Obama, Hillary, McCain, and courage under fire
I’ve come to the conclusion that one of the main themes of the coming election isn’t just “change.” It’s guts.
Why else would Hillary lie about having come under fire in Bosnia? Surely claiming there was physical danger involved in her trip twelve years ago wouldn’t have padded her foreign policy resume in a substantive way. Nor is being under fire (in anything but the metaphoric sense) something that Presidents usually have to deal with, except in assassination attempts.
Instead, what her statements really padded was her claim to have the intestinal fortitude—in other words, the cojones—for the Presidency. It’s ironic that this was the topic she was caught for lying about because, really, cojones is one characteristic that most people already grant Hillary.
It’s also a bit ironic that although she’s the first serious female contender for the Presidency (Libby Dole never really made the cut), her fighting spirit–often perceived as a soft spot in women—is not really in question. In fact, this characteristic of Hillary has earned her the reputation of being ruthless, and she’s felt the need to soften her image by performing that traditionally feminine activity that indicates vulnerability: crying.
Obama is a different story. He’s considered to be less of a street fighter; he’s a person who often takes the high road. But f I had to condense the main objections to Obama’s handling of the Wright situation into one over-arching criticism, I’d say it’s the perception that he exhibited moral cowardice.
Obama’s speech on race has been highly praised and highly condemned. But even those who defended what he said (often focusing on how he said it) tend to have trouble defending his actions (or, rather, inaction) in listening to Reverend Wright all those years without at least speaking up and asking him to tone down the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric and his more bizarre accusations. Most people don’t go so far as to believe that Obama shared his pastor’s views, but most seem to think he should have said something or done something.
That bottom line is that either Obama agreed with Reverend Wright, or he didn’t. If he agreed, he’s clearly unfit to be President. If he disagreed, and neither spoke up nor left the church, then he’s also unfit to be President, but for a decidedly different reason.
And that reason is cowardice. This cowardice extends to his own speech on the subject, which was many things to many people but functioned mainly as a retreat from confronting an important issue facing his own campaign. It was a verbally dense smokescreen to avoid answering the main question on virtually everyone’s mind: why didn’t you act earlier?
Paradoxically, Obama’s speech was lauded by his supporters as “brave.” I saw nothing brave about it. He was addressing race, yes, but only because his back was to the wall. As an excuse for his inaction about Wright, he offered offensive moral equivalencies (grandma under the bus) and the idea that he could not break off with Wright because he was part of the black community.
Of course, the issue wasn’t only breaking off with Wright; it was criticizing him, back when it might have done some good. Obama’s moral cowardice is something voters are beginning to sense in their own guts, and they don’t like it. It’s not perceived as Presidential, and for good reason.
This perception of lack of courage ties in with Obama’s voting record, which consists of many votes of “present” when he was trying to avoid taking a stand.
What could be behind this sort of cowardice? Shelby Steele, another biracial man, who has studied Obama in depth and written a book about him, believes he has a clue.
This article, based on Steele’s work, points out Obama’s similar equivocations on whether he would have voted for welfare reform. It highlights his strange assertion that African-Americans “don’t have the luxury” of picking and choosing among other African-Americans. It’s as though Obama thinks that anyone black must embrace everything any black person says, in order to show solidarity.
This may be love (although I have my doubts about even that). But it certainly isn’t courage. Nor does it show good judgment.
Here’s a fuller quote from the piece:
After the March 18 speech in which he addressed incendiary remarks by Wright, Obama told ABC News’ Terry Moran that blacks do not have “the luxury” of “being selective.”
During the course of this campaign,” said Obama, “there have been moments where people say, ‘Well, I like Barack Obama, but not Al Sharpton. I like Colin Powell, but not Jesse. I like Oprah, but.’ You know, those of us who are African-American don’t have the luxury.”
Asked by Moran what he meant by saying blacks “don’t have the luxury,” Obama said, “I don’t have the luxury of separating myself out and being selective, in terms of what it means to be an African-American in this society. It’s a big complex thing. It’s not monolithic.”
This is a disturbing assertion. It ties in well with Steele’s characterization of Obama, which is that he is a “bound man.” Steele says as much:
What would be keeping [Obama] from having the right to be selective about all of those people? Of course he has the right to be selective. What he is really saying is that he’s afraid….What Obama is saying is, “I’m afraid if I am less than receptive to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they’re going to call me an Uncle Tom, they’re going to call me a sellout.” The terror of Barack Obama’s life has been that blacks would reject him. That’s why I call him a bound man.
