Crocodile's Lament

Flying by the seat of my pants

Archive for July 2012

Book Claims Valerie Jarrett told Obama to Cancel bin Laden Raid

Joe Kirkup:

Even if it was “gutsy” to order other men to do the dirty, dangerous jobs you wouldn’t even consider, this pathetic wimp suffered three FTFs (failure to fire) in a row.  I bet the SEALS just loved sitting on their packs waiting for Valerie to man up.  Just great.

    JK

‘Gutsy Call’ Not So Gutsy After All, New Book Reveals

According to a new book, President Obama canceled operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions, due to instructions of aide
AAFont Size

By Rachel Hirshfeld

First Publish: 7/30/2012, 12:07 PM


President Obama
President Obama
Reuters
At the urging of senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to a new book scheduled for release August 21, The Daily Caller (DC) reported.

In “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors who Decide for Him,” Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor and assistant to the president for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, reportedly persuaded Obama to hold off each time, the book reveals, according to The DC.

Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.
Obama administration officials said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision.

At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.

“President Obama’s greatest success was actually his greatest failure,” Miniter told The DC. “Leading From Behind,” he said, traces six key decisions of the Obama administration, and shows how the president made them, or, in many cases, failed to make them.

The president has made the assassination of Osama bin Laden a focal point in his re-election campaign, calling it one of the “gutsiest calls of any president in recent history.”

SOURCE: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158411

Do McCain, Graham, and Boehner believe, “death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.?”

The “National Security Five” Under Assault

by

 David Stover

 The “National Security Five” (Westmoreland, Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert and Rooney) are under assault for a recent letter questioning radical Islamists and their role in the United States government. Why do the elites on the left have such a fear of questioning and understanding the motives of the radical Islamists? Specifically in question is the association of certain staff members of the Obama Administration and their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The letter did not attack Muslims nor did it attack any religion, instead it brings into question the motives behind the Muslim Brotherhood and those serving in the Obama Administration and what their ties really are.

 The Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, “”Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” The Brotherhood’s English language website describes the “principles of the Muslim Brotherhood” as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as “the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society;” and secondly work to unify “Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism”. With statements such as these coming from the organization, we should not question their motives and who within the administration is tied to them? I, for one, applaud the efforts of the “National Security Five” and their efforts to get to the bottom of who in our government is supporting the Brotherhood.

 Read all of the letters for yourself on Michelle Bachmann’s website:

http://bachmann.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=303218
 I believe that you will find that what Westmoreland, Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert and Rooney have written to be a fair and equitable questioning of the situation that faces our country today – will the American Rule of Law stand and will our Republican survive, or will we allow extremists of ANY religion, nationality or background to infiltrate our government, influence our policies and turn us into a country that we all will no longer recognize. In the 70′s and 80′s it was the USSR, now it is multiple radical arms of religious organizations – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, etc. If we don’t stand up to them now, then when?

 For your reading consideration, an excellent article on the facts of the letter is on Politico by Newt Gingrinch: In defense of Michele Bachmann, Muslim Brotherhood probes – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79104.html

 And another article from the Newnan Times-Hearld: Westmoreland under fire for letters on Muslim Brotherhood – http://www.times-herald.com/Local/20120729Westmoreland-MuslimB-hood-MOS

Copyright © 2012 Coweta TEA Party Patriots, All rights reserved. Used with permission

Does A Lack Of Men in Churches Lead To Liberalism?

