-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 137 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
-
From Bimbos to Benghazi
May 9, 2013 | 150 comments
-
The Plantation President
May 7, 2013 | 116 comments
-
Liberal Group Cited in Terrorism Case
May 2, 2013 | 80 comments
Political Hay
Chief Justice Neville Chamberlain
Appeasing Statism: John Roberts abandons Constitution, Court, and Conservatives.
(Page 4 of 6)
In fact, one of the more publicized examples of the rise of what Mark Levin calls “Post-Constitutional” America has already materialized. That would be the Obama-run Department of Health and Human Services demanding the Catholic Church give up its religious liberty to satisfy government regulators. This has, of course, resulted in the Church suing the government in a defiant effort to stand-up for what it correctly believes is an attempt by the Obama administration to restrict religious liberty.
Yet, very disturbingly, the assault on religious liberty is only one battle in the much larger long-running war between Statism and the Constitution. With Supreme Court Justices, federal judges, presidents, and legislators all getting into the Statism act.
In fact, the decision made by Chief Justice Roberts to appease the Statists by devising a convoluted interpretation of the taxing power is reminiscent of the legal gyrations used by Chief Justice Roger Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. As former Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork reminds in The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, Taney, a slaveholder himself, sought “to prove that the right of property in slaves was guaranteed by the Constitution.” Bork explains in detail that in fact slave ownership was never a Constitutional right and in fact “is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”
Writes Bork of Taney’s obsessive insistence that slave holding was a constitutional right:
He knew it because he was passionately convinced that it [the right to own slaves] must be a constitutional right.
Bork labels Taney’s obsession-driven legal reasoning a “momentous sham.”
A momentous sham.
A sentiment clearly not all that far removed in the dissent from Roberts’ Obamacare obsession, which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito memorably labeled as carrying “verbal wizardry too far, deep into the land of the sophists.”
The conservative dissenting Justices on Obamacare remind, in fact, of a Dred Scott dissenter, Justice Benjamin Curtis.
Take a look here at these two sentences from a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial on Chief Justice Roberts. Said the WSJ (bold emphasis mine):
Now that we’ve had more time to take in Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning, we have a better summary: politician. In fact, his 5-4 ruling validating the constitutional arguments against purchase mandates and 5-4 ruling endorsing them as taxes is far more dangerous, and far more political, even than it first appeared last week.
And all the way back in 1857, 155 years ago, in one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history that forever tarnished Chief Justice Taney’s reputation, was this from the dissenting Justice Curtis (again, the bold emphasis mine):
To allow this [inserting a right to slavery] to be done with the Constitution, upon reasons purely political, renders its judicial interpretation impossible — because judicial tribunals, as such, cannot decide upon political considerations…. They [political considerations] are different in different men. They are different in different men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
The drive now, as it has been since at least Taney’s time, is to find some way to introduce the Constitutional termites to do the political bidding of Statists. To eat away at the Constitutional liberty and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and declared forthrightly in the Declaration of Independence — all in the name of some Statist political whim of the moment.
For Taney and his fellow progressive Democrats on the Court it was all about judging by race (as it is still with liberals today), specifically writing into the Constitution a right to remove the freedom of blacks.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (128) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/10/chief-justice-neville-chamberl
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.10.12 @ 6:50AM
We who were not appeasers during the Vietnam War used to say, "You cannot surrender your way to peace." Friends of mine who believed you not only could, but must, later visited Cambodia and Laos and came home agreeing that we had been correct. Just because people are being slaughtered in their own countries where you don't have to see them, rather than your own people in your own country, that doesn't mean that your consent to letting slip the dogs of war was the right decision for yourself or anybody else.
And the saddest part of all is that having alienated your friends and countrymen by your support of this barbarous decision, you soon discover that even your enemy has no love for surrender monkeys and in fact remains your enemy.
Hippies always think Satan takes partners. If you don't believe in Satan, ask Saruman how that worked out for him.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 9:43AM
Justice Roberts is a prime example of the "dumbing down" of the legal profession. Two other great examples of this are the current President (with his first lady) and both houses of congress where about 1/2 of the 535 members are lawyers.
The legal profession will get worse in this respect because of Affirmative Action and Health Care.
The practice of medicine will become much worse, much faster than we expect because Congress will not address the legal profession's fraudulent use of the Tort Law in Medical Malpractice matters. Doctors will rebel and experienced ones will leave the profession. The rest will unionize.
vmax| 7.10.12 @ 10:34PM
Finally! somebody gets it. Now if we can require that ALL US presidents serve 4 years active duty military we can stop much of this waste & abuse of our sons/daughters & treasure in these mindless wars!
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.10.12 @ 10:44AM
While I agree with almost everything Jeffrey says in this article, it should be noted that Bork's view of Dred Scott has been subject to criticism by Jaffa. The Constitution did allow for slavery.
The problem was more with Taney's reasoning. According to Wikipedia, the decision wrongly held that: "all people of African descent for that matter, were found not to be citizens of the United States. This decision was contrary to the practice of numerous states at the time, particularly Free states, where freed slaves did in fact enjoy the rights of citizens, such as the right to vote and hold public office.[4] The decision of the court is often criticized as being obiter dictum because the Court went on to conclude that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court."
Taney essentially rewrote history to arrive at his decision, just as Roberts rewrote Obamacare to arrive at his poltroonish decision.
MelvinNC| 7.10.12 @ 7:33AM
Just as those who suffered from Neville Chamberlain's fecklessness towards the Germans that resulted in the deaths of untold millions of people who wanted nothing more than to be left alone can also be applied to chief Justice Robert's fecklessness towards Obama. But yet it remains how many deaths will be attributed to it
To be sure people are going to die from this terrible miscarriage of the rule of law.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 8:43AM
At least Chamberlain got A. Hitler's autograph...
Justice Roberts, you FAIL.
Don't Tread On Me!
Mimi | 7.10.12 @ 11:10AM
Oh yeah ! There will be unnecessary deaths and Senior Citizens will take the brunt. When money gets tight the 15 person panel will deny treatment that would save the life of a healthy person becausse of AGE. The GOP should start counting!
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 7:44AM
Lying and cheating comes naturally to politicians and lawyers. It's even expected by their supporters. Judges are supposed to be the last line of defense against assaults on the rule of law. It's especially disgusting when a judge behaves like any other run-of-the-mill political hack. So, what are we to do when the chief justice of the Supreme Court turns up rotten? Needless to say, the ruling class in DC has far outlived its usefulness to America. America must begin rejecting it at every turn. I say again, governors are the key.
Alej| 7.10.12 @ 10:05AM
Correct. 10th Amendment, or secession. Washington, DC, is rotten to the core.
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 10:52AM
The states are finally waking up. I like it!
Cobalt| 7.10.12 @ 7:52AM
United States + Statism - Constitution = Tyranny
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 12:53PM
Nice and simple. Make a good bumper sticker.
Mimi | 7.10.12 @ 8:34AM
Jeff....Great writing....Loved the way you give us the History and details of appeasement by Neville Chamberlin.
The fact that Roberts encouraged a political solution by the voters....which is starting this DAY in the House of Rep., is maybe his only way out of regaining back his reputation by diminshing the damage of his "Famous Opinion"
To come out with such a weak opinion and have to re-write the law...searching with fury to APPEASE the left, for such a badly written and almost impossible to decipher LAW is so blatently wrong...he has a lot for us to forget.
