, , , , , , , , , , ,

How about to be true, to yourself, and more importantly, to God.

Many of us prognosticated before Mr. Obama even took the oath of office that he’d be a one term president for a number of reasons. The media, left and sycophants generally sneered at such forecasts, levelling charges of bias and bigotry as usual. Yet now, less than half way thru his term, many liberals and even the media are beginning to come to the same conclusion that many of us in the middle and conservative side believed all along. Of course, their deductions aren’t necessarily along the same paths, because at it’s heart, there is not only an ideological difference for the most part between the left and the right, but a deep-seated difference in beliefs, in the philosophy and application of morality.

Roger Simon of Politico sees today the probability of a single term presidency for Obama, but I disagree with his analysis and application on two points.

First, Mr. Simon says that a president interested in staying in office weighs doing “what is right” with doing “what is expedient”. He believes that such a president (this could be applied to any politician) would/should do what is expedient first, and then once a second term is locked in, do what is right.

You boil that down and you get moral relativism. Now, many of you would say, that’s just politics, compromise. And to be honest, I agree that often compromise is necessary and can be acceptable; but, it depends upon what the issue at hand is. That’s the difference between politicians and statesmen, between people looking at their position as an elected representative putting principle first or putting power first. There was a time when this nation was led by individuals who were primarily statesmen. Now we’re a nation led by individuals who’re primarly politicians.

Mr. Simon’s position is that what Mr. Obama says and does is right – or believes he’s right – but it’s in stark contrast to what the public believes is right, which puts him at odds with the public and completely endangers his chances not only for re-election but for the campaigns and “brand” of Democrats as a whole. Another words, play the game, don’t worry about principles. Read: The end justifies the means, winning is everything, truth is liquid.

And that brings me to the most important part of my disagreement with Mr. Simon on this point. What is “right”? What is the right thing to do or say? What is truth? And in this instance, is what the president believes, right and true? I don’t wish to meander down the rabbit trail, but I hope you understand what I’m saying. We can say it’s all well and good, and be glad that the president believes he’s doing and saying the right thing, following his principles, but he can still be wrong. You can be in error in your beliefs, in your principles, and that is the flaw in Mr. Simon’s argument within the flawed argument that expediency and compromise are more important than truth. Not only is Mr. Simon’s answer incorrect, his scratch work for the math problem is incorrect as well. When you start from a flawed premise, your conclusions are going to be flawed as will your analysis, even if the facts you begin with are correct.

If Mr. Obama truly does not care whether or not he sits in the Oval Office for a second term, I can applaud that, and I admire that he certainly seems to be quite principled, or at least tries to be. But considering that the evidence points to his principles and actions being founded in marxism, liberation theology, etc., his principled stands are irrelevant.

I want a president – or any elected official – to not just stand on principle, and have no concern for re-election, but to be grounded in truth, real truth, absolutes. I want a president and a civil servant with good moral fiber and character that not only wants what is best for this nation and his constituency, but more imporantly, what honors and glorifies God.

At this point, my second disagreement with Mr. Simon is a lesser quibble, but still worth briefly mentioning, and that is his comparison of presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower on the issue of slavery and civil rights. The building of this mosque near Ground Zero is not a civil rights issue, nor is the difference in beliefs between Obama and the American people comparible to the differences in beliefs between Lincoln and Eisenhower over slavery and integration. And as a tangental side, let us not forget that it was the Democrats in both situations who disagreed vehemently with the president.

We/I have no problem with the building of another mosque in Manhattan. There are a number of them already in the city. But there is such a thing as respect, tact and honesty. It is evident that the group behind the Cordoba/Ground Zero/Victory Mosque are dishonest, disrespectful and tactless. Furthermore that the local government is playing a shell game too. If the Muslims seeking to build this mosque were truly looking to build relational bridges, they’d bow to public perception. Not only that, but they’d not have in their leadership someone who has ties and sympathies to Hamas and other Islamist, terrorist organizations. And the government and beauracracy of New York would allow the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox church destroyed on 9-11 to go forward, instead of continuing to put it on the back-burner as they effectively fast-track the Cordoba House.

So, on Friday night, had I been president, this is what I would have said, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in accordance with local laws and ordinances and paying attention to as well as honoring and respecting the community in which they wish to become a part.” Instead, this is what our president said,
“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” See the difference there? Mr. President thinks he knows better than you. That’s not standing on principles, on morals; that’s being an elitist. Yes, there is a time for compromise as a politician, and this is one of them, when you pay attention to the heart of the matter and weigh it. And moreso than that, Mr. Obama is just dead wrong, on this issue and so many others, as evidenced by his immediate waffling and backpedaling from his statement the next day, “Uh, what I meant to say is…”

Am I on target, circling the bush or off the reservation? Thoughts?