Time to Chill - Nothing is as Black and White as You Suppose: Note to a Friend Regarding the Trump Impeachment

I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?

I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime. 

Regarding you’re particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.

Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.

Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?

I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty which limits a president’s Article II powers.

Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? 

I’m assuming your concern here is based on your belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company and Hunter Biden was on its board.

Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to bring up his concerns about the former vice president? 

I don’t think you have the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.

Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)? 

I double checked. I couldn’t find anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t think this question gets you anywhere.

Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?

Again, you seem to assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.

Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him? 

My understanding is that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing nefarious about this element of the story.

Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop? 

Sondland’s testimony was not a clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo? 

As I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his part.

Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an investigation into the Bidens? 

I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At best, this looks like a second-hand report.

Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid? 

This question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had nothing to do with the whistleblower.

Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine? 

As I understand it, Yovanovitch was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Why does Trump still refuse to release documents? 

Trump’s actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of executive privilege.

Why does Trump still keep people from testifying? 

Again, there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the president’s prerogatives.  For better or worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the balance of power between the Congress and the president.

Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s explicit quid pro quo demand. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

The Purple Rubble: Williams College Council Deletes Anti-White Rant by Isaiah Blake '21

The College Council has removed from its Facebook account a controversial video. This video captured an example of profane, incendiary, anti-white bigotry directed at white student representatives by Isaiah Blake '21 - an actor and one of the most prominent black student leaders at Williams College on June 9, 2019.

The video featured a long, stream-of-consciousness rant by Isaiah Blake saying, in part, "...to be here is like sucking white d*** every f***ing day."

"You want a discussion and dialogue. Here’s the f***ing dialog. We don’t have dialogue, because every time we try to talk to you we get shut down by the white moderate, white liberal bull***t."

A link to the video was published on Ephblog on April 15, 2019. A partial transcript appeared at the Anonymous Political Scientist blog on that same day. Finally, The College Fix published a link to the video on April 19, 2019. The College Fix is a national-level conservative website where student journalists write on topics in higher education.

NOTE: A heavily redacted transcript of the June 9, 2019 meeting is still available at 4_9 Minutes.

According to the Williams Record, black student activists planned a demonstration to protest their treatment by the College Council. It was canceled, however, after links to the video of the rant by Isaiah Blake '21 were published at various on-line sites.

Thankfully, there is now a copy of Isaiah Blake's obnoxious rant available on YouTube. Isaiah Blake '21 has appeared in The Rainbow Experiment (2018).

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Big on Quora: What Sites Do Conservatives Use for Fact Checking?

Whenever there is a hot issue, I naturally go to the main websites where I find knowledgeable conservatives offering objective information.

First, I go to Power Line. This is a website that is largely run by conservative, commonsense attorneys. It is particularly helpful in understanding constitutional issues like whether or not Trump has absolute power regarding whether or not illegal immigrants should even be allowed to stay in t he country.

Next, I recommend  http://www.AmericanThinker.com This site includes a number of Harvard trained, Ivy league analysts, former CIA agents, and business school types who offer profoundly insightful, politically incorrect articles focused on the most important issues of the day including Jack Cashill and Thomas Lipson, the editor.

I also usually turn to Breitbart News Network. I have friends who write for them and they are serious journalists who I can count on to provide accurate information.

I’m also very interested in the free speech movement on college campuses. Accordingly, I spend time at The College Fix and Campus Reform to learn about the excesses of our leftist college and university professors. Although I’m retired from politics, you can also find useful and truthful information regarding Barack Obama at my blogsite, Anonymous Political Scientist.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Great News! Donald Trump Has a Copy of Trevor Loudon's New Movie, The Enemies Within

I am pleased to report that Trevor Loudon's new movie, The Enemies Within, has become an important contribution to uncovering the real Hillary Clinton and her ties to Communist sympathizers, Jihadist extremists, and anti-American front groups. I got a note from Loudon earlier today indicating he is selling copies of this movie every couple of minutes.

I'm expecting, eventually, to see it at one of my local theaters too. I am particularly excited to learn today that the director of the movie, Judd Saul, presented Donald Trump, Jr. with a DVD of the film. Trump, Jr. promised Judd that The Enemies Within would be watched and shared with his father Donald Trump before the election. Who knows? Maybe The Enemies Within will be the final bombshell revelation that puts Trump over the top and into the White House?

One of the most shocking things about the film is the revelation of the ties of Huma Abedin - Hillary's closest and now most disgraced aide - to the Muslim Brotherhood through her father. You can see this portion of the movie in the clip below:

As you may know, The Enemies Within, contains a brief interview Loudon did with me containing my description of the young Obama's commitment to a Communist-style revolution in the U.S. Below, I have included links to articles I have written in regards to The Enemies Within and some of the publicity generated by those articles. Enjoy!

American Thinker

"An Alexis de Tocqueville for Our Time," by John Drew
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/an_alexis_de_tocqueville_for_our_time.html

Anonymous Political Scientist

"Film Crew at Our House: Trevor Loudon and The Enemies Within," by John Drew
http://anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/2016/02/trevor-loudon-and-enemies-within-film.html

"Living History: My First Thoughts on Trevor Loudon's New Movie, The Enemies Within," by John Drew
http://anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/2016/10/living-history-my-review-of-trevor.html

WND
'The Enemies Within': New Film Tells of My Old Friend BHO - Marxist Revolutionary," by John Drew
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/new-film-tells-of-my-old-friend-bho-marxist-revolutionary/#rG37hWxh11rf243L.99

"Election 2016: Hillary's Marxist 'Mentor" Featured in 2 Election-Eve Films"
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/hillarys-marxist-mentor-featured-in-2-election-eve-films/

YouTube

"Trevor Loudon: John Drew Willing to Die to Get Out Truth About Young Obama," by John Drew
https://youtu.be/p_6X8cPdveg

"Obama's College Years: Former Student Speaks (1/2)"
https://youtu.be/IgOy71oa3hw

I have no idea of whether or not this movie will make a difference in the coming election. I don't see how anyone could watch it and still vote for Hillary Clinton. At the very least, I feel good that I've left everything on the floor this electoral cycle. If you haven't ordered a copy of The Enemies Within, then please do so now by clicking on this link: http://www.enemieswithinmovie.com/?aff=24.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Quit Your Crying: Obama's Speech Shows Why One-Term Is Enough

The most striking feeling I have after watching Obama's speech on television tonight is that I expect the folks who voted for this guy in 2008 now realize that he simply was not up to the job of being a successful president.

