Cpac-2 Designing-An-Effective-Program - Direction Service: Fill & Download for Free

Q. What was National Security adviser John Bolton like at Yale?Bolton’s conservative ideology has roots in Yale experienceROSS GOLDBERG & SAM KAHNAPR 28, 2005When John Bolton ’70 LAW ’74 took the podium for his commencement speech at the height of campus demonstrations against the Vietnam War, he was not out to please the crowd. Calling the event “an exercise in ideological self-congratulation,” Bolton laid out the future of American politics for his left-leaning classmates.“The conservative underground is alive and well here,” he said. “If we do not make our influence felt, rest assured we will in the real world.”Thirty-five years later, Bolton, who mocked audience hecklers in his speech, still displays a conservatism that is no less controversial. Currently President George Bush’s ’68 nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton’s confirmation has been delayed after three Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unexpectedly declared last Thursday that they needed more time to consider Bolton’s credentials. Despite the administration’s repeated declarations of support, Bolton’s nomination remains in jeopardy.While Bolton’s supporters in the White House have argued that he would bring the experience and passion needed to reform to the United Nations, Democrats have assailed his hard-right political views and his often inflammatory criticisms of the United Nations. Further criticism has come from several former co-workers, who reported that Bolton routinely bullied subordinates.But while several of Bolton’s Yale classmates said they remember him as intensely conservative, they do not recall that he was abrasive as some of his current detractors portray him.“Compared to the persona you see on the news, he was very much a subdued, thoughtful, cordial sort of guy,” Bruce Krueger ’70, one of Bolton’s roommates in Calhoun College, said. “The kind of behavior I’m reading about, doing the work of the administration’s bulldog, that’s out of character for him.”Bolton arrived at Yale via an unusual trajectory for that time. The son of a fireman, Bolton was raised in a working class Baltimore neighborhood. He won a scholarship to McDonogh, a prestigious Maryland prep school, where he excelled and began his political career as a conservative, running the school’s Students for Goldwater campaign in 1964.In 1966, Bolton enrolled at Yale and, over the next four years, experienced drastic changes in campus culture. He entered the all-male University as a stalwart supporter of the political status quo, and graduated from a co-ed school embroiled in turmoil. During Bolton’s junior year, 47 students seized control of a building to protest a firing they claimed was discriminatory. During his senior year, indignation over the trial of Black Panther party Chairman Bobby Seale led to demonstrations, clashes with the police and the suspension of two months of classes.Confronted with a loud liberal majority on campus, Bolton stuck by his conservative beliefs. At the height of the civil rights movement, Bolton questioned the constitutionality of open workplace laws, though he supported desegregation from a public policy standpoint, classmate Charles Jefferson ’70 said. An advocate of engaging in Vietnam, Bolton combined hawkish foreign policy with a critique of big government verging on libertarianism — an ideological stance he has held with little variation throughout his political career.Though classmates said Bolton did not show the bullying personality his contemporary detractors accuse him of, he did establish himself as a passionate Republican who forcefully promoted his views. A political science major who graduated summa cum laude, his undergraduate career at Yale was immersed in conservatism. Bolton was editor in chief of the Yale Conservative, executive emeritus of the Conservative Party of the Yale Political Union, and a member of the Yale Young Republicans.With liberal sentiment against the Vietnam War dominating campus discussion, he had no shortage of opponents, said Burtis Dougherty ’70, a friend of Bolton’s.“[Conservatives] were nowhere near as vocal and certainly nowhere near as listened to as they would have liked to have been,” Dougherty said.Bolton’s classmates, liberal and conservative alike, described him as smart, polite and intense in his political beliefs. John Jeffries ’70, who was chairman of the Conservative Party, said Bolton had a blunt debating style, “distinct from schmoozing,” that reflected his current diplomatic approach.“Some people are more oriented toward getting along with every point of view expressed, and John Bolton has always been more interested in substance,” Jeffries said. “That’s probably why he rubs some people the wrong way.”Robert Batey ’70, who served as a delegate on the Connecticut Intercollegiate Student Legislature with Bolton, said Bolton’s strength as a debater lay in his forcefulness. Batey recalled that Bolton’s drive made him the most effective member of the delegation during a lobbying period preceding the organization’s officer elections.Despite Bolton’s forceful personality, Jefferson said he was polite and respectful of other people’s opinions.“I’d call him a good guy at 19, but who knows at 57,” Jefferson said. “He had opinions, but he wasn’t a bully.”Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he declined to enter combat duty, instead enlisting in the National Guard and attending law school after his 1970 graduation. “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy,” Bolton wrote of his decision in the 25th reunion book. “I considered the war in Vietnam already lost.”Bolton entered politics in 1972 as a White House intern for Spiro Agnew and received a political appointment with Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. The posting started a long political career that spanned three presidential administrations and culminated in the controversial appointment as UN Ambassador.Bob Stein ’70, a fellow political science major at Yale, said that while Bolton’s style may have changed since college, his provocative political positions remain the same.“I don’t believe his political views have changed in 35 years,” Stein said. “To the extent that consistency is a virtue, he’s a very virtuous person.”John R. Bolton - WikipediaJohn R. Bolton at CPAC 2017 February 24th 2017John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948) is an American diplomat, attorney and the National Security Advisor-designate of the United States.A nationalist and conservative, Bolton served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 as a recess appointee by President George W. Bush.He resigned in December 2006, when the recess appointment would have otherwise ended, because he was unlikely to win confirmation from the Senate in which a newly elected Democratic Party majority would be taking control in January 2007.On March 22, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his appointment as National Security Advisor, to take office on April 9, 2018.Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute(AEI), senior advisor for Freedom Capital Investment Management, a Fox News Channel commentator, and of counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis.He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.Bolton is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks, policy institutes and special interest groups, including the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Project for the New American Century, Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, the Council for National Policy, and the Gatestone Institute, where he serves as the organization Chairman.Bolton has been called a "war hawk" and is an advocate for regime change in Iran and North Korea and has repeatedly called for the termination of the Iran deal.Bolton attended Yale University, earning a B.A., graduating summa cum laude in 1970. He was a member of the Yale Political Union. He earned a J.D. in 1974 at Yale Law School, where he shared classes with his friend Clarence Thomasand was a contemporary of Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham.During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers corresponded to birth dates.) As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard in 1970 rather than wait to find out if his draft number would be called. (The highest number called to military service was 195.)After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from."Never Shy, Bolton Brings a Zeal to the TableWASHINGTON, April 30 - In the tumultuous days before John R. Bolton graduated from Yale University in 1970, he and his roommates leaned mattresses against the windows to keep out stray tear gas shells.The trial of a top Black Panther in New Haven had ignited riots and set off a national uproar. The National Guard patrolled the campus in tanks. A bomb went off at the hockey rink.At commencement, student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany and called for an immediate end to the war in Vietnam.But one student sounded a contrarian theme."The conservative underground is alive and well here," Mr. Bolton told his classmates and their parents, scorning a handful of hecklers. "If we do not make our influence felt, rest assured we will in the real world."Mr. Bolton's prediction would prove true, and for no one more than for this brainy son of a Baltimore firefighter whose nomination as ambassador to the United Nations is now bitterly contested. Ten years after graduation, he would join the Reagan administration to begin what would become nearly two decades of service in Republican administrations.Seemingly untroubled by self doubt, Mr. Bolton, whom former Senator Jesse Helms once called "the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon," has never shied from a dispute nor hesitated to shatter a consensus. In his office he displays a grenade designating him as "Truest Reaganaut," a telling gift from former colleagues at the United States Agency for International Development.From his battle, as a Justice Department official, for the doomed Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork to his dramatic declaration to poll workers tabulating presidential ballots in Florida in 2000 -- "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team and I'm here to stop the count" -- Mr. Bolton has proved himself a fighter, fiercely committed to a bedrock American nationalism.But now his brash performance as under secretary of state threatens his nomination, as government officials high and low who have clashed with Mr. Bolton strike back. Complaints that he bullied intelligence analysts who rejected his views have particular weight with Congressional critics, who are still fuming that administration claims about Iraq's arsenal and Al Qaeda turned out to be wildly inaccurate.But as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee extends its consideration of Mr. Bolton's candidacy, President Bush has shown no sign of wavering in his determination to win confirmation for this least diplomatic of diplomats."See, the U.N. needs reform," Mr. Bush said at a news conference on Thursday night. "If you're interested in reform in the U.N. like I'm interested in reform in the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations."Mr. Bolton, 56, has won loyalty from other bosses, too. They include former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, whom he served at the White House and the State Department and who summoned him to Florida for the recount, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who told an American Enterprise Institute audience after the 2000 election that Mr. Bolton deserved "anything he wants" in the new administration.He wins such plaudits partly because of an extreme work style that sometimes has him firing off e-mail messages to subordinates from home at 4 a.m. before arriving at the office at 6. In his current job, he has required staff members to stand -- along with him -- at morning meetings, to discourage long-winded discussions."When you go in to brief John Bolton, as I found out early, you better be prepared," said Thomas M. Boyd, who was Mr. Bolton's deputy when he was assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department and who remains a friend. "He's kind of like an appellate judge. He will read everything. If you have holes in your argument, he won't work with you."He has also impressed superiors with his dogged pursuit of goals he believes in. As assistant secretary of state in the administration of the elder George Bush, he took on the task of repealing a United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, long resented by Israel and its American supporters.For several weeks in 1991, Mr. Bolton devoted himself to what he called the "ZR campaign," according to one person who worked on it. Countries were singled out one by one, with Mr. Bolton systematically pursuing their ambassadors and tracking the results on charts until the vote -- an unexpectedly lopsided 111 to 25."He's tough and he's relentless and he's very logical," said Frank J. Donatelli, a Republican consultant who has worked with Mr. Bolton both in government and party operations. "But I've never observed any kind of abusive behavior."What really puts off Mr. Bolton's critics, Mr. Donatelli said, are his firm views. "Even in the Reagan administration, John would usually be the most conservative person in the room," he said.The drive and