Why Liberals Kill

By Selwyn Duke
"Liberal institutions straightaway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." This quotation's author, Friedrich Nietzsche, was no traditionalist himself; in fact, he was a harsh critic of Christianity who coined the phrase "God is dead." Yet he knew that your republic would be dead the day liberals assumed enough power within it.
This understanding is necessary to properly evaluate the current Obama administration scandals involving NSA surveillance and IRS abuses. Critics' main focus has been debating what power the government should have, and this is a legitimate and important discussion. But even more significant is who wields that power. After all, you can exhaustively regulate the police, but it will be largely for naught if those with the great power of a gun and badge are fundamentally corrupt.

The recently departed Buzzfeed columnist Michael Hastings touched on liberals' will to tyranny in a piece titled "Why Democrats Love to Spy on Americans." Addressing the surveillance scandal he wrote:

The very topic of Democratic two-facedness on civil liberties is one of the most important issues that [Guardian columnist Glenn] Greenwald has covered. Many of those Dems - including the sitting President Barack Obama, Senator Carl Levin, and Sec. State John Kerry - have now become the stewards and enhancers of programs that appear to dwarf any of the spying scandals that broke during the Bush years, the very same scandals they used as wedge issues to win elections in the Congressional elections [sic] 2006 and the presidential primary of 2007-2008.

Precisely. When G.W. Bush played fly-on-the-wall, he was a lawless fascist. But when liberal Democrats play 1984�-Brave New World, well, as Senator Harry Reid said earlier this month, "Everyone should just calm down."

But liberals are actually being quite consistent - historically. Infamous leftist Maximilien Robespierre is best known for authoring the French Revolution's spasm of violence and using the guillotine to murder thousands. What's less well known is that prior to assuming power Robespierre was a staunch death-penalty opponent.

And the list continues. The communist Khmer Rouge promised Cambodians peace, equality and prosperity, but then proceeded to kill off a third of them between 1975 and '79. The Soviet Bolsheviks adopted the slogan "bread, peace and land," but then purposely starved to death nine million people during the "Great Famine." Mao Zedong pledged to give the Chinese a better life but only delivered a quicker death, exterminating 60+ million of his countrymen. Fidel Castro promised his nation free elections in 1959, but then became the world's longest-serving non-royal leader, reigning as Cuba's dictator for 52 years.

In our time, too, this leftist shape-shifting is evident. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) preaches an animal-liberation line and even condemns meat consumption, but kills 89 percent of its shelter animals. Barack Obama promised to have history's most transparent administration, yet it has been the most opaque, giving us scandals characterized by abuse of law and power and the trampling of Americans' rights. And this brings us to a question: Does power really corrupt liberals more absolutely than anyone else?

I remember an incident in which a very liberal colleague at a former workplace was caught in a misdeed. His response was to cavalierly brush it off, saying with a chuckle, "Situational values." Another incident at that business involved a student of mine to whom I was quite close. Alluding one day to the difference between me and his liberal parents, he said out of the blue (I'm paraphrasing), "You're the only one who's consistent, who says the same things all the time." Is this a surprise? Liberals have given us the credos "If it feels good, do it" and "Whatever works for you [addendum: 'at the moment']."

This brings us to a truth about the modern left. Generally speaking, like all relativistic people, liberals don't have principles.

They have feelings.

And feelings change with the wind.

Of course, some have learned the hard way - mostly through debating liberals, only to find they're virtually immune to reason - that the left isn't intellect-oriented but emotion-oriented. But the question is, why do liberals deify their own feelings?

The short answer is that they have little else to deify.

But a more in-depth understanding requires some philosophical exploration.

Let's face reality: it can be hard for us human beings to be consistent. Principle can sometimes bump up against our worldly desires, and this is when being "situational" can be seductive. But there are things that can influence a person's likelihood to stand on principle. One is having a world view stating that consistency actually is better than inconsistency.

I've long pointed out that the most basic difference between the people we today call liberals and traditionalists isn't the apparent ideological divide. It is that the latter tend to believe in Moral Truth whereas liberals are almost universally moral relativists.

This is nothing less than an issue of operating in two completely different universes of reality. When you believe in Truth, morality is something objectively real to you, like matter itself. And most significantly, you view it as what it is: unchanging. This means that your yardstick for morality is the same whether convenient or inconvenient, whether you're out of power - or in power. It is unbending and non-negotiable. Oh, this doesn't mean absolutists can't betray their principles; man is weak and we all falter. But in the aggregate, it serves as a "controlling power upon will and appetite," to quote Edmund Burke, and thus mitigates man's do-what-thou-wilt default.

But what happens when a person doesn't believe in Truth? What then will be his yardstick for behavior? Well, if what we call right and wrong isn't determined by anything above man, then man himself is its author. But will it ultimately be a function of his intellect? Consider that the intellect's job is to use reason, a quality that the relativistic left ostensibly values. What is reason, however? It's not an answer, but a method by which answers may be found. But there can be no answers to moral questions if there's no Truth; hence, there then is no reason for reason.

This is why following relativism out leads us to a striking conclusion: Since we can't say that anything is objectively right or wrong, better or worse, the only yardstick we have left for behavior is feelings. Truth is a tale, faith is fancy, but emotion is certainly real. We can feel it - deeply. And, oh, how seductive is that siren of anger, envy or any passion? Just think how readily emotion inspires action.

So, ultimately, relativism boils "morality" down to taste. This is why that guide "If it feels good, do it" really does make more sense in the modern liberal universe than anything else. But whose feelings should hold sway? Well, we may to an extent defer to those of the collective, but, ultimately, you're just another mortal, same as I. Why should I subordinate my feelings to yours, especially since mine are the only ones truly real to me? This is, mind you, what contributes to the deification of the self. Liberals' feelings do for them what God does for people of faith. They tell them how to behave.

And this is why liberals will often do anything for victory. When the Truth lies at the center of your world view, it will, in its immutable and infallible way, define what's right. But nature abhors a vacuum; thus, when a person's core is bereft of Truth, an emotion-derived agenda takes its place. It then defines what's "right." And that will be whatever advances that agenda at the moment, be it vote fraud, targeting opponents with the IRS or, when power is sufficiently solidified, perhaps killing 25 million "capitalists." And the lesson, dear voters, is that it really does matter what master your leaders serve.  

