Lets see if I have this right. By virtue of the fact that Obama has been elected President, a man who has achieved nothing of note in his 47 year-old life except getting elected President, he is now the world's expert on everything.
Now that Obama is the President-elect of the US, Americans must assume that he is automatically invested with the implied virtue and high moral standing of the office he will soon occupy. We must also assume his proposed solutions to America's problems are grounded in reality and common sense. In other words, we must ignore the evidence of his actions.
We must ignore his consorting with America haters and domestic terrorists. We must overlook his 20 year acceptance and endorsement of a hate-whitey and damn America ideology spewed by his mentor and pastor. We must avert our eyes from the legitimate questions arising from his convoluted purchase of additional acreage for his home in Chicago from Tony Rezko.
And questioning how a political novice managed to rise to the top of the corrupt Chicago machine without being part of it is considered evidence of either racism or hate.
Obama's former colleagues and current political appointees continue to bite the dust, being indicted and/or being investigated for corruption at an alarming rate, yet we are to assume all this corruption happened without Obama either noticing it or being a part of it. Americans are now required to ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ignore common sense conclusions, and give this man the benefit of the doubt.
Presumption of innocence is one thing, ignoring facts and common sense is quite another.
Despite what the media and political elites would have us believe, a man can and may be judged by who he chooses to associate with. If a kid hangs with a gang, its reasonable to assume he agrees and accepts the actions of his fellows. If a politician associates with fellows that continue to be exposed as corrupt, it is reasonable to assume that he is, at the very least, a willing participant.
Despite what the media and political elites would have us believe, character counts. Character affects every area of decision making a president is involved in. Appointing
heads of agencies, cabinet members and
leaders of our military based on political considerations instead of merit, as Obama seems to be doing, undermines and weakens our system of government. And it is not 'change.'
'Pay to play' is a new term, coined by the outrageous actions of Illinois Governor Blagojevich's blatant auctioning Obama's former senate seat to the highest bidder. And pay to play is emerging as the dominant feature of Obama's new administration.
Consider: When Obama is asked to comment on the Israeli/Gaza conflict, he has repeatedly stated that there can only be one president at a time. Thus, he has neatly avoided being forced to publicly choose between Israel and the Palestinians terrorists.
Obama's 'only one president at a time' explanation, however, didn't stop him from proclaiming "We must close Guantanamo", thereby rendering illegitimate America's right to remove our enemies from the battlefield. Payback to the far left who were responsible for his election?
Despite the economic crisis facing our economy, the
very first legislative action of the newly elected 111th Congress was approving a bill making clear that women who are victims of gender-based discrimination can sue for compensatory and punitive damages. Payback to the trial lawyers and feminists?
Was Obama's proposal of adding 600,000 new government jobs a payback to the unions?
Was opening the floodgates of the US Treasury to arbitrarily hand-picked winners of the bail-out lotto a payback to campaign supporters? Was the promise that the 3 million, (oops,
now 4 million) new 'green' jobs he has promised to create a payback to the powerful environmental lobby? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, because none of these questions are being asked.
Every question posed above might not stand on its own. After all, there is a powerful presumption of innocence and, by the way, we must not be judgemental. But taken together, Obama's actions, not his words, paint a picture of business as usual. His actions point to a pattern of payback to political factions. Translation: Pay to play or you're toast.
Barack Obama is my president. The respect I have for the office and the institution requires that I give him every opportunity, every benefit of the doubt, every encouragement. But the same respect I hold for the presidency requires, demands, that the president act in the best interest of the country. And judging by his actions to date, I regretfully conclude that Obama's decisions reflect instead the 'pay-to-play', business as usual mode of governance. And I don't expect this will change.