ideological certainty that admirers believe make Mr. Bolton effective strike his critics as excessive. Avis T. Bohlen, who worked under Mr. Bolton as assistant secretary of state for arms control, said she agreed with several of his initiatives, including scuttling a protocol to the international ban on biological weapons. But she thought the United States should work with European allies to find a better approach to preventing biological weapons. Mr. Bolton did not."He was absolutely clear that he didn't want any more arms control agreements," Ms. Bohlen said. "He didn't want any negotiating bodies. He just cut it off. It was one more area where we lost support and respect in the world."In handling disagreements, too, Ms. Bohlen said, Mr. Bolton sometimes went over the line. "What I find unfortunate is that he had a tendency to go after the little guys," she said. "I think Bolton is a bully."The same traits, and the same divided views of them, go all the way back to Baltimore's McDonogh School, where Mr. Bolton discovered his intellectual gifts and his fascination with politics.Raised in a working-class row house neighborhood in southwest Baltimore called Yale Heights -- a far cry from the university where he would earn undergraduate and law degrees -- Mr. Bolton won a scholarship to McDonogh, then an all-male military school.That modest background is a key to his personality, some associates say. "He didn't come from money," said Mr. Boyd, his former subordinate. "Sometimes when you push the rock up the hill, you're hungrier. You have more of a drive to succeed."From seventh grade on, he boarded at McDonogh, returning home on weekends to his father, Jack, who had been wounded in Normandy on D-Day, and his mother, Virginia, a homemaker. They also had a daughter, Joni, who is nine years younger and now works as a nurse near Baltimore."He had the same attitudes and beliefs then and now," said Marty McKibbin, 77, who taught at McDonogh for 46 years but still recalls clearly his debates with John Bolton about the Vietnam War in Asian history class and at lunch. "It's kind of surprising that Yale and Yale Law School and Washington, D.C., didn't change him much."In 1966, Mr. Bolton, who has said he privately called the liberal teacher "Mao McKibbin," wrote an editorial for the school paper titled "No Peace in Vietnam," warning against "spurious" hopes for a settlement. When he stepped down as associate editor after his senior year, an unsigned notice of thanks said: "John Bolton has attacked his duties with the fervor of a political fanatic. His efficient, if sometimes controversial, management of the editorial page deserves more than conservative applause."Ed Wroe, another McDonogh scholarship student, recalls John Bolton's fervor for the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. "When you hear people describe him as abrasive, you think, 'That sounds like John Bolton,"' said Mr. Wroe, an attorney in Idaho. "He didn't worry about what people thought of him."But Dr. Bruce K. Krueger, his Yale roommate for five years and now a physiologist at the University of Maryland medical school, recalls Mr. Bolton as a far more pleasant character. "He might say something provocative -- everyone else in the room might disagree with it -- but he'd have something solid and well-reasoned to back it up."Dr. Krueger said Mr. Bolton was the only conservative in their six-member suite and one of a shrinking minority of such students on campus. Yet Mr. Bolton seemed to enjoy his status as David versus the campus's liberal Goliath, Dr. Krueger said. "I thought he kind of liked that role -- the loner, the sole counterpoint in the room."Mr. Bolton joined the National Guard, in which he served for six years, before graduation. "I confess that I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asia rice paddy," he wrote in a recollection for his 25-year Yale reunion, in part because he felt that the war in Vietnam was "already lost" because of antiwar sentiment among Americans.Today, associates describe Mr. Bolton as an avid reader, particularly of history and biography, and a political junkie. They describe him as a very private person who is devoted to his wife, Gretchen, a financial planner, and their daughter, Jennifer, who now attends Yale. When mother and daughter head off on ski trips, he stays behind."He can appear to be very stern," said Mr. Boyd, his former Justice Department colleague. "I think that's a product of his reserve. He's got a great sense of humor, a great cackle of a laugh -- but he has to trust you."In the loose shorthand of the news media, Mr. Bolton has sometimes been described as a neoconservative. That's wrong, said Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for a New American Century, a conservative strategy group.The neoconservatives believe in spreading democracy; Mr. Bolton, with a less idealistic view of other countries' potential, prefers to focus on threats to the United States, Mr. Schmitt said. "He's a straightforward, traditional, national security conservative," he said.On the Balkans, for instance, "John's view was that we didn't have a dog in that fight," Mr. Schmitt said. In Iraq, Mr. Bolton favored overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But, Mr. Schmitt said, "I think he would say we should not be in the business of transforming Iraq."In a recent interview with the McDonogh School magazine headlined "The Patriot," Mr. Bolton, who is not talking to reporters during the confirmation period, defined his job as keeping American interests clearly in sight."Frequently you hear diplomacy described as a skill of keeping things calm and stable and so on, and there's an element of that," he said. "But basically, American diplomats should be advocates of the United States. That's the style I pursue."Correction: May 3, 2005, Tuesday A picture caption on Sunday with an article about the background and career of John R. Bolton misidentified the Senate committee before which he was testifying about his nomination as ambassador to the United Nations. It was the Foreign Relations Committee, not Armed Services.John Bolton, Trump’s ultra-hawkish new national security adviser, explainedKirkland & Ellis LLP > Bolton, John R.John R. [email protected] V-CardWashington, D.C.Phone: +1 202-879-5983Fax: +1 202-879-5200CorporateLitigationAntitrust & Competition1975, District of ColumbiaYale Law School, J.D., 1974Editor, Yale Law JournalYale University, B.A., 1970 Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laudeInterview: John Bolton, From Blue Collar To Yale, United Nations, and The White HouseAt my interview with former U.N. Ambassador Bolton, initially considered for Secretary of State and now National Security Advisor for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet, I