Liberal activist

  • Two mainline denominations wrapped up their general assemblies in the past month. The Presbyterian Church (USA) came within a handful of votes of authorizing same-sex marriages, but backed away from the cliff at the last moment. Meanwhile, the Episcopalians went completely over the edge at their summer gathering. They authorized a special rite for homosexual marriages, and lifted the ban on transgender priests. For good measure, they gave transsexuals and cross-dressers a special protected status within the church.
    Both denominations also reported dwindling attendance, budget and staff cuts, and the defection of several large congregations. The Episcopalians (who have lost 23% of their membership in the past decade) are so strapped for cash they decided to sell their headquarters in New York City.
    Liberal activists refuse to connect the dots between their doctrinal adventurism and the decline of their churches. For years this merry band of reformers has predicted an influx of younger, open-minded members once all that old-fashioned dogma was scrapped. That influx has yet to materialize.
    So what’s really going on in the mainline? Why did these churches liberalize in the first place? How has their definition of mission and their understanding of Scripture changed so radically in the past fifty years? Why do some churches become liberal while others do not?
    To get some perspective, let’s step back to the heyday of the mainline. In the 1950s and ’60s, these churches were bursting at the seams. Nurseries and Sunday schools were packed. Your local Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian or Church of Christ was the place to be. Believe it or not, mainliners were younger than the U.S. population as a whole during the late ‘50s.
    Mainline churches were also brimming with laymen. Lyle Schaller’s 1952 survey found them to be an exact replica of the wider population of postwar America: 52 percent women, 48 percent men. The governing boards of 1950s mainline churches were boys’ clubs, composed of prominent businessmen, doctors, lawyers, bankers, and professionals.
    But with women’s liberation washing over America in the late 1960s, both men and women in the mainline began to ask, “Why aren’t women allowed to lead in the church?” After all, women comprised the majority of church attendees, volunteers and employees (other than senior pastors). Why shouldn’t they lead the institution they dominated at every other level?
    So, based on this logic, the mainline denominations began ordaining women – first as elders and deacons, but eventually as pastors, and even bishops. Initially it was just a few. But as more women stepped forward, more men withdrew.
    Here’s a frustrating truth about men: when women step up to lead, men step back. As women become the majority in a group it’s harder to get men interested in participating.
    So with men departing, women came to dominate many church governing boards and the thicket of committees that drive denominational work. These women tended to be empty nesters age 50+ who had time to attend the flurry of meetings that mainline governance requires. Once these golden-hearted grandmothers became the leaders of the church, the slide into liberalism was inevitable. Here are two reasons why.
    First, women tend to be more politically liberal than men. They are more likely to vote Democratic and to support government programs to help the poor. Women also support gay rights, environmentalism, gun control and abortion in greater numbers than men.
    But there’s a second more subtle reason female-led churches will always move to the left. It has to do with a fundamental difference in the way the sexes see the world. Men tend to put rules first; women tend to put relationships first.
    When a group of men is grappling with a dilemma, their first question is, “What do the rules say?” But a group of women will ask, “How will this decision affect our relationships?”
    Sandlot argumentYou can see this dynamic at work on any playground. Boys organize themselves into competitive, hierarchical games such as baseball or soccer. They carefully lay out the rules before they play. If there’s a close call they argue over the rules. Obeying the rules is so important that one team will “take their ball and go home” if they think the rules were violated. Boys will sacrifice relationships on the altar of rules.
    Girls seem much less concerned with rules. They often play cooperative games like skip-rope or hopscotch. They also like to play fantasy games that revolve around relationships – Let’s pretend I’m the mommy and you’re the daddy. Girl games are less about winners and losers and more about building relationships. Girls will sacrifice rules on the altar of relationships.
    Men retain their deep concern for the rules and fair play their entire lives. They’ll argue an umpire’s call for years. Instant replay in football was inevitable. Was his toe on the line? Did he have possession as he fell out of bounds? Men don’t care if someone wins and someone else loses, as long as everything was done according to the rules.
    Meanwhile, women spend their lives obsessed with relationships. As teens they read books, watch movies and devour magazines about relationships. They marry earlier and often manage the family’s relational network. They are more likely to plan social events and keep up with extended family and friends.
    Now, back to the church. When a male-governed congregation grapples with a moral dilemma, its leaders will consult the rulebook first. “What does the Bible say about this?” they ask. Once the rule is established, the debate is closed. And if a rule hurts someone’s feelings? “We’re sorry,” the men say. “That’s the rule.” In a man-governed organization relationships are important, but rules trump.
    But when a church is led mostly by women (or feminized men), its leaders will see a moral dilemma through the lens of relationships. They will ignore or re-interpret the rulebook so that no one needs to lose. In a woman-governed universe rules are important, but relationships trump.
    This is what we’re seeing in the mainline churches today. The rules have taken a backseat to relationships, because women are in charge. Episcopalians appeal to relationships rather than rules when explaining their positions. “God is love. Here are two women who love each other. Why should we not bless their relationship? Jesus never excluded anyone. He commands us to stand with the marginalized and the oppressed.”
    It’s easy to see where this kind of thinking comes from. Jesus fiercely opposed first century Judaism because it was obsessed with silly rules. Many times Christ rebuked the Pharisees for putting the rules ahead of the welfare of people (Luke 14:5, Mark 2:27, Matt 23:23). Meanwhile, Christ always showed compassion toward society’s outcasts. He was all about loving the weak.
    Therefore, liberals assume that Jesus’ mission was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” By their logic, if Jesus were to walk among us today, he’d rebuke the powerful while giving the “marginalized and oppressed” license to live as they please.
    Yes, Jesus opposed a crushing legalism that drove a wedge between God and His people. But he did not oppose the law. He clearly said that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He refused to abandon even “the smallest letter of the least stroke of the pen” of the law until everything is accomplished (Matt 5:18). Jesus never ignored or bent the rules simply because someone felt offended or excluded – no matter how weak or vulnerable they were.
    It is no coincidence that liberalism has flourished in those denominations that have opened their doors widest to female leadership. This is what happens when you put grandmothers in charge of a church – you get comforting, safe decisions that preserve relationships. The rules get bent – or go out the window. A woman’s top priority is keeping the family together, no matter what the cost.
    Of course, this drives men nuts. An institution with shifting rules is frustrating. We’re back to the playground again. When the rules are violated, men take their ball and go home.
    Now, before I go any further, let me make a few things clear:
    1. I’m not blaming women for the decline of the mainline. The men withdrew. The women stepped up.
    2. I’m not saying that women are more prone to heresy than men.
    3. I’m not saying that rules don’t matter to women. They just matter less than relationships do.
    4. I’m not saying that women should never lead in churches. Since the beginning women have played a vital role in the local church (Luke 8:1-3). The contributions of female leaders such as Henrietta Mears and Mother Teresa are legendary. And today there are a number of very effective female leaders in mainline churches (Watch a video about one here).

    Here’s my key point: liberalism rises not when individual women assume leadership posts, but when groups of women come to dominate church leadership, without the moderating presence of men. This is the situation in the mainline. It’s dominated by leaders (both male and female) with a “relationships first” view of the gospel. Mainline churches are no longer able to think like men because they don’t have enough of them left.
    And where are those men? They’re in the fast-growing non-denominational churches. They’re in traditional churches that have stuck to male-elder governance. These bodies aren’t even debating gay issues. Why? The men who govern these churches simply looked at the rulebook and made the call. Case closed. And frankly, they didn’t much care if their decisions made someone feel excluded.
    Now, if female-dominated leadership leads to liberalism, does male-dominated leadership lead to legalism? Sometimes it does. But in most cases it doesn’t – because in many churches the women hold a “velvet veto” over the decisions the men make. Every church has powerful women who manage various ministry programs. If the men make a decision the women disagree with, female lay leaders have ways of making their displeasure known to the men. Women may not be in charge, but they still have plenty of power. The healthy tension between male elders and female ministry leaders keeps the church balanced.
    But female-led churches have no countervailing “iron veto.” I’ve never heard of the men of the church rising up en masse to oppose the decisions of a female-dominated elder board. No, men usually fall in line behind the women – or they quit. And this is what’s driving the fall of the mainline.
    The liberal churches may yet experience their renaissance – but I doubt it. Yes, young people share their progressive outlook, but twentysomethings also have very low rates of church attendance. Once these young adults have kids and feel the need to return to church, will they accept a congregation with an “anything goes” policy on sexuality? Even the most open-minded parents will think twice about leaving their infants with a cross-dressing nursery worker. And young men are unlikely to invest themselves in an institution with squishy rules – led by a cohort of middle-aged and elderly females.
    The answer for the mainline is to rediscover the rules and repent (See 2 Kings 22). But that seems unlikely in a denomination that’s hemorrhaging 10,000 men a year.
    A healthy church needs the influence of both men and women. It needs rule people and relationship people. When one cohort dominates you end up with crushing legalism or limp liberalism. Jesus clearly despised the former – and judging by the decline of the mainline, he doesn’t seem too excited about the latter.