This morality-of-the-moment madness is why, in all fairness, liberals aren't always quite as hypocritical as they seem (just almost). For hypocrisy is saying one thing while intending to do another. Robespierre might have been very sincere when inveighing against capital punishment while out of power, and also very sincere when using it liberally while in power. It's just that the decrees of his personal god, you see, had changed.

And now we have a change agent, in every sense of the term, in the White House.

 End of Article
********** 
If you found this article useful and enlightening, please consider my published book which contains other insight and understanding on  the difficult problems facing our country and the common sense solutions we need to fix them.

The book is available at amazon.com at the link here:
http://www.amazon.com/This-U-S-Citizen-Thoughts-Concerns/dp/1451509979/ 
 
This U.S. Citizen   
**********

Liberalism's Willing Executioners

By Paul Kengor
Here at American Thinker last week, my friend Herb Meyer wrote a piece that's getting a lot of attention. He noted that as the Obama administration erupts into scandal, we look everywhere for a smoking gun leading back to the president. Don't bother, cautions Meyer. If you study history, you'll realize few such documents ever materialize. The example he cited has gotten much attention: "Very few people are aware of this, but there is no document -- not one -- linking Adolf Hitler to the Holocaust. Why not? Because Hitler didn't need to sign a document ordering the slaughter of six million Jews." All that Hitler needed to do, notes Meyer, was demonize his enemies and then hire thugs like Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and Josef Goebbels to do the rest. They knew what he wanted, and then they handled the details.



Meyer carefully warned that Obama and his minions are in no way comparable to Hitler and his. "That's absurd," he writes. "I am merely pointing out that President Obama has been going about the business of demonizing his political enemies, and then hiring thugs to destroy them without regard to the law, in precisely the same way that Hitler and his fascists did it in Germany. This isn't an accusation; it's an observation."



I reiterate that caveat here. As Herb Meyer and I both know, it does a disservice to the horrific evil orchestrated by the Nazis when analogies to the Holocaust are misplaced or exaggerated. The analogy here, as Meyer says, is used merely to drive home a point that people will understand.



With that same caveat, I would like to pick up the analogy, because Meyer is indeed on to something that should worry us greatly, especially given the political psychology of American liberals.



A book came out in 1996 called Hitler's Willing Executioners, by Daniel Goldhagen. The book remains controversial with (rightly so) plenty of detractors. But Goldhagen's principal argument has merit -- namely, that Adolf Hitler himself never killed a single Jew; rather, it took countless thousands and millions of ordinary Germans to carry out -- to execute -- Hitler's plan. In this, Goldhagen was exactly right, and his observation ties back to Meyer's thesis and, more so, what I've long feared is happening with the American Left.



What Hitler and his minions did was thoroughly demonize their enemies, convincing the German masses that Jews and other despised groups were subhuman, untermenschen. A major factor in Hitler's political advancement was his amazing ability to fabricate an assortment of handy scapegoats for the nation's ills. He got away with blaming anyone but himself for whatever calamity or misfortune. As he did, his followers assented, nodding their heads and bleating like sheep.



What the American Left has done to its enemies is not entirely dissimilar, even while certainly not approaching the crass, deadly level of the Nazis. But whether it's Obama himself, or his campaign, or Media Matters or MoveOn.org or any number of left-wing groups and websites and publications and media outlets, the American Left has been merciless in thoroughly demonizing opponents. Liberals don't just politely disagree, or agree that people can disagree; no -- too often they caricature those who disagree as vile reprobates with no possible good intentions or reasoning for their positions. It's a very illiberal thing to do.



Take the Tea Party, for starters. Once they saw the Tea Party's effectiveness, especially after the 2010 midterm elections, liberals/"progressives" went on a rampage, smearing the wide swath of Tea Party members (whom they probably never met) as recalcitrant racists. It was a charge totally unfair and ludicrous. I know people in the Tea Party. I watched the group develop. They are absolutely not racists; they were driven completely by the fiscal madness of Obama and the Pelosi Democratic Congress in the first six months of Obama's presidency. But once liberals starting ramping up their crude caricature, with congressmen and NPR executives and respected left-wing journals of opinion like the New York Times leading the way, the liberal mob responded in kind. Tea Party members were labeled as the worst kind of "extremists."



The result was shocking to behold. Like wildfire, liberals/progressives everywhere were swept up, fuming with anger and fanning the flames. They mimicked the party line without any question whatsoever. They whipped themselves into an emotional frenzy, convinced with absolute righteousness that this insidious group of racists was trying to undermine the saintly, kindly Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin.



As conservatives, we saw from the outset that this was pure politics -- actually, pure political demagoguery. Conservative talk-shows played clips from select liberals (such as Chuck Schumer) admitting as much. We saw right through it. But liberals don't think that way. They aren't wired that way. They're incredibly emotional people who can be easily prodded by their party/ideological elite, especially with the spontaneity and instant communication of social media -- the new mother's milk of the liberal mob. They really are prone to fads and fashions and mass behavior in ways that conservatives plainly aren't. I've seen it again and again. Conservatives aren't perfect, and have their own quirks and vices, but they don't tend toward this kind of group thinking and collective action. For conservatives, the ability to think logically and independently, based upon beliefs and values deeper and timeless, and to not be seduced by what Pope Benedict XVI calls the "anonymous power" of the latest fads and fashions, is what makes them conservative to begin with.



And so, when word was out among the Left that the Tea Party was comprised of genuine evildoers, the wider liberal masses, whether at blogs and nonprofits and Facebook or working for the IRS not only responded; they retaliated. They acted naturally. They didn't need Obama to tell them what to do. Exactly as Herb Meyer says, there was never any need for a printed order from Obama.



Tea Party aside, the American Left is also viciously targeting those who dare to oppose gay marriage. Here, too, liberals/progressives refuse to agree to disagree. Those who stand for traditional marriage as people have understood it since the literal dawn of humanity are framed as awful people, as intolerant "haters," almost subhuman in their lack of compassion. They are a form of modern American untermesnchen, utterly despised -- contemptible. 



