Preserving the Bargain: Why Principled Conservatives Stand Against Donald Trump

There are many reasons why life-long Republicans are appalled by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump. At best, he’s a vile, obnoxious lout, at worst, he’s a misogynist and a bigot. He appears to have no real understanding of economics, foreign policy or Constitutional Law. Trump is consistently inconsistent in his public positions; up until the recent past he’s been more supportive of liberal politicians than conservatives; and he has a tendency to attach himself to outlandish conspiracy theories. Trump’s only real skill seems to be grabbing media attention which he mostly accomplishes by being a spectacular, childish jerk. But these are all reasons why any self-respecting Republican should recoil from the Trump candidacy. For thoughtful, principled conservatives, abhorrence of Trump goes deeper. In fact, it reaches the level of utter despair.

Believe it or not, there are people—a small subset of the population to be sure—who know why they hold the political views that they do, and can articulate their reasoning within certain general parameters of a well-considered philosophy. For those who’ve deeply examined their beliefs and care about vision and motives as well as strategies and outcomes, acquiescing to the Trump-takeover of the GOP means unmooring from their ideological foundation. And from a more immediate and practical standpoint, it means giving up on “the Bargain.”

The Bargain is this: “Work hard, play by the rules and try to live your life in a responsible manner and you’ll do well.” Principled conservatives understand that the Bargain is irrevocably linked to the American Dream. Thoughtful conservative leaders and thinkers have dedicated their political wherewithal to advocating a system of government that is conducive to seeing that the Bargain is honored. For the most part, the Republican Party has been the operative agent of conservatives. Always woefully imperfect, the GOP is now seeing its politicians thoroughly outmatched.

Barack Obama has masterfully overwhelmed his opposition by an unrelenting rejection of the Bargain. No, in fact, it is more than a rejection, he has pursued an aggressive reversal of its core principle. In Barack Obama’s world, entrepreneurs and investors build nothing, but rather are greedy and undeserving profiteers while those who avoid responsibility and eschew wise decisions are viewed as ever-virtuous victims of oppression. Policemen carrying out their duties “act stupidly” but violent felons are innocent martyrs. Hateful Islamic terrorists are shielded from scrutiny and criticism but law-abiding citizens are demonized for demanding their constitutional rights. The weird philosophy espoused by Barack Obama expects respect and subsidies for people whose illegal presence on American soil demonstrates utter contempt for our laws. And why not?  Obama himself picks and chooses which laws to enforce or creates new ones at his whim. With each incident and incitement conservatives react with outrage, but before they can find the actual principle worth defending and articulate a thoughtful response, Obama has them wheeling to face some new effrontery, barking and snapping at each other as much as at their tormentor.

And as Barack Obama and his allies have turned the world upside down, he is convincing our population that old rules no longer apply— that the Bargain is no longer in effect. (No one is adequately arguing otherwise, as we are so busy reacting to Progressive provocation.) Consequently, we are goaded into playing the games of identity politics, fighting zero-sum battles where interest group connections decide winners and losers, and learning that those who tell the biggest lies most consistently get the biggest prize. Terrible as it is, Obama’s efforts are paying off. For now, unknowingly (and quite ironically), those who have enthusiastically turned to Donald Trump are subscribing to the Left’s rejection of everything that made America great.

The famous “anger” being expressed by Trump’s supporters are people who see Obama’s unfair world, but rather than demanding fairness, are asking that the rules be bent in their favor. The Trump people no long believe in American ingenuity, exceptionalism and world leadership, having instead adopted the Progressives’ disdain for our strengths and desire for protectionism and isolationism. Trump’s people have been successfully baited to abandon the conservative ideal of a color-blind society and now happily categorize enemies by their ethnicity. Neither Trump nor his supporters have any love for the First Amendment when it contradicts their views, and just like the Left, they would love to see it severely limited. Doubtlessly, the men and women who support Trump have nothing but contempt for their alleged political counterparts, but they have proven the wisdom of Nietzsche’s warning:  "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

And this is the reason for my despair … and why I, a conservative, can no more support Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton; they are opposite sides of the same terrible coin, made of the same unprecious metal. And if this man becomes the face of the Republican Party and if the twisted views of the Left are merely repackaged to bribe disaffected former conservatives, then the America that stood as a beacon to the world will be utterly without hope.