I think Steele is correct.
Hillary rightly senses that courage is not only Obama’s Achilles heel, but it’s also John McCain’s strength. The contrast is immense, since even McCain’s detractors would find it hard to doubt both his personal physical courage and his propensity to take tough and unpopular stands with which many people even in his own party disagree.
Courage is a characteristic that appeals to the American people. In the final analysis, character is an extraordinarily important issue in every campaign, and has the ability to transcend considerations of party. The American people will forgive a lot, but I’m not sure they’ll forgive a lack of that character element popularly known as guts.
Both Obama and Clinton can easily be seen as more “shifty” than courageous. Obama’s articulateness (not eloquence, since he doesn’t really say anything) impresses a lot of unformed and insubstantial minds in the media and the public.
But then, modern education and culture specializes in the production of unformed and insubstantial minds. We call it psychological neoteny and academic lobotomy. These minds are in no position to judge character or courage. Nothing they have come into contact with has prepared them to do that.
““I don’t have the luxury of separating myself out and being selective, in terms of what it means to be an African-American in this society. It’s a big complex thing. ”
Sounds like a variation on “It’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand.”
Obama’s problem is that we do.
Funny, maybe because I’m a grandmother who has raised two of her grandchildren I was highly disturbed and dissapointed by Obama’s speech. IMO he should have left his grandmother out of it. Nothing that he said changed my mind about him. It was shifty and insincere, shifting blame from Wright to his grandmother, then a moralistic speech about race.
Nice post!! The cowardice vs. courage angle is interesting. I read about issues, issues – yet, in the end, my vote is hugely influenced by my instinct about what type of person a candidate is.
Abu Al Fin and Vanderleun make interesting tandem posts.
I agree with Vanderleun: “Obama’s problem is that we do [understand].” Obama’s policies will be based on blaming white persons for the problems of black persons. Such a candidate ought be unelectable in our nation of opportunity. Our form of justice and fairness is to provide as much unencumbered opportunity as possible.
Yet, comes Abu Al Fin, asking if Americans have the skills to notice:
Ack! Abu Al Fin pricks exactly at the scab over the wound of my fear: our nation is too far gone. On my dark days, this thought stays with me. Yet, this is not a dark day: the sun shines today in a bright blue Texas sky. Everything proceeds according to Our Creator’s design. Truth will out. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness will be valued. Socialism will not win the day. Courage, and an excellent neo blogpost, will win the day!
Interestingly enough, the way to “transcend race” is not to mention it at all. Just do away with the hyphens and start calling people “Americans”. Wouldn’t that be nice.
Superb post, neo, and insightful commentary to it. I fully subscribe to all the views expressed.
You are ever so bright. I love this spot.
I would like to address a few remarks on courage, charactor, and political pursuasion.
I always had a bit of admiration for Dick Nixon. Say what you will about him, he had his flaws, but he stuck by his boys. I can’t imagine he actually knew beforehand what low level mischief the plumbers were planning. But to his ultimate demise he went to the mat covering for his crew.
Contrast that with Bill Clinton. Rather than rehash Whitewater, Monica, etc. I will point out what struck me as most obvious.
” I didn’t inhale” If I believed him, which I do not, but for the sake of arguement let us pretend it might be true. What is the logical conclusion of that statement. I didn’t have the guts to smoke the dope and I didn’t have the guts to stand up to peer pressure so I faked it. Short message I didn’t have the guts, I’m not fit to lead the nation. Second short message, I am a liar, you can’t possibly believe me can you?, I’m not fit to lead the nation.
Ted Kennedy. Well what can we say about Ted? A coward, a weak man and a moral failure. What kind of lowlife leaves a chick to die in a submerged car? What greater shame could there possibly be?
Three politicians, two Democrats and a Republican. Correlation is not causation, these three examples don’t prove a thing but do offer a glimpse into the souls of men, thier courage, thier charactor, thier credibilty.
Others may drudge up example after example to prove that thier team or the other team is better or worse etc. The final tally, who knows. Not me.
But my subjective opinion would allow me to offer a modest wager that our friends that rally under the pennant of the Jack Ass would have to eventually yield the field of honor to those who gather beneath the burgee of Jumbo.
