|
| |
By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd)
curryforamerica.com
What are we to
make of this new president of ours? He says one thing and does the opposite. He
is like a quarterback who is put into the game at the beginning of the second
half to fix the team’s first half problems. Entering the huddle he smugly and
arrogantly blames the starting quarterback for the team’s failures. He even
refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of his own second half
fumbles and pass interceptions.
Mr. Obama says that he wants transparency in the Federal Government and that he will gladly accept ideas and suggestions from the Republican Party. In actuality, he has signed a bill that the Republicans never contributed to nor were permitted to read prior to voting and the President’s signing. So why does Obama promise transparency in government and then deliberately close out the public and the opposition to his party’s deliberations? In a similar circumstance Churchill said of his opposition leader, “There is no depth to the man; he has yet to provide the details of one single, serious or profound policy.” Could that be the way it is in Obama’s case?
Obama said that tax payer funded abortions would not appear in his healthcare package, and yet in the current proposed bill they are included anyway. He said that the power of political lobbyists would be curtailed in his administration, yet the recently released White House guest list shows that prominent lobbyists visit the White House on a regular basis. Obama promised that the middle class would not have their taxes raised, yet legislation to raise their taxes is already in the pipe line. He said that under his new healthcare legislation no one would have to give up their current healthcare plan. And yet contrary to that promise, plans are even now being formulated to force citizens to give up their healthcare plans.
Could it be that Obama’s engagement in a process is an end in itself, and what results from that engagement is of secondary interest to him? Is the means more important than the end result? Could the object simply be to look good playing the game regardless of the outcome? If you look hard and long into the Obama abyss, you might discover that there’s no one home.
Does this president have any intention of abiding by the rules of the U.S. Constitution which was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal? Is it his intention only to use the constitution to legally establish control over the U.S. Congress and the Federal Government? Perhaps that is why he appoints czars who marginalize cabinet secretaries, and who work directly for and answer only to Obama himself.
Many of Mr. Obama’s czars and senior advisors don’t seem to cherish and appreciate the United States the way our founders did. In fact, most seem determined to fundamentally change it. One of his czars said that the news media has an obligation to restrict printing or airing points of view that oppose or are unflattering to the White House. She said that during last year’s presidential campaign no information or news was given to the news media for dissemination that couldn’t be controlled.
In short, free speech was replaced by controlled speech. Opposing views were silenced and replaced with White House talking points, crafted by those who now brag that they are students of the communist Chinese dictator, Chairman Mao. While feeding the news media unchallenged misinformation, Obama and his handlers have demonized America in the eyes of our citizens and the world.
Does Obama have an eyesight problem, have distorted vision, or difficulty in seeing things as they really are? Regarding Iran, he seems unable to recognize that there is no middle ground between good and evil; and instead thinks he can charm the devil. If the situation calls for revulsion, he is tempted toward sweet reasonableness, capitulation and groveling. When the situation is a clarion call to arms, he waves a white flag of surrender.
Aloof and prideful, Obama portrays himself as a victimized black man accepting responsibility for nothing while blaming others for his difficulties and failures. He doesn’t understand that in war when a military commander takes charge of a failed unit, he becomes responsible for everything that that unit has done, is doing, and will do. He doesn’t point his finger at the failures of the old commander and bellyache, nor does he tolerate others making complaints about the old commander. Perhaps Obama needs to recognize just as Harry Truman did, where the buck actually stops.
The President’s job is not to be the
complainer-in-chief but to take charge, just as Presidents Washington, Lincoln
and FDR took charge at very difficult times in our nation’s history. In short,
it’s time for Obama to stop whining about the terrible hand he’s been dealt, to
lay his cards on the table and to play the game with real transparency, honesty
and vision. He is our President, and he can win -- if he plays his cards right.