Try to listen to the first hour of 7/9 Mark Levin radio show....I had to laugh so hard ....He was reading details of the LAW...(section 5 c to a, b, refer to 2/3 section 2..on and on..."YOU GOT THAT"?")...unbelievable!
Reggie Love| 7.10.12 @ 8:42AM
From now on,I trust Roberts will never vote to overturn anything,as he has told us basically electins have consequences. Oh wait! He did vote to overturn two laws the same week he kept Obamacare,the Arizona Law and the Stolen Valor Act! Oh well. Consistency is overrated anyways.
nathan| 7.10.12 @ 8:43AM
Munich? Must we? Question for the class: Did those Germans in the Sudentenland put there against their will by that worst treaty in history Versaille have the right of self determination? An excellent case can be made that they did.
That aside Great Britain did not have a land border with Germany and had very limited options to influence them. France who had a land border and remembered the carnage of WWI had made it clear they were not going to fight over this. GB was still in the process of rearming and was not ready for war yet. Now all of you given what I just said tell the class exactly what Chamberlain was supposed to do and why he gets all the blame while the French leader never gets a word of criticism. I bet none of you can even name him.
And ultimately who had the sole responsibility for defending Czechoslovakia? GB? No. France? No. The Czechs themselves had the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY. To be sure the Germans did not give them much time to prepare for the invasion of the area but still if someone attacks you take what you have and stand your ground to the best of your ability. You don't roll over and play dead and let them take part of your country because other countries won't join in your defense. And yet that is exactly what the Czech government did.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:02AM
Nathan,
He could have told Herr Hitler that there is a mechanism for re-patriating his lost Germans, that aggression would not be unmet, that there would be great costs if Germany violated the Versailles treaty, as unpleasant as it was for the Germans.
Hitler may well have realized that maybe Britain wouldn't be the cake walk he was hoping it might be. He actually was hoping not to have to fight the British as he knew that you couldn't fight Britain without the US getting involved. And at that time, we were a huge untapped, industrial power, too far from Germany to do anything about.
Actually, Nat, British resistance at this point may have been enough to dissuade Hitler from going after the West. He may have just picked a fight with the Soviets over Lebensraum to the east and oil to the southeast. He might have left France and the Low Countries alone!
And the logical conclusion from your jingoist, naive statement that only the Czechs and the Slovakians should defend themselves is asinine! It precludes the entire idea of nations entering mutual defense treaties! That is a spectacularly stupid notion! Absent mutual defense treaties and every small country in the world is suddenly in play for any larger, greedy neighbor. It suggests, hey, were the USA we can kick anybody's butt! Let's go take Mexico away from the Mexicans! Oh, wait, that is what Putin is working on, isn't he?
So, smarmy Nat, sit down, be quiet, do your homework.
Sheesh.
Don't Tread On Me!
nathan| 7.10.12 @ 10:00AM
No mention of the French . . . Who again had a land border. Who could have massed divisions on that border. DTOM, care to name the French leader who said absolutely we're sitting this one out? Why not light him up? He was at that conference too. He could have done everything you said Chamberlain should have done. Why not yell at him?
Maybe resistance by Chamberlain would have caused Hitler to pause. But resistance with what? And explain to me WHY expecting the Czechs and Slovaks to defend THEIR country, let's make this really clear here, it was THEIR country we're talking about, why was expecting them to defend themselves asinine? What if Benes and Hodza had used those marvelous tanks, some of which would be used against the French a year later, would that not perhaps have accomplished everything you say would have happened had Chamberlain "resisted"? And let's say you were Benes and Chamberlain had said, sorry dude you're on your own. What would YOU have done? Said, the French and British and abandoned us so we're going to roll over and play dead? Or said, as Patrick Henry did, I know not what course other's may choose . . .
BTW can you actually point to the treaty that existed between GB and CS that obliged GB to defend them? I don't believe any such treaty existed. But if you think it did, cite it. If it didn't all the more reason why GB had not obligation to act but Benes and Hodza did.
RJ| 7.10.12 @ 11:57AM
Yes, while Britain and France were disappointing allies for Czechoslovakia, its too bad that the Czechs, unlike the Poles, did not fight. I believe they had a much better chance to prevail. For example, the following is from Alan Bullock's book, "Hitler, A Study in Tryanny":
The German High Command were only too relieved at avoiding war, and at Nuremberg General Keitel admitted that they “did not believe themselves to be strong enough at that moment to breach through the fortifications of the Czechoslovak frontier.” (page 472)
I too, don't recall if Britain had a defense treaty with Czechoslovakia. One way of looking at it is that the Czech-German border was a creature of the Treaty of Versailles, in which Britain, France and the United States imposed much hated terms against Germany. Once the treaty was signed, the victors went on to other things, while Germany vowed to overturn the peace treaty.
anamvet68| 7.10.12 @ 1:56PM
It was France who wanted harsh treaty terms. The U.S. went along just to appease the stinking French!
RJ| 7.10.12 @ 10:02PM
When it comes to the worst US President, we should never overlook Thomas Woodrow Wilson. Domestically he laid down the progressive, big government blueprint, ignoring Constitutional limitations. And in foreign policy, he lost the peace at Versailles. Wilson was more harmful to the US than Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. Obama however requires a whole new category. We have never had a president who acts as if he is from the third-world and hates the USA.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 10:08AM
Basically you are right. Britain wasn't ready to defend it. France wouldn't. The Czech's couldn't. The USA wasn't ready to enter any European war at that time. Hitler had 6 months earlier moved into Austria and no one took steps to stop him. He was welcomed there as he was by the Germans in the Sudetenland. A year later he invaded Poland and annexed Danzig which was heavily populated by Germans.
Hitler was a German Nationalist and the historian John Lukacs has noted in his recent historical essay (2005) "Democracy and Nationalism--Fear and Hatred" that Hitler's ambition was to unite the German speaking peoples of Europe and there by gain control of the middle of the continent.
Bob K| 7.10.12 @ 10:19AM
Pardon me for an error above: The title to Professor Lukacs' book is "Democracy and Populism--Fear and Hatred."
Derek Leaberry| 7.10.12 @ 12:58PM
Glad that at least one conservative understands the perspective of the world in which Neville Chamberlain actually lived in 1938. Let me add to your post by adding a few givens at the time. First, the Britain of 1938 experienced the same economic depression that we in America did, believe it or not. The average Briton was living the life of Orwell's Wigan Pier rather than what we see on Masterpiece Theatre today. Second, the support in Britain for war against either Germany or Italy was exceedingly low until 1939. Your average Briton put the idea of feeding himself and family ahead of munitions. That is human nature. Third, Winston Churchill, born to wealth and the best paid journalist in the world, lived a posh lifestyle at Chartwell with champagne the norm for lunch while most of his countrymen worried about putting food on the table. Churchill's perspective towards arming to go to war with Germany was much different than that of his countrymen.
Derek Leaberry| 7.10.12 @ 1:05PM
Fourth, Britain had been disarming for many years especially during the two administrations previous to Chamberlain's. Churchill blamed Chamberlain's immediate predecessor, Stanley Baldwin, much more than he blamed Chamberlain for Britain's lack of armaments in the 30s. In fact, it was under Chamberlain's premiership that the Spitfire and Hurricanes were built. These were the planes that won the Battle of Britain. Fifth, as we acknowledge today, Czechoslovakia was never a real nation but instead an ersatz entity cobbled together at Versailles. Sixth, the dominating Conservative Party elite fancied the notion that a strong Germany would eventually war against the hated Soviet Russia, of which most Tories feared more than Germany until very late in the 30s. Seventh, France was politically torn between left and right between the wars and so was an unreliable ally for the British. This was proved by the debacle of May and June, 1940.
anamvet68| 7.10.12 @ 1:58PM
True! Do you read history too?