When an Oregon couple, a baker and his wife, declined to make a wedding cake for two members of the same sex, the apostles of tolerance and diversity went screaming mad, attacking the couple with profanities and threatening lawsuits -- with no respect at all for the couples' freedom. "You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical [expletive]," wrote one loving liberal in an email. "I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business." Another champion of compassion added: "Here's hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell."



Organizations trying to stop gay marriage -- that is, trying to stop the redefinition of marriage, and believe that children need a mom and a dad -- are being derided as "hate groups."



A near-tragic example happened with the Family Research Council, which was labeled a "hate group." I know people at the Family Research Council. They are good-hearted, classic social conservatives. Their social positions aren't different from where the Democratic Party stood for over a century.



But once an organization of "civil rights" liberals labeled the Family Research Council a "hate group," the charge went viral, and then, one fateful day last August, an enraged homosexual activist headed for the group's offices with an arsenal of bullets and weapons poorly concealed in Chick-fil-A bags. He was stopped only by an alert security guard, who was shot and injured.



This left-wing gay activist, convinced that the Family Research Council was promulgating "hate," was prompted to an act of attempted mass murder.



This example should be widely known. It isn't. Why not? Because the mainstream media hasn't made it a national issue. If this had been a conservative shooter targeting a liberal organization, with a conservative president in the White House, all of conservatism would be held complicit, and the media would demand the president condemn the action. There would be a national media campaign against "conservative extremism."



Speaking of Chick-fil-A, it, too, has been a target of leftist rage: boycotts, protests, pickets, mayors of big cities trying to ban the restaurant and describing its product as "hate chicken." Why? Simply because the CEO is against gay marriage, which not long ago was the position of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the entire Democratic Party.



Beyond Chick-fil-A, look at the Left's Occupy Wall Street brigades. Here again, there was no edict from Barack Obama or David Axelrod to organize these people. Nonetheless, plenty of incessant Obama demonization of "profits," corporate "jet-owners," nefarious "millionaires and billionaires," big banks, big oil, those not paying their "fair share," and, of course, the monsters on "Wall Street," did the trick. The "progressive" mob sprung into action. In no time, they were marching not only on Wall Street but on front lawns of corporate CEOs -- a very volatile situation.



And then there's the hideous charge that Republicans who oppose mandatory taxpayer funding of abortion somehow thus favor a "war on women." Sandra Fluke has become a liberal heroine for that cultural/political obscenity.



Enough said. On and on it goes. I could give countless examples, some of them personal. We all can. Any conservative can.



In sum, these leftists are Obama's and (more widely) liberalism's willing executioners. They obviously aren't literally executing people -- although that was indeed the literal intent of the Family Research Council gunman -- but they are executing what they believe is a glorious plan for the fundamental transformation of America. They are willingly executing Obama's agenda and their agenda. Any opponents are isolated as enemies and maligned in the most demeaning way. 



And what does this mean? Among other things, it means that liberals really do need to be damned careful about what they're doing here. There are seriously disturbing consequences to their systematic demonization of anyone who disagrees with them. This is becoming truly dangerous. Lives and careers will be destroyed.



Unfortunately, my warning will fall on deaf ears. Being driven by emotion to begin with, and then easily whipped into hysteria, liberals will reject my warning out of hand. After all, in their view, I'm defending the indefensible: vile racists and haters who are loathsome, have no dignity, and deserve to be ruined. On top of that, I'll be lucky if a hundred liberals even read this article and take it seriously.



In short, this country is in really bad shape. The America we knew is gone; it is over. This new breed of leftist is ascendant and angry, and changing the country and the culture in the process. The results are not pretty. Things are only going to get worse.

Lawyers Love President Obama

Our Partisan Bureaucracy — Lawyers Love President Obama

 

By  David French 

 

Thanks to the TaxProf blog and to Instapundit, I discovered this chart detailing political giving by government lawyers:

With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.
The civil-service system was designed to replace the spoils system, which — in addition to creating chaotic rushes of office-seekers with each change of administration — packed political hacks into important administrative positions. A civil service was supposed to change that unacceptable reality by placing the administration of the more neutral functions of the government into the hands of dispassionate professionals. Thus the strong federal job security in the civil service, greater security than enjoyed by virtually any private-sector employee. The job security — so the argument goes — was necessary to prevent the re-emergence of blatant political patronage.
But what if the combination of increasingly activist government with strong bureacratic bias re-creates federal service as a kind of permanent spoils system for the Left? Isn’t it inevitable that this leftist bureaucracy will eventually view itself not as a servant for all citizens but as an instrument of its own righteous ideology?
If the recent history of our universities is any guide, the products of a leftist bureacratic monoculture will be characterized by the following:
Ignorance: Groups of like-minded people are notoriously incurious about the ideas and perspectives of dissenters.
Condescension: They don’t let ignorance stand in the way of a bulletproof sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
Hatred: Since all the good people they know agree with them, they ascribe the worst of motives to the other side, believing them to be motivated by little more than greed and bigotry.
And, finally . . .
Fanaticism: Cass Sunstein described the ”law of group polarization” like this: “In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments.” In other words, when like-minded individuals deliberate, their common views grow more extreme over time.
We conservatives have a problem with Big Government, no matter who’s running it. But we also have a particular problem with this big government, as key agencies are increasingly staffed and run by individuals who wield enormous power, cannot be fired, and despise roughly half the American population. When Barack Obama urges supporters to “punish our enemies,” there are many federal employees only too willing to comply.

Obama's Bodyguard of Lies

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

President Obama and his people deserve at least one accolade: they have perfected lying into an art form.

Is anyone in Obama's closest orbit a truth-teller? 