    July 24th, 2012 | David Murrow |35 Comments |

About The Author

David Murrow

David Murrow is the director of Church for Men, an organization that helps congregations reach more men and boys. In his day job, David works as a television producer and writer. He’s the author of three books. He lives in Alaska with his wife, three children, two grandchildren and a dachshund named Pepper.

(no title)

Cobrapilot82 posts another superb piece of military flight lore that touches the heart of everyone who ever has struggled through that steep learning curve called “Flight School:”

Swaggering to the Flight Line

Out of cram sessions in the bar,
we practiced crashing after midnight,
emergency steps we drilled
until we could fly blindfolded
stumbling up stairs of the barracks.
We turned unnatural acts around
in our minds, spins and loops

we would have to do perfect,
alone. Out of bachelor bunks,
out of accident reports and training films,
we swaggered to the flight line,
living on flames in the belly of jets,
five thousand pounds of thrust.
Wings and three good friends

sustained us, men we would die for,
table mates straining to take
the IP’s brain and luck
and make them ours, aping his stride,
the cock of his flight cap. No coach
ever drove us like that brash
instructor pilot, almost a god,

a man with wings and battle ribbons
and touch on controls we coveted.
One by one he launched us solo
in December skies he owned, cold wind
whipping the ramp when I strapped in
and taxied out without his breath
in my headset—exciting silence,

nothing but these two fists to save me,
the runway thudding faster and faster
and falling away, the moon floating up
from Savannah, the force in my hand massive,
banking with blazing power out of traffic,
climbing through baffling darkness
into the splendor of stars.

“Swaggering to the Flight Line” by Walt McDonald, from All Occasions. © University of Notre Dame Press, 2000. Reprinted with permission

Young Obama: In Anticipation of a Marxist-Leninist Revolution.

I normally would not post a year and a half old article on this blog but I feel that this information just might be very important.

Read it and decide for yourself.
Low Flyer

From Randy, who had my back in Vietnam:

February 24, 2011

Meeting Young Obama

By John Drew

My first meeting with young Barack Obama raised strong feelings and left me with a positive first impression. At the time, I felt I’d persuaded a young man anticipating a Marxist-Leninist revolution to appreciate the more practical alternative of conventional politics as a channel for his socialist views. 

I met Obama in December of 1980, a couple of days after Christmas, in Portola Valley — a small town near Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. I was a 23 year old second-year graduate student in Cornell’s Government Department, and had flown to California to visit a 21 year old girlfriend, Caroline Boss. Boss was a senior at Occidental College, where she had taken a class in the fall of 1980 with political theorist Roger Boesche. She met and befriended Obama in that class.

I had been an angry Marxist revolutionary during my undergraduate career at Occidental College. During my hyperactive sophomore year, in the fall of 1976, I founded the Marxist-Socialist group on campus and named it the Political Awareness Fellowship. As I recall, I developed this innocuous sounding name because there were so few students on campus as radical as I, and I was fearful of turning off moderate students who might be willing to learn more about Marxist theory.

On my watch, our group grew to a dozen student activists and managed to attract crowds of 80 or more to our events. The most successful of these was a campaign to raise awareness of the plight of homosexuals who were beaten by Los Angeles City police officers along the Hollywood strip. I promoted this event with a large banner in the Occidental College quad reading: Anita Byrant: Hitler in Drag? During my junior year, I left Occidental College with the mission to study Marxist economics at England’s University of Sussex in the fall of 1977.

By the time I returned to Occidental in the fall of 1978 for my senior year, the Political Awareness Fellowship had morphed into something much bigger, an organization with strong leadership, its own office space and a new name. The group’s president was Gary Chapman, an older student who had served as a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Chapman was a colorful figure who shared stories from his military career including how he was required to take apart and reassemble his rifle in the dark. Under Chapman’s leadership, the group had changed its name to the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSA). As I recall, he told me “the old name wasn’t letting people know what we stood for.” I agreed. The DSA met weekly and brought in speakers about once a month. Events were advertised by big signs in the campus quad. During my time at Occidental, the group searched for ways to embarrass the administration, help students to see the evil of the U.S. capitalist system, and mobilize people in preparation for the coming revolution.

In the spring of 1979, Chapman and I joined forces with other students on campus to found an anti-apartheid coalition, called The Student Committee Against Apartheid, which included the leadership of the DSA as well as several other groups. Although the coalition included liberals as well as radicals, I think it is fair to say the most significant intellectual and organizational leadership came from students in the DSA. One of the ironies of our effort is that the white students took the lead in organizing these protests while African-American students seemed strangely passive and uninvolved in fighting the South African regime.

My romance with Boss began in the spring of 1979. Boss had joined the DSA and participated in the anti-apartheid events I helped organize that year. Like me, she was a committed Marxist, preparing for the approaching revolution. That year, I completed my senior honors thesis on Marxist economics. Boss and I danced together after I accepted my Occidental degree in June of 1979 wearing the red armband that signified my solidarity with my Marxist brethren around the world and my commitment to the anti-apartheid movement.

My relationship with Boss continued through the summer of 1979 and the academic year 1979-1980. She spent the summer of 1980 with me at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. When Boss returned to Occidental in the fall of 1980 for her senior year, she enrolled in Professor Roger Boesche’s European Political Thought class. It was there that she met Barack Obama who was starting his sophomore year.

When I first saw Obama, I remember I was standing on the porch of Boss’s parents’ impressive home as a sleek, expensive luxury car pulled up the driveway. Two young men emerged from the vehicle. They were well-dressed and looked like they were born to wealth and privilege. I was a little surprised to learn they were Boss’s friends from Occidental College until she articulated the underlying0 political connection. “They’re on our side,” she said.