RWinks| 7.10.12 @ 6:31PM
Great Britain HAD a treaty with Czechoslovakia guaranteeing to aid them if attacked. The Czechs were barred from the Munich talks. When they refused to accept being dismembered, Britain's ministers told them the treaty would not be honored due the Czech's lack of "cooperation".
Faced with standing alone against their far larger neighbor, the Czechs felt discretion was the better part of valor. Their leader ended up committing suicide. Try getting your facts straight.
Jack London| 7.10.12 @ 8:49AM
Well, we don't have long to wait for a Jeffery Lord Nazi column – sure as the sun rises in the mornin'.
Hilarious - he says:
"To be clear, let's say the obvious. I am certainly not comparing President Obama or any of the liberal Justices of the Supreme Court to Adolf Hitler, a comparison as silly as it is offensive."
But then says:
"Just as Chamberlain's once-popular multiples of appeasement concessions in the 1930s finally brought German bombs raining down on London, as sure as God made little green apples there will come a day when the morsel-by-morsel eating away of American freedoms will bring serious damage to the American people."
That's right people - you read it here first (or rather, every time time Lord gets his keyboard out) – the Democrats are Nazis and they're coming for you...
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:04AM
Jack,
You forgot to mention that Jeffrey Lord is racist, too!
Dolt!
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:11AM
He is?
I thought he was a Homophobe?
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:14AM
They ARE Nazis, and they ARE coming for us.
Are you Fcking Blind, as well as Stupid?
Don't answer.
You'll just Fck it up.
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:36PM
Will wonders never cease? TLP actually gets something right.
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 7:58PM
Normally, I'd call you something not heard in certain circles.
But, today?
I'll take Compliments from anywhere I can get them.
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 10:55AM
"...the Democrats are Nazis and they're coming for you..."
You're exactly right. Thank you.
Crassus| 7.10.12 @ 11:21AM
Do you still think Jack Johnson has a yellow streak running down his back?
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 11:27AM
Jack: Just when I thought Jeffrey Lord Fauntleroy couldn't get any sillier...he does! It's just amazing to watch how Justice Roberts has been instantly transformed from the model jurist to a Nazi, just because he deigns to take his job seriously and decide an issue on constitutional principles rather than tea party policy.
Nick| 7.10.12 @ 12:39PM
Did you even read Mr. Lord's column, RCV?
He did not equate the "Dread Coward" Roberts with the National Socialists, or Hitler. He equated the incompetent CJ with the infamous appeaser, Neville Chamberlain.
This was fairly explicit. I don't know how you missed it.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 12:57PM
I did indeed read every word. You're right, Nick. I should have said, "instantly transformed from the model jurist to a Nazi appeaser." Nonetheless, Lord's efforts to paint Democrats as Nazis is nothing short of pathetic. It also is painful for those who actually suffered under the murderous Nazis to liken people who favor a fairly modest reform of health care policy to the sickening genocidal maniacs of the Third Reich.
Butch| 7.10.12 @ 1:44PM
Your "modest reform" includes Death Panels, which will ultimately turn thumbs down on an entire generation of baby boomers because their usefulness to the state is over. You and John Roberts can split hairs over the semantics of killing versus failure to save; I won't. These political appointees won't be "maniacs," but rather cold, calculating people ordering strangers to their deaths. Either the Nazi way or the Obamacare way, human beings are treated like vermin. And you can bet that saving Social Security payments is in the calculus of the decision.
anamvet68| 7.10.12 @ 2:07PM
It already has happened. I have a close friend who is on Medicare like me who was denied a new drug for 4th stage lung cancer. Reason...cost to much, medicare will not pay! Soooooooo, Butch you are correct.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 5:11PM
What you call "death panels" are what we now call "insurance claim adjusters".
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:37PM
RCV, you're acting like a moron. They are two completely different things.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 7:28PM
Not in the least. Insurance companies make the very same decisions every day about coverage.
Nick| 7.10.12 @ 1:53PM
RCV,
If you read every word, why are you making assertions that just aren't true?
Mr. Lord did not try to paint the democrats as National Socialists. He explicitly stated that he was not doing what you have just accused him of doing.
He used the 1938 Munich agreement as a simile. As in, "Dread Coward" Roberts' appeasement in 2012 is like Chamberlain's appeasement in 1938. That's as far as the comparison went.
Now, Mr. Lord did compare the liberals/progressives of today to Chief Justice Taney, and other pro-slavery democrats, from the 1850s.
You should be more precise, lest you be accused of liable. Or being pathetic.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 5:12PM
The simile is utterly disgusting, and a good example of why the political process is so poisoned.
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:39PM
The problem for you RCV is that the comparison is quite appropriate. The Democrat party long ago ceased to be the party of Jefferson and Jackson and is now just another fascist party.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 7:32PM
That is pure and utter bullsh**, Quartermaster, like most of the things you post.
Nick| 7.10.12 @ 7:01PM
RCV,
So, Chamberlain's "Peace in Our Time" moment in history is completely off-limits to any other political comparison? For how long? Eternity?
And, if this a good example of the poisoned political process, I hope you aren't arthritic, because you're going to be typing many more screeds against your fellow lefties, who can't seem to go a week without comparing Republicans and conservatives to the Third Reich.
Plus, it is your fellow democrats that are "tracking" Republican candidates, video taping them at their homes, and posting the videos online. Showing their addresses! I would call that "utterly disgusting", wouldn't you?
What are you going to say if the next Lee Harvey Oswald or Jerrod Laughner decides to pay one these Republican families a visit? Why don't you get your own party in order, instead of constantly harping about conservative writers' use of metaphor?
p.s. I was typing a little fast, last time. Of course I meant libel, not liable.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 7:31PM
I would call that totally disgusting, and do. Munich analogies are indeed apt when we are discussing appeasement of foreign agressors. Demonizing your political opponents in a democracy such as ours by comparing them to Nazis is despicable whether done by Democrats or Republicans and I always call them out for doing so.
Nick| 7.10.12 @ 8:02PM
Good. I'm glad to hear it, RCV.
I know you liberals have had a very bad month. "The Dread Coward" Roberts' inept opinion, notwithstanding. (Even though it wasn't as good for the liberals, as was first thought.)
So, I understand your frustrations.
But, again, Mr. Lord did not compare his political opponents to the National Socialists. He compared CJ Roberts to Prime Minister Chamberlain. You continue to put up the same straw man.
By the way, did you call out the Village Voice's Michael Musto for writing, two weeks ago, that gay Republicans are "like Jewish Nazis!" and "Black Klan members!"?
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 9:12PM
I don't read the Village Voice, nor know who Michael Musto is, but his comments are reprehensible. I actually know a couple of gay conservative Republicans, and they are pretty nice guys, notwithstanding the errors of their political ways. Kinda like you, Nick. By the way, they're both devout Catholics as well.
And don't bother with what I know is your reaction to the last comment.
nathan| 7.10.12 @ 8:52AM
continued: And yet where is the criticism of the Czech government? (Again how many of you can name THEIR leaders?) They had the obligation to stand their ground and defend their country regardless of what Chamberlain did or didn't do, regardless of what he signed at Munich. If Great Britain signs an agreement with Mexico handing Texas back to them are we obligated to let it happen? No. So why did the Czech leaders roll over and play dead over the agreement signed in Munich? I emphasize again here, it was THEIR country and they had the SOLE obligation to defend it, not GB, not Chamberlain.