Jay Carney, press secretary, lied about the Benghazi talking points, the effects of the federal budget sequestration, and Eric Holder;

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, a "congenital liar" according to the late William Safire in a 1996 NY Times column, lied to Congress about her role in the Benghazi security breach, and subsequent cover-up;

Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN,  lied to the American people on five successive TV news-interview shows about a video provoking the Benghazi attacks;   Eric Holder, Attorney General,  lied to Congress and to federal judges about his role and intentions in obtaining the surveillance and wiretapping authorization for journalist James Rosen;

Douglas Schulman, IRS Commissioner,  lied to Congress about the IRS  not targeting opponents and political enemies of the Obama administration;

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, lied to Congress about NSA not eavesdropping and collecting phone records and emails from millions of Americans;

Lisa Jackson , EPA Administrator, used at least one alias to avoid scrutiny by Congress;

Kathleen Sebelius,  Secretary of Heath and Human Services  lied about her secret government email accounts, and lied about her soliciting health insurance companies for illegal fund-raising, (and has lied about nearly every major provision in ObamaCare);

Arnie Duncan Secretary of Education, lied about the federal budget sequestration causing mass layoffs of teachers;

 Janet Napolitano Director of Homeland Security and Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation both lied about sequestration causing massive air travel delays;

Nancy Pelosi, previous Speaker of the House, lied about provisions in ObamaCare and about whether she was briefed about water boarding;

Harry Reid, US Senate Majority Leader, lied about deficit reduction provisions embedded in non-existent budget resolutions and about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior and his Energy Czar Carol Browner lied about and used fraudulent claims to impose an offshore drilling ban in the wake of the BP oil spill, then were rebuked by a federal judge.

If others in Obama's cabinet or inner circle haven't been caught lying, it may be only because they've kept their mouths shut.

Yet none of Obama's apprentices can match the master. Obama is an incontinent bladder of lies, deceptions, and red herrings gushing virtually non-stop whether in press conferences, campaign speeches, the State of the Union addresses, or remarks to foreign dignitaries.

 Stig Severinsen, who holds the world record for holding his breath under water for 22 minutes, couldn't endure long enough for the time needed to recite all of Obama's lies. Obama's catalog of lies is truly astonishing:

Obama's lying about the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United , about Al Qaeda "on the run," about "deficits shrinking," about Republicans initiating sequestration, about the Benghazi attacks incited by a video, about "you can keep your health plan and your doctor,"  about private sales of hand guns, and the latest about "we believe in the free market; we believe in a light touch when it comes to regulations," is more than political rhetoric or partisan posturing.  Lying is a way of life; truth seems untouchable, toxic, red hot radioactive to Obama and his minions.

Do you remember in 2009 when South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" as Obama declared in a major address to Congress that illegal aliens wouldn't get government paid health care? When in modern history has a president's lying provoked such a spontaneous outburst in real time? And barely months into his first term?

Lying has many shades; Obama has perfected the bald-faced type, the most jarring, with a repetition that files down the senses, grinds away at outrage.
Obama isn't the only occupant of the White House to have incorporated brazen lying into his daily habits. Bill Clinton was an accomplished liar, notably in denial of his own personal transgressions. For Clinton lying to a grand jury was just like any other conversation.  LBJ lied about Vietnam; yet Johnson the ultimate political manipulator knew he had misled the American people thus stood down from re-election.
Harry Truman wasn't shy about describing Richard Nixon's body of lies, of which Watergate was the watershed: "Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."
No one likes to be called a liar; it is such a crude Saxon label, and so dispositive; dissembler only a slightly more graceful epithet. Instead, being called an artful dodger would be far more becoming; even better to acquire a more sophisticated Latinate derivative, prevaricator.
More elusive variations on the straight-up unadorned and unvarnished lie have now become the norm, from subtle inflections to translucent mutations.  Untruths, partial truths, prevarications, sleights-of-hand, obfuscations, fabrications, distortions, misrepresentations, mistaken attributions, convenient amnesia, and contingent truths, all forms of dishonesty that seem to be accepted political discourse. They all define Obama's culture of deceit and betrayal of the American people.

I suppose serial lying, the pathological sort, is a form of sustained self-deception and insecurity sometimes accompanied by identity theft and fabrication of one's resume.   When lying becomes commonplace, truth telling is hard to recognize, and then so exceptional as impossible to be authentic.  And when lying is the norm, greeted not only with impunity, but affection, why tell the truth?

When Obama or any of his minions speak, do you expect impartial information, an honest appraisal, or objective analysis?  No, when Obama speaks, fact-checkers are forced into overdrive.

As lying becomes the default font, the most egregious practitioners collect the highest rewards. To wit: Susan Rice, a spectacular fivefold liar as US Ambassador to the UN, has now been rewarded by the president to be National Security Advisor, for her laying down the scent to divert the beagles and hounds in hot pursuit of the truth about Benghazi. 

One explanation for Obama's compulsive lying comes from the accounts of military deception in WWII written in 1975 by Anthony Cave Brown about Winston Churchill, who remarked to Stalin at Yalta: "In wartime, truth is so precious, she should be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Obama, the reparations crusader, sees himself at war.  At war with a litany of oppressors in his own nation who have seized his imagination since he was a small boy.   Yet what core of truth is he protecting? Well, it is the truth about himself and his agenda that dare not be exposed, much less admitted.

Enablers and apologists have enthusiastically embraced Obama's culture of deceit. Yet when they realize that they too are the enemy, will they discover a bodyguard of lies protects no one?

The Casual Tyrant

By George Neumayr

When caught, Obama just shrugs and suggests a “debate.”