I shall descend from my soapbox, and thank you all for your time.
Again let me say how much I enjoy the intelligence exhibited on this little spot of the blogoshere.
Thomas Sowell does not fear to be called “Uncle Tom”. And thousands of sucessful black Americans also do not fear. So this fear is irrational and exaggerated, that is, neurotic. Not a good prospect for presidency.
Two beasts, gender politics and racial politics, birthed and nurtured by the left is now devouring the left’s political organ — the(ironically named) Democratic Party.
Hillary must be both puzzled and dismayed that the hyperbole routinely allowed her before the MSM’s Obamamania is now pounced on by all and sundry. In fact, the MSM has now discovered lies by Hillary that go back many years and some cite this as proof of the MSM’s fairness and impartiality.
But why were these lies not produced during the Bill Clinton Presidency and during her campaigns for Senator? The answer is: Because Hillary was once one of the Favored Ones of the MSM, that is — until Obama started making their collective legs quiver and twitch like a tap dancer on Saturday night.
Yet I believe she has more guts than The Messiah. And although Obama has been in some races in his young political life he’s never been up against the likes of the Clintons. He’s not in a schoolyard spitting contest — he’s in a real fight with a foe that will give no quarter.
On Obama But f I had to condense the main objections to Obama’s handling of the Wright situation into one over-arching criticism, I’d say it’s the perception that he exhibited moral cowardice.
It was indeed a moral cowardice. He chose “I want ‘that’ wing of the black community to like me” over “look, if you applaud what Wright is saying then you’re wrong, he’s wrong and you are wrong, your perspective socially, historically, and morally is wrong.”
listening to Reverend Wright all those years without at least speaking up and asking him to tone down the inflammatory…
Is there evidence that Reverend Wright in all of those years was always saying such inflammatory stuff? Or that Obama was in church when Wright said such things? I won’t assume this was the first time. But 20 years of sermons and as someone who is respected throughout Chicago and defended even by Clinton’s former pastor [when they were in the White House] makes me wary that he was always so inflammatory.
Great post Neo…I just finished reading “A Bound Man” and it is a very preceptive and well worth reading. Essential if you want to understand where Obama is coming from.
All this proves is that Obama’s political instincts are working in high gear. He has to strive for general appeal without giving the appearance that he’s “forgotten where he came from.” He’s a successful black person and as such he needs to make sure unsuccessful black people don’t get it into their heads that he’s somehow “sold out” to get where he is. I think that’s the only morality/integrity issue he’s interested in. You can say it’s great because it’s self-consciously inclusive or terrible because it’s cynically calculated. Since I can’t read Barack’s mind, I figure it’s better to vote Republican. (Or might be, if McCain weren’t such a Rorschach blot of a candidate.)
@ grackle:
And although Obama has been in some races in his young political life he’s never been up against the likes of the Clintons. He’s not in a schoolyard spitting contest — he’s in a real fight with a foe that will give no quarter.
Since Obama was able to clear the field of opponents in previous elections, this is definitely the toughest political fight he has been in so far.
Is there evidence that Reverend Wright in all of those years was always saying such inflammatory stuff? Or that Obama was in church when Wright said such things?
It is my understanding that it was this radical since the 60s, in fact it may have mellowed.
It is, after all, black liberation theology, which mixes Marxism and religion. We are not just talking about a single wacked out pastor, we are talking about a specific movement that mixes religion and radical politics.
Gee Matt, it’s all so clear now! Please be more condescending in the future, if at all possible.
Cappy
How am I being condescending? I’m simply asking a question. Seriously, I’m curious about Wright’s sermons over a 20 year period.
Note in the previous post Neo writes:
“The scientific method was a triumph of human thought, … It requires that we suspend judgment on the causes of a phenomenon even though we may think we can come to conclusions about it on the evidence of our eyes.”
This should be true in all things. Let’s investigate.
The same can be said for those whom we immediately worship like Obama or immediately detest like Wright. In other words we need to see the totality of any one person before we pass a legit judgment. Anything less often falls into rhetoric and knee jerk reactions.
Moral courage, integrity, judgement, vision, articulation: these seem to be the core qualities we look for in a president. When a candidate is very strong in one area, we often accept less in others. But when the candidate fails spectacularly on several, do we give him a gentleman’s C on those and elect him on one strong point?
