Wisdom from the White House

And it came to pass that a new leader was chosen, a man from many places, who had a past cloaked in mystery, who promised much to a land suffering from the famine and pestilence of war, low these past eight years.  He came, carried on the backs of his multitudes – idolized not for his experience, not for the great victories he had won, not for his ability to lead, and not for his mastery of the kingdom, but for what he was not.  For he was not the “Bush.”

So here we are, approaching three years since President Obama was swept into office, carrying with him resounding support in both the House and Senate.  Lets take a few moments to see the man, in his own words, and reflect on how those words match the reality of his performance.  All quotations, but one, are drawn from www.brainyquote.com

There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. ~ Barrack H. Obama

Noble words offered in the spirit of one nation, moving forward toward a common good.  But where is this demonstrated in the administration of government under the President?  Can it really be true ~ the evil Republicans, Tea Party members and millionaires have collaborated to undo the noble work of this Nobel Laureate? Do we find it in his approach to crafting legislation for consideration of the full Congress?

A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.' ~ Barrack H. Obama

When it came time to craft the single most important piece of legislation for his administration, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to, as “Obama Care,” were the principles he speaks of applied?   In their rush to create new law and fundamentally change the way America functions wasn’t it his Speaker of the House who said:  “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”  How possibly could that have been in keeping with what the President views as good legislation?  Perhaps, just perhaps, this is why this law is now being contested in the federal court system, and will go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

When asked about this legislation and its affect on the country the President had this to say.  “But if you - if what - the reports are true, what they're saying is, is that as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs, we knew that.”  So, when the President took office and complained about his predecessor’s near doubling of the national debt and the long term affect that would have on this country, it really didn’t bother him to significantly increase the debt more, and sell off the assets of this country to the likes of China.

This isn't surprising from a President who when pressed about the need for bipartisan support offered this view.  “We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” How about when discussing the need for financial responsibility?  “We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”  Funny thing about that last one, the President doesn’t get to go line by line to make sure we are spending wisely, and his Congress took no action to implement this great idea.

“I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”  “In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.” ~ Barrack H Obama

Well, you can certainly see these two ideas square up as the President disregards the requirements of the War Powers act to bring America into a war led by the French and other European powers.  Now several months later we hear on a daily basis how it is “almost” over.  Is anyone keeping track of how much we are spending on that little exercise?  Did anyone really stop and ask why it was important to rush into it now?  It couldn’t be the French wanted to stop the Libyan mass exodus to France, surely that couldn’t possibly be a reason.

This has got to be among my favorites.  “I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.” Only to find out later: I've been fighting with Acorn, alongside Acorn, on issues you care about, my entire career.  Of course Acorn is not a legal lobbying organization operating within the constraints of the law.  They were a community activist organization that thought little about breaking the law with voter fraud, if it helped Mr. Obama and hurt the Republicans.  Something about a not for profit organization and maintaining political neutrality?

So how about support to Israel, a nation the US has defended and  has been on the US side since its founding.  A country with citizens who share close family ties to many US citizens.  A mid-eastern country with a real "no kidding" elected democracy.  Israel is a country that has consistently supported the US in voting at the United Nations.  Before the election: “The Bush Administration's failure to be consistently involved in helping Israel achieve peace with the Palestinians has been both wrong for our friendship with Israel, as well as badly damaging to our standing in the Arab world.”  And this past year?  “So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”  I am not sure how much more US help Israel can stand.  How can siding with a political organization that claims its origins in the killing of Israeli athletes in the 1974 Munich Olympics and whose avowed purpose is the destruction of Israel not be a great idea?

    Finally this is the quote that scares the dickens out of me.  We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.  I don’t know for a fact, but I am guessing some notable world leaders in the past have thought the same thing, and they came up with the SS, the KGB, and the Palace Guards.