It takes a special brand of chutzpah to use one’s own misdeeds as an occasion for “debate” or “updating” the law. Trust us to improve and reform the laws we are violating: that has been the essential message of the Obama administration over the last few weeks as scandal has engulfed it.
Eric Holder experimented with that tactic after he got nabbed for hacking into the emails of journalist James Rosen on a subpoena that defined him as a criminal spy. Instead of quitting, Holder dug in, casting the scandal as a learning experience for the nation, as if he had nothing to do with it. Now Obama is trying out that tactic to mollify Americans over the exposed NSA program. He is open to a “healthy” debate about it. Holder and Obama are like drunk drivers who cause a pile-up and then stroll back innocently to see if they can “help.”
At the same time, Obama wants Americans to rest easy knowing that the contents of their calls haven’t been monitored. Yes, we are spying on you, he in effect said last week, but not as extensively as these irresponsible media reports would suggest. Yes, we are tracing your calls, but “nobody is listening” to them. But, hey, if you still feel uncomfortable, we can always have a “debate” about it. What an easygoing and thoughtful tyrant.
This administration likes to shift attention from a present abuse of freedom by pointing to a greater abuse of freedom it hasn’t committed yet. Americans are supposed to be grateful that Obama’s NSA is only tracing their calls, not listening to them. Besides, said Obama, government is sure to handle this information with care.
This line of obfuscation is reminiscent of Kathleen Sebelius defending the constitutionality of the HHS mandate on the grounds that, yes, we are forcing most religious employers to pay for contraceptives but we are not forcibly injecting anybody with them. What government hasn’t done to you yet becomes the new standard of freedom. And then when the next abuse happens the government pushes the standard back a little more. In a few years, the line will move to: yes, we are listening to your calls, but we are not recording them; yes, we are forcing you to pay for abortion but we are not requiring you undergo one.
On this complacent view of freedom, which the ruling culture works hard to drill into the people, complaints about everything from the HHS mandate to the IRS scandal to government sweeps of “metadata” can be dismissed as paranoid alarmism or carping about minor, correctible problems. Nothing to fear; nothing that a little “debate” and negotiation can’t clear up.
And this propaganda often prevails. Polls suggest that a fair number of Americans don’t seem to care that much about the NSA scandal. They are joining Obama in his shrug. To paraphrase Orwell, everything is all right, the struggle is finished, they love Big Brother.
In a mindless, “What difference does it make?” culture, it is considered progress when everyone is mistreated by government equally. Obama’s America prefers metadata to profiling, prefers that Big Brother frisk everyone, from infants to grandmothers, rather than that the sensibilities of young males from Islamic countries be violated.
So the “debate” over which Obama has so generously volunteered to preside may not change anything. Like Holder, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper probably won’t pay any price for lying to Congress. Clapper hews to Bill Clinton’s understanding of perjury: that words can be privately defined. Do you collect data on the American people? Senator Ron Wyden asked him in a hearing not very long before the scandal broke. Rubbing his head oddly, Clapper said no. But that wasn’t perjury, he now claims, since “when someone says ‘collection’ to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.”
The Obama administration grants itself many such mulligans. One would think it might occur to the American people at some point that they can violate the law with the same casualness the Obama administration does. If the highest law contained in the Constitution isn’t binding, why are lesser laws binding? Acts of civil disobedience are bound to multiply in a country where the first acts of treachery are committed by government.

End of Article
********** 
If you found this article useful and enlightening, please consider my published book which contains other insight and understanding on  the difficult problems facing our country and the common sense solutions we need to fix them.

The book is available at amazon.com at the link here:
http://www.amazon.com/This-U-S-Citizen-Thoughts-Concerns/dp/1451509979/ 
 
This U.S. Citizen   
**********

The Education Bubble Has Burst

By Frank Ryan

The student loan debate in Congress is bringing to the forefront the student loan crisis plaguing our nation, as well as the financial instability of academic institutions in the United States.

Relative to the student loan crisis, the New York Federal Reserve concluded in its 2012 report that the obligations for student loans total approximately $1 trillion, or approximately $25,000 per graduate. 

The report notes that there are over 15 million borrowers under the age of 30, while the total number of borrowers is almost 39,000,000.  The delinquency rates on the loans range between 10% to 20% for the various age categories.

Surprisingly, the report indicates that there are 2.2 million borrowers over the age of 60, with an average balance due of $19,000.  The delinquency rate for these borrowers is approximately 12%.

Concurrent with the higher student loan balances, college enrollment rates for students have declined 2.3% in 2013 compared to 2012.  This decline is the first downward trend in enrollment in decades.

There are many factors which have contributed to the decline in college enrollment.  Major factors include rapidly increasing tuitions, higher unemployment rates for recent graduates, and the debilitating effects of student loan repayments on students and their parents.

The 21^st century is the first time in our nation's history in which the parents have had student loan debts and obligations and now have children considering entering college.  The experiences of these parents as well as the debt obligations themselves have discouraged their children from incurring too much debt.

Additionally, tuition increases for the period 2001 to 2011 have averaged 42% for public institutions and 31% for private institutions.  Such increases have significantly outpaced increases in income for the families supporting students as well as for the students themselves.  The net result is that the affordability index for college, meaning the ability to pay relative to income and funds available for education, is widening and making colleges relatively more expensive than they were decades ago.

Concurrently, Moody's in 2013 gave a negative financial outlook for all universities.  Recent studies have indicated that over 50% of all colleges and universities are projected to close, merge, or shut down in the next 50 years. 

The consolidation, failure, and decline have already started, and the pace will accelerate.

The causes of the insolvency for universities include:

• Continued escalation in college tuitions and fees compared to the overall rate of inflation.
• Limited growth in incomes of parents and students in recent years and continued high levels of unemployment of graduates.
• Extensive outstanding student loan debt already amounting to $1 trillion.
• Development of alternative education systems such as remote classes and internet systems.
• Growing debt of colleges and universities.
• Extraordinarily high fixed costs of colleges and universities, making the education system very susceptible to losses from reduced enrollment.
• Growing trend to "discount" tuition at major universities. This is very similar to the problem that faced hospitals with "contractual allowances."

The sum of all these factors will cause a collapse of the education systems as we know it. 

Obviously, schools that are well-funded and well-endowed will be little affected by this change.

However, marginally profitable schools, or schools with high debt loads which depend upon taxpayer support, will find survival difficult at best.

The economic realignment of education will occur due to the factors above, such that the following will most likely take place in the next five to ten years.

First, to stem declining enrollment, tuition will decrease.  Schools will struggle to maintain enrollment and in order to cover their fixed cost will be forced to reduce tuitions to encourage students and enrollment.

Second, faculty tenure and burgeoning cost of academic instruction will come under question and will be changed.  While existing tenured faculty will probably not be affected, the probability of getting tenure for other professors will be significantly more difficult, except at well-funded academic institutions.  Pay will likely decline as well.

Third, entire educational institutions will begin to file bankruptcy.  There has already been a major bankruptcy of a university in Atlanta, Georgia.  Other institutions that are not well-funded will meet the same fate.

Fourth, it is very obvious that academia will be forced to justify its cost relative to the value garnered from the education.  This will be one of the first times in history that the value of education relative to the cost will come under scrutiny.