asked him to share insights into geopolitics, labor unions, media, United Nations, and the boardroom.President George W. Bush appointed John R. Bolton the 25th U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in 2005. Now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on foreign policy, Bolton also serves as a director of EMS Technology and Diamond Offshore Drilling. The experienced litigator was described by The Washington Post as skilled in the art of “bare-knuckle diplomacy and skepticism.”You are an Ivy League trained lawyer and geopolitical thought leader. What part of your background was most important to your career success?The Boltons were a blue-collar family, and our virtue was modesty. My father was a firefighter and my mother was a housewife. I was the first person in my family to go to college. Those would have to be among my proudest credentials.You are a natural contrarian. Even during your Yale years, you were pro-Vietnam War.I read Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and the effect was to push me into the conservative camp, more accurately libertarian, and I became involved in the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964 as a result. [note: former U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also campaigned for Goldwater.] This course led me to my beliefs, contrarian as they were then, when I arrived at Yale.How well informed is the Washington media circuit?If you like to arrive at a conclusion about complex matters using facts and logic, there is going to be frustration in working with the media in Washington. As a group, Capitol Hill reporters look at everything through a political lens. For instance, when they saw something as portentous as the outcome of the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision, they largely ignored the huge implication for our Constitution, and mainly focused on a very superficial political analysis of the decision. And I think that’s very unfortunate.Speaking of the confluence of politics and business, what do you make of the Keystone pipeline issue?Given a genuine opportunity to understand the real facts behind Keystone, most voters would be in favor. In the last century, the Progressive movement recognized that the world was becoming more complex, but their remedy was to look to government for answers. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. When we rely entirely on government to establish the actual facts of the matter, the result is often what certain constituents desire whether or not they are to the benefit or detriment of society at large.Which party has the better rhetorical argument?Simply put, fairness, equality and justice resonate today, even more than abstract questions of liberty and individual freedom and responsibility. Some of this is a reflection of economic circumstances, while some of it could be chalked up to the aging American demographic. If one party frames issues in a way that plays to these desires, I think that almost invariably makes a stronger political statement. And that’s why I think this election was consequential.The world is forever in crisis. Is the United Nations the most effective means of dealing with global policy issues?I could say many great things about the United Nations. There are less-known aspects that are very important and very helpful internationally, but they tend to be the obscure, specialized agencies of the U.N. system — the universal postal union, the international maritime organization and other organizations that are largely behind the scenes. There are some others that I think are helpful in a humanitarian sense — the High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Program. But some of the political decision-making bodies, such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, for instance, are just hopelessly ineffective because of their politicization. It’s nearly impossible to accomplish anything through those bodies.What is the major flaw in the way Americans handle geopolitics?There is a well-known but unfortunate temptation — whether it’s for the State Department or even in American multinational business dealings — that when working with international counterparts you look at the guy on the other side of the table and say, “Well, I’m a rational, reasonable person and I think that guy is too,” when in fact he might be just the opposite. It’s a fallacy we call “mirror imaging,” and frankly we are guilty of this time and time again.Turning our attention to regulation are you concerned about overreach?Regulation creep is something that is taking over business behavior, and it’s certainly become worse with Dodd-Frank under the Obama administration, but I think it extends back to Sarbanes- Oxley. It’s very hard these days for small and midsize companies to be public or to go public. Then you’ve got the EPA just about out of control in the recent dust-up in which a regional director was videotaped saying, “We should do what the Romans did and crucify the oil companies.” What the Obama administration and others fail to realize is not just the effect of each regulation but the cumulative crushing burden.What about the influence of politics?The most isolationist constituency in America today is the labor unions. They’re the ones most against free trade. They’re the ones most in favor of tilting regulatory and tax structures to create disincentives for American companies to engage in international business. They have enormous political clout — you can see it in case after case that is brought before the National Labor Relations Board.What should business be doing to improve its reputation?In the political process, the landscape is already littered with a bias that business is a big conspiracy of a few wealthy individuals against the great majority. So I think it’s important that companies are equally prepared to participate in the political process.Many activists decry executive compensation. Do you agree?Compensation committees of boards have perhaps the most difficult job of all because they’ve got to weigh so many competing factors. They’ve got to make sure that their compensation is sufficient to reward the CEO and the other top officers and make sure they’re not poached by a competitor. But explaining those factors in a very direct and quantitative way in terms of the company’s performance can be difficult. I have watched compensation committees repeatedly struggle to make these decisions, yet they are portrayed often by activists as back-scratching colleagues who are not paying attention to shareholders. In my experience, that’s the furthest thing from the truth.Does business have to be more balanced in how it looks at risk?Risk and return are two sides of the same coin, and if boards are adequately overseeing management, they’re worried about their risks, and they’re worried about missed opportunities, too. When companies fail badly, you can say that a board has not carried through on its responsibilities, but by the same token there are companies that are over cautious, with the consequence they can get left behind, and that’s the nature of capitalism.https://www.aei.org/scholar/john-r-bolton/ExperienceU.