The Harvard Law School Capers
When I saw that Elizabeth Warren, the Obama crony running for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, had been practicing law without a license in Massachusetts, I said to myself: "Well, just another example of lawlessness as practiced by lawyers, as in the Justice Department, etc. etc."
Then I added, still to myself: "But what's the deal with the Obama crowd and proper documentation? Do they just make up everything about themselves?"
And then: "And what about Harvard Law? We don't have Obama's records, and it seems that Warren used her office there to (illegally, apparently) run a law practice."
And finally: "What about Elena Kagan, at the time the dean of the law school and now on the Supreme Court? Shouldn't she have prevented Warren's abuse -- or so it seems -- of the school's premises?"
In short, the Obama clan -- these musings involve three important people, after all -- shows considerable contempt for the "rule of law." And considerable contempt for us, since we are judged unworthy of the basic information about the ruling class.
Their slogan: "The Rule of Law -- or whatever we judge the law to be, according to my needs on a given day -- for Thee, common citizen, but not for me, a Person Who Counts, baby."
It always stood to reason that the basic facts about the ruling class, starting with the president and continuing through the czars, were withheld because some of those facts were unpleasant for the rulers. It also stood to reason that the media hordes refused to seriously investigate the basic facts because they knew some of them were unpleasant and did not want to displease the rulers. Hence, the silence about the president's school records. Hence the long silence about Warren's lack of a law license. Hence the refusal to seriously report the frightening strategic crisis into which we have been led.
Bit by bit, the unpleasant facts are trickling out. Warren's phony multiculti bio, the transfer of weapons to drug lords who killed Americans with them, the bogus accounts of the slaughter of Americans in the Middle East. It is only a matter of time before one of the central myths of the Obama foreign policy fantasy gets exploded: the "leading from behind" nonsense.
We are under siege at home and abroad, and the president and his clan are a prime mover on both fronts. He is not letting others make basic decisions and then supporting them; he is driving policy -- very damaging policy -- on both fronts. The "leading from behind" myth is of the same falsified fabric as the hoaxes about Warren's ancestry and Obama's "transparency." Americans are being killed because it is clear to our enemies that this president is not going to act decisively against our killers, aside from the occasional Hellfire missile. The enemies that count, the nation-states that provide the fundamental wherewithal to our killers, aren't targeted.
We provide a fistful of visas to Iranian killers to come to New York, and the president joins them there to deliver yet another apology for presumed American sins.
Which is precisely what the Iranian-supported jihadis demanded in the first place.
Not "leading from behind." It's called appeasement.
And so my basic question: if you wanted to design a policy to produce the defeat of America as a global power, what would you do differently from the current administration's approach?