And yet where is the criticism for their lack of action? Not a word. Always, Chamberlain and appeasment. I'm sorry, he had no obligation to act. The French with a land border maybe did, the Czechs whose country Germany was threatening absolutely did, but GB with no land border and limited ability to act had very little obligation to get involved.
So enough of MUNICH already.
Blaming Chamberlain, whose language to be sure was intemperate, is the wrong lesson and always has been.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:07AM
You are failing to learn the simple lesson:
"If you want peace, prepare for war!"
Aggression ONLY happens when the aggressor thinks he won't pay a price for his mis-behavior. It works on the playground and in statecraft.
Those who fail to understand that are perpetually perplexed that they are always being attacked!
What's your big love affair with Chamberlain about, anyway?
Back to your homework!
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:16AM
Obviously, the idea of Mutual Defence Treaties, has escaped young nathan.
Seriously, he's not that bright.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:38AM
He cooks up a mean wienie, though...
nathan| 7.10.12 @ 10:12AM
1: I don't ever recall reading about a mutual defense treaty between GB and CS. If you all think it existed, cite it. I'm prepared to concede on that point only if you two can point to it.
I'm tired, weary call it what you will of Chamberlain getting all the blame here. The French had a land border with Germany, Daladier (?) attended the conference too, and yet not a word about him, NOT ONE SINGLE WORD OF CRITICISM against him for saying categorically that he was not going to act in this matter. Why not? Why give him a pass on this? If he had rushed several divisions to that common border, something Chamberlain had no ability to do, how would those supposed nervous German generals have responded? If anyone acted really bad it was him, not Chamberlain. And yet no one remembers his name today. Just Chamberlain and Chamberlain alone.
And I will stand by what I said. If someone threatens to invade you, the fact that everyone abandons you is no excuse for not resisting. Read about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising sometime. What expectation of success did they have? But they fought anyway. YOU STAND YOUR GROUND AND FIGHT, WIN OR LOSE! And the fact that people here are excusing the lack of resistance by Benes and Hodza who in fairness initially did think about it, appalls me. It really does. What expectation of victory in 1776 did Washington have? Zero? He fought anyway. What's with you folks?
anamvet68| 7.10.12 @ 2:15PM
It was the responablity of both GB and France to uphold the treaty and keep Germany in check.
Young nathan you need to go back or start over
with your history lessons.
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:06AM
I don't know what to say.
Either I'm right, and Larry Flynt got hold of Pictures of John Roberts, copying what Mellon Head Webb, in Virginia, like to put in his Sick Sexual Fantasy "Books" - Be it the Asian Dad and his young Son's Penis, or the Phillapina Stripper and a Beer Bottle - (or whatever that Sick Fck fantasizes about) or this form of Government is just Incompatible with Human Nature.
History shows that, as the Average Temperature of this Planet's Life is ICE AGE. The Average Form Human Governence, has been one of All Powerful Dynastic Rulers, Monarchies, Dictators, Tyrants, Warlords, and the like. With the average condition of those that they Rule, being Slavery, Poverty, Serfdom, and Indentured Servitude.
I look around, today, and I see 150 Million people, who would gladly give up their Freedom, and Liberty, for a Pair of Free Sneakers, or a free Gold Chain.
We have people, RIGHT NOW, who have no problem going through life as the Family Dog of one Political Party, which Feeds them, gives them a Place to Sleep, and pays for all of their Shots.
We have RULERS who seek to return us to Indentured Servitude, and a Sharecropper's yoke, in return for a Guaranteed Minimal Existence.
I never gave Machiavelli the Credit that he deserves. He looked in the mirror, and wrote down what he saw.
It's Not easy for some of us, especially Christians, to really come to grips with all of the Evil, sometimes.
I am so glad that I have HIM to fall back on.
I'm gonna need HIM.
Alej| 7.10.12 @ 10:11AM
"...or the Phillapina Stripper and a Beer Bottle... ."
Emptied a few San Miguels in Olongapo, did you ? Made me spit coffee !
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:42PM
The proper spelling is "Flipina."
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 8:05PM
What would we do, without him?
Seriously.
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 11:04AM
TLP, excellent post. It's a battle between endless, tempting freebees and personal responsibility. Or, as my childhood minister used to say, "The hard right against the easy wrong."
Now that decades of pandering by the DC elite have wreaked havoc with our culture and economy, responsible people are finally responding. I just hope they bring a gun to a gun fight and stop all the accommodation.
anamvet68| 7.10.12 @ 2:19PM
You are so correct. Our family "tree" goes back to England and we came here as Indentured Servants in the 1780"s.
Reggie Love| 7.10.12 @ 9:08AM
Like Hitler Obama also has had questions about who his real father is.
Like Hitler,Obama wants to nationalize industries.
Like Hitler,Obama uses scapegoats in order to gain more power. For Hitler it was Jews,for Obama it is "the rich".
Like Hitler,Obama supports and believes in junk science. For Hitler it was Aryan superiority,for Obama manmade global warming.
Like Hitler,Obama had a mother who liked to sleep around.
Like Hitler,their are periods of time where Obama seems to dissapear.
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:20AM
And, like Hitler, his Sexuallity is in serious question.
Especially when one listens to his MALE colleagues talk about their days with him(?) at the Harvard Review.
RCV| 7.10.12 @ 9:15PM
...only to those whose own insecurities about their own sexuality cause them to engage in projection.
I know, you've got a smoking' Asian wife, TLP. You had to tell us that, as well.
Anthony| 7.10.12 @ 9:14AM
Many of us have used the dry rot analogy and the demise of our great nation at the hands of those who seek to undermine our founding principles.
Statism, leftism, and the ruling classes are America's greatest enemies.
It is incredulous to me that the left has managed to take control of all our vital institutions and is conducting a systematic destruction of our Republic, and we have not fought back as a people.
If we Americans are not able to start taking back our Nation, starting in November, America is finished as a Constitutional Republic.
If that's the case, let's go down with a fight. It's our American heritage to take on our enemies, where ever and whom ever they may be. forefathers did.
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 9:24AM
Think - Carpenter Ant.
They're Carpenter Ants.
They eat away at everything, all around us. And, they do it, for the most part, out of site, while we're busy doing the things we need to do, to support our Families.
I guess we'll soon find out if we still deserve to be free.
Then what?
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:42AM
TLP,
Fine point about carpenter ants - they don't actually eat the wood, they chew it up and then spit it out. Much like these modern Progressives, they chew things up and then spit them out, thus they derive no benefit from the things they destroy - not even a few calories of food value.
They, progressives, are to a man, nothing but useful idiots!
Sheesh.
Gary B| 7.10.12 @ 11:07AM
And, they've been aided and abetted by RINOs incessant reaching across the aisle.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 1:42PM
Definition:
RINO - the useful idiot's useful idiot.
Seriously.
Bob Grant| 7.10.12 @ 9:31AM
Excellent piece by Mr. Lord. I would like to see an article about Mr. Roberts educational background and what effect THAT had in this decision.
After all, his formative years as a student of Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe - legal guru of the left - might have played an influencing role on his decision making of this case.
I suppose we'll never know before he writes a book explaining his thought process. A book that will make him millions. Would it be cynical of me to think THAT was part of his thinking?
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 9:43AM
Bob,
I don't think Robert's book will sell many copies - everyone will read the reviews and realize that a couple of pounds of flour will be MUCH more useful...