Why There’s No Debating Trump Supporters

I don’t get into debates with cultists. I was once employed by Scientologists, but there was never a debate about their beliefs versus mine. Cults avoid confronting people with secure belief systems, preferring to prey on those who are emotionally vulnerable with no spiritual and/or intellectual foundation upon which to find solid footing. That wasn’t me, and as I was viewed as a likely “suppressive person,” they just fired me.

Though stressful at the time, looking back I value the experience. I’ve always been fascinated by group psychology, especially as related to the different types of cults: religious (Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, Jim Jones’ Jonestown); political (Social Justice Warriors, Environmentalists, White Supremacists); sports teams (as represented by Harvey Updyke). I would also include relatively innocuous groups like fitness freaks or hardcore Trekkers. When you consider the people who comprise these groups, you realize cultists simply aren’t people you try to debate … and you shouldn’t let yourself be lured by the challenge. They won’t play by any recognizable standard rules, because it’s just too important to them that they not lose.

You must understand that their whole world has been subsumed by complete devotion to a messiah, fuehrer, an organization or an idea. Instead of honoring Truth, they have found a new god to give their life meaning. Truth is the great enemy of cultists; they will undergo amazing intellectual and emotional contortions to deny what is real—casting aside their powers of observation and reason as the very eyes that offend them. And whereas the rational man concedes a point here or there, or acknowledges a specific weakness in his argument because it is true, the cultist will never do this. Thus unencumbered by truth or reality he can always claim “victory” in his own mind; his fanciful world preserved.

Though not as evil and dangerous as Islamic terrorists or (quite) as deluded as Jim Jones’ followers, I’ve come to see Donald Trump’s supporters as increasingly cult-like. This, I’m realizing, is why debating them is such a waste of time. I observe Trump—note his sketchy past, hear his vile comments, consider his ludicrous proposals and weigh his unrelenting megalomania—and wonder how could any rational person possibly support this insufferable lout. But now I understand that his sycophants are no longer rational. In defense of their tin god, they have disconnected all the faculties that would allow them to see Trump for what he truly is.

Trump’s cultists have subordinated their egos to that of their master’s so that they, in a way, can become one with him. In return, his proclamations of grandeur become their affirmations of self-worth; his outlandish plans are adopted as their own brain-children; and perceived slights against Trump are taken as the most personal of insults. Trump’s apostles idolize him as flawless in his wisdom, purely righteous in his endeavors, and fearless in his quests so that they too can claim a little piece of his glorious divinity.

Of course, not everyone who votes for Trump or speaks out on his behalf is a cultist (yet). A few see the opportunity for profit in adding their voices to the snake oil salesman’s sideshow. Other’s don’t really know enough about anything to make a smart political decision. Some think it would just be funny to elect an obnoxious reality TV show star as President. And perhaps the largest portion of Trump supporters are those angry at not getting their way as often as they would like, and now petulantly embrace chaos in revenge. Yet without a doubt, there is a growing Brown Shirt core of Trump’s legions—largely morphing from the fore-mentioned segments—who are anxious to serve their new savior without question. And I run across more and more of them every day.

When I criticize Trump—revile his childishly cruel antics and words or prosecute his flimflammery—I am not out to change the minds of his fanatics. That’s well beyond my meager abilities acting alone. Instead, I am lending my words to rouse the unafflicted among us so that one day, together we might stage an intervention for these pathetic lost souls before it becomes too late to save them.

I Endorse Marco Rubio

Understanding that my opinion has been sought by no one, I nevertheless have decided to make it public who I intend to vote for in the March 1, Republican Primary in Alabama. (This proves that Donald Trump isn’t the only person driven to obnoxiousness by his ego.)

Some candidates I eliminated, and some eliminated themselves by dropping out. (Carly, I would have voted for you!) None were perfect, and the men who remain all have flaws of varying severity. Starting with those I find least acceptable and working my way to the one I will ultimately vote for, here are my assessments:

Donald Trump – I don’t know what he actually believes, and I have no idea what he would actually do if (God forbid) he gets elected. But even worse as far as I’m concerned, he seems to have based the viability of his campaign on the willingness of people to condone the most stupid/nasty behavior to show they're angry about being let down by "The Establishment." Ironically, Trump's supporters are falling for the mother of all con jobs.

