Sellin – Why Obama fails and succeeds

By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD – Family Security Matters

Barack Obama fails because of the content of his character. He is amoral, lacking an ability to judge himself or his actions by any value or virtue. In his mind, Obama is good not because he is honest or wise; Obama is good because he is Obama. The implicit pattern of all his self-appraisals is: “It’s good because I like it”-“It’s right because I did it”-“It’s true because I want it to be true.”

Lawrence Sellin, Phd
Lawrence Sellin, Phd

It is not an expression of accomplishment, pride or self-esteem, but reveals the presence of a vacuum; a stagnant, arrested mentality matching his faith in the stagnant, arrested policies of modern American far-left liberalism.

Obama is incompetent because he is both inexperienced and ideologically-driven. He makes decisions on national policy not based on reality, but on desired outcomes.

His lofty rhetoric mirrors the unproven goals of socialism: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. They are dreams endorsed by academics and the liberal media. The implementation of policies such visions spawn is dependent upon an uninformed electorate eager for government handouts. That is, the power-seekers need a group of favor-recipients in order to achieve power.

Obama’s “success” is based entirely on political intimidation, both by false argument and executive action, and the failure of the media to report the news in a truthful, accurate and impartial way.

Although the wisdom and consequences of Obama’s policies cannot be defended, his acolytes consider them moral imperatives not subject to rational analysis, practicality or economic realities.

To the extent that Obama supporters succeed in defending his policies, it is accomplished by substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument, often in the form of irrational accusations. They sidestep logic and stifle debate by impugning an opponent’s character i.e. if you oppose Obama’s proposals; you hate children or want to wage a war on women.

Obama’s executive orders and manufactured crises bear comparison to the authoritarian measures taken by Joseph Stalin.

The collectivization of Soviet agriculture was achieved by means of a government-planned famine, carried out deliberately to force peasants into collective farms.

Obama’s open border policy and willful neglect of national security and humanitarian concerns are meant to force Congress and the American people to accept illegal alien amnesty and immigration “reform” meant to alter the nation’s demographics; weaken the United States through wider ethnic, racial and economic divisions; and create a permanent left-wing political majority, in essence, a one-party state.ObamaPen2

Obama is disengaged from the Presidency and the needs of the country only in the sense that his character and ideology buttress him against advice and reason as well as reinforce his personal isolation and political rigidity.

The corrupt status quo continues because Obama has surrounding himself with a collection of equally inexperienced, emotionally immature, dogmatic leftists, whose “ends justify the means” mindset apparently permits them to tell any lie and violate any law in order to attain their political objectives.

Likewise, Obama has transformed the Democrats into a party of pervasive liars, unlike the Republicans, who only lie to their constituents. Neither party has the courage to do the right thing.

Obama’s survival now depends on what path the media will take. Either they remain partisan political activists and Obama surrogates or they strive for honesty, accuracy, fairness and balance in order to restore their credibility as guardians of the public’s right to know.

Ultimately, America can survive Obama, but it cannot survive while withholding the truth.

Politics trumps national security – Dempsey play politics

Editor’s Note – Too often these days, the Pentagon acts more like a political arm of the administration than the warriors they are supposed to be. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey has far more to deal with in his own duties than to make political statements to support his boss.

Former Defense Secretary Gates seems to have more of an idea than Dempsey on the importance of doing your job, and not leaking information:

Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, reportedly blasted the national security team in the Obama White House for blabbing about the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. “Shut the f— up,” Gates told Tom Donilon, who is now Obama’s national security adviser, according to a book by New York Times reporter David Sanger.

Shouldn’t Dempsey being giving the same advice? Shouldn’t he be defending those who have already made the sacrifice – in support of those now doing the same?

Who has more standing in these manners? Tom Donilon, or the OPSEC Education Project? Donilon is completely unqualified, incompetent, and naive – and Dempsey has lost focus at a minimum. Remember your oath General, Obama and team have certainly forgotten theirs.

Politics trumps national security?

General Dempsey Forgets Oath, Plays Politics

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD – Family Security Matters

Has General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made himself a political shill for the Obama Administration?

According to Fox News, General Dempsey criticized a group of former military and intelligence operatives for its aggressive campaign against President Obama, telling Fox News that he is “disappointed” by such political activity, which he called “not useful.”

General Martin Dempsey (R) listens while US President Barack Obama. Politics trumps national security? AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI

Specifically, Dempsey denounced a group of former CIA agents, Navy SEALs and other military members, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, who recently released a long-form political ad blasting Obama for security leaks on his watch, as well as suggesting he has taken too much credit for the SEALs raid in Pakistan that killed Usama bin Laden.

Those seem to be legitimate criticisms made by knowledgeable and experienced individuals.

Dempsey, however, said as the steward of his profession — the military — he thinks it imperative that the military remain “apolitical.”

Nonsense. They are civilians.

This is nothing less than a blatant attempt by Dempsey to silence criticism of Obama because it makes him look bad to the Administration that appointed him.

One imagines the Obama campaign dressing down Dempsey: “Can’t you do something to control your people?”

Like myself, members of the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund are now private citizens, whose freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, the founding document Dempsey took an oath to “support and defend.”

The Obama Administration filed a lawsuit in Ohio that would diminish the rights of military voters.

Perhaps General Dempsey would also prefer that present and former members of the military not be permitted to vote because that would be making a political statement.

It is important to note, however, that military officers become generals largely because of their political savvy and their ability to “work the system.” Dempsey can be forgiven for protecting his position in the halls of power, carefully navigating past and present political minefields.

To use Obama’s own dismissive comments regarding the criticisms made by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Dempsey’s words should not be taken too seriously; “this kind of stuff springs up before election time.”

Instead of dabbling in election year politics, the nation would be better served if Dempsey took his own advice and remained “apolitical” focusing his attention on issues affecting the health and effectiveness of the military, not protecting the flank of the Obama Administration.

I remind General Dempsey that thirty-eight soldiers killed themselves in July, the worst month for suicides since the Army began releasing figures in 2009.

Lawrence Sellin, Phd

If soldiers continue to take their lives at the current rate, the Army will lose about 200 active-duty troops this year, a number that is significantly higher than any year in the past decade.

Attend to your duties, sir. Curtailing free speech by civilians is not one of them.


About the author:

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership” and “Political Establishments and the Culture of Dependency”. He receives email at