Bob Grant| 7.10.12 @ 10:08AM
Controversy sells that his book would be controversial.
He could save all of the behind-the-scenes tidbits for the book.
Ok. Maybe my cynicism has crossed the line but in the times in which we are living, who would really be surprised if this were to occur?
Bob Grant| 7.10.12 @ 10:10AM
Correction.
That first sentence was nonsense. I just meant to say that his book would be controversial...and controversy sells.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 9:32AM
In the 1930s, we began uprooting the economy from its grounding in the market. Obamacare is the latest in that process; Obamacare calls for things that will drive us into a single-payer national plan, and drive private insurance out of the market.
The federal government has intruded itself into matters that belong to the states and to the people. If the government obeyed the U.S. Constitution, it would be fightable, but the assault on health-care insurance provided by religious-based institutions proves that the Bill of Rights means nothing.
There are internet polls where 20% or 30% of those answering think that laws limiting soda sizes are OK as a function of government. Nancy Pelosi says "Are you serious?" and turns out to have been right.
The state can take your private land and give it to a private business and call it a taking for public use, by law.
We give air play to people who say "You know what freedom means to me? It means free contraceptives!" and we don't ridicule people like that as dimwitted boobs who wouldn't know liberty if it came up to them and bit them in the butt.
We are indeed suffering from inner dry rot, and we're about to come up to a moment of truth.
You know what's so worrisome about that? Despite the fact that disaster is screaming its predictions of chaos and upheaval, even possibly revolution, in our faces, the polls still show a hovering of voters around 50-50 over re-electing Obama. Amazing.
Bob Grant| 7.10.12 @ 10:02AM
You've hit on a lot of disturbing truths about the current state of affairs.
According to a poll taken by Pew, over 40 percent of those surveyed were either ignorant of the fact that obamacare was upheld or ignorant of the most basic details of the decision.
Mind boggling... and that explains why this man hovers around 50 percent.
If the year were 1985 instead of 2012, obama's approvals would clearly be under 30 percent and the election would essentially be over by now. There are many reasons why his numbers are this high, changing demographics are at the top of the list, but the common denominator is the American public's rebellious insistence on remaining uninformed, ignorant.
My only goal at this point is to protect myself, family, and friends from the tempest that will be the result of this collective ignorance.
Alej| 7.10.12 @ 10:14AM
"There are many reasons why his numbers are this high, changing demographics are at the top of the list, but the common denominator is the American public's rebellious insistence on remaining uninformed, ignorant."
******************************
Changing demographics IS WHY much of the American public is uninformed, ignorant.
PolishKnight| 7.10.12 @ 10:46AM
My father was an FDR Democrat when he passed away. His parents were a generation of marxist/socialist/unionized working class whites who felt the Democrats represented them.
In the 1950's, the Democrats quietly threw men such as my father under the bus.
However, since they needed votes (for now!) they quietly imported a new working class that would be bonded to them via race politics and entitlements. What's interesting is that even as they bashed the Republicans as a bunch of the evil rich keeping the working class down, the elite of the Democrat party, which is still mostly white requires keeping their new non-white electorate in place. Putting Obama into place was all theater. If they share wealth and crony kickbacks, it's coming out of THEIR pockets. Unless they go after Romney and his country club fellows directly.
Which, if Romney and McCain etc. don't protect our interests I say I hope they do get thrown to the dogs.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:51PM
My father-in-law said, when I talked about him being conservative, yet voting Democrat for so many years before switching to Independent, that "I didn't leave the Democratic Party; they left me."
PolishKnight| 7.10.12 @ 4:08PM
You know the saying about how an old Democrat has no brains. It took me about 2 years from the age of 19 to transform myself from a liberal to a hard core right winger. That must make me genius level.
Truly, abandoning the charming and flashy ideology of marxism and leftism to simply recognize that it's not only meaningless but also not in your best interests is a kind of emotional IQ test. How long does it take you to realize you were a fool and move on? My father, sadly, failed. (If you die, you lose.) A childhood friend of mine lived in his mother's attic (like Karl Marx in a way) until he was _40_. Then he wound up being led on a chain by his girlfriend. I can almost respect, in a slimy kind of way, leftists who get paid for selling out (like George Soros) such as government workers or people in leftist regions or hollywood who need to fit in. If everyone else says "Imhotep", you should chant it too. But for someone who has no personal stake in being a leftist, what's the point? Is the cool aid that tasty?
MK48| 7.10.12 @ 11:31AM
Proof of that was last night on the ORilley show the Jessie Watters cut.......these people are just stupid.......and they vote.
Appleby| 7.10.12 @ 10:48AM
But these same people can tell you every detail of the divorce between Tom and Katie....and were last seen squalling in the street when Princess Diana was killed in a drunken car accident.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:55PM
Now there's an argument that pretends to be serious, that holds that governmental powers that are not expressly delegated to the states, people, or federal government, ought to be the province of the federal government.
This argument is passed off as a type of "original intent" interpretation.
The people who claim to believe in that must think we're morons. Shoot, of course they do; they've thought that for decades, why wouldn't they think it now?
Cobalt| 7.10.12 @ 9:45AM
LMAO
lmaObama.com
John Roberts
http://lmaobama.com/?s=john+roberts
Gallery
http://lmaobama.com/gallery/
PolishKnight| 7.10.12 @ 10:38AM
Unlike the author, I don't think Roberts was appeasing the left. I think he just had a brain hiccup in principle and felt that since The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax then Obamacare was Constitutional. I personally disagree with him but there you go.
He reminds me less of Chamberlain and more of the Libertarian party I broke away from. They see it as a matter of principle that countries should have free trade and movement of workers and goods between borders. I think that's simply anarchy. In Robert's view, the Constitution (and changes throughout time such as federalization during Lincoln) grants Congress significant powers. I don't think he's an appeaser. I think he's a bureaucrat who takes things too literally. The Constitution suffered from friendly fire.
The one critical thing the founders forgot to put into the constitution was an expiration date. That's right: The same document you all worship should have had an expiration date for all of it's non-bill of rights amendments AND laws passed by congress. Every 50 years, all federal laws, taxes, and amendments, individually should come up to a vote and pass/fail. This would not only require them to justify things that snuck through in midnight "remediation" sessions, but also keep them busy from new mischief.
Something to keep in mind folks: The Constitution is dying because if it was a perfect document, it wouldn't be so vulnerable. Something to keep in mind before worshiping it.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:26PM
To resolve the ongoing Commerce Clause dispute, whose boundaries seem rather well-defined, Justice Roberts created an entirely new Congressional power, the right to tax inactivity, something they had never considered before, and opened the door to a whole new theory of how the central government can add yet a new arrow to its quiver of increasing central control.
Don't think for a nanosecond that Congress is going to exercise any restraint when it comes to increasing revenue by taxing all conceivable forms of inactivity. Don't join the Elks Club? A 2% tax on your gross income. Don't go to church? A 2% tax on your apostasty. Maybe you're an atheist? A 2% tax on failing to worship God.
Martin| 7.10.12 @ 10:47AM
You have joined the foolish neocons in romanticizing Churchill and demonizing Chamberlain. There was no possible purpose for Britain to go alone into a war with Germany about Eastern Europe. We could not save Czechoslovakia/Poland, and could not have done so at the height of our power, in 1815. Only when the foolish and isolationist Americans had realized Hitler was a global menace should we have participated.