The taller of the two was Obama, then only 19, who towered over his five-foot-five companion, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo – a wealthy, 21 year old Pakistani student. Chandoo had a full dark black, neatly trimmed moustache, and was dressed in expensive clothes. Nevertheless, Obama was the more handsome of the two. At six foot two, Obama carried himself with the dignity and poise of a model. The diminutive Chandoo, in contrast, came across as more of a practical, businessman type. Obama displayed a visible deference to Chandoo when they were standing together at the vehicle.

Chandoo was vaguely familiar to me as a participant in the earlier anti-apartheid rallies on the Occidental College campus. In David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, Chandoo’s bona fides as a committed Marxist were well-known to those close to him. Chandoo’s girlfriend at the time, Margot Mifflin, told Remnick that “[I]n college, Hasan was a socialist, a Marxist, which is funny since he is from a wealthy family.” (See, Remnick, David, The Bridge, Alfred A, Knopf, 2010, page 104.) Young Obama, on the other hand, was completely new to me.

“This is Barack Obama,” Boss said.

Since I was not much taller than Chandoo, I remember I looked up at Obama as we shook hands. I was completely mystified by the pronunciation of his name. He did not put up a fight over it, however.

“You can call me Barry,” Obama said.

During the introduction, Boss and Chandoo were eager to let me know that Obama was a graduate of the prestigious Punahou Academy, an elite prep school in Honolulu. I vividly remember that Chandoo was intensely proud of Obama’s ties to Punahou. This prestige, however, was wasted on me. I had never heard of the school and did not have a clue about what it meant to be one of its graduates. Obama seemed embarrassed by the fuss. Boss, I remember, wanted to make sure I understood that young Obama was not merely an attractive socialite dabbling in Marxist theory. “You’ve worked with us,” she observed. “You’ve been at our DSA meetings. You’ve been active in the anti-apartheid movement.”

After a while, all six of us — the four students and Boss’ adoptive parents — drove in two cars to a local restaurant. The owner knew Boss’s father. The food was delicious, the setting spectacularly “California casual,” with tall redwood trees all around. At the restaurant, we six continued our talk. Chandoo was quiet, less forceful, and deferential to Obama. Obama was polite to Boss’s parents, calm, and distinguished in his manner. Mr. Boss disapproved of his daughter’s radical perspective and could barely disguise his contempt for me.

Despite the recent election of Ronald Reagan, the focus of our discussion was on El Salvador and Latin America. I remember I was especially angry about what was happening in El Salvador, particularly the recent rape and murder of four American nuns and a laywoman. We also discussed the recent assassination of John Lennon in New York City. After lunch, the entourage returned to the Boss’s home in Portola Valley. Mr. Boss, a gruff Swiss-born businessman, was an aficionado of luxury cars who took pride in his successes in the greeting card and display case businesses.

“That’s an impressive car. Which one of you is the owner?” he asked.

“It’s mine,” said Chandoo, graciously adding: “Would you like to see it?”

While Chandoo and Mr. Boss gave Chandoo’s luxury car a once over, the rest of us engaged in small talk until Chandoo returned. Chandoo beamed smugly, having impressed Boss’s father with his expensive car. Inside the house, Mrs. Boss prepared snacks for everyone. All four of the students lit up after-dinner cigarettes in the dining room of the Boss’s home. Caroline Boss sat at the head of the table to my left. Obama sat directly across from me. Chandoo sat on the other side of the table on Obama’s left. Naturally, our conversation gravitated towards the coming revolution. I expected that my undergraduate friends would be interested in hearing my latest take on contemporary Marxist thought. I was in for quite a bit of a shock.

My graduate studies that fall had tempered my earlier Marxism with a more realistic perspective. I thought a revolution was not in the cards anymore. There was no inevitability, in my mind, to the old idea that the proletariat would rise up and overthrow the ruling classes. Now, the idea that we could entirely eliminate the profit motive from an advanced industrialized economy seemed like a childhood fantasy. The future, I now thought, would belong to nations with mixed economic systems — like those in Europe — where there was government planning of the economy combined with a greater effort to produce a more equitable distribution of wealth. It made more sense to me to focus on elections rather than on preparing for a coming revolution.

Boss and Obama, however, had a starkly different view. They believed that the economic stresses of the Carter years meant revolution was still imminent. The election of Reagan was simply a minor set-back in terms of the coming revolution. As I recall, Obama repeatedly used the phrase “When the revolution comes….” In my mind, I remember thinking that Obama was blindly sticking to the simple Marxist theory that had characterized my own views while I was an undergraduate at Occidental College. “There’s going to be a revolution,” Obama said, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” In Obama’s view, our role must be to educate others so that we might usher in more quickly this inevitable revolution.

I know this may be implausible to some readers, but I distinctly remember Obama surprising me by bringing up Frantz Fanon and colonialism. He impressed me with his knowledge of these two topics, topics which were not among my strong points — or of overwhelming concern to me. Boss and Obama seemed to think their ideological purity was a persuasive argument in predicting that a coming revolution would end capitalism. While I felt I was doing them a favor by providing them with the latest research, I saw I was in danger of being cast as a reactionary who did not grasp the nuances of international Marxist theory.

Chandoo let Boss and Obama take the crux of the argument to me. Chandoo, in fact, seemed chagrined by the level of disagreement in the group. I cannot remember him making any significant comments during this discussion.

Drawing on the history of Western Europe, I responded it was unrealistic to think the working class would ever overthrow the capitalist system. As I recall, Obama reacted negatively to my critique, saying: “That’s crazy!”

Since Boss and Obama had injected theory into our debate, I reacted by going historical. As best I can recreate the argument, I responded by critiquing their perspective with the fresh insight I had gained from my recent reading of Barrington Moore’s book, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). Moore had argued that a Russian or Chinese style revolution — leading to communism — was only possible in an agrarian society with a weak or non-existent middle-class or bourgeoisie.