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, 2005-2006Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 2001-2005; Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, 1989-93, Department of StateSenior Vice President, AEI, 1997-2001Attorney, Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus, 1993-99Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, 1985-89Attorney, Covington & Burling, 1983-85, 1974-81Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, 1982-83; General Counsel, 1981-82, U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentEducationJ.D., Yale University Law SchoolB.A., Yale Universityimage sourceJohn Bolton Bio, Wiki, Wife, Children, Family, FactsPOLITICIANSWhen you have served your country well in various capacities, then you are certainly someone people will like to know about. One of America’s finest politicians is John Bolton who has served in several Republican administrations as well as represented the United States of America at the United Nations. He is an accomplished lawyer, former policy adviser to 2012 presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Fox News channel commentator, senior adviser to Freedom Capital Investment Management and counsel to Washington D.C law firm Kirkland & Ellis.He is actively involved with the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom and a host of other political organizations championing different courses. John Bolton has been active in a lot of neoconservative groups which earned him the title of a neo-conservative. He strongly rejects this but still holds membership to groups like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG).John Bolton’s Bio, WikiJohn Bolton was born on November 20, 1948, to Virginia Clara, a housewife and her husband Jack Bolton, a fireman in Baltimore, Maryland. He did much of his growing up in Yale Heights, a working-class neighbourhood. As a brilliant young child, he won a scholarship to the prestigious McDonough School in Owings Mills Maryland. This saw him attending the school and while he was there, he ran the school’s Students For Goldwater campaign from 1964 till he graduated in 1966.Read Also: Abraham Lincoln’s Height, Weight And Body MeasurementsJohn Bolton trained at Yale University where he shared classes with the likes of Clarence Thomas his friend, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton at Yale Law School. He subscribed membership to the Yale Political Union during his time there and earned a B.A summa cum laude in the year 1970 and a J.D. in the year 1974.At the time Bolton left the University, the Vietnam Civil War was still ongoing and precisely in the year 1969. Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard in 1970 where he served for 4 years, sequel to this; he served 2 years in the United State Army where he was until the end of his enlistment. Bolton would later write in the Yale 25th reunion book that he had no desire to fight in the Vietnam war as he considered the war already lost by the time he was due to be enlisted in the army.John Bolton finally began practising his legal career after leaving the military and from 1974 to 1976 he was an associate at the Washington office of Covington & Burling. He left for a while after 1976 but was soon to return in 1983 and stayed till 1985. From 1993 to 1985 he worked in the capacity of a partner in the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus where he was indispensable as always. Currently, he is a counsel in the famous Washington office of Kirkland & Ellis.While pursuing his legal career, his political career was as well gaining momentum as he held several appointed political posts at various times. Notable among them was his serving as the United States Assistant Attorney General from 1988 to 1989, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 1989 to 1993 and United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006.Having gathered all these experiences in representing and serving the USA, in 2007 he released his book entitled Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Aboard.John Bolton’s Family – Wife, Children,In marriage, John Bolton has a record of divorce. He married his first wife Christine Bolton in 1972 and divorced her in 1983 under allegations of involvement in a group sex activity at Plato’s Retreat. This was a popular swingers club that held sway in New York City in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Their marriage didn’t produce any child though.John Bolton remarried and this time around to Gretchen Smith Bolton and they both have a daughter named Jennifer Sarah Bolton. Both parents live in Bethesda, Maryland. Details of when he married his second wife officially as well as when their daughter was born are not publicly known. There have been no controversies following this marriage as the two have been together for a long time.Facts about John BoltonHe enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard but didn’t serve in VietnamJohn Bolton was a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace PrizeHe is the father of a daughter named Jennifer Sarah BoltonHe is a Republican and a member of the Lutheran ChurchJohn Bolton resigned as America’s ambassador to the United Nations in 2006, a post he was appointed to by former President Bush in 2005.

I have been making the argument for years now that we already ARE in a state of civil war.I think that are two separate and distinct types of intra-national conflict. The first is a “war of independence.” This is what we had starting in 1775. The Chechen Rebellion was such a war (they lost), as was the the fighting against the British for the creation of a Jewish State (they won), the American Revolution (we won), and the War Between the States, which we call the Civil War (they lost).A war of independence, by my definition is when any faction or part of an existing state fight to create a state of their own, so the creation of two distinct and separate governments where there had been only one is the purpose of a war for independence.The other type of internal conflict is when two or more factions are fighting for control of the government of an existing state, which is how I define a “civil war.” This is what happened with the English Civil War, The French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.I argue that