The education bubble has burst!  It appears that it is only the university and government that do not understand the magnitude of the problem.

Parents and students alike are demanding accountability and results.  Once the system has been critically scrutinized by educators, students, taxpayers, and parents, improvements and cost reductions will finally be achieved.  The result will be a much stronger academic environment once the "cleansing" process has been completed.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/education_bubble_has_burst.html#ixzz2Vv5xGL2F
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Rise in Female Breadwinners Means America Is a Loser

By Selwyn Duke

When women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun.  This is brought to mind when pondering a recent Pew Research Center study showing that women are now the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of American households.  You may have heard the story -- it created quite a stir on Fox News, with Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (who became quite hysterical) taking exception to male colleagues' warnings about the development's sociological implications.  But if these two ladies, and the other critics, had reacted rationally and not emotionally, they would realize what is obvious:

The rise in female breadwinners is a sign of a civilization in decline.

Let's start by first examining the study.  While the term "breadwinner" conjures up images of pleasingly plump paychecks, the real story here is the rise of poor single mothers.  Among the 40 percent of women in the breadwinner group, 63 percent are single mothers.  This isn't surprising, since the rate of single motherhood has risen from about 4 percent in the 1940s to 41 percent today (72 percent in the black community).  So what kind of "bread" are we talking about?  Writes Amy Langfield of CNBC, "The median income for a single mother who has never been married was $17,400 as of 2011."  And, obviously, having large numbers of single mothers, with essentially fatherless children, struggling to make ends meet isn't good for the women, the children, or the society as a whole.

The picture looks better for the married 37 percent of the breadwinner group, but only by comparison.  Twenty-nine percent of these women's husbands are unemployed.  Moreover, Pew describes these women as older, college-educated, and white.  Translation: they're the one-child wonders.  These are often women who postpone childbirth in deference to careerism and then, perhaps after dropping a tidy sum at a fertility clinic, have their sole son or daughter.  Why does this warrant mention?  Because as the documentary Demographic Winter points out, this phenomenon is a significant contributing factor to the plummeting birth rates among Western peoples.  Outside New Zealand, there isn't one major European-descent group with a replacement-level birth rate.  And for all you secular-feminist chauvinists so proud of your cultural hegemony, what do you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?

So why can't the Megyn Kellys of the world perceive the rise in female breadwinners as the warning sign it is?  Because their feminist dogma teaches that any female "gain" relative to men is positive, and any criticism of it is blind male chauvinism.  These are the people who cheer girls' "better" performance in schools even though this is largely attributable to boys' worsening performance (and improved female test scores aren't relevant, because the exams, like the boys, have been dumbed down).  It's a mindset that would consider it a good thing if women won every future marathon because men either lost their legs or stopped running.

And that is the point.  If a warring nation must move a few divisions from the southern front to shore up the northern, it isn't a victory for those divisions; it means the war effort is waning.  And if the divisions' generals view it as a personal victory because they'll have the opportunity to distinguish themselves, they're self-centered and ignorant.  

Likewise, it was a sign of crisis when women had to assume men's roles in the factories during WWII, but the idea was that the crisis would end and normalcy resume.  But today we are in perpetual war -- culture war -- in a never-ending crisis in which we fight ourselves and confuse losses with gains.  No, the intersex wage gap isn't a bad thing, and it isn't good when it starts to close.  The size of that gap correlates with the health of the nuclear family; the larger it is, the greater men's ability to support their families and women's opportunity to stay at home with the children.  No, it isn't good when girls outshine boys in school, as this reflects a society of undisciplined lads and a hostile yet permissive, feminist-oriented academia.

And, no, it isn't good when you destroy patriarchy.  Why?  G.K. Chesterton put it best when he wrote, "What is called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible."  If you want matriarchy, just go into the black community.  Women rule the roost there, but they reign in a hell born of degraded morals and family breakdown.  There has never been a successful matriarchy -- the notion of a matriarchal prehistory is a myth -- and there never will be.

This is why, ultimately, the feminist model is destined for the dustbin of history.  The only system that ensures the perpetuation of civilization (replacement-level birth rates) is patriarchy; the only system that compels women and men to fulfill their responsibilities to hearth and home is patriarchy.  And this is why, barring the end of man or a dystopian future in which children are lab-created assembly-line style to be the collective's drones, patriarchy is inevitable.

There is no substitute for tradition. The Soviets learned this the hard way, for after undermining the family, sex roles, and religion, mass murderer Joseph Stalin actually outlawed abortion in a vain attempt to combat a bottomed-out birth rate.  But today Russia's population is still declining by 700,000 per year -- the wages of their statist sin.

When a people would be invaded or conquered years ago, the men and boys above a certain age would sometimes be killed.  Emasculate a society, and it's no longer a force to be reckoned with.  But we have emasculated ourselves, killing off manhood by neutering men emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually.  This won't end well, but for sure it will end.  Because the feminist band can play on, but the rising water will soon drown out their music -- for good.

 End of Article
********** 
If you found this article useful and enlightening, please consider my published book which contains other insight and understanding on  the difficult problems facing our country and the common sense solutions we need to fix them.

The book is available at amazon.com at the link here:
http://www.amazon.com/This-U-S-Citizen-Thoughts-Concerns/dp/1451509979/ 
 
This U.S. Citizen   
**********

Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill

By Jeffrey Lord 

IRS, NSA, Obamacare, auto black boxes vindicate author of back-to-Constitution basics.

