President Obama Is Not Being Very Presidential

The President of the United States should be the country's leader. As a leader, he should attempt to represent the entire constituency to the best of his ability and to seek common ground among the varying points of view. I guess it's not news to you or to anyone that what Obama has succeeded in doing through much of his impromptu rhetoric, which may not be exactly what he had intended - or perhaps it is since he is not a stupid person! - is to send the country into a greater schism. Obama appears to be calculating in all his endeavors.

Even after campaigning on a platform of bringing unity, he has created a greater division among philosophical and political groups than ever existed before. In this, he receives support of his cronies and the mainstream media. Perhaps that is why he feels comfortable in being divisive even though he promised during his campaign to "bring the two sides" together. But, how can you call a significant group of your "constituency" derogatory names or "diss" them in public forums if you truly want them to be included in a unified group?

I know that this may be a peculiar claim, but President Obama has spent the last few years (well before his run for the presidency) establishing his own constituency. . . and obviously, it's not the American population at large! It has been evident from Day One of his presidency that Obama intended to establish himself not as a leader of a united American people, but as someone who will use his high office to repay those to whom he is indebted politically and those special interest groups who had financed his rise to the most powerful position in the country (dare I say the world anymore?). I could take up time and space listing all those entities, but we all know of whom I speak. Suffice it to say that he obviously has enormous debts to special groups of far left idealogues with whom he's been closely tied all of his life, and he also has political debts to repay to those within the political circles who heavily backed him in his run for the White House. To what end? I will answer that in a moment.

Rather than giving leadership to his own country, he behaves as a populist trying to "up" his image among national leaders who include the most despicable of despots. By trying to garner favorable standing with that part of the global community, he is failing miserably at maintaining his favor with the US allies; and thus, has strained if not done real harm to the foundation of those relationships. For example, one of our closest allies, Israel, has been treated with total contempt.

On the home front, in his role as leader of the free world, Obama certainly earns a low grade, perhaps an "F", surely nothing higher than a "D-". Many times he has shown he lacks the "class" and maturity that a national leader - yea, a world leader - should possess. Without his teleprompter (or when he goes off-script) he demonstrates a grammar-schoolish approach to handling himself, forgetting at times who he is. At those times, or when he has his "posse" with him, Obama likes to portray the "playground bully", belittling or "dissing" those who disagree with his politics, primarily those with a conservative point of view and who revere the Constitution as it was implemented by our forefathers.

So to what end? Ever the campaigner, Obama appears to be running for the office which is still being sought by former president Bill Clinton, that of President of the World. And, as he did as an inexperienced Senator, Obama is running for that position even before gaining experience in his present one. However, I believe he is finding it not quite as easy to do this time since there are more competitors in play. And too, Obama is finding that he's not "riding as high" as he once was in the polls with those he's supposed to be leading.

It would, of course, be important for him to remain in the good graces of the US population if he is to have any hope of a second term. (Or it may be that he's expecting to leapfrog quickly to that "new office" like he did to the White House!) In regards to 2012 elections, he obviously feels he needn't worry too much about his majority of his base of Democrats and Independents, and even some of the Republicans who "crossed over" (who have, as a rule, suffered from short-term memory loss spanning one to two elections). However, more and more of the independents, and even some of his more moderate Democratic base, are beginning to tire of his avant-garde style of presidency.

Let me remind you with examples from his own words and actions just how Obama shows the lack of character that a leader in his position should have, especially if Obama genuinely intended to make good on the claim he made to bring unity to the nation and peace to the world.

He denigrates the police force, the symbol of civil authority, who are doing their job as policy and laws dictate.

He snubs those who dare to present the opposing side of an issue, or who present both sides in fairness to all: http://tinyurl.com/mgwzbq and  http://tinyurl.com/37stlmm

He resort to name-calling when he doesn't have a legitimate response.

He employs underhanded tactics to push through his agenda rather than listening to the voice of the people and working on a compromise as a starting point to implement change.

He snubs our strongest allies: Canada, the UK, and Israel.

He embraces others with anti-American sentiments: Saudi Arabia (the infamous bow), Egypt the (Cairo University speech), and others (like the infamous handshake).

After seeing these few examples, I ask you this: Is Obama behaving like YOUR President? In my opinion, he's not acting like America's President.

Obama and Kharsai - The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

I first started this article a couple months ago, but didn't post it thinking that I would expound upon my thoughts; but even today, it's relevant. So, here goes.

Not too long ago, Obama made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It was also reported that Kharsai was told that he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old clichés, then here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.

Here is an example of a "leader" who builds a regime of corruption by implanting and empowering czars to run his government while saying that another leader must clean up the corruption in their government. For example, Obama's czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people, and as a general rule, have never experienced leadership in any type of major business, capitalistic venture, or industrial enterprise. However, Obama's czars now literally have control over large portions of the nation's economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) - let's not mention how the affectation of their decisions have far-reaching implications, impacting the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, Obama recently put 15 more people into important positions while Congress was on a 2-week spring break, blaming the GOP for the timing of his actions. How absurd is that? These positions were not so critical to the function of the government that they could not be put off two more weeks for Congress to have the opportunity to at least put on their "show" of Congressional investigation prior to affirmation. He just circumvented "the old system" with his new one.

So, how is this different from some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia or, for that matter, any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democratic practices - if only in theory? Rather than standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed as the US once was, the Omabanation (AKA, the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in with countries led by thugs, vandals, and despots.

How is being just like other countries that suppress the wishes of the majority of its people a good thing? Who will now be able to hold up a standard against corruption in those countries, or in this one? It will all be the same modus operandi, only now known by different monikers, depending upon which country and which leader. The difference used to be that in this country was the standard-bearer with checks and balances to help limit corruption in its government. However, this administration has made its own brand of corruption the standard from which to perpetuate their "change" while trying to persuade others to conform - but conform to what, the US form of corruption? A rose by any other name!

So, will all this said, and with obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in any form of conscience make demands on the Kharsai regime? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye', when you fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

While the US is in an obvious downward spiral, morally and ethically speaking (with the corruption which now is more blatant and commonplace at the highest levels of our government), and with places like Afghanistan and others are being touted as "supposedly" on an upward trend (though we've seen no difference in their behaviors), will that mean, again ethically and morally speaking, that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle? If so, the US loses big. Why? Because the US will no longer be the "example" that other countries have looked up to. Where the US once was the country who led the world by example, they now will be "eye to eye" on a lower plane - down in the muck and mire with corrupted countries.

So, there you have my take on it. Simply stated, Obama is trying his best to lower the prestige and moral strength of this country while trying to compel other countries - who, by the way, don't respect his leadership - to behave according to his set of standards for behavior. He suggests that the US should lower its "standards" and compel others to "meet us halfway." Thousands of years of history tells us that this won't happen. So, who really comes out ahead in this situation?

In my opinion, as far as the US is concerned, mediocrity is not a good thing. NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!