we have had one faction in this country fighting to take absolute and complete control of our existing government, and the ouster of anyone in that government who does not support them. So, by my definition, we are already IN an actual civil war. How long ago do I think that this civil war has been going on? I think that, after about 25 years of faltering attempts to hold such a war, beginning in the mid-1950s with the rise of “movement conservativism”, (Movement conservatism - Wikipedia, Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia). It was successfully begun in 1980, with the candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan as President. (Presidency of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia)Once in office, Reagan began the efforts to discredit the entire idea of government, and the complete dismantling of every aspect of the government he hated, anything he thought was “liberal”… social services, voting rights, civil rights, high taxes on corporations and on the rich, labor unions, education, etc. It also saw the rise of such conservative pillars as increased military spending (at a time when we were not at war with anyone), religious conservativism, economic deregulation, and a retreat on both international human rights and social justice, to name a few.One of the key demographics of Reagan’s presidency was the rise of the “Reagan Democrats.” (Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia) The first real battle of that war was when the air-traffic controllers went on strike in 1981 and Reagan summarily fired them all. (Ronald Reagan fires 11,359 air-traffic controllers - HISTORY, How the Air Traffic Controllers Strike Changed Everything - CounterPunch.org) From that point on, I believe that we were in a state of civil war without any side in it actually being aware of it. (Reagan Era - Wikipedia)The war was escalated with the Republican take over of Congress in 1995, after winning with the so-called “Contract with America.” (Contract with America - Wikipedia) This marked the beginning of the Legislative Branch equivalency of what Reagan had done to the Executive Branch. Under the control of Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Tom Delay, the House was restructured in many ways but, to me, the most important one was taking committee chairmanships away from the old policies that awarded chairs based on seniority and, instead, gave them based on how well a member followed the instruction of the chambers Republican leadership. With that, and many other rule changes in both Houses, we ended up with sycophants who did what their leadership wanted instead of independent chairmen who did (investigated) what they wanted to. (How Newt Gingrich Destroyed American Politics - The Atlantic)From that time on, the entire systemic use of gerrymandering (Gerrymandering in the United States - Wikipedia) the Republicans to gain control of many state legislature even where they might have had a minority of actual voter support, especially in the South with the mass switch of conservative Democrats to the Republican Party.This was facilitated by two things… one was the anger of the Southern conservative Democrats (Conservative Democrat - Wikipedia) with legislation like the civil rights movement starting in the 1950s which resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia) and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia). They also objected to the great wave of social programs, such as Medicare, that were part of Johnson’s “Great Society” legislation (Great Society - Wikipedia). They were also inflamed by the damage done to the conservative movement by the massively overwhelming lose for Goldwater (Barry Goldwater - Wikipedia) in the 1964 presidential election (Barry Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign - Wikipedia, 1964 United States presidential election - Wikipedia) and the push to remove Nixon (Richard Nixon - Wikipedia) from office due to the Watergate scandal (Watergate scandal - Wikipedia).The other was the example of Representative Phil Gramm (Phil Gramm - Wikipedia) when he resigned from the Democratic Party, resigned his seat in Congress, ran in and very easily won the special election held to replace him (he said that his constituents should have the right to decide if the wanted a Democrat of him to represent them in Congress). Gramm easily (On This Day In 1983: Phil Gramm (D) Returns To Congress As (R) : It's All Politics : NPR). From there, the so-called “Reagan Democrats” (Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia) began to start switching their support over to the Republican Party consistently. This became a wave which the most recent political alignment (Political realignment - Wikipedia) in the United States, which saw the Republican Party grow so strong at the expense of the Democratic Party that it had very solid control of the United States government and many state governments, especially in the South.This also was the time when conservative Republicans began to aggressively push out all liberal and moderate Republicans. Republicans had to pass muster by a wide range of constituencies and organizations in order to be considered “real” Republicans… the Christian conservatives (Christian right - Wikipedia), CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference - Wikipedia), the Heritage Foundation (The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia) and, most of all… Roger Ailes and Fox News. (Roger Ailes - Wikipedia, Fox News - Wikipedia) Also, with the rise of the “24-hour News Cycle” (24-hour news cycle - Wikipedia), the end of the “fairness doctrine” (FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia) and the Internet, people could now find news and opinion programming that spoke directly to them without having to listen to anyone they didn’t agree with. With that went a great portion of civility in our society.Before the Bush II presidency, the most powerful shot fired in the war was the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Gingrich lead House of Representatives (Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia). When asked at one point why they were impeaching Clinton, Gingrich answered “Because we can.” (Opinion | There’s a Bigger Prize Than Impeachment - The New York Times (nytimes.com))Following George W. Bush’s time as governor of Texas and his success in overseeing the entire apparatus of the Texas state government shifting from Democratic control to Republican (Governorship of George W. Bush - Wikipedia), he was able, in a very close and controversial election, to win the presidency. (2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia, 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida - Wikipedia, Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia) Bush’s move to the presidency saw the rise of neo-conservative (neocon) political ideology (Neoconservatism - Wikipedia). Starting in the 1980s by many Republicans who had worked for and supported Nixon’s presidency. This included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and many others who swarmed into high office and places of influence in the Bush II administration. This also saw the promotion of a neocon idea of the “unitary executive.” (Unitary executive theory - Wikipedia)While prior to 9/11/01, Bush and his fellow Republicans were dismissive of the danger that terrorism, in general, and Osama Bin Laden (Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia), specifically held for the United States. 