“Do they even understand the founding of this nation?…Look at the Constitution!”
So begins another Mark Levin radio show in which the third most popular talk show host in the land ( behind Rush and Hannity) does his distinctly unique brand of radio, a brand that is focused on educating Americans about the nation’s founding document: The Constitution of the United States. A brand that includes a lengthening series of bestselling books discussing a subject that many once considered arcane at best if not embarrassingly irrelevant.
Mark Levin has become the Constitution’s Churchill.
Churchill, recall, the man who for years in the 1930s stood almost alone in his warnings of the dangers in appeasing Nazi aggression. Dismissed contemptuously by what biographer William Manchester called the British “social and political establishment” of the day, Churchill was the man nobody in England took seriously for years — until his predictions of disaster came all too vividly true with Nazi bombs eventually raining down on London itself.
With countless radio shows plus three New York Times bestsellers out there on the vital importance to America of the U.S. Constitution, (Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America; Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto; and Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America ), Levin has become the Constitution’s Churchill — repeatedly warning what can happen to Americans when the founding document of the United States is ignored.
Suddenly, awash in headlines about the abuses of the IRS, the Justice Department seizing the phone records of the Associated Press, monitoring the calls and emails of Fox correspondent James Rosen and now the “metadata” gathering activities of the National Security Agency — Levin’s constant warnings of the dangers in ignoring the Constitution are gaining considerable traction with Americans well beyond his already huge radio audience. The American “social and political establishment” be damned.
The reality of today’s news headlines reflects in an up close and personal fashion exactly what Levin has spent so much time warning against.
Liberty — every American’s individual liberty — is at the very heart of issues like the IRS, the NSA, Obamacare and so much more.
Here’s Levin in his 2012 bestseller Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, with bold print provided here for emphasis:

In Liberty and Tyranny, I described the nature of individual liberty and the civil society in a constitutional republic, including the essential principles of America’s societal and political order. I also discussed the growing tyranny of government — statism, as I broadly labeled it — which threatens our liberty, the character of our country, and our way of life. At the time I warned that if we do not come to grips with the significance of this transformation, we will be devoured by it.
The symptoms of the tyranny that threatens liberty and republicanism have been acknowledged throughout time, including by iconic Americans. For example, Supreme Court associate justice Joseph Story, among America’s most prominent legal thinkers, explained in 1829, “governments are not always overthrown by direct and open assaults. They are not always battered down by the arms of conquerors, or the successful daring of usurpers. There is often concealed the dry rot, which eats into the vitals, when all is fair and stately on the outside. And to republics this has been the most common fatal disease. The continual drippings of corruption may wear away the solid rock…”
…During the three years since the publication of Liberty and Tyranny, and despite growing alarm by an increasingly alert segment of the public, too many of our fellow citizens remain oblivious to the perilousness of their surroundings, not realizing or accepting the precariousness of their liberty and the civil society in the face of the federal government’s dramatic, albeit predictable, engorgement of power, This is the grave reality of our day.

Levin was prophetic.
One year later Americans wake up to the news, as noted here by my colleague Jed Babbin yesterday, that:

• The IRS’s defense to the targeting of Tea Party-related groups for illegal treatment rested on the assertion of the Fifth Amendment by one of its high-ranking people.
• The Attorney General evidently committed perjury by denying any connection to the search warrant used to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails.
• The Justice Department isn’t even contesting the impropriety of subpoenaing the telephone records of the Associated Press.
• Various senior members of the Obama administration, past and present, have admitted that they used email accounts under fictional names for official business (to avoid government record-keeping laws).
• The courts are considering the impropriety of President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege last year in hope of protecting Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, a program that was created to obtain political leverage in favor of gun control.

In addition to Babbin’s list there is a new EPA scandal (hat tip to Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy) breaking over the last few days. This one:

The Free Beacon reported this week that 24 senators signed a letter demanding to know why the EPA leaked the personal information of more than 80,000 farms, includes names, phone numbers and personal addresses, to left-wing environmental groups like Earth Justice, the Pew Charitable Trust and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

And all of that before one gets to the issue of the NSA collecting “megadata” — hundreds of millions of phone records of perfectly ordinary, law-abiding Americans, not to mention this from the NSA leaker Edward Snowden:

The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife’s phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.

And none of this mentions Obamacare, or this story in the Hill back in December, headlined this way:

Obama administration proposes making ‘black boxes’ mandatory in new cars

Black boxes — data collectors.
The other day on Neil Cavuto’s Fox show, Levin, having just learned of the NSA story, let loose, the bold print supplied here for emphasis:

I tell you what I make of this — we have the elements of a police state here, and I’m not overstating it. When you step back and realize the Supreme Court the other day ruled 5-to-4 that law enforcement can take DNA from you even if you’re arrested — by the way, you’re arrested even when you’re stopped for a speeding ticket, and Scalia was right, concerned about a national database. That goes way over the line of our traditions.
You look at the Internal Revenue Service, what’s going on there today, and they collect extensive financial and personal information, and they put it on a database. This Obamacare is a massive data collection as well of our private personal medical conditions, procedures, drugs, mental, physical illnesses. The Transportation Department, people forget, has proposed black boxes in all of our automobiles to track how they function and how far they go in accidents. We now have domestic drones from EPA to make sure farmers aren’t stepping out of line.
The Department of Homeland Security now is checking laptops and iPhones and other data, making copies of it and keeping it, and now we have this. And some of my brothers and sisters in law enforcement, prosecutors, are saying, ‘Look, look, this is permitted. We need to be able to go through and match —’ wait a minute. You don’t throw a whole net on the entire country and everybody’s phone numbers and check the duration and see if you can come up with some overlaps. That’s not law enforcement. That’s not how national security works. I don’t care what the hell the Supreme Court said 30 years ago or what some judge said 15 minutes ago. This is America, and our government is collecting way too damn much data on we the private citizen.
….This is what happens when our country becomes unmoored from the Constitution. The function of the federal government are without limits. We have this all-powerful centralized government with concentrated power. Stomping all over the First Amendment. I mean look at these warrants with these reporters. I was chief of staff to an Attorney General of the United States. We didn’t take a back seat to anyone who leaked information to the media, but twenty phone-taps, a hundred reporters, James Rosen’s parents? What kind of mindless idiocy is that?”
I think people had better wake the hell up and understand something. That we are not a constitutional republic anymore. I don’t know what we are. I’m not saying we’re the most oppressive regime on the face of the earth either, but we are not a constitutional republic anymore. When you look at the first amendment, the assault on free speech under these campaign laws, the assault on religious groups, under the first amendment. When you look at the effort to create a registry under the second amendment on guns. When you look at the fourth and fifth amendments turned on their heads, the ninth and tenth amendments, they pretend they don’t even exist. We have a chief justice of the Supreme Court who twists the words of the commerce clause and the meaning of tax in order to uphold Obamacare. This is lawlessness. And at some point we need to unravel this federal government, unravel the ruling class and push power back to the states, municipalities, and the people, or we’re going to get more of this.