I first listened to his speech on the radio in my office. It did not sound quite so bad to me in that environment. Maybe I was not really paying attention. On television, however, his speech was clearly a disappointment. On that stage, Obama looked small...like a little ant in a suit. He looked grey and ashen. It looked to me like his eyes were tearing up for about 15 minutes of his speech. All in all, he did not have the usual energy I associate with his standard stump speech, certainly not the energy of his famous 2004 speech.

I also noticed, when I watch the speech on television, that the camera brought to my attention that Obama's face was twitching with stress. Finally, he seemed to be droning on in the same, boring pace - not much vocal variety or spontaneity in this presentation.

• The most chilling moment for me? Obama's assertion that Al Queda is more dangerous that Russia. What, after all, is Obama going to be more flexible about after the election?
• The most bizarre? Praising the guy who won the lottery, but then went back to his factory job.
• The reference to Lincoln? It made me feel Obama is overwhelmed, frightened and incompetent in his job.
• My advice? Send all the illegal aliens and their children home and I will be just fine with our existing roads and bridges. 

All in all, there was a surprising lack of facts and details in his speech. It was as if he made no effort at all to persuade me to vote for him. Instead, he offered a silly idea that the economic crisis was worse than we expected and that we should endure more and more pain until he figures out how to turn things around.

Ironically, this poor performance comes to us on the heels of a couple of stories which call vivid attention to Obama's short-comings as a leader. The first is Bob Woodward's new book, "The Price of Politics," which goes on sale Sept. 11, 2012. It shows how Obama underestimated Boehner and pressed him for additional tax increases after Boehner thought a deal had been made. Obama's insistence of pushing Boehner further ended up breaking the whole deal apart.

(There is, by the way, a great story in Woodward's book: The bored Pelosi put Obama on mute while he was delivering an empty pep talk to her while she was doing the real work of hammering out the stimulus package.)

Further evidence of dysfunction showed up in a report by Jodi Kantor who sees in Obama some of the same perfectionistic dysfunction which made Jimmy Carter such a poor president. Her behind-the-scenes report shows Obama majoring in the minor things with a misplaced confidence in his own greatness and skill. Meanwhile, Obama's arrogance is thoughtfully considered by Thomas Sowell who remarks that Obama is "...seldom right, but never in doubt." (This, of course, is consistent with my own take on the young Obama who thought he - as a sophomore - had a stronger take on the possibility of Communist revolution in the U.S. than I did as a graduate student at Cornell.)

He also seems to be underestimating my intelligence once again. Obama seeks to suggest that Romney is inexperienced in foreign policy when it is perfectly clear that Obama himself had little experience in foreign policy when he was first elected president. Obama offers us a path for the future and does not address the natural questions of whether or not that path is working out for us now. He argues "everyone plays by the same rules" and yet supports affirmative action policies that make it harder than ever for young white boys and girls to succeed.

The internal contradictions are just mind-numbing. The vacuousness of Obama's lazy thinking was on full display tonight. He tries to score points when he makes fun of Republicans who seem to offer tax cuts as the inappropriate solution to having a cold, but then undercuts his own argument by reminding us that he has made tax cuts. He praises entrepreneurs, but takes away from their success by demanding that they become better citizens. He praises government and then talks about the need to reform it more - something he has neglected to do in situations like junkets in Las Vegas or Solyndra. He asserts that the Republicans are vague about their plans for the future, but then only offers vague ideas himself.

I suspect at this point in his political career Obama expected to be teaching us the value of socialism and wealth redistribution. Instead, he is suffering from the failure of his own collectivist ideas. It frightens me to imagine what Obama will be doing to our country when he no longer fears the verdict of the American people regarding his foreign policies or Supreme Court appointments. Give our reduced family income and abnormally high unemployment I think Clint Eastwood is right: We need to get a new president - a smart one who knows how to create economic prosperity.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Dr. Drew Debunks ConWebBlog: Five Authors with Ph.D.s See Me as Credible

I have been reflecting on the irony that five authors with Ph.D.s all find my take on young Obama credible including Michael Savage, Jack Cashill, Stanley Kurtz, Paul Kengor and Jerome Corsi, and yet I get attacked by less credentialed critics who assert I have no credibility. What is up with that?  At any rate, I thing it is important to quickly debunk the folks who attack my credibility, so I thought I would jot out some ideas here and now.

As you may know Jerome Corsi just published an article featuring my first impressions of young Obama: I thought he was part of a wealthy gay couple. In a world where Obama uses his marriage and family for political gain, I guess it is fair to ask folks like me what we first thought of the sexual orientation of the young Obama. What ticks me off, however, is when the guy running ConWebBlog suggests that I am a "discredited source." Terry K. writes:

But as we've also detailed, Drew -- who has cited his encounters with Obama to claim that he was, as Corsi wrote, a "Marxist revolutionar[y]" -- met Obama only twice in social occasions, making it highly unlikely that he could have made such sweeping conclusions of Obama's purported nature based on brief, casual encounters. Further, some of Drew's details about Obama have been discredited by actual college friends of Obama.

Corsi makes no apparent effort to fact-check anything Drew says.

It seems Drew is nothing more than an Obama-hater who's embellishing his brief, long-ago encounters to curry favor with fellow Obama-haters. Why? Presumably to sell some books -- he's supposedly working on one. And Corsi is swallowing every word he says.

Let me unpack this for you and illustrate why I have such a low opinion of ConWebBlog.

First, my assessment of Obama's commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought was not based simply on brief, casual encounters. The girlfriend who introduced me to Obama, Caroline Boss, was so close to him that she became part of the composite character "Regina" in Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. The very name "Regina" was taken from the real life name of Boss's grandmother.

Second, I did not have a casual encounter with young Obama. Instead, he and I engaged in an intense, sometimes angry debate about whether or not Communism was a realistic objective and whether or not a violent Communist revolution was or was not a realistic possibility. It was an important debate that - potentially - impacted young Obama's early career decisions. I remember that debate no so much because of young Obama, but because of how my changing views on Marxist ideology impacted my relationship with Boss. (No one else has provided anything close to the detailed description of young Obama's thinking as I have provided in various articles.)

Third, many of the details of my story have been confirmed, not discredited including my report on Obama's GQ style of dress which was confirmed by Margot Mifflin in Remnick's The Bridge, my report that both young Obama and young Chandoo were in the San Francisco area over Christmas break 1980 which was confirmed by David Maraniss in his book, Barack Obama: The Story, and my take on the lack of African-Americans in young Obama's social circles is verified by reports which indicate that none of Obama's supposed African-American friends from Oxy attended his wedding to Michelle even though his Indian and Pakastani friends from Oxy did attend his wedding to Michelle.

My report on Boss's radicalism was confirmed, in part, when Remnick pointed out that the Democrat Socialist Alliance, where she was the co-chair, displayed a large banner of Karl Marx in the Occidental Quad and later when Remnick confirms Obama's roommate, Chandoo, admitted to his youthful Marxism.

I was on the phone with Jerome Corsi while he was writing that article and I can verify he was doing his fact-checking by running various photos, scenarios and stories by me prior to publication. I am consenting to interviews because I am still quite frustrated that the mainstream media failed to pick up on young Obama's radicalism in 2008. I have no doubt that if my story had gotten proper media attention in 2008, Obama would never have been elected president in the first place.

Although I have not been interviewed by liberal authors like Remnick or Maraniss, my story has been considered credible enough to be featured in a number of other publications by four authors with Ph.D.s including, as Corsi has written, the following references:

Author Paul Kengor discusses Drew’s testimony that Obama was a Marxist-Leninist at Occidental in his 2010 book “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century,” beginning on page 445, and in his 2012 book “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis – The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor,” beginning on page 10 and resuming more extensively on page 249.

Author and WND columnist Jack Cashill mentioned Drew’s testimony of Obama’s Marxist views on page 224 of his 2011 book “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President.”

Author Stanley Kurtz discusses Drew’s contention that Obama was a “pure Marxist-socialist” at Occidental in his 2010 book “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism,” on pages 9-10 and again on pages 88-91.

Finally, I have debunked many of the on-line critics of my face-to-face report on young Obama's ideological extremism in the posts I created usually on the same day that attack appeared including the following work:

In response to the "Oh For Goodness Sake blogger," Anne Stoddard, who first wrote about me on February 17, 2010, I immediately debunked her silliness in an article I wrote on the same day her article was posted which appeared at the Patriot Action Network website.

I also debunked the "Oh For Goodness Sake" blogger once again when she wrote another inaccurate smear piece attacking me on March 11, 2011. I immediately debunked this article too.

For recent articles that provide more details of my take on young Obama's ideological extremism, please see the following articles in American Thinker, Breitbart.com or PJMedia. As far as I am concerned, I think it is extremely unfair to describe me as a discredited source when so many of the things I said about young Obama and his friends in February 2010 have rung true as subsequent literature - from liberals and conservatives - has verified my take on young Obama's radicalism.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Here At Last: PJMedia Welcomes Dr. Drew as Blogger

As you may know, I am very honored to have my first article appear in PJMedia this afternoon. This is a top-notch publication which supports the work done by the on-line television programs of PJTV. This article was called, "Barack Obama's Marxist Ghosts of Christmas Past."

This imaginative title inspired a series of cartoons from Chris Muir over at Day By Day Cartoon.

All in all, I'm grateful that we are going into the 2012 presidential campaign with a lot more visibility regarding Obama's past than was the case in 2008. Back then, no one knew I existed for that my story could be verified. Now, it is up and running at American Thinker, Brietbart.com and PJMedia. It looks like my testimony of young Obama's ideological extremism is now available despite the mainstream media.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Obama Fail: Media Dumbfounded by Obama's Lies About His Kenyan Birth

I have been thinking that if Obama had a son, he would tell him to pretend to be born in Kenya too. 

All in all, it is really strange to read the dysfunctional liberal group think in the mainstream media when it comes to the news that Obama's book agent promoted him by saying he was born in Kenya. It is unthinkable that this copy was not run by Obama for approval. That’s not how that book agent business works.

We know, as a matter of fact, that liberals like Elizabeth Warren lie about their ethnic status to get ahead in the world of academic affirmative action. It is not surprising that Obama did the same by touting his supposed Kenyan birthplace. This latest story is a great confirmation about a long-standing pattern in Obama’s life – lying about his past.

For the record, Obama lied about the closeness of his relationship with Bill Ayers. He lied about listening to Rev. Wright’s extremist, anti-white hate speech. Obama lied about his political views at Occidental College hiding the fact that he was an out and out Marxist-Leninist when I met him in 1980. Obama lied in Dreams about seeing an article about a black man who had bleached his own skin. Obama lied in Dreams about his “composite” girlfriend, Geneveive Cook. He lied about her background, her ties to Indonesia, her Australian heritage – even the color of her eyes. Obama lied about Cook breaking into tears because she could never be black.

Obama is a serial liar. He hid his intense relationship with convicted felon Anthony Rezko until FBI surveillance revealed the full extent of this relationship. Obama does not have the integrity needed to succeed as president. Those who justify his lying about his Kenyan birth are defending a man who is not worthy of their time and attention.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Not So Bright for a Liberal Prodigy: Dr. Drew Dismantles Nate Silver's Attack on Political Science Election Forecast Models

As a student of charismatic leadership, I'm usually skeptical about the so-called "prodigies" so admired by the leftwing media outlets like the New York Times.  Consequently, I like to think that I was the political scientist who first got under Nate Silver's skin in terms of pulling apart his arrogant predictions of electoral results based on last minute polling data.  I suggested that it really wasn't very interesting to predict elections results from polling data since all we were doing was assuming that the voters would not do much to change their minds between now and the upcoming election. Silver, by the way, rose to fame as a predictor of baseball outcomes.

Nevertheless, young guys like Nate Silver and Ezra Klein have been elevated by the liberal media because of their style of writing has a sort of pseudo-science quality about it which - I suppose - is the only plausible justification for having a young white guy writing for a liberal, extremist entity.  When you look into their credentials, for example, there is not to much to be impressed by their records.  Klien only earned a B.A. in political science at University of California - Irvine.  In 2000, Silver graduated with Honors with an A.B. degree in economics from the University of Chicago. Only in the crazy world of leftwing journalism is either one considered an expert.

As far as I'm concerned both of them are still undergraduates when it comes to understanding politics, economics or sociology.  As such, I enjoy poking holes in their pretentious, arrogant takes on contemporary politics.  As a political scientist and an eyewitness to young Obama's ideological extremism, I'm particularly irritated that folks like Silver and Klein do not seem to appreciate what is obvious to most of us: Obama's extraordinary ties to radical Marxist socialist thought. 

As part of my larger effort to bring these "prodigies" to Earth, I left a comment for Silver months ago that pointed out that political scientists could predict presidential elections far in advance simply by looking at variables like the economy or the success or failure of a war.  In reaction to my critique, Silver has launched a full scale attack against the very idea of political science and the usefulness of making predictions far in advance.  In one of his most recent articles, for example, the title of his article makes the absurd claim that political scient models based on ‘fundamentals’ have "failed" at predicting presidential elections.  This headline, of course, is absurd when you consider, as John Sides writes:

Of the 58 separate predictions that Nate tabulates, 85 percent of them correctly identified the winner — even though most forecasts were made two months or more before the election and even though few of these forecasts actually incorporated trial heat polls from the campaign.

Sides, by the way, is a political scientist who uses these forecasting models himself and sees them as ways of testing overall theory. The larger issue, for me, is that Silver's comments reflect the odd anti-intellectual bias of the left-wing media.  As far as I can tell, the most interesting, powerful and predictive work in political science is coming from conservatives like the late James Q. Wilson or Charles Murray.  Personally, I'm sort of proud that my modest contribution to political science - my child labor, child welfare theory - does such a great job of predicting when and where child welfare programs arose in the U.S. and around the world.

All in all, I'm skeptical of guys like Silver who exaggerate their skill sets to the extent that they imagine that their comments "sit at the intersection of political science and the mainstream media." As an award-winning political scientist, I think common sense alone suggests that a fellow writing for the NYT would be anxious to look for anything to back up his fellow liberals' hope that the horrible "Obama economy" will not cause Obama's defeat in 2012. As a real, published political scientist I have the following comments:

1. A Real Political Scientist Doesn't Play Games with the Dependent Variable: It is silly for him to change the dependent variable to one that the authors of these models don't hold to simply because Silver says, "I’ve always found this choice to be counterintuitive." Silver's bizarre new dependent variable, however, helps him make his case because, as he writes, this choice "increases the error rate of the models so that they are about twice as large."

2. A Real Political Scientist Pays Attention to The Comparative Political Science Literature: If the connection between the economy and election results was as tenuous as Silver suggests, then the comparative date should support Silver's thesis.

3. A Real Political Scientist Understands that the Data is the Variable: In truth, there are no special, unmeasurable things when it comes to political science.  In the end, the data says what the data says. The bottom line is that the economy matters a great deal when it comes to predicting presidential election because of what we know about voters, not what we know about linear regression models. This is bad news for Obama and his supporters.  Those of us who really understand economics and politics predicted as early as January 2009 that the stimulus package would fail, that the economy would remain poor longer than Obama expected, and that this would doom his chances for a second term.  Thankfully, one of the benefits of age is that you get better at political science, not worse.

Being a prodigy is great, but - in the end - there is no substitute for long years of specialized study in your field of expertise.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Dr. Drew Speaks Out at SOC912: Obama's Past More Important Than His Future

As you may know, my take on young Obama's ideological extremism has appeared in at least four books including Stanley Kurtz's meticulously researched Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. I've even been featured on the Fox News website. Nevertheless, I have never been on television with my story.  I've been featured in radio shows by Michael Savage and Neal Boortz, but I have not been able to penetrate the slightest edges of the mainstream video. As you will see in the following videos, it may be I'm not ready for prime time.

In a set of new YouTube videos, Mike Munzing has recorded one of my most complete, and lengthy talks on my intellectual path, my first impressions of the young Obama, my debate with Obama on Marxist theory and contemporary politics, and my take on the mysteries of the Obama biography. 

I think my main point is that Stanley Kurtz got my part of the narrative exactly right. As Kurtz points out, on pages 9-10 of his book, my take on Obama's Marxist socialist ideology was first published by NewsMax in February 2010. Later, my perspective was validated by a liberal author, David Remnick, who reported that Obama and many of his closest friends at Occidental College were socialists. Accordingly, in these new video tapes I articulate my views on the young Marxist-Leninist friends of Barack Obama including his sophomore year roommate Hasan Chandoo and my ex-girlfriend, Caroline Boss, who was the co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental in 1980/1981. I'm still amazed that my testimony has not been featured on a television program.

At any rate, the second video in this series contains my controversial, politically incorrect first impression of young Obama and his friend Hasan Chandoo.  All in all, I think my take is original and refreshing compared to accounts in almost all the other early Obama literature.  (I've been reading these book as part of my effort to better understand how Obama fooled so many people into thinking he was always a pragmatic centrist.) While Kurtz's account is the most detailed and supported work on young Obama to date, I don't think liberals really appreciate the quality of Kurtz's account or what Jeffrey Hurt calls Obama's deep dishonesty. I think liberals are too quick to ignore voices like mine concerning the young Obama's ideological perspective.

Nevertheless, there is still very little media attention focused on Obama's long-standing ties to ideological extremists.  To remedy this, my good friend Mike Munzing videotaped my recent speech to the South Orange County 9-12 Group.  There are four videos in total.  I'm expecting that they will be useful to opposition researchers seeking to understand the reality of Obama's Marxist socialist roots. I'm particularly encouraged by the third video which discusses how I got out of my Marxist socialist ideology and ask where is Obama's conversion story?

I thought it got better as I made my way through the speech.  Check out the question and answer period for some of the most crowd pleasing moments.

One of the most interesting things about the evening is that Orly Taitz was in the audience.  You can hear her question in the question and answer portion of the YouTube video. Meanwhile, I can report that Investors Business Daily is aware of my face-to-face testimony on the young Barack Obama - I expect it will make a difference in 2012.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Republican Challenger John Webb Scores Big Victory Over Congressman John Campbell

I just witnessed a remarkable political event.  This evening, the Orange County Republican Central Committee (OCGOP) denied its endorsement of a Republican incumbent, Rep. John Campbell.  To win the local GOP endorsement Campbell needed a 2/3 majority of the elected central committee members.  His effort fell short by just one vote. 

The evening began with roll call, recognition for elected officials and extraordinary volunteers.  Out of all the endorsements given out this evening, Campbell was the only incumbent facing a challenger - Republican candidate John Webb. 

As you may know, John Webb is new to politics.  He served in the United States Marine Corps and has been a California highway patrolman, and a police officer. In the private sector, John was a corporate executive with State Farm Insurance Company and currently owns and operates a successful insurance brokerage.  Locally, John has become a favorite among Tea Party activists.  I was honored, for example, when he asked me to be the keynote speaker at his upcoming fundraising event this Thursday evening. 

Rep. Campbell spoke first.  He stressed his role in warning about California's budget crisis and the significant role he played nationally in fighting against earmarks.  Campbell looked nervous and a little hyper-active with his edgy, scruffy beard.  Next, John Webb spoke.  Webb came across as calm, friendly, self-deprecating in his humility and honesty.  It quickly became obvious, however, that the most vocal members of the crowd were rooting for Webb to stop Campbell's effort to win the endorsement of the local Republican party. 

Webb, in particular, contrasted his views with Campbells saying that he would have voted against TARP and against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.  Graciously, Webb said that he did not want to attack Campbell.  He merely said that he offered a different "skill set" that was more appropriate to the new conditions faced by the Republican party and warned that voters would lose faith in the Republicans if we did not offer candidates who held tightly to strong conservative ideology. 

In the end, the OCGOP appeared divided over endorsing Campbell.  A number of speakers, for example, expressed unhappiness that Rep. Cambell had not spent more time in the district and had only conducted one townhall event.  Campbell sort of made things worse by suggesting that since he had more time to focus on issues as a member of Congress that he was the recipient of better and higher quality information than those in the audience who doubted the wisdom of his decisions. 

(I sort of took it as a personal attack when Campbell suggested that Webb was "pandering" to people in the district.  I really don't think that Webb's welcoming of my message was anything but a straightforward recognition that I'm telling the truth about young Obama's radical extremist ideology.  I don't see Webb pandering to me or to all the others who see Obama as a significant threat to the fundamental tenets of American culture and traditional economic success.)

In the end, OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh asked the elected central committee members stand to record their votes and Campbell fell short of securing the endorsement.  Campbell got 41 votes for his endorsement, but needed 42 of the 63 total votes cast.  I have no doubt this will be big news around the nation tomorrow and that it will send a signal that plenty of people back home in Orange County are unhappy with Rep. Campbell's performance in office. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Andrew Breitbart Announces He Has College Video of Young Obama's Radical Perspective

I just got some amazing news this evening.  Apparently, Andrew Breitbart has video of young Obama in action which will document Obama's commitment to class conflict and racial division.  I'm expecting that these videos will provide further confirmation of what I've been saying since 2008 - that young Obama was a committed Marxist socialist looking forward to a socialist future. 

Up until now, I have enjoyed the fact that my take on young Obama's ideological extremism was supported by the newest developments in the Obama literature - especially by Stanley Kurtz's book, Radical-In-Chief.  I've always known that if I had pictures of me with young Obama, video, or audio tape of him discussing Marxist ideology that there would have been greater interest in my story in 2008. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Dr. Drew to Speak on Young Obama's Marxist Socialist Ideology at Fundraiser for OC Republican John Webb

As you may know, John Webb is a Republican candidate for California’s 45th congressional district.  I'm very honored that he has decided to feature my take on young Obama's ties to Marxist socialist ideology at his upcoming fundraising event in nearby Laguna Hills, CA. 

The title of my speech will be “Have You Ever Wondered About President Obama’s Ideological Beliefs While Attending Occidental College?”

As a graduate of Occidental College and a former Marxist who met the young Obama, I think I can offer unusually clear and compelling insight into President Obama's ideological ties to the Marxist socialist left and help clarify where Obama wants to lead our nation if he is re-elected in 2012.  My college ex-girlfriend was co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance while young Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College.  She was one of the three featured speakers at the famous anti-apartheid event at Occidental College in Feburary 1981 where Obama made a brief appearance in a skit.  One of the other speakers was Obama's college roommate, the admitted Marxist socialist, Hasan Chandoo.  I can verify that both Obama and Chandoo were ardent Marxists when I hung out with them and debated the finer points of Marxist theory. 

This crucial fundraising event will take place at 6:45 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Thursday, February 23, 2012.  I'll be speaking at the Laguna Hills Community Center, Heritage Room “C” 25555 Alicia Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA.

The pricing for this event seems very reasonable to me.  If you RSVP before February 10 the tickets are $25 for individuals and $35 for couples.  If you RSVP on or after February 10 the price moves up to $40 for individuals and $50 for couples.

To get your tickets to this first ever fundraising event for John Webb, you can make a donation online at http://www.johnwebb2012.net/ or purchase your tickets at the door.  (If you purchase your ticket online, they will ask you to present your John Webb for Congress donation receipt at the door for entry.)

As you would expect, contributions to John Webb for Congress are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Corporate contributions are prohibited. Contributions from foreign nationals are not permitted. Federal law requires them to use their best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Carney Asked Why Obama Won't Release College Transcripts

One of the most interesting aspects of the news, for me, is watching the Obama team dodge questions about Obama's past.  Just today, for example, Ed Henry of Fox News asked Obama spokesperson, Jay Carney, about Obama's college transcripts.  I was surprised at how quickly Carney dodged the question and simply referred the reporter to the Obama campaign. 

The truth of the matter is that there must be bad new in those transcripts or they would have been released a long time ago.  I met the young Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College and long before he became a genius in the eyes of so many simply by getting himself elected as president of the Harvard Law Review.

The young Obama I met was a person of average intellect for the Occidental College campus.  He seemed more like the sort of guy who was interested in parties than in serious academic issues.  He was, as I have indicated before, a Marxist socialist anticipating a Communist style revolution in the U.S.  He did not, however, show any signs of superior intellectual potential. 

As I have said for a long time now, Obama's charisma depends, in part, on the perception that he is a genius.  As one of those who got to know how young Obama's mind worked, I can assure you that he was not, and never was a genius.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Dr. Drew Reacts: Debunking Leftist Fogbow Propaganda

I thought it would be a good idea to debunk the false statements made about me at the famous Fogbow website.  For a look at the real people and the real names of the folks posting anonymously at Fogbow, please check out the excellent YouTube video at LiveLeak called Who's Who of Blog Talk Radio and The Fogbow Obots aka Obama's Brown Shirts.

First, the Fogbow Obots assert that I have described myself as a "classmate" of young Obama.  This, of course, is completely untrue.  I have always made it clear that I was a graduate student from Cornell who was visiting friends from Occidental College when I met young Obama.  Nevertheless, this initial lie tells you a lot about the ruthlessness and disregard for the truth which seems common at the Fogbow website.

On the basis of this untruthful claim, the Fogbow people pretend to catch me in a lie simply by repeating my basic statements.  For my full report on meeting young Obama, see my first article in American Thinker called Meeting Young Obama. 

Second, the folks at Fogbow try to make me look foolish by saying that I believe Obama is still a Marxist socialist simply due to the brief exposure I had to his ideas when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College.  They write:

Based on spending just a few hours with the President when he was 19 years old, in a relaxed social setting at an age when most students enjoy exploring and trying new ideas and thoughts, Drew concluded the President was and still is a radical Marxist.

I would have to be mentally ill to say that I base my take on Obama today simply on my face-to-face exposure to young Obama's ideological extremism.  My take on President Obama's abiding commitment to Marxist socialist thought is based on a combination of factors including 1) his ties to Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Sen. Alice Palmer in the 1990s, 2) the lack of a conversion story in the Obama presidential history which would indicate he dropped his youthful radicalism, and 3) the continuing rhetoric coming from Obama - as a candidate and as president - which indicates a profound commitment to a class conflict model of economic development and an out and out hostility to our traditional U.S. economic system. 

I have also provided detailed rebuttals to the inaccurate information being promoted by one of the members of the Fogbow website, Anna Stoddard, who is the blogger at "Oh For Goodness Sake."  For example, I immediately responded to Stoddard initial attack on me - which she posted on February 17, 2010 - where she made the bizarre suggestion that I worked for Ann Coulter while she was an undergraduate student at Cornell University.  You can see my response in this article at my own blog site. 

In addition, I also responded immediately to further bizarre comments made by Anna Stoddard on March 10, 2011 which made the even more bizarre suggestion that I should have known that Obama drove a red Fiat when, in truth, I made it very clear in my own work that the fancy car I saw Obama riding in when I first met him was owned by his wealthy Pakistani friend, Hasan Chandoo.  You can see my rebuttal to this silly idea in this article at my own blog site.  As far as I can tell, Stoddard is an elderly retired lady currently living in Mexico.  I think the silly mistakes in her blog show that she is spending too much of her retirement money on things that are killing her brain cells.

The folks at Fogbow like to position themselves as journalists who have a more accurate take on reality than their conservative opponents.  All I can say is that the Fogbow folks have a history of creating false documents and conducting dirty tricks.  Based on the gap between my real story and their out and out lies, I would think no one should take the folks at Fogbow seriously when it comes to getting the facts out about the young Obama.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Augustine25

The bright moon of March 19 inspired this year’s Christmas card. We still remember how we drove around town to find a high spot to view a rare moment when the Earth, Moon and Sun were all in alignment and the Moon was at its nearest approach to the Earth in 18 years.

Moon Lit Christmas Eve by John C. Drew, Ph.D.  Acryllic on canvas December, 2011.

In a similar manner, we spent much of the year in the grasp of economic and political forces beyond our control and uplifted by some powerful figures that disrupted our thinking and introduced us to better ideas. The tidal waves began in early January when we drove up to Beverly Hills to meet Stanley Kurtz and heard him speak about his new book, Radical-In-Chief, at David Horowitz’s Wednesday Morning Club. Kurtz credited John’s report on young Obama’s ideological views for encouraging him to research Obama’s beliefs.

Online, John debated MSNBC pundits like Ezra Klein and Keith Olbermann. Locally, Mike Munzing pulled John down to Earth and into local politics to serve as his alternate on the Orange County Republican Central Committee. With Mike’s help, John shared his own story at speeches to the Republican Women’s Federated Clubs in Laguna Niguel, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano.

Jay McDowell, a corporate-level business coach, brought order and discipline to our small business. With Jay’s guidance, we made changes including recruiting three new grant writing associates, finding a new grant researcher, and setting up new business management systems such as Foundation Search, Drop Box and QuickBooks. John’s speaking schedule took him to Anchorage, Alaska where he saw moose roaming the streets. “The moose are a nuisance and they are out to kill,” he said.

The year ended with a surprising bang as we won a number of new contracts for grant writing services. We are celebrating with jazz piano Christmas music and fresh baked cinnamon raison oatmeal cookies – even as our home is buffeted by strong winds. Although we remember 2011 as a year in which we were stirred and shaken, we are nevertheless pleased to top it off by wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Giving Up All My Secrets: Dr. Drew Interviewed by Historian David J. Garrow

I'm honored to announce I was just interviewed by Pulitzer Prize winning historian, David J. Garrow, even though I suspect that anyone who stepped foot on the Occidental College campus and met young Obama between 1979-1981 has received a similar visit. 

In my case, it was a particularly humbling experience. Right now, I feel like I endured a trip to the dentist. When I first heard from Prof. Garrow by e-mail I was not sure it was really him. I checked out some of his YouTube videos and then asked him to give me a call so I could be sure I was talking to the real guy and not some deranged Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protester.

As you may know, Garrow is the winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Biography and the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award.  His book, Bearing the cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was probably the most comprehensive book written about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

At first, I was not certain it was a good idea to speak to him or not.  I called around to some of my friends and quickly figured out that although Garrow is a liberal he does have a reputation for doing fair and accurate historical work.  In Bearing the Cross, for example, he reported on how Martin Luther King, Jr. cheated on his wife and the impact that FBI disclosures of this information impacted the last three years of King's life. 

Garrow taped his interview of me.  My understanding is that nothing I said will be published until President Obama is out of office.

Nevertheless, it is not often that you meet with a presidential historian and I was a little startled by the experience.  To start off, I was surprisingly nervous.  I almost dumped a glass of ice tea on him.  It was also surprisingly unpleasant.  I prepped for the interview by sorting through old photographs and rereading about 30 old notes and letters from the 1980-1981 era of my life.  It was a shocking reminder of the emotional immaturity of my early 20's.  I confessed to one of my friends, for example, that my ratings as an instructor in the political science department at Cornell University had improved since the last semester because I had stopped laughing out loud at the students who said stupid things. 

I also found out that presidential historians have an awkward role in informing people of the deaths of those who used to be in their social circles.  In my case, I discovered that one of the Occidental College radical leaders I knew, Gary Chapman, 58, had died of a heart attack last December.  I had mentioned Chapman as a prominent leader of the student anti-apartheid movement in Meeting Young Obama earlier this year.

Nevertheless, Garrow made it pleasant to reminisce about old friends and to learn who got married to who, who succeeded in life, and who crashed and burned in a spectacular fashion. My attitude, of course, is that I'm going to be deceased for a lot longer than I have lived and consequently I provided him with my complete honesty - flaws and all. 

At a certain point, I have decided, you can no longer feel embarrassment for the things you have done, you can only expect future generations will learn from your mistakes.  

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Dr. Drew's True Confessions: The Conversion Story of a Repentant Ex-Marxist

I grew up poor and I thought it was unfair for me to be held back simply because of the mistakes of my parents. It drove me nuts, for example, to think that kids less intelligent, hard-working, and moral than me enjoyed vacations in Europe while I lived in a home with raw sewage in the backyard. I thought Marxist socialism would give young people in similar situations a more equal opportunity to enjoy the good things in life.

In retrospect, however, I didn't have anyone in my life to explain compound interest, or how to write a business plan, or how to apply computer technology to the most interesting questions. I think if my family had been part of a contemporary Christian church, then I would have had my questions answered and I would have made better decisions.

I got a track scholarship to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles. All the folks around me at Oxy seemed to think the best thing on earth that you could do with your life was to become a college professor. So I went with the program. I got a scholarship to attend graduate school where I got to study with the some of the best professors in the nation in American government and public policy.

My commitment to Marxist socialist thought, however, gradually came to an end by the summer of 1982 when I began to notice that there was a larger spiritual world which did not fit the materialistic atheist models of modern social science. It was a world of intuition, coincidence, and syncronicity which Marxism saw as only an illusion used to lubricate the workings of capitalist exploitation. I also figured out that my empathy for others was not a weakness...it was an extremely useful tool for generating guesses about how the world really worked.

As I became more spiritual I also started to have an unusual amount of success intellectually and academically. My thinking, writing, and observations knit together and I started to attract positive attention with my research on the causes and timing of welfare programs in the U.S.

In my case, I remember where I was the exact moment I realized I no longer believed in the ideals of Communism: I was walking through the basement of McGraw Hall at Cornell University in September 1983. I had just finished an argument with my radical thesis advisor. As I recall I began to believe that the problems associated with child abuse and neglect might be easily fixed through the use of European-style visiting nurse program. As best I can recall, my thesis advisor saw child abuse as a larger problem caused by the necessity to invest in the reproduction of social capital under conditions in which children were mistakenly seen as elements of private property as part of the larger cultural and legal structures which maintain the reproduction of oppressive class conflict. The solution to child abuse, in his model, would involve paying attention to much greater issues involving the distribution of power and wealth in a modern industrialized society. (Or something like that...) Whatever the details of that argument, I remember the encounter left me thinking he was ideologically blinded and alarmingly out-of-touch with reality.

In my research, I had inadvertantly discovered a bizarre failing in modern political science. I was able to show that much of what we consider our modern America - schools, parks, Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs, and aid for families with dependent children - was largely a consequence of the earlier effort to enforce child labor laws. I know this sounds completely obvious...but the social science development literature of the 1960s and 1970s had been written without any reference to the role of child labor law enforcement as a key step in the modernization process.

Based on my historical research, I disconfirmed the Marxist hypothesis that welfare programs arose out of class struggle. My research showed they arose as an unintended consequence of the completely independent prior decision to stop child labor.

I ended up teaching at Williams College in MA, the nation's top rated liberal arts college. I won an award from the American Political Science Association for my thesis. It is now published in book form.

Today, I'm married. I'm proud that I attend a Baptist Church that overlooks the Pacific Ocean. I have my own management consulting business. Right at this moment, I'm struggling to get up to speed on this new social networking technology...and I'm excited that it provides a way to get around the mainstream media.
 
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Left Wing Blogger Now Asking Who is John Drew? Dr. Drew's Responses

Last year, I was surprised - and somewhat honored - to see that Anna Stoddard the blogger at "Oh, For Goodness Sake" put together a biography on me. The article is here

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7349

I thought this forum was a good place to republish a public response to the issues raised by the article by Stoddard, an elderly retiree from New York now living in Mexico. For my immediate, same day, reaction to Stoddard's error-filled article see my story at Patriot Action Net.

The first thing to say is that I was Ann Coulter's T.A. which means I was responsible for grading her papers, grading her exams, and leading her small group discussion sections. I was actually working for her American government professor, Theodore J. Lowi. So, I was actually Lowi's teaching assistant and Coulter was one of my very first students. I think she can also communicate how she saw me evolve from being a young radical extremist into a being a moderate, non-Marxist social scientist. Poor Anna Stoddard, writing in Oh, For Goodness Sake, cannot seem to figure this out and never modified the text even as I brought this issue to her attention almost immediately after she first wrote her article.

(Literally, I called this error to her attention on the same day she wrote this awful smear job, but she did not even acknowledge this bizarre error until 9/19/2011.)

Second, I really was never rejected for tenure as Ms. Stoddard indicates in Oh, For Goodness Sake. The situation was worse than that. The folks at Williams took me off the tenure track in 1989 and really did not even let me compete for tenure. Their story is that my research was sub-par. The irony, of course, is that a month or so later I won the William Anderson Award from the American Political Science Association for the best doctoral dissertation in the nation in my field. My story is that they were hostile to me because I was a man, Armenian-American, conservative and quite vocal in my complaints against affirmative action and those who doubted the wisdom of welfare reform.

The larger issue raised by Anna Stoddard in Oh, For Goodness Sake is my relationship with Obama. In truth, I only met Obama a handful of times. What is missing, however, is that Obama and I were part of an intense cultural sub-group due to our connections at Occidental College. My knowledge of him was built, in part, through my prior knowledge of Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, Caroline Boss, and others  - the young people who were active in campus politics driven by the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental College. I took my status as a Marxist revolutionary thinker very seriously...and so did he. It not a small deal to live your life anticipating the Marxist revolution was coming down the road. The intensitiy of Obama's commitment to Marxism is why my girlfriend could refer to him as "one of us."

As she writes in Oh, For Goodness Sake, Stoddard also misses that I knew the Marxist professors Obama talks about in Dreams of My Father and I was dating the various structural feminists too. I knew the same foreign students and anti-apartheid activists.

By all accounts, my wife and I are taking grave risks because of my willingness to discuss Obama's early Marxist socialist ideology. If Anna Stoddard and her "Oh, For Goodness Sake" blog is the best that liberal Democrats can do to discredit my story, then I think I can stand up to anything thrown at me by http://www.attackwatch.com/  Seriously, we are okay. We have seen no threats against us. Why?  I think most Republicans already believed Obama was a Marxist and most Democrats do not think it is a bad thing in the first place.

Nevertheless, I'm still frustrated and puzzled by why I could not get this story into the media sooner. If it were not for Newsmax, Breitbart TV and talk radio, then I'm not sure it ever would have gotten to the general public.  Nevertheless, I learned in politics that it is important to respond immediately when you are under attack by an untruthful, error-prone person like Anna Stoddard writing in Oh, For Goodness Sake.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.