9/11 (September 11 attacks - Wikipedia) changed all of that. Using the wave of anger and shock that overwhelmed this country and much of the world, Bush and his allies in Congress used the opportunity to create and enact the Patriot Act (Patriot Act - Wikipedia) and to create the monolithic Department of Homeland Security. (United States Department of Homeland Security - Wikipedia) Along with this brought along new ideas which not only saw the rise of many, and frequently unconstitutional actions in this country, it saw a drastic change to our idea of war and of internationalism.The United States very quickly began attacks on Afghanistan, which was under the control of a Taliban government (Taliban - Wikipedia, Talibanization - Wikipedia). This involvement began America’s longest (undeclared) war, one that is still going on now, almost 20 years later. The rational for the war with Afghanistan was the it was hiding Osama Bin Laden and had aided him in preparing the 9/11 attack. After the initiation of the War with Afghanistan, the United States, using weak, doctored, and even false evidence to justify using the 9/11 attack as the basis for a war with Iraq, another undeclared war, and the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. (Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia). In many ways, the war against Saddam Hussein war more important to the Bush II administration than the War in Afghanistan.The mindset of many in the United States became aggressively anti-anything that was seen as a threat to the “American way,” including effective oversite of the presidency by Congress, questioning of the president by Congress, journalistic investigations of the presidency, the war with Iraq, foreign relations and many other things that would have been Unthinkable in the United States. Much of this traced back to the Patriot Act and the attitudes about government that went from gradually shifting this country to the right to flat-out doing anything that could be thought of to shove it hard to the right.Not believing that there should be any impediment to what the neoconservative vision of America was, the United States, which had pushed the entire system of war crimes trials after WWII (Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia, International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Wikipedia) and the punishment of war criminals, began to take on a harsh and inhumane program of how we fought our 21st Century Wars. Captured enemy soldiers were declared “enemy combatants” (Enemy combatant - Wikipedia) rather than soldiers. This was a designation of enemies captured on the battlefield which had not been used before, but it was a way for the United States to declare those captives to not actually be soldiers and therefore there was no requirement of humane treatment in compliance with human rights doctrines and international treaties. As a result, those captives were hidden, tortured, isolated, subjected to degradation and sadistic cruelty, and even outright murdered. (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia)In addition, enemy detention camps were set up in locations that were kept hidden, or which were in American controlled areas that the Bush administration declared were exempt from observation by international and national human rights organizations such as the Red Cross and Amnesty International. The most notorious of these which was the detention site at Guantanamo Base in Cuba. (Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia) Neither the suffering of these prisoners, nor the moral and ethical cost of holding and treating people in such conditions seemed to bother those who advocated for such treatment in response to the attack upon the United States.Despite the duration and costs of our post-9/11 wars, Bush II’s domestic policies were not any more human or rational than our military policies were at that time. (Presidency of George W. Bush - Wikipedia) After an economic crisis in 2008 and a general disapproval of Bush II by this time, the election of 2008 (2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia) was seen by the Republicans as necessary for them to win to keep the United States under their control, and by the Democrats as necessary to break away from the chaos and authoritarianism of the previous 8 years. The election was easily won by Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, the first non-white president in American history… which seemed to send the Republicans and conservatives in America off the deep end.From the very beginning of Obama’s time in office, the Republicans in Congress made it clear that they were against Obama and would do anything they could to keep him from having any success. (When did Mitch McConnell say he wanted to make Obama a one-term president? - The Washington Post,What we saw during Obama time in office was a complete restructuring of the Republican mindset. Now, instead of protecting Congress and functioning as a co-equal branch of government, they saw their role in government to be obstruct ANYTHING by a Democratic President and pass ANYTHING by a Republican president. The most glaring example of this was Mitch McConnell, in his role as Senate Majority Leader openly and publicly refusing to allow Obama to place a new Justice on the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, even though he had a full year left in his term of office. This had NEVER happened before. (Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia)Speaking of the Garland nomination, I haven’t yet talked about the conservative remaking of our entire judicial system. While the Republicans in the Senate did everything they could do to have their way with judicial nominations, including getting rid of parts of the filibuster that kept them from doing whatever they wanted to the courts without needing to work with Democrats. (Nuclear option - Wikipedia) You can see this in the number of judicial appointments that were allow to pass the Senate