As with Churchill, Levin’s problem was that not enough people in the ruling class elites took him seriously in the beginning. But just as Churchill persevered, quietly doing the serious thinking and research that led him to have an almost clairvoyant sense of the German rearmament program and the evil intentions that drove that rearmament, so too has Levin made the time to do the quiet, serious thinking about the Constitution and what can and must result when it is abandoned. Abandoned either through deliberate intention or sheer, careless ignorance.
In addition to being a lawyer, serving as president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and serving in the Reagan Administration as chief of staff to the Attorney General of the United States, Levin is a life-long student of the Constitution, its philosophical underpinnings and the debates that led up to the founding document’s writing and ratification.
He does not believe we are where we are by accident.
While he noted in Ameritopia that the architects of what he correctly calls a “post-Constitutional America” are “too numerous to list” he focuses on President Woodrow Wilson, the progressive hero of the early twentieth century who was himself a liberal academic as professor and author before becoming president of Princeton. Levin notes of Wilson, who used his presidency to vastly increase the power of the federal government, that he “proved the insight of Madison’s fear — that is, without the Constitution’s limits on the federal government’s authority, an election could empower a temporary majority or faction to fundamentally alter the governmental structure in ways that threaten the individual’s liberty and rights.”
The other night Levin asked this question of those, particularly conservatives, who had taken to television and print to defend the NSA’s collection of a massive database:

“Do they even understand the founding of this nation?”

The Levin question is basic, fundamental. Without understanding that question and its implications for all these scandals the country is in very, very serious trouble.
Said Levin:

Many of these people are new to conservatism, relatively — do they even understand that?….Look at the Constitution. Did the Framers in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention, did the Framers, the state delegates in the state capitals debating whether to ratify the Constitution…did they trust big government?….The Founding Fathers did not trust big government. One of the main reasons that the Constitution was developed as it was and one of the main reasons the States agreed to confer authority on this new federal government while retaining most of their authority by the way ….was to promote and secure liberty, private property rights, trade, commerce, a stable law, a transparent law, equal justice under the law and yes to secure the nation from foreign threats…but then they made certain that not only would they divide power within the federal government , not only would they enumerate powers, specific powers to certain branches of the federal government…they would make it damn clear that the people under the Ninth Amendment, and the states under the Tenth Amendment, that their sovereignty would be preserved and all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are intended to insure that the individual is protected…Otherwise the Constitution would not have been ratified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by the Commonwealth of Virginia by the State of New York. Three of the big states that objected most and were concerned most about the centralization of power in the federal government. This is our history.

And of those conservatives and Republicans who have dismissed the NSA scandal as no big deal Levin added:

They have no concept, no concept whatsoever about what took place in these state ratification debates. None. Or they wouldn’t be talking the way they do.
This nation was founded to nurture the individual….not the federal government.
I hear conservatives, people who claim to be conservatives, they’re not really conservatives and no I’m not putting out a litmus test but this is basic stuff …who seem to think that we need to accept the New Deal and everything that’s come since and ignore the Constitution. That is ignore everything that came before the New Deal. We just have to accept this fate. A massive bloated government, trust it, embrace it, live off it…I say hell no. No we’re not.
(This is about the desire) to intimidate, to prevent lawful, civil dissent. To intimidate people… We’re the target, not the criminal, not the illegal alien and when it comes to something like this…not even the terrorist. We’re the target.
This is a big deal….I believe in the Constitution and I believe in unalienable rights…This is what the whole Founding was about. Where does this end…how many more rights will be obliterated?

What is erupting here — at long last — with no small thanks to Mark Levin — is a full-scale, all-out battle to return from what Levin calls a Post-Constitutional America to a constitutional America.
Does America need to be defended? Of course it does. Does America need high-value intelligence? Of course it does. But a national security structure that is so mammoth it couldn’t even discover the Tsarnaev brothers when they already had them in their sights — and quite notably had no clue what Edward Snowden was doing right under their noses — is obviously too big to function correctly much less constitutionally.
Rule Number One of conservatism is that the nature of man is imperfectability. That there is no government that is not tempted to tyranny.
It is not enough — it is not enough — to simply say that the way the government has been doing business in gathering massive quantities of data is just no big deal because, after all, we can get the bad guys.
This is about more — far more — than the NSA. It is in fact about the IRS — the poster child for governmental abuse. It is in fact about the Justice Department and its spying on the Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. It is in fact about the EPA spying on farmers and giving personal information to left-wing environmental groups. It is a debate about the size, scope and very existence of a government so big, so out of control that quite literally every piece of information about your life is going to rest in a series of mammoth glass boxes in the Utah desert, or the Cincinnati branch of the IRS or in some nook and cranny in the Department of Justice or the EPA or whatever bureaucracy is at hand.
This is about the transformation of America into what Mark Levin has, with unerring accuracy, called Ameritopia. Ameritopia, a Post-Constitutional America that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the America that was, in Lincoln’s words, “conceived in liberty.”
This is why someone can apply for tax exempt status for a Tea Party and find themselves seated across the table from the FBI Domestic Terrorist Unit.
On August 13, says Amazon, Mark Levin will be releasing his latest book, described as “Untitled.”
After all of the barrage of news in the last few months that have shockingly revealed just how out of control the federal government of the United States is, the new Levin book will be awaited with more than considerable interest.
Winston Churchill spent years trying to warn his fellow countrymen of the dangers they would face by ignoring the rise of Adolf Hitler. The fact that he was vindicated by the arrival of Nazi bombs on London and the plunging of the entire world into global war was, in Churchill’s view, a sad, brutal and unnecessary vindication.
Mark Levin has spent an adult lifetime warning of this moment in American history. A moment when, the Constitution repeatedly cast aside, Americans would find themselves at the crossroads of liberty — or tyranny.
Let the debate begin. Or, correctly, let the debate finally be joined.
Without doubt, the man who is the Constitution’s Churchill will be asking yet again that most important of all questions that separates America from Ameritopia:
“Do you even understand the founding of this nation?”