Since I was a Marxist myself at the time, and had studied variations in Marxist theory, I can state that everything I heard Obama argue that evening was consistent with Marxist philosophy, including the ideas that class struggle was leading to an inevitable revolution and that an elite group of revolutionaries was needed to lead the effort. If he had not been a true Marxist-Leninist, I would have noticed and remembered. I can still, with some degree of ideological precision, identify which students at Occidental College were radicals and which ones were not. I can do the same thing for the Occidental College professors at that time.

By the time the debate came to an end, Obama — although not Boss — was making peace, agreeing with the facts I had laid out, and demonstrating an apparent agreement with my more realistic perspective. I have a vivid memory of Obama surrendering to my argument including signaling to the somewhat bewildered Chandoo — through his voice and body language — that the argument had concluded and had been decided in my favor. Around 9 p.m., Chandoo and Obama left for another appointment, either in Palo Alto or San Francisco. In retrospect, Obama had proved to me that he was indeed, as Boss had promised, “on our side.”

Long before I realized Obama had grown into a spectacular political career, I have treasured this particular memory as an early example of my own intellectual growth and an early sign of my modest promise as a teacher. At the time, I had the impression that I might have been one of the first to directly challenge Obama’s Marxist-Leninist mind-set and to introduce him to a more practical view that saw politics, rather than revolution, as the preferred route to socialism. Had I really persuaded him, or was he just making nice to smooth things over with a new friend? I’d like to think it was the former.

Whatever progress I made with Obama that evening, the price of our debate was a greater ideological wedge between me and Boss and a further decline in our rocky relationship. Our relationship would officially end in February and then flicker out completely by June 1981 — much to the satisfaction of Boss’s father.

I remember that Obama was friendly to me on at least three other occasions over the next several months. For example, Boss and I visited the apartment he shared with Chandoo. I spoke with him again on campus in the student union. I saw him on campus in The Cooler — the school’s coffee and sandwich shop. I also spoke with him at large party in June 1981. I certainly considered him a friend, a confidant and a political ally in the larger struggle against poverty and oppressive social systems.

Whatever impact our encounter might have had on him, I know something about what Barack Obama believed in 1980. At that time, the future president was a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, although perhaps — for the first time — considering conventional politics as a more practical road to socialism. Knowing this, I think I have a responsibility to place on the public record my account of this incident from our president’s past.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog . Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College. Today, Dr. Drew makes his living as an author, trainer, and consultant in the field of non-profit grant writing, fund raising and program evaluation. To book Dr. Drew for your event, please go here.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2011/02/meeting_young_obama.html at July 19, 2012 – 09:26:53 PM CDT

ID Guide To The Democrats’ Ideal Voter

Townhall.com logo

July 20, 2012

Democrats’ Ideal Voter: Illegal Alien, Single Mother, Convicted Felon

By Ann Coulter

7/18/2012

Before taking the oath of office, Barack Obama vowed to fundamentally transform the United States.
He has certainly done so. For example, Obama has:

– destroyed the job market;

– sent billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, companies overseas, his campaign contributors and public sector unions;

– forced the passage of a wildly unpopular national health care law on a purely partisan vote;

– come out for gay marriage;

– refused to enforce laws on illegal immigration;

– eliminated the work requirement for welfare.

How can a country that elected Ronald Reagan have Obama tied in the polls with Mitt Romney?
The answer is: It’s not the same country.

Similarly, when two successful, attractive multimillionaire women in California can’t beat a geriatric leftist like Jerry Brown or an old prune like Barbara Boxer, that’s not the same state that elected Ronald Reagan twice, either.

The same process that has already destroyed California is working its way through the entire country.
While conservatives have been formulating carefully constructed arguments, liberals have been playing a long-term game to change the demographics of America to get an electorate more to their liking.

They will do incalculable damage to the nation and to individual citizens, but Democrats will have an unbeatable majority. Just like California, the United States is on its way to becoming a Third World, one-party state.

Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the ethnic composition of America to make it more like Nigeria, considered more susceptible to liberal demagogues.

Since 1965, instead of taking immigrants that replicate the country’s existing ethnic mix, we’ve been admitting mostly immigrants from the Third World. At the same time, people from the countries that sent immigrants to this country for its first several centuries have been barred.

Eighty-five percent of immigrants now come from “developing countries.” (How are they ever going to develop if their people are all on the dole over here?)

The “browning of America” is not a natural process. It’s been artificially imposed by Democrats who are confident of their abilities to turn Third World immigrants into government patrons.

It’s worked. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57 percent of all immigrant households in the U.S. get cash, Medicaid, housing or food benefits from the government — compared with 39 percent of native households. The highest rates are for immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent).

Isn’t the idea to get immigrants with special skills? If you can’t even get a job, by definition, you do not have a special skill. Other than voting Democrat.

There’s a strange asymmetry in how this matter can be discussed. Liberals and ethnic activists boast about how America would be better if it were more Latino, but no one else is allowed to say, “We like the ethnic mix as it is.”

That would be racist. By now no one even tries to disagree.

Liberals’ other plan to expand the Democratic rolls has been to destroy the family.

Every time someone gets a divorce, Democrats think: We got a new Democratic voter! Every time a child is born out of wedlock: We got a new Democratic voter! And if the woman has an abortion — we got a new Democratic voter!

According to recent polls, Obama has a negative job approval rating of 45 to 49 percent. The reason the polls are tied between Obama and Romney is that single women support Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. The Democrats’ siren song to single women is: Don’t worry, the government will be your husband.

Our prisons are overflowing with the results of the Democrats’ experiment of subsidizing illegitimacy. Children raised by a single mothers commit 72 percent of juvenile murders, 60 percent of rapes, have 70 percent of teenaged births, commit 70 percent of suicides and are 70 percent of high school dropouts.

Controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is being raised by a single parent. (The second strongest predictor is having a tattoo.)

A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.

Human beings in God’s image are being born into ruined lives at rates that boggle the mind.