during the 8 years when Obama was president and the 4 years of the Trump presidency. (Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump—what has he done with them? (brookings.edu), PolitiFact | Fact-check: Why Barack Obama failed to fill over 100 judgeships, Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, The GOP is confirming Trump judicial nominees it stalled under Obama - Roll Call) The impact of the shaping of the make-up of the American federal judiciary will have a lasting impact for a generation. Still, there is a much more telling number. It isn’t that, because of the refusal of McConnell to allow Obama to fill a third seat on the Supreme Court for his 8 years of office and fast tracking allowing Trump to fill that vacancy AND the vacancy left by the death of Ruth Ginsburg less than 2 months before the 2020 elections which gave him 3 Supreme Court appointees, it is even more ominous. In the last 50 years (going back to the beginning of the Nixon administration), there have been 19 Supreme Court appointments. Of that 19, 4 were appointed by Democrats, compared to 15 appointed by Republicans. In addition, the last time that a Democratic president got to appoint a Chief Justice was the 1946 appointment by Truman of Fred Vinson… 75 years ago.At this point, I not going to go into the Trump presidency. I’ll save that for another time. Still, there still one other point that I would like to make.In a true civil war, there will always be casualties. Our current middle also has a body count. That body count has been the victims of mass shootings. In a list of mass shootings in the United States, going back to the 1920s (List of mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia). Using the standard of at least 3 dead and going back 50 years we get this information… in the 1970s, there were 13 shootings with 77 deaths. In the 1980s, there were 17 events with 186 deaths. In the 1990s, there were 25 shootings with 174 deaths. So, in 30 years we had 55 events and 437 deaths.From 2000 - 2010, there were 44 mass shootings with 310 dead, and from 2011 to 2020 there were 121 mass shootings with 779 deaths. So, in the last 20 years, there have been 165 mass shootings with 1089 deaths. And that is just from the United States in the last 50 years. And that is just ones that resulted in at least 3 dead. And that’s just from a Wikipedia list I got without any serious searching. And, in all of those over the last 20 years, at least, with the only ones I know of that had traceable ideologies as a reason or as the shooter’s affiliations and beliefs were all conservatives shooting others. The only shooting I know of that was a liberal shooting was the 2017 attack that injured Congressman Steve Scalise, and the only death that occurred then was the death of the shooter.Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that this is a finely researched assessment. It was just me sitting here trying to come up with some numbers after way too much writing already. I know that in 2009 or 2010, I was actually doing some serious number crunching from my home about shootings. I quit on the day that there were 3 in one day and I felt I just couldn’t keep up with the almost daily events. Still, the reason I had started that project was because I had been noticing for awhile that all of the shootings that could be considered ideological seemed to have conservatives, and mostly far-right conservatives as the shooters. White supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, self-described militia men, and/or misogynists seemed to make up the bulk of them. All of them were extremists of one sort or another.Still, my point is that ideology has been behind a rise in gun ownership. (I will try to do more accurate research on this in the future.) For now, here are some findings. In a 2020 Gallup Poll, they found that, of people who identify as conservative, moderate, or liberal… 45% of conservatives own guns, 29% of moderates, and 15% of liberals. (What Percentage of Americans Own Guns? (gallup.com)) There are many charts like this one (many I can’t use for copyrights reasons) that show the numbers of gun owners is decreasingWhile there are many charts and statistical studies that show the number of guns owned in America continues to rise. (Seriously, if you need me to post some, I will but I think that it is a pretty well known fact… I’m tired.) The rise in the number of guns sold go up during periods of racial tension, political tension, and national crises (like an economic downturn or pandemic) This is an interesting chart. It shows the estimated number of guns per person by country. The United States has the most, with over 120 guns per 100 people. The next most is the Falkland Islands with about 62 per 100 people. (Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia) Anyway, lots of stuff on guns but I’m falling down a rabbit hole.My point is that conservative extremism (religious or political) seems to be behind most of the shootings that occur all too regularly, and not just in America. Anders Brevik, in Norway is a very important example of recent conservative violence for ideological reasons. (Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, 22 July (2018) - IMDb)And then there is the January 6, 2020 right-win insurrection and attempted coup, because the 2020 presidential election didn’t go the way they wanted it to.So, I think that we are already in a shooting war, and one side has shown themselves more than willing to kill people on the other side. Before anyone writes me or comments about how it is both sides, well, aside from the false equivalency fallacy, I have a Facebook page solely devoted to stories of conservatives threatening or killing others. I only started sometime late last year so that I could have them collected in one place where I could get to them… I only wish I had thought to start collecting the stories 15 years ago. In any case, I can provide verifiable information from reliable sources. If you can’t do the same, then go away and learn about the value of real evidence and the burden of proof. (The Burden of Proof: Why People Must Properly Support Their Arguments – Effectiviology)Conservatives Threaten Others | FacebookAnyway, that is an outline of my evidence why I think that the United States is already IN a civil war, and that it turned from cold to hot about 20 years ago. Take any and all of this with a grain a salt because this wasn’t planed, and my research was mostly just as I sat here and thought of a new part of the puzzle to include. Obviously Wikipedia was the source I most used for this. I think that this could actually be turned into a full book, but I don’t know if I could be the one to write it as it should be written.In any case, that is my answer.