This election may make us face that question like none since the Depression.
This should be true in all things. Let’s investigate.
False. It is appropriate in science, but not always in all things.
Consider war, for example. In war, you often have limited information. Yet, if you wait until you have all information, you typically loose. A good example of this is the OODA loop, initially designed for air warfare, where the winner is consistently the one who makes the faster decisions, not necessarly the best decisions.
Bold decision making with limited information is key to winning at war.
The same can be said for those whom we immediately worship like Obama or immediately detest like Wright. In other words we need to see the totality of any one person before we pass a legit judgment.
A key skill is to make quick decisions about people using limited information, because we don’t have the time or access to all that we need to “see the totality of any one person”.
We know enough about Wright and his religious movement. Once you know enough, you know enough.
Anything less often falls into rhetoric and knee jerk reactions.
No. For example, a knee jerk reaction is reflexive. Making a judgement based upon partial knowledge isn’t reflexive, it’s based upon analysis of partial information. Which is usually sufficient, which is a very good thing, because total information is rather elusive.
Matt shows he knows nothing about Black Liberation Theology and believes that everyone else is as ignorant as he is.
So because he has done squat himself to learn about it he seems to think that everyone else has an obligation to inform him.
Though the trick is,anyone who wasted his time trying to inform him , he’ll just dismiss.
So ,, like with many other topics, like Islam.. the Left shows no interest in keeping up with the times and refuses to learn anythign new because it might force them to actually reevualate thier positions.
That is something they will never do.
Vince P,
You are spot on with that observation. It is so typical of every person I personally know on the Left: intellectual sloth prevails. There is no ambition to venture beyond the safe path of party dogma. And lest Matt go right at me for saying that, I’ll challenge him to match my journey across the spectrum, from Far Left to slightly right-of-center. And, by the way, I actually have read (I think) almost two dozen books of Liberation Theology many years ago, from 1977-1985. Two years later I was breaking with it and with Marxism. Never to return.
The more I learn about the influences in Obama’s life, the more I am inclined to think that I am stacking the probabilities in favor of the view I have of him that he is an unrepentent Leftist. It runs the gamut: from how his mother thought and the influence over him she had, to Michelle Robinson Obama’s background and statements over the years, to Frank Marshall Davis, a very important mentor of his during his teenage years, to Prof. Khalidi at Columbia University, himself a man with deep connections to the Islamic terrorist group the Palestine Liberation Organization (itself founded by a melding of Soviet money and arms and the ideological framework of The Muslim Brotherhood), to Tony Rezko, a man with connections to Islamic terror groups and a Chicago slumlord with a plethora of corruption in tow, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an abysmally angry man who is not as well-read as he would have us believe. And I could tack on more to this list, but you get the picture. Oh, and one last thing: the Jew-hatred, anti-Israel patterns in the thinking of the advisers he is surrounded with.
The constellation of associations and ideas around Obama all explain his voting record and also why he would like to downplay concrete proposals.
This man IS NOT A PROFILE IN COURAGE. A courageous man would not be afraid to admit to a mistake. A courageous man would not be afraid to tell you who he is and what he thinks. And a courageous man would not be putting out diplomatic feelers reaching out to places like Damascus.
Speaking of Shelby Steele, check this out:
http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html
Great quote from the article:
… [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters’ assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. “Obama’s campaign pretends to transcend race,” Steele says, “but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race—and very little else.”
According to Steele, the United States has not eradicated the twin specters of racism and “white guilt” over slavery. Steele contends that, despite outward appearances of competence and prominence, most African-Americans who have found success in mainstream America–politicians in particular–have adopted one of two “masks”: that of the bargainer or that of a challenger. Steele has declared Obama a “bargainer,” someone who, to gain acceptance from whites, is willing to avoid addressing America’s history of racism. “Challengers,” such as Jackson and Sharpton, obtain power by wielding racial stigma to elicit guilt from whites. The confrontational style of challengers, as evidenced by Jackson’s and Sharpton’s failed campaigns, tends to alienate most mainstream voters.
…
Earth to Matt: if a pro-American type ever said anything that even remotely hinted at a politically incorrect thought, he’d be excoriated for months thereafter.
Suppose McCain attended a church where the pastor said “God damn black people, they’re lazy criminals, and for those in prison are just experiencing their own misdeeds coming home to roost,” i.e., the contrapositive version of Wright’s sermon, the rafters of Heaven would shake with the denunciations.
That you’re unwilling/unable to denounce Wright establishes your lack of intellectual honesty.
I do not expect a lot of intellectual honesty from any politician, but as this is crucially important thing for national leadership, and without this virtue it is too easy become deluded, some minimal standard is required. Obama failed to show even this minimal level of honesty.
Neo: your software bounced back a post. Why?
Gringo: hard to say. You might try again. Sometimes it’s just a certain word, but there aren’t many words that are banned—usually just something that’s part of a medication that sends a lot of spam, for example.
I would characterize Obama as a weakling, as exemplified by that wonderful new word “metrosexual.” It’s clear that he was a spoiled child, who was allowed to trade on his supposed disability for being a mixed-race child with an absent father. His path was smoothed throughout his life by various people who were eager to capitalize on his good looks and verbal abilities. He would probably be a good PR spokesman for some organization, but that’s about it.
I’ve met his type often in corporate life. Yes, they can talk the talk, but when things get tough, they are quick to make sure the blame falls on anyone but themselves.
It makes me sad that someone with so few qualifications for office has gotten to close to the nomination and possibly the presidency.
Sometimes I think the insistence on analysis – understand motivations, root causes, etc. – is based on the belief that if we understand a problem deeply enough we won’t be forced to make a negative judgement about it and respond accordingly. In other words, true understanding always leads to peace and harmony. If anything unpleasant happens, it means your understanding was flawed.
Understanding the source of Rev. Wright’s anger – and the anger of black Americans in general – may certainly help us to view their beliefs and behavior with a degree of compassion. But having compassion for someone doesn’t mean you have to give them a pass for everything they do.
@Vince
Though the trick is, anyone who wasted his time trying to inform him , he’ll just dismiss.
Vince, unfortunately what you state is quite often true. Here is an example of a summary of a similar “song and dance” involving old “friend” Laura. From her point of view, asking for a source is like throwing a ball for a dog to fetch. Once the dog retrieves the ball, the ball gets thrown again, as the dog didn’t do an adequate job of fetching.
Perhaps the question Matt should ask himself is: why were these harangues so easy to find? The law of large numbers implies that the odds are pretty good that a small random sample will reflect the entire data set. Thus, if a cursory examination of Wright’s sermons easily finds such harangues, the odds are that such harangues permeate his sermons. Certainly some of the quotes from one of Wright’s Black Liberation mentors were similarly described.
I think that Neo’s essay on courage is on the money. Because of his being the perpetual Man Without a Country, of always being the chameleon needing to fit in, Obama has eschewed disagreement and confrontation in order to fit into wherever he happens to be.
Link for “song and dance” http://tiny.cc/gjCdq
Neo: What got bounced back included an embedded link to one of your previous postings. I first changed the link to a “tiny url,” to try to fool the system, but it still bounced it back. I had tried the posting at another blogsite, to check that I had correctly constructed the embedded link: I had.
I took the embedded link out and simply pasted it onto the end of the posting. Then it accepted it. Oh well.
I don’t understand this. They have no problem at all rejecting Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice and Clarence Thomas. If they have to accept all people who are black just because of skin color, why is it that they have no problems at all rejecting black people based on political party?
Gringo: Your example is exactly what I was talking about. These Leftists are so predictable.
I told one of them they should just make a website with their top 40 cliches numbered. And then when they want to say something they could just say “5, 24, 2” and save us all a lot of time.
Bugs Says:
“if we understand a problem deeply enough we won’t be forced to make a negative judgement about it and respond accordingly. In other words, true understanding always leads to peace and harmony.”
That’s been the con take on lefties for a few years but some other debates on other topics have me thinking it is something else…. That they’re just trying to muddy the water enough to create doubt… which results in inaction / acquiescence on promoting your agenda. They then fill the void with theirs.
Examples: I’ve got lefties arguing with me about who is an Al Qaeda affiliated group or how much control Iran has over the Quds force (re: al Qaeda is not really al Qaeda and Iranian government organs are not really… Iranian government organs…)… kinda an eye opener for me.. Similar game with Obama. He is not a lefty, not a ‘liberal’, not tied to all these people who are… who he is tied to…
Surely claiming there was physical danger involved in her trip twelve years ago wouldn’t have padded her foreign policy resume in a substantive way.