Dr. Ben Carson – Like just about everyone else, I’m favorably disposed to like Dr. Carson. Unfortunately, supporting him violates my rule against voting for anyone who knows less about important issues than I do.  

John Kasich – I really like Kasich on a human level. He seems to have managed to spend most of his life in politics and still hold onto his principles—which are basically to be a good, decent and fair human being. He is what used to be called a ‘statesman.’ In other words, Kasich is Dudley Do-Right … and the Clinton machine would leave him tied to a railroad track. Even if elected, Kasich would be outnumbered about 1,000:1 by Snidely Whiplashes. It’s likely the Democrats would steal his lunch money every day of his term, and they’d rob all the working people’s money as well … along with every other individual right that Constitution-loving Americans hold dear.

Jeb Bush – Jeb prefers smaller government solutions to liberal ones—I think.  He’d probably be a competent president. But a leader needs to have an idea of where he wants to take the country, not just making sure the “trains run on time.” Reagan had that, and say whatever you else you want to about him, so does Barack Obama. I’m afraid Jeb would only want to “fix” the BO Railroad, when what we need to do is blow it up and set off in a completely different direction. On an emotional level, Jeb is also like choosing something other than what you really want. He’s the healthy-choice meal, or the girl you can get to go with you to the prom rather than the one that makes your heart go piddity-pat.  

Ted Cruz – Here’s the attractive ‘bad boy.’ Simply based on a checklist of issues, I’m most in tune with Cruz. He has a nice libertarian streak. He has the greatest raw intelligence of any candidate running for president (on either side). Cruz also has that ‘vision thing’ I’m looking for. Those are important enough considerations that I can overlook the fact he doesn’t have executive experience and that he’s only a first-term Senator. Given Risk vs. Reward, I might even be willing to bet he could overcome the tidal wave of opposition from the Democrats’ attack dogs in the news and popular media. (He’s got the data-mining thing going on!) The problem? Well, I don’t like the sneaky stuff he pulled with Ben Carson in Iowa—not so much that he did it, but that he tried to pass it off as an unfortunate error and coated a dirty trick with a saccharin apology. In general, Cruz seems a little too Clinton-like for my tastes … character matters (or at least save the rough stuff for the general election!). Plus, his voice gets on my nerves.

And that leaves …

Marco Rubio – I remember when Rubio, as a Tea Party Conservative, basically ran Charlie Crist out of the Republican Party. (BTW, Crist may still be running. This week, I think he’s with the Bull Moose Party.) Next to Cruz, Rubio is the most reliably conservative Republican still in the race. And by conservative, I mean for limited government, pro-Constitution, supportive of the rule-of-law and willing to fight terrorism. The biggest knock against him was his “Gang of Eight” gambit in favor of immigration reform. Yeah, it irritated me too, but being a principled conservative doesn’t always have to foreclose the possibility of a U.S. Senator trying to make legislation. At the time, Rubio was new to the Senate and probably naively believed Barack Obama and the Democrats could be trusted on anything. Since then, he has had about four years to learn any deal with Obama is a bad deal for America.

As with Cruz, Rubio’s lack of experience on the national stage or executive experience still bothers me. But I actually understood what he was trying to say (over and over and over) during his debate meltdown with Chris Christie. His point was that you don’t need to have a lot of experience to be effective, by pointing to what Obama has been able to do after just a single undistinguished term in the Senate. Unfortunately, Rubio got lost also trying to infer that he’d be an effective force for good, whereas Obama has put his efforts into attacking anything that makes America great. (Yeah, the argument is still a bit too complicated to follow). I believe I can usually trust Rubio to make good decisions for our country.

In reality, Rubio’s ethnicity probably won’t help him much with the Hispanic vote—the illegals will still vote for Hillary or Bernie. However, he’s definitely the most attractive candidate the Republicans can muster for getting a better share of the all-important, low/no-info vote. And I think he’d acquit himself fairly well in the general election after going through preliminary trial-by-fire from his fellow candidates in the GOP nomination process.