Illegitimate children are never given a chance, their lives destroyed by this social pathology. And

Democrats say: More Democratic voters!

Throw in felons voting, and the Democrats have an unbeatable majority.

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com’s daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

America’s Armed Forces are Being Gutted

A former flight school classmate and retired Army General Officer, offers this Wall Street Journal article to ponder.
Lowflyer

His Comment:
“The public appears to have been sleeping while this wreck has been building for over a year.  Only the military folks understand the looming disaster and we seem impotent when it comes to raising the alarm on important subjects like this one. The impact of sequestration will be felt for years.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wall Street Journal
July 19, 2012
Pg. 16

The Coming Defense Crack-Up

The Commander in Chief smiles into a damaging sequester.

Some policy train wrecks in Washington are sudden. Then there’s the catastrophe playing out in slow motion known as defense sequestration.

Barring Presidential leadership soon, the Pentagon will be walloped with another deep and disproportionate funding cut—around 9% across the board, or nearly $50 billion a year for a decade. Under last year’s Budget Control Act, President Obama and Congress need to agree on new federal savings to stop these cuts from hitting on January 2.

Like an audience at a horror movie, nearly everyone paying attention is yelling “watch out!” into a political and media void. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey calls sequestration “an unacceptable risk” that will “increase the likelihood of conflict” in a world with a weaker America. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says it’s “unworkable” and “a disaster” that will “hollow out the force and inflict severe damage to our national defense.”

The Commander in Chief? Preoccupied by his re-election campaign since, oh, last summer, Mr. Obama is missing in action. Led by California’s Buck McKeon, the House of Representatives in May adopted a plan to offset the defense and other cuts due next year with reductions elsewhere in the budget. The White House promised a veto, and Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t schedule a Senate vote.

Democrat Carl Levin and Republicans John McCain and Kelly Ayotte are floating ideas to spare the Pentagon, but they can’t overcome Presidential obstruction. Despite bipartisan pleas, the White House budget office has refused even to answer questions from Congress about how the cuts would be applied across federal agencies.

Democratic leaders say sequestration hits defense and other programs equally by splitting the $1.2 trillion down the middle. Senator Reid says he “is not going to move off” this defense cliff, adding that “It’s a balanced approach to reduce the deficit that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.”

Not quite. If implemented, the Pentagon budget would be cut by another 9% (or $492 billion) over the next decade, on top of the $487 billion in cuts that are already planned. Defense accounts for the largest share of total sequestration, or 42.6%, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.

A mere 14.8% would come from entitlement programs, which would be cut by $171 billion—or less than 1%. Social Security and Medicare are exempt, and cuts to Medicaid would be capped at 2%. Spending on entitlements is five times larger than defense, and growing. The rest of the cuts would be taken out of nondefense discretionary programs.

The Pentagon is the one part of the federal government that Mr. Obama has consistently tried to shrink. Coming into office, he squeezed $350 billion out of weapons programs, and he followed this year with $487 billion more over the next decade. The Administration’s proposed fiscal 2013 Pentagon budget is the first in 15 years to decline in nominal terms. The sequestration cuts would leave the defense budget some 30% smaller in 10 years.

Defense shouldn’t be immune from cuts, but Mr. Obama’s policy choices are turning America into an entitlement state with a shrinking military—in other words, Europe. The U.S. would be left with the smallest Navy since World War I, the smallest ground forces in 70 years, and at just over 2.5% of GDP the smallest defense budget since Pearl Harbor.
Sequestration compounds the damage because the cuts would be automatic and indiscriminate. The Pentagon now concedes that funding for the war in Afghanistan would be hit, contrary to past assurances. So would current operations in the Persian Gulf.

Training programs, equipment maintenance and military benefits are affected too. Defense contractor Lockheed Martin says the law obliges it to send layoff warnings as soon as October to most of its 123,000 workers—the kind of manufacturing jobs Democrats claim to love.

After a decade of hard wars, the military has worn down its equipment and delayed upgrades and important maintenance. The end of the Iraq deployment and the withdrawal from Afghanistan offer an opportunity to modernize forces, which the Obama cuts will prevent. With China spending lavishly on its military and the Middle East unsettled, Americans may come to regret this as much as we did the rash cuts after previous wars.
Mr. Obama knows all this from his own Pentagon’s warnings, so why is he inviting a crack-up? The answer is that he wants to use GOP concerns about defense to bludgeon Republicans into accepting a huge tax increase. Republicans were unwise to accept the sequestration deal while leaving entitlements off the table, thus handing Mr. Obama more leverage.

But perhaps they never expected that a Commander in Chief who swore an oath to safeguard America’s national security would play such a dangerous game. It’s not the first time this President’s political cynicism has been underestimated.

Respectfully,

John Revelle
God Bless America!

John Steinbeck on Helicopter Pilots

Cobrapilot82 contributed this bit of lore from the Vietnam War:
Only a handful of people have won both the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes in literature. One of them was iconic American novelist John Steinbeck. His incredible body of work stretched from Tortilla Flat to Of Mice and Men, from Grapes of Wrath to Cannery Row to East Of Eden.  He had a gift for the language that few before or since have possessed.

 Not widely known is the fact that in 1966-67, a year before his death, he went to Vietnam at the request of his friend Harry F. Guggenheim, publisher of Newsday to do a series of reports on the war. The reports took the form of letters to his dear friend Alicia Patterson, Newsday’s first editor and publisher.  Those letters have been published in a book by Thomas E. Barden, Vietnam veteran and professor of English at the University of Toledo. The book is entitled, “Steinbeck on Vietnam: Dispatches From The War.”

 I found the following passages relevant to our experience in Vietnam and his ability to weave a vision is just magical. On January 7, 1967, Steinbeck was in Pleiku, flying with Shamrock Flight, D Troop, 10th Cavalry:

“…We are to move to the Huey of Major James Patrick Thomas of whom it is said that he has changed the classic sophist’s question to how many choppers could Thomas sit on the point of a pin.