Not only was Munich a sensible policy, but the Polish guarantee was a foolish one. British interests demanded that we should do neither.
Rockabilly| 7.10.12 @ 11:14AM
We'll never know will we if Hitler could have been thwarted had you at least shown some backbone. So its' out fault, isolationist Americans whose defense and nuclear umbrella kept you Limeys and socialist Euros protected during the Cold War? We "isolationist" Americans who instituted the Marshal plan to help rebuild Europe. Munich was sensible? Dream on man, WWII was the result.
PolishKnight| 7.10.12 @ 11:25AM
Despite being an American of Polish descent, I can see your point Martin. That said, history would have turned out differently. Not necessarily better or worse but differently. The USA would have sent over military supplies to Britain as they armed up and without a declaration of war between Germany and Britain the material would have gotten through. Japan might have thought twice about attacking the USA. The Soviet Union might have fallen (at least up to Moscow). The year would have probably been 1945. If the war hadn't started earlier, Hitler planned on easy victories for a while and then building up his navy.
A very strong Germany then would have attacked Britain. The USA may, or may not, have entered the war at that point and it's quite possible Britain may have fallen.
In some ways, Chamberlain's actions may have been useful. Hitler's betrayal helped set the tone for distrust and an eventual declaration of war. Hitler wound up going to war sooner than he expected and didn't have a strong navy to invade Britain. In addition, Britain enjoyed the use of ex-pat Polish fighter pilots to help with the Battle of Britain.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 12:19PM
How long would Uncle Joe Stalin withstood 100% Blitzkrieg, instead of the 33% they confronted?
The only question is who would have killed more Russians? The Germans in their ethnic cleansing frenzy cleaning up their new Lebensraum or Uncle Joe's people shooting all the poor peasants trying to retreat from the advancing German wave of genocide.
Hmmm.
The French were not taken on until after Hitler had gone into the Low Countries and seen no resistance or response from the French or the British. At that point the Maginot Line's collapse was a given.
But back at the time of "Peace in our time" Hitler could probably been intimidated, if Chamberlain hadn't just grabbed a signature on another meaningless document and said, "Phew! Dodged that bullet!" Too bad for the Czechs and the Slovaks, and the rest of Western Civilization...
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:38PM
I thought Senator Harry S. Truman had the right take on the Nazi-Soviet war when he held out to provide Lend-Lease to whichever power was killing the most men of the other side, then switch sides as needed, in order that both the Hitlerites and the Stalinites bleed each other completely dry.
Thom| 7.10.12 @ 4:59PM
Bill, you do know the Nazis killed about 26,000,000 Russians of which over 8 million were Russian soldiers? When you add in the prisoners that died, soldier deaths run up to around 13 million. On balance the Nazis killed the Russian’s better than 4:1, sometimes as high as 7:1 and we backed the “1”. I have no idea what Truman thought on this but I suspect it wasn’t what you think….
nathan| 7.10.12 @ 1:03PM
Again DTOM you keep missing the point. The French who WILL be invaded in about a year and did have a land border with the Germans and could have moved REAL troops to that border and said, Mr. Hitler, we suggest you reconsider your actions regarding the Sudentenland made it clear to Chamberlain that they had no intention of acting. Tell the class precisely what was Chamberlain supposed to "imtimidate" Hitler with? He can't move troops through France, the low countries are neutral, and Hitler knew he had no serious prospects of mounting an invasion against him. Without the French, Chamberlain had noting but "words" to throw at Germany. (Read Max Hastings history of Bomber Command regarding any air assaults. It wouldn't have happened.)
And once again, Benes and Hodza with some of the best tanks in the world, tanks that would be used against the French later, having considered resisting, chose ultimately not to defend THEIR country. Why continue to light up Chamberlain who had virtually no ability to act and give France a pass, and let Benes and Hodza off the hook? Benes probably would have lost but the Germans might have seriously reconsidered what they were doing if they had fought any drawn out affair in CS. Benes should have forced them to do so. Again, THEIR country.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 1:34PM
Nathan,
You seem to have missed the point altogether. Mr. Lord was talking about Chamberlain's ill-fated appeasement. You seem intent on defending Chamberlain and his inaction. You keep throwing up other people who you believe are more at fault than Chamberlain. Your point is irrelevant - a lot of people could have stopped Hitler early on and they didn't. Chamberlain was just the most obvious, palpable, memorable appeaser.
Why are you so worried that we not consider the third Reich's disaster Chamberlain's fault? Was he your grandfather?
As to what to intimidate Hitler with? Any speech given by Churchill in 1940 would have sufficed. Serious words backed with serious intent and serious actions are quite convincing, especially to bullies.
That was why the Iranians made sure our hostages were in the air before Ronald Reagan could finish swearing in as Commander-in-Chief of US forces.
Do a little time shifting - how would a Reagan handle a tin horn tyrant like Hitler? Just like he did Gorbachev. Now why is Chamberlain not a useless appeaser, again?
TLP| 7.10.12 @ 5:32PM
He's an idiot.
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:52PM
The two of you miss his point, and it is germane. Both of you have target fixation and can't see the limitation of Lord's argument.
Instead of acting like idiots, you need to consider what is actually being said.
nathan| 7.11.12 @ 7:44AM
I'm going to regret this, I know I am but I'm going to do it anyway. "As to what to intimidate Hitler with? Any speech given by Churchill in 1940 would have sufficed." Words? Thrown at a man who murdered 12 million people? Backed by what sir? I will ask again, had Churchill beeen at Munich, KNOWING that Daladier was going to do nothing, knowing that GB had no force at their disposal to do much of anything in the absence of French action, beyond "WORDS", what exactly was Churchill going to throw at this soon to be genocidal maniac that was going to get HIM to pause? Nothing. The generals were who everyone was trying to influence but after Rhineland and Austria words weren't going to cut it.
And honestly I'm sick to death just sick to death of Churchill hero worship. One of the absolute most over rated people in history. Look at his ghastly mistakes in WWI. And mistake after mistake in WWII. And racist? He allowed 1-3 million people to die in the Bengal famine from 42-43, people he had the power to save people he literally didn't give a damn about and was content to see die. His secretary for India, Avery, in his diary published after his death equated him to Hitler. He was right. His obsession with keeping the empire, an empire that GB had no moral or ethical right to in the first place didn't speak well of him either.
So please do not throw Churchill at me. He was far too flawed and in so many ways not much better than the man he replaced.
nathan| 7.11.12 @ 7:54AM
Quartermaster I'm not missing the point. Munich is one of the most misunderstood "history lessons" in history. For 60 years we've had this thrown in our faces and in fact it has been a central theme for neocon intervention. Neocons constantly tell us that "let's not repeat Munich, let's not be Chamberlain". The problem is as we are seeng with both the Lord piece and with the exchanges here is that Munich is not as simple and straightforward as portrayed. There are alternate interpretations that need to be looked at. And there is a context to what happened, the Rhineland occupation, the bloodless take over of Austria. And the ghastly Versaille treaty itself, which we are still dealing with a hundred years later.
Seeing Munich simplisticly, without understanding all the players, failure to understand that Benes and Hodza had a huge role in this along with Daladier who categorically wasn't going to act, risks drawing the wrong lessons. One absolute lesson is that if YOUR country is threatened, you defend it no matter what anyone else decides. You don't let the fate of YOUR country rest on the decisions of other actors like Benes and Hodza appear to have done.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.10.12 @ 1:06PM
It's true that England was playing the balance of power political game, and maybe Hitler would have been satisfied after having crushed Poland. Nevertheless, given Hitler's Napoleonic complex, it is highly probably he would have turned on Russia and England soon enough, then America. As history turned out, Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia, where his formerly undefeatable wehrmacht went up against the more experienced and deadly General Winter.