Rubio’s electable, I mostly trust him, he’d make a fairly good president and … most importantly, he’s the best we have to choose from.

Yes, Let's Lay the Confederate Flag to Rest

Some conclusions bring no emotional satisfaction.

My father, John Carroll, was a masterful story-teller.  As a child, I loved hearing his true-life tales of what is was like to grow up in the Depression-Era South. (I will always regret not having the foresight to tape-record my dad’s recollections before he passed away.) While I can still remember the gist of his stories, most of the details that made his words so vivid are lost to me. Part of a one saga that I can remember, however, was actually handed down to my father from his grandfather, Stephen Carroll.

It goes like this: My great-grandfather, a private in the Confederate Army, along with a wounded comrade, had become separated from their company. With the Yankees closing in, the two soldiers managed to escape detection by climbing a tree. How they did this, with one of them being shot, I don’t know. But I do recall my dad conveying his grandfather’s fear of being discovered as the Union soldiers set up camp right below their hiding place.  Holding his comrade in his arms, Stephen Carroll had to remain quiet and motionless as the sun set and then throughout the night—afraid the entire time that the wounded man would moan or cry out in pain. I can imagine his relief as the enemy army moved out the next day.  I recall nothing of the narrative about how he got back to his unit or what became of the injured man. Whatever else happened, it remains that Stephen Carroll came home from the war and fathered many children.

This family story is one that long personalized the Civil War for me. Most of my life, I have been able to see this bequeathed memory in the fabric of the Confederate battle flag.  But is that still possible? Though the recent murder of nine people in Charleston had little (or nothing) to do with the flag, honest horror has instigated controversy over the pre-eminent symbol of the Old South. Prompted by the debate, I have re-examined my own regard for the Stars & Bars.

Stephen Carroll, like most of the men who fought for the Confederacy, was too poor to own slaves. “Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,” supposedly was the saying.  Was he a dupe? Perhaps. It’s hard enough to put a positive spin on fighting to preserve an institution as evil as slavery, but what can you say about fighting for such a way of life … and not even gaining benefit from it?  Then again, I doubt if my great-grandfather would have agreed that he was fighting for the right to own slaves.  He probably saw it as a matter of protecting his home from an invading army.  Regardless of individual motivations, one fact stands: If the Confederacy had survived, slavery would have continued in Dixie.  If one can romanticize the South’s war effort, it’s only because the rebels were defeated.

If you can romanticize … that brings me to a vital point. For many people, romanticizing is quite impossible to do. Seeing a Confederate flag might cause me to think of my ancestor fighting bravely (if misguidedly), but what can African-American citizens see other than their ancestors’ degradation?  Not asking this question has been my ongoing failure. And now I must also wonder why those whose ancestors fought for the United States, or were oppressed by slavery, should acquiesce to honoring my forebears’ treasonous insurrection. Maybe there’s a place for memorializing family stories such as mine, or enjoying pretty fictions like Gone with the Wind, but it is a very small place … and certainly not at state capitols.

Once, it may have been possible to rehabilitate the Stars & Bars into something innocuous. For example, think of it painted atop the General Lee on The Dukes of Hazzard—symbolizing fun-loving resistance to authority.  Unfortunately, the window for transformation was small and closed well before that silly TV program aired.  The Battle flag had already been re-enlisted by the likes of Ku Klux Klan, segregationist politicians and also countless petty racists in resistance to the Civil Rights struggle. Today, those of us with an inclination to appreciate the Confederate flag, find ourselves among vile companions.

The most painful question though, is whether bad people (even creatures like Dylan Roof) wrongfully appropriated the flag … or was it really theirs all along? Bravery in defense of hearth and home aside, I’ve reluctantly concluded that any nobility in the Stars & Bars was ultimately obliterated by the inherent corruption among the causes it served. Now, like the aging portrait of Dorian Gray, the ugliness can no longer be denied.  Sadly, I must accept that the Confederate battle flag is not what I wanted it to be.

Despair and Disgust

It wouldn’t be accurate to say America—the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave—died last night. Rather it was more like seeing a cancer patient choose the disease over remission, or perhaps watching a drug-addicted loved one ignore the pleas of interventionists and stubbornly remain on the broad and winding road of self-destruction.

