the country, one such media type forecasting a war that would cost "millions of lives", although the nation against whom the war would be fought was not specified, nor the location of the millions of lives.
Nor exactly when this would happen. Nor what would precipitate it.
That pundit or reporter or talking head, or whatever she was (I conveniently forgot), failed to point out that a comparable number of lives are lost (700,000 or so) each year in the USA alone, preventably. Of course, those lives were unborn, so it probably was OK in her mind to ignore them.
John Bolton had nothing to do with those, of course.
I also appreciated the comments by the media that Bolton was a "talking head", and other references to his frequent appearances as a guest commentator on the cable news programs, particularly Fox News. That, of course, is an accurate description of a large number of people far less qualified to serve as national security advisor than Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations, is, although there is no question that his expertise has been regularly sought by the selfsame media.
As ambassador to the United Nations in the Bush 43 administration, his views were rather strong, and rather strongly pro-American. Since his tenure there, he has advocated for regime change in some of the more contemptible governments of the world, a position which severely troubles the left, since diminishing some of our enemies might actually help the USA, and what is good for the USA is not in their Obamist, globalist view, good for them.
I want to default back, though, to one statement of the former ambassador that I think summarizes why I am truly happy that he will be working full time in the White House going forward. That was when Ambassador Bolton made the comment at one session that "International law does not trump the U.S. Constitution."
Hint: it doesn't.
I accept the notion that we are part of some kind of global community, and that we deal as trading partners and military allies with countries around the world. I accept that those relationships require that we consider ourselves a member of some type of such community. But that is far different from the idea that we are subordinate to that community, or that the UN or any other global entity has jurisdiction over the USA.
John Bolton recognizes the distinction between (A) a nation associating with its fellow countries on the planet, and (B) its subservience to any organization purporting to govern them. That is his rationale for the declaration of our Constitution's primacy of international law, at least as it pertains to actions inside our borders.
I want that attitude to prevail in the White House. I am perfectly happy -- actually, I am excited -- to see Americans in positions of power in America who value the national security of the USA above most actions taken in international affairs.
The media hate this appointment, and we can understand why. People like Ambassador Bolton are passionate and articulate advocates for a position of American integrity and American primacy in our land. That so contradicts the media/left narrative, that it is dangerous to them that someone like the ambassador is in a position of influence.
Fortunately, they can do nothing about it. Except whine.
Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter at @rmosutton