 Alicia, I wish I could tell you about these pilots. They make me sick with envy. They ride their vehicles the way a man controls a fine, well-trained quarter horse. They weave along stream beds, rise like swallows to clear trees, they turn and twist and dip like swifts in the evening. I watch their hands and feet on the controls, the delicacy of the coordination reminds me of the sure and seeming slow hands of (Pablo) Casals on the cello. They are truly musicians hands and they play their controls like music and they dance them like ballerinas and they make me jealous because I want so much to do it. Remember your child night dream of perfect flight free and wonderful? It’s like that, and sadly I know I never can.

My hands are too old and forgetful to take orders from the command center, which speaks of updrafts and side winds, of drift and shift, or ground fire indicated by a tiny puff or flash, or a hit and all these commands must be obeyed by the musicians hands instantly and automatically. I must take my longing out in admiration and the joy of seeing it.

Sorry about that leak of ecstasy, Alicia, but I had to get it out or burst.”

The man just had a way with words, no?

The United States as an oil exporter?

Lothian offers this insight and an article from Town Hall:

The changes are even more dramatic than Hanson says; accoding to latest estimates, oil shale beds in the US contain between 3 to 5 times the oil that Arabia has. Soon the USA will be an oil exporter; not even Obama can restrain this new dynamic.

Townhall.com logo

July 13, 2012
The World is Changing Minute by Minute

By Victor Davis Hanson

7/12/2012

We are witnessing a seismic shift in global affairs. The shake-up is a perfect storm of political, demographic and technological change that will soon make the world as we have known it for the last 30 years almost unrecognizable.

Since the mid-1980s there have been a number of accepted global constants. The European Union was assumed to have evolved beyond the nation-state as it ended the cycle of militarism and renounced free-market capitalism. With its strong euro, soft power and nonaligned foreign policy, the EU was praised as a utopian sort of foil to the overarmed U.S. with its ailing dollar.

Germany, ostracized after losing two world wars and struggling with the guilt of the Holocaust, as penance was to be permanently submerged in European alliances, as its economic power was always expected to prop up the eurozone experiment.

The Arab Middle East for the last 40 years seemed to be the world’s cockpit, as its huge petroleum reserves brought in trillions of dollars from an oil-depleted West, along with political concessions. Petrodollars fed global terrorism. Oil-poor Israel had little clout with Europe. In general, the West ignored any human-rights concerns involving the region’s oil-rich dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies, as well as their aid to Islamic terrorists.

Conventional wisdom also assumed that an indebted U.S. was in permanent decline, a cash-rich China in ascendency. The world would increasingly make the necessary political corrections as it pivoted eastward.

But none of that conventional wisdom now seems very wise — largely because of a number of technological breakthroughs and equally unforeseen political upheavals.

The eurozone is unraveling. An aging, shrinking population and a socialist welfare state lead to serfdom, not utopia. War guilt and EU membership will no longer ensure German subsidies, but rather serve to alienate the German public. Europe’s cloudy future hinges not on Brussels technocrats, but on Europeans learning how to deal with a dynamic, increasingly confident and peeved Germany.

The Arab Middle East is now in a free fall. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen were ousted, while one in Syria totters. But while the world hoped secular democrats would follow in their wake, more likely we are witnessing the emergence of one-election Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. The region will be mired in turmoil whether these upheavals turn out to be like the hijacked Iranian revolution that ended in theocracy, or the Turkish democratic model that is insidiously becoming Islamist.

Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil fuel reserves in the world — in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal soon never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. “Peak oil” is suddenly an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras.

If the United States utilizes its resources, then its present pathologies — massive budget and trade deficits, mounting debt, strategic vulnerability — will start to subside. These new breakthroughs in petroleum engineering are largely American phenomena, reminding us that there is still something exceptional in the American experience that periodically offers the world cutting-edge technologies and protocols — such as those pioneered by Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Walmart.

In comparison, China is not only resource-poor but politically impoverished. For decades we were told that Chinese totalitarianism, when mixed with laissez-faire capitalism, led to sparkling airports and bullet trains, while a litigious and indulgent America settled for a run-down LAX and creaking Amtrak relics. But the truth is that the Los Angeles airport will probably sooner look modern than the Chinese will hold open elections amid a transparent society — given that free markets did not make China democratic, only more contradictory.

Even more surreal, tiny oil-poor Israel, thanks to vast new offshore finds, has been reinvented as a potential energy giant in the Middle East. Such petrodollars will change Israel as they did the Persian Gulf countries, but with one major difference. Unlike Dubai or Kuwait, Israel is democratic, economically diverse, socially stable and technologically sophisticated, suggesting the sudden windfall will not warp Israel in the manner it has traditional Arab autocracies, but instead become a force multiplier of an already dynamic society. Will Europe still snub Israel when it has as much oil, gas and money as an OPEC member in the Persian Gulf?

Who would have thought that a few fracking innovators in Texas would change the world’s carbon footprint far more than did Nobel laureate Al Gore — while offering a way for the U.S. to be energy-independent. Or that Angela Merkel, not the European Union, would run Europe. Or that Arabs would be overthrowing Arabs, as oil-rich Israel idly watched.

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.
 

Financial System Collapse and Precious Metals Market Manipulation

Publius 21st Century Offers this sobering reality:

The collapse is inevitable UNLESS the banksters can continue to manipulate the PM (Precious Metals) markets while they continue to buy tons of the stuff to gain sufficient bank reserves.

Their doing so will push the prices of the stuff to new heights.

It’s all in the concept of fractional reserve banking where the bank takes in deposits, loans out 90%, keeping 10% as cash reserves.  The problem comes when the borrower spends the loan on foreign goods and/or services.  The cash flows out of the closed banking system into the foreign country’s banking system.

Many foreign countries keep some of that cash as PART OF THEIR BANK RESERVES; remember, in the U.S., cash is a tier 1 reserve.  They then engage in their own fractional reserve banking where they monetize those cash reserves and loan the money out over and over again.

It’s like building a house on sand rather than cement footers with rebar.  That U.S. cash held as reserves in foreign countries is backed up by . . . . faith.

