Obama And ‘Pay-To-Play’ [Reader Post]

Loading

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.

Ed – Comments Closed 01-17-09

0 0 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, Craig has already admitted that he only reads/listens to people he agrees with.

Personally I like to listen to, take in, process, evaluate, and challenge a myriad of opinions.

That approach expands my horizons, challenges my views, and helps me to either cement or reevaluate my ideas.

That’s just me though.

Craig: Don’t let yourself get discouraged because not everyone has the same passions or priorities for some of these issues that you do.

We need your voice here at F.A. It helps keep Wordsmith and Mata on their toes and keeps know it-all-no-nothing asshats like blASSt in their place.

There used to be a time many years ago when F.A. had very few if any commenters. Sometimes I was the only one to comment on one of Curt’s or Wordsmith’s posts. It’s better to have such a larger number of regulars comemnting here now but it often means that we have to take the good (yourself and so many others) with the bad (we all know who THEY are).

Don’t give up hope for Mata and Wordsmith. Remember, I’ll be here to help.

Ya know, Mike… in the political world, there’s a name for your post above. Called “pandering”…. LOL

Don’t be filling Craig with false “hope”. I’ll be agreeing with him on this issue right about the same time I start talking 24/7 about Obama’s birth certificate… despite the lack of news on a judicial decision.

Talk about “hope”….

And then, of course, if all that were true, I’d be changing my political affiliation back to Libertarian. And the GOP would have one less. Which I’m sure would not make you a happy camper.

Mata: Coming from that “political world” I know a thing or two about pandering and that’s not it.

I’ve been pretty up front with Craig when I saw things differently but that doesn’t obviate my appreciation for Craig’s passion on the issues and the contribution Craig’s comments make to FA.

I’m constantly reminded that we have a big tent here. Much bigger than when I first came on the scene.

So, there is room for all, but I would hope especially for conservatives.

P.S. As far as changing party affiliations. If I thought there was a prayer in hell of making a conservative party viable on it’s own I’d set one up in a heartbeat. You’d still get my nod for any cabinet position you desire. But you’d have to leave your moonbat pets at home!

But you’d have to leave your moonbat pets at home!

You know Mike, you’re the only one here with your very own personal Moonbat stalker.

Your admirer has even dedicated a website to you.

It’s charming.

No, really. It is.

Mata, I can see that you did not have the guts to listen to Dr. Vieira. You would have learn something about the Constitution. It was such a great show. More than a 1/4 millions people were on the air. Four hours of great information and in the last hour Steve Pigeon join in with Vieira. It was fantastic I am all boost up, what patriotic fellows. I suggest to every readers here to watch that show, it is the best education you will ever get of your Constitution.

Mata, I guess I was smarter than you… lol… I have never been a liberal, I had enough of listening to their bullshit all my life and reading the idiotic medias. I know how they think almost better than them. I was surrended by them since birth, Quebec is liberal all the way.

You are so wrong about Dr. Vieira, Mata. You obviously know nothing about him, he is such a fine man. If you want to listen to the show, just go on Plains radio http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html you can listen to past shows. I dare you to listen to that radio show and make a bad comment about it. You won’t be able to, because it was one of the greatest show that I have ever listened to.

Aye,

“Well, Craig has already admitted that he only reads/listens to people he agrees with.” (Aye)

Aye, Ayoye! You are a master of distortion. Remarkable! I only read and listen to people that are credible… big difference. I listen all the time to people I disagree with, I blogged, don’t I?

Mike,

You are the only one here that have guts, this is why you are my favorite. You are not condescending, you just say what you have to say, I like it. With you, we know where we stand. But with moonbats, you and I have no patience. Thanks for the support, it is appreciated, but Mata would have to get up very early to irritate me… lol. I’ve seen many others like her before, they do not impress me.

P.S.: I would also like to mention that I like Curt. We once had a discussion and we have solved it. Curt and I are not rancorous. But Mata seems to be, she treats me worse than how she treats leftist moonbats… lol

@Craig:

There you go again Wordsmith. I told you you people do not make me mad, you just depress me… very different. But you are obviously mad. Stop that projection thing. You are mad and I am depress and discourage with your mentality. Can you see the difference or is my English so bad?

Craig, how am I mad?

It’s fascinating how you seem to take words and statements that I used on you, and deflect them back (“there you go again”…..”projectionism”….being angry….). It shows up in your personal attacks on Mata as well. It’s as if whatever it is you are feeling, you project it onto the person you disagree with. Like when you told her “Do you think that by spitting on other opinions you elevate yourself? Comments like that could easily be applied in your direction.

@Mike’s America:

We need your voice here at F.A. It helps keep Wordsmith and Mata on their toes

What is this? Verbal ballet? Lol. Speaking bluntly, I often find Craig’s comments an embarrassment. Not his knowledge, not necessarily in his “I say it as it is” delivery but in his hyperbolic “Obama is evil; Obama wants to ruin the country, liberals bad, conservatives can do no wrong” rhetoric. It’s the equivalent of rightwing moonbattery. If that’s the kind of mentality that should represent the Republican Party, then good bye to ever winning another election ever again!

Just because Craig is politically aligned doesn’t mean “we need his voice here”. I think some of his comments does more damage than anything else. His personal attacks toward other commenters is such the caricature of a right wingnut, he’s like a DU’s dream rightwinger stereotype.

There used to be a time many years ago when F.A. had very few if any commenters. Sometimes I was the only one to comment on one of Curt’s or Wordsmith’s posts.

When was this?!?!

From when I can remember, Curt’s blog was always a mid-tier blog that was familiar to and sometimes linked by the big-timers. And that was before he ever took on co-authors to do the vacuuming, dusting and dishes.

It’s better to have such a larger number of regulars comemnting here now but it often means that we have to take the good (yourself and so many others) with the bad (we all know who THEY are).

“the good” is sooooo relative, apparently.

Don’t give up hope for Mata and Wordsmith. Remember, I’ll be here to help.

Oh, yes: Save me! Don’t give up on me, Craig! Keep the hope alive!

Curt and I are not rancorous. Bur Mata seems to be, she treats me worse than how she treats leftist moonbats… lol

Craig, Mata’s ever been gracious toward you. YOU are the one who blew this disagreement out of proportion into personal attacks. You just can’t seem to respect anyone who has a diverging opinion from yours.

Mike,

You are the only one here that have guts, this is why you are my favorite. You are not condescending, you just say what you have to say, I like it.

Kay-rap. You like Mike because he agrees/won’t argue with you. That’s why he’s your fave.

No one’s been condescending toward you; but because you’re condescending toward others who don’t agree with you, well, there ya go again, projecting it onto others.

Well Wordsmith I have a few words for you also. It is you who I find embarrassing to the Conservative Party. Such a “nice guy”, a moderate, a bi-partisan and almost an Obama praiser to a point. And you wonder why the republicans lost? McCain was just like you, no back bone, kneeling in front of Obama. You are afraid to call a cat. Obama is evil and you will evidently open your eyes and find out. But it will be to late. Too bad for you!

My comment is in the spam filter or was it deleted by Wordsmith? Maybe he didn’t like my answer.

Wordsmith,

You are really something! I like Mike because he is Mike. You have a problem with that? Your ego doesn’t seem to take it.

Wordsmith,

Mata was nice to me, till I disagree with her on Obama’s eligibility. I tough she would have been the first one to bother with this issue. I was surprised she didn’t want to be part of it, a though she was more patriotic then that. Since then, she keeps saying that I have insulted her… lol

Aye Chi: would disagree with the right of Congress to “pass the buck” (pun intended) to anyone else when the Constitution specifically lays the responsibility on their shoulders, just as I would disagree with the Executive passing off CIC responsibilities to anyone else.

Aye, as you well know, the quasi-public central bank goes back to early America days. How to handle the country’s money has been a bone of contention since Hamilton as the Secy of the Treasury as to the best way of who’s and how’s.

The FR is merely the latest incarnation… sans the monopolistic appearance of the First and Second Banks of the US. The FR’s seven board members were specifically made Presidential appointees (subject to Congressional approval) to have the balance of power in private money interests. Their expenses are totally independent of Congressional appropriations.

The issue of central banks have two SCOTUS decisions – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) which had the the Supremes upholding the Second Bank of the United States as entirely constitutional with a 9-0 vote. Not much dissent there. Reaffirmed in 1824, Osborn v Bank of the United States.

Needless to say, central banks are constitutional. Precedents intact. Period. End of that discussion.

The unConstitutional conspiracy theorists constantly fall back on the illegality of the federal note, or paper, citing the traditional value of silver or gold as the *only* minting the feds may do.

In fact, the govt has issued many paper forms of legal tender since 1812. Even some foreign coins were declared legal tender. Prior to the constitution, the states were doing the monetary control with various forms of “bills of credit”, and inflation ended up being the result from over issues of the various “legal tender”.

There’s a plethora of precedents – court cases that specifically state federal reserve notes *are* legal tender dealing with IRS convictions. And there are other precedents that specifically address paper vs gold or silver as tender.

U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111. C.A.Mo. 1978:

The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress’ power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts … Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.

~~~

Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890, affirmed 787 F.2d 596. D.C.Ind. 1985:
The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const Art. 1, §8, cl. 5] which gives Congress the right to coin money, and regulate the value thereof, gives Congress exclusive ability to determine what will be legal tender throughout the country … The provision of the Constitution [USCA Const. Art. 1, §10, cl. 1] which mandates that no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts acts only to remove from states inherent soverign power to declare currency, thus leaving Congress as the sole declarant of what constitutes legal tender; the provision does not require states to accept only gold and silver as tender … Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for any debt or public charge … Using or accepting Federal Reserve Notes as payment for state court filing fees was completely proper under the Constitution. USCA Const. Art. 1, §8, cl. 5; 31 USCA §5103.

In short, the conspiracy theorists won’t make it thru the lower courts with this argument. They’d have to appeal, hoping to make it all the way to the SCOTUS. Since there is not one legal historic decision stating FRNs are not legal tender, and ample decisions to the contrary, the Supreme’s wouldn’t give it the time of day.

Then you have to consider that (Article I, Sect 8, 18CL) Congress has the right to make any law that is necessary to carry out it’s powers. ala… are they “pawning off” the responsibility of coining money to the Treasury Dept when they created the Bureau of the Mint??

Fed Reserve? unConstitutional based on paper money? Nope. Could it’s structure use reform? What Congressional creation couldn’t?

But a dang site better that the first two versions. And even those were constitutional.

Craig said: Mata, I guess I was smarter than you… lol… I have never been a liberal…

If you were the former (smarter), then you would know that Libertarians are not the latter (liberal). And then you might have a clue that you are posting links to Libertarian sites, and listening to the libertarian theories, expounded upon by… well… libertarians.

And you’re welcome for me digging your latest diatribes of self-import out of the spam filter. So quit accusing Wordsmith of deleting your comments. You may have to talk to your hero, Mike, about that censorious habit… LOL. So I suggest you don’t get on *his* bad side.

Mata, if you would of listen to Vieira tonight, you would know how the USA could get rid of the FR. It will be done thru the States. It is too long and complex to explain it it to you here, but Vieira gave a site to go to understand it. I did not write it down and I forgot the address, but I will try to get it. BTW, Vieira is not a conspiracy theorist at all. Get to know the guy, I’ve known him since almost 20 years. He is the best. Aye, I agree with you on this matter and so does Vieira.

Poor Mata always so rancorous and pretentious.. I know what libertarians are, I just though that “liberal” was the way you called them in English. Cut it out, I’m am discussing this FR issue, here, no need to be so nasty. Gees!

@Craig:

Well Wordsmith I have a few words for you also. It is you who I find embarrassing to the Conservative Party. Such a “nice guy”, a moderate, a bi-partisan and

Wow! That’s a big news flash. Thanks for sharing the obvious for anyone who’s followed past comments.

I’m center-right. You’re on the fringe. Good for both of us.

almost an Obama praiser to a point.

I have no problems praising Obama if he deserves praise. So far, because I haven’t agreed with you in calling him “evil, that he hates this country, wants to ruin it” (paraphrase of past comments of yours), in your book that makes me “a nice guy”.

And you wonder why the republicans lost?

No. I already decided why Republicans lost. You’re fixated solely however on the following reason:

McCain was just like you, no back bone, kneeling in front of Obama. You are afraid to call a cat. Obama is evil and you will evidently open your eyes and find out. But it will be to late. Too bad for you!

You’re a real piece of work. McCain had his problems; he ran a horrible campaign; but name me one Republican candidate who would have won this election? A nation fatigued by 8 years of Bush and a perception of failed policies, the timing of the economic collapse in September, a media cheerleading for Obama, the excitement of a nation wanting to see the glass ceiling break, so many things came together to lose us the election. This simply wasn’t our year. McCain had a shot, but momentum and the deck was stacked against him. No, it wasn’t conservatives sitting on their hands afraid to vote for a RINO; they came out for Palin and held their nose for McCain to vote against an apparent stealth socialist/marxist radical liberal. Independents were excited for change, frustrated with Bush, and turned off by the “Obama’s a muslim”, “Obama’s paling around with terrorists” kind of rhetoric you exemplify. It sent the wrong kind of message in the face of a media that didn’t do a better job of clarifying the “inflammatory” kind of charges.

@Craig:

My comment is in the spam filter or was it deleted by Wordsmith? Maybe he didn’t like my answer.

Gee…I thought you accused me of being “the nice guy”?

Craig, once again you’re projecting your own self, if things were reversed. You’ve criticized FA before for allowing liberals and disagreers to leave comments here; even threatened to “abandon blog” because of your low threshold for tolerating Democrats.

When have you ever seen me delete anyone’s comment? You’ve been here long enough to know about the FA spam filter. Your suggestion says a lot about you, doesn’t it?

@Craig:

Wordsmith,

You are really something! I like Mike because he is Mike. You have a problem with that?

Not at all. Just that it has nothing to do with “guts”.

@Craig:

Wordsmith,

Mata was nice to me, till I disagree with her on Obama’s eligibility. I tough she would have been the first one to bother with this issue. I was surprised she didn’t want to be part of it, a though she was more patriotic then that. Since then, she keeps saying that I have insulted her… lol

Are you for real?! What does that have anything to do with “patriotism”? Especially when you should “know” Mata, by now? What an asinine comment to make.

Disagree with Craig the French Canadian= unpatriotic American.

Wordsmith, your last post is not worth my reply . You have it all wrong anyway, you do not want to know, you just want to keep believing what you are already falsely believe of me. Have it your way, you want so much to be right, that I have pity.

Tellement de mauvaise foi. I don’t know how to say this in English. Does this make sense?: “You have such of a bad faith attitude”. It doesn’t sound appropriate… it doesn’t seem to say what I want to say. Anyways, who care? Not me.

“What does that have anything to do with “patriotism”? ” (Wordsmith)

If you are a real patriot, you would not like to have a usurper President who ignores your Constitution. You would do anything to remove him from that spot. This is what millions of Americans are trying to do right now.

@Wordsmith:

There used to be a time many years ago when F.A. had very few if any commenters. Sometimes I was the only one to comment on one of Curt’s or Wordsmith’s posts.

When was this?!?!

Focus on the word “commenters” Wordsmith….

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/01/

That has nothing to do with hit counts or links from the big guys.

You’re so wound up in fighting with Craig that your getting a bit touchy!

Maybe you should save some of that sparing for the liberals????

P.S. I have expressed my infrequent disagreements with Craig at length as Mata will attest. However, I would prefer to spend my time working over the lefties instead.

You should try it! It’s fun!

Vieira is on again on Plains Radio:http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html
Listen to him

@Craig:

Wordsmith, your last post is not worth my reply .

Thanks for making me worthy! 😀

@Mike’s America:

You’re so wound up in fighting with Craig that your getting a bit touchy!

Rowr!

I didn’t realize the criteria for a successful blog is having a community of commenters.

Oh, wow…76 comments in this thread! Soooo impressive!

FA was successful with just Curt; sure it’s been enriched by you and others here. But if Craig’s presence is the gold standard of a vibrant community, color me unimpressed. 😉

You are so childish Wordsmith you are losing all your credibility. You are an author here, stop ridiculising yourself with your hater that has no ending. I don’t hate you, I just don’t agree with you. Get yourself together and forget it. You can listen to Vieira if you want, they are reproducing the tonight show. http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html

@Wordsmith: # of comments isn’t the measure of a blog. I never said it was. You asked when there were few FA commenters and I reminded you. There was no need to take another whack at Craig.

Again, it would be better directing that energy at your political opponents.

Wordsmith,

I never said you were a good guy. I said that you have a good guy’s attitude. Nuances, my friend… nuances!

Can we get everyone to shake hands and move on? Not that this is any of *my* business and e-mail me to tell me off if you think I’m out of line or dump this post. All this razzing back and forth doesn’t measure up to the quality of this site and the obvious time and hard work put into it. Loving you all as I do, it’s quite disturbing to see this.

@Craig:

“Well, Craig has already admitted that he only reads/listens to people he agrees with.” (Aye)

Aye, Ayoye! You are a master of distortion. Remarkable! I only read and listen to people that are credible… big difference.

A “master of distortion” you say?

Really?

You should use extreme caution when you accuse me of such things. Your words are right here on the page for everyone to read.

Let’s review:

So you thing I’m wrong and I think you are wrong. Big deal! This won’t make me change my mind. And too bad for the people who reads bullshit from idiots to make their own opinion. I do not agree with these authors, I now chose my authors very carefully. I know I am in good hands with Friedman and Vieira and many others alike. Pro-Hamas people read shit obviously, but that is their problems, not mine. Lefties read bullshit MSM, that is their problem also. I am very selective in my reading.

(Emphasis added by me, Aye Chihuahua)

So, there you have it, Craig.

Your own words.

You said that you are very careful to choose authors that you agree with. You said that you are very selective in your reading.

So, where’s the “distortion” you accuse me of?

@Missy: Thank you Missy!

Enough of this bickering.

I’m going to follow Barack Obama’s first reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia and say both sides are responsible and should withdraw.

Don’t worry, Mike. The following isn’t meant to flame, but an honest attempt at clarity and understanding.

@Craig:

Wordsmith,

I never said you were a good guy. I said that you have a good guy’s attitude. Nuances, my friend… nuances!

I think I understand where you’re coming from on this, based also in other things you’ve said in other threads.

You think, for example, Obama is evil and hates this country (your own words, more or less). Do you think I too, believe this, yet won’t say so and put on a Machiavellian face of appearing to be “a nice guy” for the sake of “centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc”?

If not, then what?

@Wordsmith:

UGH!

L E T I T G O!!!

Well, ok then. 😀