It is especially interesting given what her allies said about Bush and chickenhawk neo-cons.
After the March 18 speech in which he addressed incendiary remarks by Wright, Obama told ABC News’ Terry Moran that blacks do not have “the luxury” of “being selective.”
Guess we now know why the Democrats once supported slavery and still do by calling it another name.
Blacks don’t have the luxury of a choice, so why even give them one? heh?
Vince P Says:
“I told one of them they should just make a website with their top 40 cliches numbered. And then when they want to say something they could just say “5, 24, 2″ and save us all a lot of time.”
Or we could do it for them and quote the numbers back to them. 🙂
Ah, I see you’re doing a classic 5,24,2 ‘argument’.
Prof. Khalidi and Barack?
If this take some to write and highlighting the link of donation to PLA, but we did not see same motive and real interests to write and talk about Romney’s Ties to a Terror Sheikh, should be much of interests to same people who speaking about Obama links because its linked to the terror of 9/11 not Palestinians case.
Is that make wounder what the meat of these guys who post here?
Is it selective? is it another motive they hide in their harts?
is it some thing they can tell us why the kept tied lips about Romney’s link to Qaeda?
That makes no sense, and so do I.
@Thomas
Those arguments sound familiar. I suppose they’re germane – but while we’re busy reverse-engineering the terrorist’s org charts, they’re busy thinking up new ways to murder people.
I think some people are just risk averse. Others, as you say, use analysis and questioning outcomes, motives, and morality to prevent action being taken with which they disagree.
“Paradoxically, Obama’s speech was lauded by his supporters as ‘brave’.”
Sounds like it’s time to add a new entry to The Devil’s Dictionary: “Brave. adj. Expressing an opinion that liberals approve of, and that entails no risks in the circles in which the speaker moves.”
When people can praise the water boarding of KSM, then maybe they can talk about how Romney and others were helping KSM.
Pingback:Cojones — Dean’s World
The truth b> of the matter is that Romney is NOT Guiliani.
It takes “cowardice” to stick with the man who led you to Jesus Christ, regardless of the political ramifications that come from the things he sometimes says?
That is not cowardice. The “cowardly” thing to do would be to throw your pastor under the bus because you’re afraid it will derail your race for the Presidency.
What makes Obama a coward is that he wont just come out and say he agrees with his pastor’s ideology.
no , cowardice is using your dads influence to avoid active duty in war time , while eagerly sending someone else’s children off to a botched war . you people chose this c- student alcoholic over a true war hero . now after 7+ years your crying hoping for a miracle …
i wonder if romney , knowing the mormons racial stance ,would leave that faith . or would catholics denounce the pope for being hitler jungen … interestingly no one you who’s mind’s are boggled by obama’s choices concerning his pastor are mind boggled by these revelations … or is it just a neocon thing .
Another example of leftist robotic reaction from regmax: moral equivalence of uncomparable things. Being a hitler jugend in Third Reich was not a choice, it was a reqirement. Obama is not blamed for choice of a black church, but for choice of extremist pastor. Churches are like country clubs, they are allowed to be as segregated as they wish. Nobody except crackpots blames Jewish religious communities for being ethnic-based. Why mormons can not do the same?
Talk about robotic . mormon is a faith not a religious community . and there are african jews .
obama is being shafted for something he did not say . guilt by association is a long shot at best . and no , religious communities do not have the option of segregation by choice . Don’t know where your from dude …
peace
Oh yeah Sergey . admission into the HJ was not mandatory for every german child , they were chosen …
regmax, this is not true. A quote from Wiki:
By December 1936, HJ membership stood at just over five million. That same month, HJ membership became mandatory, under the Gesetz é¼ber die Hitlerjugend law. This legal obligation was re-affirmed in 1939 with the Jugenddienstpflicht and HJ membership was required even when it was opposed by the member’s parents.
To regmax:
Another quote frome Wiki:
“Freedom of association is a human right and concept in constitutional law based on the premise that it is the right of adults to freely choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit. This concept has been included in several national constitutions and other human rights instruments, including the United States Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
It will help if before repeating other people lies or inventing some of your own, you made some google search to find facts.
Yes, the a price will have you mad, too, and once
you examine at a new bill but nonetheless ,
the time should be well benefits the pace. The actual
idea because of trying so as to date an individual who should be already romantic someone or
else just nauseates me.