January 11, 2009
You can discern something of the character of a man by seeing if his actions match his words. You can discern something of the character of a man by observing his chosen colleagues. You can discern something of the character of a man by checking the reviews he gets from the stated mortal enemies of these United States. Some may tell me to “get over it, the election’s done”. I am not stuck in the past. This is actually a look to the future. Past actions have meaning which, unless they have been repented, predict future action. Being a little senator with character problems is one thing; being the leader of these United States with character problems is another.
It’s difficult to know where to begin, and what to leave out, when the subject of this conversation is our President-elect. Let’s give it a try, though.
His word is not dependable.
“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” – Barack Obama, fall 2007
He stated this many times actually. When it turned out not to be advantageous to him to keep his word, his word became air. And in so doing, he blamed it on McCain for “gaming the broken system” of public financing. My personal opinion: he knew McCain to be a more honorable man than he and would not break his word, whereas Mr. Obama is fine with saying one thing and doing another. A man of character keeps his word.
Another example: Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place November 6, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Reasons too numerous to mention here make this appointment very suspect. But what about Obama’s word?
Earlier this year Obama’s campaign and Malley severed ties when the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized things, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” (Reminiscent of saying Bill Ayers is “some guy in the neighborhood”.)
Oh, but wait – 2 days after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria, state sponsor of world-wide terror. Never mind saying “he will not play any role in the future”. Guess the spokesman had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said that. From “will not play any role in the future” to Senior Foreign Policy Advisor. What other words spoken by The One also are only air?
Barack’s campaign manager tried to throw the argument back at people: “so, guilt by association, eh?” As if associations make no difference. “Bad company corrupts good morals”. That’s a quote from the Book of wisdom that too few people take seriously.
Associations surely do tell much about a person. That fact should be too obvious to have to state out loud. The fact that Barack was tutored and mentored in an environment of Weatherman Underground one-time luminaries does make a smidge more difference than who he had rotate his tires every year. These folks wanted to overthrow these United States.
A man much more honorable than Barack, Mr. Billy Graham, wouldn’t even get in an elevator wherein was a woman and no one else, just to avoid the possibility of any appearance of anything out of whack. So why did BO launch his political career in the home of a bomber of the Pentagon? Did he just pick him out of the phone book?
The fact that he chose a black liberation theology church in which to immerse himself for 20 years means more than who put the groceries in his bag at the local food mart. The fact that he is a product of Chicago politics, the Gold Standard of intimidation, cheating, and dead people voting, says something more than who delivered his mail each day.
Associations matter. His are suspect.
Our enemies think he’s great.
An assumption I’ve always held is this: if a stated and sworn enemy of my country is enthused about a certain candidate for office, then it’s fairly easy for me to conclude that’s not the candidate for whom I’d vote. If people who want to see us disappear think a certain person is the one we should elect, I’m headed the other way.
The official publication of the Communist Party USA, who want the revolution to continue here, expressed enthrallment with Barack Obama. So did many Islamic leaders of nations who have no love for us. Does that not say something about the man? It’s like they see him as their hope. And for what do they hope? Our extermination.
I can allow that their hope may be displaced. Yet, what does this say about the character of the man? When someone who wants to see us all dead gives us their endorsement for a runner-for-office, exactly why should we say, “Well then, he is the man for me”? Those kinds of endorsements, in my mind, are endorsements for “anyone but”. I think such situations are very reliable indicators of how not to vote.
I notice he’s still making noises about meeting with terrorists. Why not? They think he’s great.
I’m praying earnestly that the character of this man will change drastically by means of the move of Almighty God on his heart and mind. Our future may well depend on that happening.