When the value of the dollar falls due to over expansion of our money supply, when the bonds cannot be rolled over without interest rates climbing to induce investors to take additional risk to buy them, if there is restructuring of the debt (a form of default)on our bonds, increased taxation to pay for them, plunging production due to over taxation, war, some other crisis that we can’t foresee coming at this time, what happens to the purchasing value of the money in circulation in all those countries using our dollars as part of the reserve basis of their currency?

There will be a worldwide stampede for the exits to get out of dollars and buy . . . PM’s.
It will be like a kids game of musical chairs where no one wants to be left holding the fiat paper.

Throughout all recorded history, fiat paper money has always reverted to its absolute value, which is zero.

Secret Service Now The Enforcer Of Administration’s Free Speech Suppression Campaign

It seems that every day brings another example of the Obama administration’s war on the First Amendment.
Secret Service shuts down ‘fire Eric Holder’ protest
Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/secret-service-shuts-down-fire-eric-holder-protest/article/2501155








Photo -  Photo c/o Campus Reform
Photo c/o Campus Reform

U.S. Secret Service officers shut down a student-led protest calling for President Obama to fire Attorney General Eric Holder this morning, according to a report from in front of the White House.

After discovering a “suspicious package,” the Secret Service ended the protest. “Several agents seemed hostile to our march and seemed anxious for us to leave the area,” Maurice Lewis, a University of California student, told Campus Reform. “The discover[y of] the ‘unidentified package’ came just as the protest began gain traction.”

The U.S. House of Representatives cited Holder for contempt of Congress on Thursday after he defied a subpoena demanding documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, the gun-walking scheme that claimed border patrol agent Brian Terry’s life.

The Justice Department denied, in a February 4, 2011, letter to Congress, that law enforcement ever allow guns to be trafficked into Mexico. In December 2011, DOJ retracted that claim.

About 50 students congregated outside the White House this morning for the anti-Holder protest.

The Supreme Court, The Constitution, and Politics…They Don’t Mix

Playing Politics with the Constitution

SOURCE: http://www.icontact-archive.com/FEgdUq2-3KhVnIWd7rSXv8vuy8ug2DkT?w=4

Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the Obamacare individual mandate shocked the world. Despite his protestations to the contrary, his ruling that the individual mandate is a tax and not a penalty ignores explicit statements from Congress, disregards decades of precedent on this subject, turns judicial restraint on its head, and opens a new floodgate for federal abuses. So, I immediately asked myself why he did what he did. Within a day the answer became apparent: Justice Roberts set aside the Constitution to play politics.

Immediately after the ruling was made public I began hearing conservatives pushing the idea that Justice Roberts’ ruling was a stroke of genius. The idea is that leaving Obamacare in place will ensure Obama’s defeat in the upcoming election.

I agree that Thursday’s ruling may help Romney and hurt Obama. Polls unambiguously show that Obamacare is very unpopular. Even among liberals the popularity of Obamacare has been trending down since its passage. The longer Obamacare is in place the more we will learn about this horrible law, and the less popular it will become.  More importantly, elections turn on which party’s base turns out to vote. In political circles it is a well-known fact that voters turn out when their leader is under attack by the opposing party. I was recently told by a Republican Senator that Congress would never attempt to impeach Obama before the November election, regardless of what crimes Obama may commit, because any such attempt would bring out the Obama voter base.

A ruling against Obamacare would have stirred up Obama’s voters because it would have been perceived as an attack against Obama himself. Even the liberals who don’t like Obamacare would have rushed to the voting booth to defend their leader. Leaving Obamacare in place had the opposite effect. It made liberals less likely to be mad enough to vote, and it certainly riled up the conservative voters. This effect is demonstrated by the millions of dollars raised by the Romney campaign between Thursday morning and now. Republican party operatives and so-called conservative pundits are now pushing the idea that we must win back the country by ensuring that Obama is defeated in November.

I’m convinced that Justice Roberts’ appalling disregard of the Constitution was motivated by his desire to ensure Obama’s defeat in November. This would explain his surprising agreement with Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Ginsberg. It explains his disregard of well-established precedent on the tax and spend clause. It explains what is otherwise a completely unsupportable ruling.

If I’m right about Justice Roberts’ motives he should be impeached (at the very least) for violating his oath of office. It does not matter whether we agree that Obama must be defeated. It does not matter that Thursday’s ruling may get Romney elected. Supreme Court Justices should never play politics with the Constitution.

Justice Roberts’ statement that “It is not our (the Supreme Court’s) job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” is shocking in the extreme. This is EXACTLY the job of the Supreme Court! Our Constitution protects individuals from a tyrannical majority. Political choices of the majority can NEVER violate the God-given rights of even one person. The Constitution was written to protect THIS principle. Now the Chief Justice has told us that it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the political choices of the majority. Anyone tempted to justify Justice Roberts’ ruling by claiming that it was a brilliant political move has completely missed the point of our entire system of government.

Our Constitution is the only thing protecting individual citizens against a tyrannical government. It is the only thing that can prevent our government from falling into absolute despotism. In order to function the Constitution must be enforced by a Supreme Court that does not bend to political whims. Constitutional limits on authority must be absolute, or they are not limitations at all. Justice Roberts sacrificed the Constitution to political considerations. This is unforgivable.

It’s bad enough when politicians think like politicians: no consideration of right or wrong, only political calculation, despite the moral implications. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thinks like a politician, all is lost.

I thank God that Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito wrote a scathing dissent. They summarized the Roberts’ opinion well:

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Decisions to ignore principles for short-term gain lead to deep regrets. If Justice Roberts’ was motivated by political considerations, then he will almost certainly regret his decision in the near future. A lot can happen between now and the election, American memories are short.

Liberty Legal Foundation intends to use its existing Obamacare Class Action lawsuit to bring Obamacare to the Supreme Court again. Because we have already begun our lawsuit we are well-positioned to reach the Supreme Court quickly. With a little providence we will reach the Court just when Justice Roberts has begun to regret last week’s mistake.

For Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION