In 1990, theer was a group of mostly black students that wanted to radicalize or destroy the harvard law review. They hada candidate. they prevented the election of the usual candidate.

Obama was a compromise choice, one who at least peeled away some votes from the radicals. He was not the top ranked but maybe of the top dozen or so. He was chosen in an all night session on the upteenth ballot as far as you can tell. It’s not easy to find the inside story.

Obama did not destroy the law review and the next year things went back to the way they were before.

So in a way he has been tested before and we found out what he would do.

After that, reality intrudes. It’s all downhill from there. People will gain a new appreciation and respect for how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create. Too bad it will have to happen the hard way.

We already know that Barack Obama was involved in a criminal enterprise. By all rights, the Justice Department should question him and his top people concerning the rampant campaign fraud. They knowingly disabled the default software to allow illegal contributions to be received over the Internet. Thus, the big question at this very moment is—should Obama be indicted? And if for some bizarre reason this criminal behavior goes unpunished, we can take it for granted that the Anointed One will head one of the most corrupt administrations in American history.

Ron Radosh is a historian. How would he rate the Obama’s campaign corruption next to the presidential campaigns of the past? Is it fair to rank it among the top ten? And yes, why don’t we demand the Bush Justice Department minimally opens an investigation? Is Obama supposedly above the law? Should he be going to prison instead of the White House?