PolishKnight| 7.10.12 @ 2:07PM
Hitler clearly was not interested in merely crushing Poland. Regarding invading "Russia" (or more accurately, the former Soviet Union): His campaign would have worked but his mistake wasn't in the invasion itself but rather in diverting troops from finishing off Moscow in order to help the southern flank. His generals thought it was ill advised (why pull off the main invasion to needlessly move forward in a flank?) If he hadn't delayed, he would have finished off Moscow by winter and the rest would be, er, history!
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.10.12 @ 3:13PM
Of course, the generals are going to make excuses....
Quartermaster| 7.10.12 @ 5:59PM
PolishKnight is correct. I understand why Hitler wanted to emphasize the southern flank, but it was politically short sighted. Yes, he could have cut off the Soviet's oil supply, but Stalin had already vowed not to leave Moscow. Stalin had his minions so cowed that if he had been taken the rest of the apparatus would have been reduced to gibbering idiots. Then, if he had redirected the Army to drive for the Caspian Sea, the work would have gone far easier.
This isn't a matter of the Generals making excuses. Hitler had already taken over personal command of the eastern front. Guderian was already at Moscow and Hitler relieved him when Guderian had become too vocal about taking Moscow instead of strengthening the southern flank. It was a very serious strategic and political mistake and one the Generals had no input on.
PolishKnight| 7.12.12 @ 1:50PM
Capturing Moscow wouldn't mean the war was over (a bit of humor here, Poland had also captured Moscow at one time and been pushed out!) but certainly it would have made things a LOT easier and been an amazing PR stunt. Would Stalin have been captured/killed? Uncertain. I remember seeing a History underground program that featured a hidden train for him to get out of the city. With 8 or so time zones in the trans-siberian railroad, that's a long retreat for him!
Bob K| 7.11.12 @ 1:31AM
Hitler's decision to invade Russia is discussed at some length in John Lukacs's "The Hitler of History." In the preface the Author notes that the book is not a biography of Hitler, but a history of his history, and a history of his biographies. p. xii.
The decision to invade Russia is discussed in Chapter 5, "Statesman and Strategist." pp 128-175, the longest chapter in the book.
Lukacs concludes that it is clear that as early as November 1941, before Pearl Harbor and before the failure of the German Army at Moscow that Hitler knew he could no longer win the war.
This book was written in 1997. Published by Vintage Books, Random House. Paperback $15.00 ISBN 0-375-70113-3
Highly recommended to those interested in Hitler and in WW II.
Who Knows?| 7.10.12 @ 10:56AM
“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 more common fatal disease. The continual droppings of corruption may wear away the solid rock, when the tempest has failed to overturn it.”
Oh, how true.
And who knew? Back in the day, one had to work hard just to stay alive. Getting rich made it possible to enjoy eating much more than the poor person scraping to get by, and to get fat was a sign of success.
So Mr. Story couldn’t have seen coming the UNCONCEALED “dry rot” of 2012, better known as “fat rot”.
“Eats into the vitals!”
And, talk about corruption.
You can’t cheat physics, or chemistry. Today’s corruption is endemic, a pandemic, and it is fueled bite by bite. Swallow by swallow. Gulp.
Perhaps the only thing Roberts said that should be focused on, amidst the way too many lawyerly words of his reasoning, is that the government can’t save you from yourself---that’s my take on his basic admonition.
You rely on some lawyer to solve ANY problem?
FOOL.
Bob Grant| 7.10.12 @ 1:50PM
"Perhaps the only thing Roberts said that should be focused on, amidst the way too many lawyerly words of his reasoning, is that the government can’t save you from yourself---that’s my take on his basic admonition.
You rely on some lawyer to solve ANY problem?
FOOL."
---
So by failing to perform his only duty as Supreme Court Justice (upholding the constitution's original intent of limiting federal government powers to only what is enumerated in the constitution), he throws his responsibility back to a group (the American electorate) that is increasingly ignorant of how our government works, is ever more dependent on the government for it's basic needs, and supports the most unqualified leaders imaginable?
If HE WONT defend the constitution who will? Occupy Wallstreet?, obama? democrats? the 49 percent who now rely on government for it's basic survival? or the 49 percent who don't pay taxes?
Mr. Robert's put us in a classic Catch 22 situation!!
Rockabilly| 7.10.12 @ 11:05AM
As a retired attorney, albeit not a constitutional expert, I have some experience after 35 years of practice, Roberts' legal "reasoning" is a joke. It is poorly disguised political decision. Justice Kennedy, no conservative stalwart, disagreed strongly with Roberts' ruling which indicates to me even more the outlandishness of the decision. You are correct in that any conservative rulings by Roberts in the future will be viewed by the left which now praises him as catering to conservatives to "make up" for the Ocare decision. Roberts' deference to the Congress in this case is questionable given the fact that Ocare was not a bipartisan act and was passed using every procedural and smarmy deal cutting contrivance in the book. His crumbs to the right on the commerce clause amounts to little as he has handed Congress a big new club to compel citizens to do its' bidding using the tax code, not to encourage as in the past, but to coerce. Will future lawmakers impose "penaltaxes" to force us to buy electric cars, the right foods, the right houses, the right appliances? Preposterous? I don't think so when Bloomberg is banning certain soft drinks, transfat, etc.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:45PM
I think Roberts was trying to be clever and blew it. I can't believe he was that dumb, that he would put the idea of taxing inactivity into the heads of our Congressmen, at a time when the federal government is after every penny it can get its grubby little hands on.
fmm| 7.10.12 @ 11:44AM
In my time of childhood we learned that appeasement of a bully simply led to more of same. Why? Because it was a source of gratification to the bully. The only way to stop being bullied was to speak the bullies language, you had to hit the bully harder than he hit you. Anything else is sophistry.
Mark| 7.10.12 @ 11:50AM
Chamberlain believed that history chose him, to the exclusion of all others, to SAVE the world from eminent armed conflict (his knife in the back of the Czechs, nothwithstanding).
I surmise that Roberts believes history has chosen HIM, to the the exclusion of all others, to save Scotus from endless vitriol by the Left (his knife in the back of conservatives, notwithstanding).
If either man walked into a boardroom with one chair discreetly marked "Smartest Man in the Room," each would presume it has his place. Thank you gentlemen for so superbly setting the world right, mere mortals can barely comprehend your brilliance.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 12:22PM
But, Mark. Their vitriol IS endless. In fifteen minutes they'll be all over Roberts for something else. Mostly because it WORKED the last time.
Roberts has set himself and the Court up for much more pressure in the future - uh sorta like Chamberlain. Oh yeah, that was Mr. Lord's point in the first place, wasn't it....
Don't Tread On Me!
Who Knows?| 7.10.12 @ 12:19PM
The older I get, and the longer I stay healthy by keeping good company, the funnier human foibles seem to me.
Doesn’t everyone prefer good company, though?
Well, yes.
However, “good company” isn’t like the number ONE, which all sane people know as ONE. Somehow, from birth, humans are shaped by parents, teachers, TV, and all events experienced, to form their own chosen path---and people to enjoy.
For me, as long as I can remember, keeping good company meant eschewing doctors and lawyers.
Best is to take care of myself.
Why let a doctor or a lawyer into your life, unless you have a problem YOU can’t, yourself, handle?
Therefore, act so you don’t HURT YOURSELF. Eat right, and the body will stay healthy. Let pain teach you what not to do.
And, “eating” right applies equally to the mind, or thinking.
Remember “The Hidden Persuaders”, by Vance Packard, the book that exposed the advertising game?
In 2012, we have the NOT SO hidden takers, known as lawyers, and they’ve long been in total control. Ancient China had mandarins. We’ve got lawyers.
Tough titty.
DTOM| 7.10.12 @ 12:28PM
Uh, Who, nobody gets outta here alive. It won't always work the way it has-eventually you die.
I reminded of a jocular comment from the mid 1960's at a cocktail party my parents threw.
A neighbor had just been diagnosed with cancer, bad cancer, the doctor's prognosis was the neighbor had just a few months left.
The general response? "Shouldn't gone to the doctor, HAH!"
The neighbor did pass away when expected - did going to the doctor kill him? You seem to think so - I think not. Good luck with your 'eat healthy and pain avoidance' regime. You might get lucky, you might not.
Bill84728| 7.10.12 @ 12:47PM
Ayn Rand's moochers and looters, mouthing their reasons and justifications, are coming out of the sewers like a horde of Hamelin rats to the Pied Piper's tune.
Petronius| 7.10.12 @ 12:24PM
Jeff put in a lot of overtime on this for nothing. There is a line at the end of the trial scene in A Man For All Seasons where Sir Thomas More speaks to his adversary Richard Rich who has just committed perjury on Cromwell's behalf in order to convict him.
More: "That's a chain of office you're wearing. What is it?"
Cromwell: Sir Richard has just been appointed Attorney General for Wales."
More:" Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
Roberts sold his for admission to the beltway A list. His initiation fee was his vote on this law. And he was only to happy to pay it with Our Freedom!!
Mr. Lord. You could have explained this in two words: Roberts, Whore.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 4:13PM
Well put. And that line from More fits Roberts to a tee.
RJ| 7.10.12 @ 12:27PM
I expect that John Roberts reputation, just like Roger Taney's, will be shaped by one Supreme Court opinion. It is a terrible ruling.
On June 28, the Judicial Branch joined the Legislative and Executive Branches in declaring that the Federal Government can now take property away from anyone who does not do what the Federal Government dictates and does not do it exactly as prescribed by government. This is not the behavior of a republic for a free society; It is the conduct of a dictatorship.
Reggie Love| 7.10.12 @ 12:41PM
While I usually agree with Mr.Lord I think the Chamberlin to Roberts comparison is off. Chamberlin at least,I think,meant well and wanted to avoid a war. Roberts on the other hand,wanted to avoid criticism from the NY Times.
Jmel| 7.10.12 @ 3:14PM
Roberts said that it was not the court's responsibility to protect the people from their political decisions. He tried to wash his hands of the whole mess. I say he is Chief Justice Pontius Pilate.
Albertus Magnus| 7.10.12 @ 4:14PM
Unfortunately for CJ Roberts, it IS his job to protect the people from Congress' violations of the Law. I guess he just let that slip his mind.
Thom| 7.10.12 @ 3:31PM
Some posting here have apparently never played a game of "Risk". After Munich, a very high level German official had a meeting with the President of Czechoslovakia and gave him an ultimatum to cede control of the Czech Republic to Germany or they would be overrun. We know his decision. What some won't accept is that real life is mimicked in a game like "Risk" and the Germans used the resources of the Czech Republic to build up its armaments and strategic location to roll into Poland and later France and the Low countries using Czech tanks and artillery. Czech's produced those arms and ammo used to kill a lot of Poles, French and Britons. The conquered territories of France provided more resources for the German war effort and put the German Army and the world's strongest Air Force of the day just across the Channel from Britain. A little better long range planning by the Germans could have added Britain to the collection of countries supporting the German war machine. Had the Germans been given free rein after Poland and only had to contend with Russia, the odds were in their favor of capturing those resources too. The Germans beat the combined military ground/air forces of France, 11 British divisions and the Low Counties in just 6 weeks in 1940 after an invasion of Norway that ended just 2 days prior to the invasion of France. Some people need to focus on what actually happened rather than what might have happened. This scenario is repeated throughout history.
Petronius| 7.10.12 @ 7:23PM
The Czech Government tried several times before the Munich Conference that carved up their country to make an alliance with the Germans. Neither Hitler nor Ribbentrop would meet with them. Henlein and his delegation wanted contracts to provide armaments from the Skoda Works. The Nazis wanted and got a client state.
Thom| 7.10.12 @ 7:29PM
They also got a stategic position from which to attack Poland from three sides.....
ReaganConservative4ever| 7.11.12 @ 2:07AM
Excellent article, as not only have I said those very same words, with the very same results and outcomes from it all, but I have done so in every media arena and format I can. But like Sir Winston Churchill in the 1930's, have been vilified, stifled, suppressed, and targeted by every radical statist indoctrinated liberal from either side of the political aisle, for so stating the truth and consequences of it all.
Regardless, I will never relent in telling the ruth of it all, as you Mr Lords, have done so and in such clarity and detail and articulately stated as such.
ReaganConservative4ever| 7.11.12 @ 2:17AM
This is basically the Obama's "Enabling Act", which gave Hitler is legislative legitimate dictatorial authority, power, and rule over the country and the citizens of his country.
And Chief Justice Roberts hasnot only become Obama's loyal Judicial rubber stamp lapdog, but he has allowed this undeclared despotic dictator to run roughshod over all of the American people, and this Nation that once was a bastion of hope, Freedom, Liberty, and Equal Justice for all, has now thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts, become the new Obama socilaist-marxist statist dictatorship, and run by future despots and tyrants galore in a new Dark Ages Era that could last for a thousand years.
Although this can be turned around and not be the case, but only time will tell..
Jaynie59| 7.11.12 @ 10:20AM
About a month before the decision was announced I happened to catch a rerun of a C-SPAN documentary about the history of the Supreme Court. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/297213-1
Made right after Kagan joined the court, it's a pretty fascinating look at the court. All the justices are interviewed and the overriding theme is "respect". How much respect the justices all show each other, and how much respect for the history and tradition and reputation of the court is paramount to all of them. I knew one of them would cave and I suspected it would be Roberts because of what he said in his interview, and of op-eds I had already read speculating that Roberts would side with the Statists to make it 6-3.
It's worth the 90 minutes if you can spare the time to watch it. There are many scenes of the building itself, and interior rooms with beautiful shots of the art work and history told by the curator and I found much of it quite moving. If you can't watch it all, skip to 1:05 where Roberts talks about his responsibility in assigning the opinions. At around 1:20 he mentions Taney and Dred Scott and how Taney was "misguided" and how Dred Scott affected the reputation of the Court for decades. I had spent an hour watching them talk about how they have to be "collegial" to get a majority to join their opinions so it was striking to me to watch Roberts describe Taney when Taney didn't do it alone and this program pretty much explained how that decision was made.
obadiah| 7.11.12 @ 2:06PM
Your column is much too mild, Jeffrey Lord. Chamberlain was honest but mistaken. John Roberts is "worse than Chamberlain" just like Saddam was "worse than Hitler." Roberts is like Benedict Arnold. Or Judas. Possessed by the spirit if satanic obama marxist.
Mike Rogers | 7.12.12 @ 1:59PM
Feeding others to the crocodile, in the hope it will eat you last. The state will devour us if we do not put it back in its cage.
The constitution MUST be our guide, as written.