Instead what died, died in me—and that was hope for this country. I see no path to a better tomorrow. In a world where envy is rewarded and initiative reviled, those who produce will see the futility of their actions and surrender to the undeniable appeal of self-interest. (What dog, being tortured and consumed by fleas, might not prefer to become a flea himself?)

As the entrepreneurs, explorers, inventors and creators—many of whom are also misguided enablers in our sad drama—become fewer and fewer, we shall become a nation of hoarders, thieves and bandits. Only the bullies or well-connected will survive, and corruption will become the pre-eminent virtue. The government shall rise as the foretold beast to apportion shares of a rotting carcass to those most willing to pay obeisance.

Of course, this will not happen overnight. I am 51 and will likely be in my grave before the convulsive death of this not-so-brave world (with such pathetic people in it!). But I expect to be more and more harnessed and harassed by the state. With one more Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice, the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution will be lost. The Commerce Clause will be stretched beyond absurdity, and Congress will decide to regulate whatever aspects of our lives it so pleases. When Congress declines, this president (and surely also those that follow) will simply issue “executive orders” to see his will done. Or maybe the unfettered bureaucracies will invent new mandates of their own. When there are complaints, enticements or exemptions will be dispensed to just enough demographic groups or special interests to keep the ruling class in power. For the individualists, or those who turn to something other than government for affirmation and reward, there will only be more and more hardship and servitude. Of course, when the rulers have acquired enough power, the fleas will have to go back to work and again produce to please their new masters. (I fervently hope that some of today’s Occupy Wall Street types are still around to get to meet THAT 1%!)

For now, and while I can, I will turn my back on the sad state of affairs that unfolded last evening. (Unfortunately, when the drug addict that refuses treatment is also the mayor, police chief and justice of the peace, there is only so much you can do to escape his madness.) But for what cold comfort it brings, I will pass through the stages of grief for the country that was, and move on. After all, there remain many things actually worth caring about until my time ends.

I must accept that the USA was nice while it lasted. 

Donkeys live a long time.

In (Possible) Defense of John Roberts

Sometimes good people do bad things.

And sometimes good people do bad things for good reasons.

And that leaves us to decide whether the good reasons may eventually make up for the bad thing.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court to save Obamacare from the ignominious death of unconstitutionality that it so richly deserved. He did this, by getting a majority of the court to pretend it’s a tax. Everyone (outside a few “compounds” in Idaho, perhaps) agrees the federal government has the power to tax.

It was a decision that seemingly came out of nowhere. All along, no one who supported Obamacare called it a tax—Obama himself vehemently insisted it is NOT a tax. Of course that didn’t stop him from taking his typically undeserved victory bow with comments that boiled down to: “Hey, it’s a tax! Who knew? Anyway game’s over, I won and would someone please destroy the instant replay tapes?”

Practically everybody thought that if Obamacare was going to be found legal it would be under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

That poor old clause has already been horribly warped out shape by the desire by some to expand the role of government way beyond anything imagined by the Founding Fathers. But this would have been the first time it was twisted to describe something a person DOESN’T DO (not buy health insurance) as “interstate commerce.”

If the Federal Government could regulate inactivity, there was nothing it could not compel people to do. Limited-government types were justifiably terrified by the prospect. So in what could only be described as a “deal with the Devil,” Roberts gave the Left their Obamacare. But he also did a Jean Luc Picard impersonation with the Commerce Clause: “This far, but no farther!” (A reference to the Borg invasion … you have to be a Trekker.)

Now some are saying, “Yeah, but now can’t Congress just call anything a tax, and have government do anything it wants to us, anyway?”

Theoretically yes. But Congress doesn’t like calling something a tax, even when it is. (“Let’s just call that a fee instead, uh, for investment purposes.”) So that would leave it up to the courts to repeat the Chief Justice’s imaginative wordplay in the future. Yes, it if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, the Supreme Court can always declare it’s a horse. But that doesn’t mean every other duck that comes along has to also be called a horse. I suspect Roberts was expecting (hoping) this would be one-time-only wackiness.  

But why not just do the right thing and put Obamacare out of our misery by joining the side of the court that has a little respect for the U.S. Constitution? That’s what conservatives and libertarians wanted. “We had this!” they cry. “Why John Robert, oh why did you betray us?”

I believe Roberts was worried that “sometimes when you win, you lose.”

The noise-makers on the right side of the political spectrum (led by Fox News and Talk Radio) can more than match up with the noise makers on the left (the mainstream “news” media and Hollywood) when a debate is hot, primarily because common sense and the facts almost always favor the Right. But the Left is built to win in the long-term. A majority of the country may have wanted the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare, but that would have been today. Roberts was worried what the public would think of his court a few years from now.

If Roberts had stayed in the real world with Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, we would have heard incessant weeping and gnashing of teeth from Obama and liberal Democrats that it was a purely partisan decision. (Stuck-in-concrete left-wing Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are never partisan, don’t you know?) The hue and cry would also have been echoed by all the White House’s propaganda organs like the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN … etc. The Right would be enjoying a sigh of relief that Obamacare was dead at the very moment the Left was launching a full-scale attack on the good guys of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And the attacks wouldn’t have stopped … ever. Their manufactured rage would have calmed down, true, but Phase Two of the assault would have been carried on by overwhelmingly liberal academia and popular media always repeating the lie that Obamacare died—not because it was unconstitutional—but because five judges were “conservative.” And when a lie is repeated often enough, and few know or care to remember what actually happened, that lie becomes accepted as fact. (Case in point: The lie that the Supreme Court “stole” the 2000 election for George Bush.)

I don’t think Roberts wanted that to happen to his court, not over Obamacare, anyway. No one wants to see their life’s work falsely maligned in history.

And I also want to believe that Roberts realized the rule of law could only win—for a while anyway—if the next president who puts justices on the courts is NOT Barack Obama. The nation couldn’t afford to have the Right celebrating victory with the Left declaring all-out war.

I think Roberts made a calculation: For the price of one idiotic court decision, he’d save his court from defamation, saddle Democrat politicians (like Florida Sen. Bill Nelson) with their awful Obamacare and energize the lovers of liberty to fix matters in November.  Then with a few good court appointees for President Romney, he’d never have to go through this foul business again.

A risky move. I hope it was worth it.

Barack Obama Wants You Weak, Afraid and Dependent

During the 1988 presidential campaign, then Vice President George H.W. Bush once explained to former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, “Competence makes the trains run on time, but ideology tells us where they’re going.” Today, we’re seeing how wrong-headed governance can drive the American Dream over a cliff. Indeed, it seems that when candidate Obama spouted “Hope and Change” in 2008, he really meant, “Today you may have hope, but I’m going to change all that!”

Oh sure, we should give the president credit for ordering Osama Bin Laden killed (as Mr. Obama so frequently reminds us) but truly, didn’t he simply do the same thing to the terrorist leader that he’s been doing to our economy for the past two and a half years? After massive spending that’s saddled us with trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see, Mr. Obama is essentially firing bullets between eyes of our nation’s future. I ask, couldn’t we have found a less expensive way to drive unemployment up from 7.8 percent in 2008 to the 9.1% rate at which it now stands?

But is President Obama really incompetent? Or perhaps, unfortunately, he has been a bit too good at doing exactly what he intended. Yes, like most Democrats — and specially those acquainted with the Chicago Way — Mr. Obama readily throws opens the public purse to pay off his friends, just as he also unabashedly wields the power of government punish rivals. But Mr. Obama also gives us corrupt Chicago-style patronage with a purpose. If there exists a healthy, burgeoning economy and a vibrant private sector, the roadblocks to prosperity become few and far between, meaning the role of government becomes diminished in our lives. But for someone who is ideologically driven to see the power and authority of the state magnified; for one whose sense of ego and purpose is intrinsically tied to having dominion over his fellow citizens, self-sufficiency is an appalling proposition.

When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, it devastated the poor people who most rely on government direction and support for their very survival. In the wake of that natural disaster, and with federal, state and city governments incapable of response, there was no aid for the hapless men, women and children who had been crippled and left stranded by a malignant dependency.

Witness Barack Obama’s vision for America.