A quick glance at the political landscape of the past week proves that sentiment has been long since forgotten.

First, it was former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, dishing dirt on the Bush Administration in his tell-all book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. The liberal media rejoiced at the “revelations” that the Bush Administration lied to the American people about their true reasons for invading Iraq and the author’s assertions that Karl Rove and Lewis “Scooter” Libby were behind the Valerie Plame CIA leak.  

I will leave the debate of whether these revelations are true or false to others. 

My point of contention with Mr. McClellan is his timing. He had been a loyal Bush staffer since 1999 when W. was still the Governor of Texas. He was the Traveling Press Secretary for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. He was the Deputy Press Secretary, under Ari Fleischer, until July of 2003 when he was promoted to Press Secretary. He served in that position from 2003 until April of 2006 when he was unceremoniously forced out and replaced by (someone with infinitely more backbone and personality than he could ever wish to have) Tony Snow.

McClellan didn’t resign based on his beliefs or his sense of outrage that the American people were being lied to or any other concocted excuse he or the liberal media are trying to peddle. The facts are: He was forced to resign. He was kicked out for being woefully lacking the talents necessary to be an effective White House Press Secretary. 

Like anyone who has been in the limelight and against their wishes is forced to sit on the sidelines, McClellan was angry. 

The truth is he had been lied to by people within the White House. Only, it wasn’t about the reasons for going into Iraq or Valerie Plame, it was about his abilities to be an effective Press Secretary.

So, what was he to do? Spend his remaining years toiling in obscurity while remaining loyal and faithful to a man that, perhaps foolishly, elevated his career beyond his talent level? Or, exact some measure of revenge, reclaim the limelight (although for a brief news cycle), and cash in on his former job title? The choice was simple.

Late Saturday evening, the news broke that Barack Obama has severed his 20-year relationship with Trinity United Church of Christ by resigning as a member.

According to The Politco.Com:

Obama said he has “tremendous regard” for the church community, but said he could not live with a situation where everything said in the church, including comments by a guest pastor, “will be imputed to me, even if they conflict with my long-held, views, statements and principles.”

Once again, I have an issue with the timing of such a difficult decision.

Barack Obama would like for the American people to believe that this radical level of anti-American, anti-white person hate speech that has been spewed on multiple occasions from Trinity’s pulpit (and met with enthusiastic applause by its members) is something shocking or new to the Obama family. He would like for you to believe that this church has gone off the deep end in the last few months and has strayed from its former self.

Personally, I find that highly unlikely. 

I believe membership in this church was necessary to Obama’s early rise in Chicago politics. 

According to FrontPageMag.Com:

Nonetheless, it was here that Obama chose to make his career and here that, in 1992, he joined Trinity. With the controversy over his ties to Rev. Wright wrecking havoc on his political fortunes, the decision now seems woefully misguided. But in retrospect, and in the cold light of political calculation, it was the obvious choice.

Trinity allowed Obama to pad his still-thin résumé. An admitted agnostic, Obama could fortify doubts about his spiritual and religious commitments. A biracial politician looking to prove that he was authentically “black,” he could rely on Trinity’s Afrocentric gospel to convince race-conscious unbelievers. A community organizer with budding political ambitions, he could identify a constituency in the large congregation. At Trinity, Obama got religion – and a reputation.

Believe it or not, I’m willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is true that he does not and never has shared in the beliefs of “black liberation theology” or the “black value system”—two ideological pillars of Trinity United Church of Christ.

But yet again, it begs the question, “Why now?” Why after 20 years of affiliating himself with this church would he choose to disassociate?

I won’t insult your intelligence by answering that.

Here is a more important question: What does the timing of these decisions by these two men say about their character?

Chew on that question for a while, and then remember the famous words of Frank Outlaw:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

For instance, his full name is Barack Hussein Obama. There is no disputing this fact. However back in February, when a few conservatives started to use his middle name when referring to him, Michelle Obama called it the “ultimate fear bomb” used to scare voters.

"They threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb that we're even hearing now: they said his name," Mrs. Obama exclaimed. "They said, 'Look out for his name, when all else fails. Be afraid of his name and what they could stand for, because it's different.'"

Another indisputable fact is Barack Obama had a 20-year relationship with the racist, anti-American preacher, Jeremiah Wright. He attended his church since 1992 (according to Obama himself), was married by Wright, and his children were baptized by Wright. As anyone who follows the news knows, Obama at first defended the man while condemning his comments and then, after repeating a lot of the same racist, anti-American sentiments in front of the National Press Club, Obama finally condemned the man stating “the man you saw yesterday is not the man I have known for 20 years”.

To anyone who is not on Team Obama, this raises the obvious issue of his judgment. How can you know a man for 20 years and not see his obvious hatred and contempt for white people and America?

Back in April, ABC moderated a debate in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton. By all liberal, Obama apologist accounts, spending the first 52 minutes of that debate asking Obama to explain his relationship with Rev. Wright was at the least a “shoddy, despicable performance” and at best a targeted hit piece.

Tom Shales of The Washington Post wrote:

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

As you can clearly see, whenever anyone dares to question Barack Obama on a legitimate issue—his judgment and character—it is widely disputed and defended by the liberals as a “slanted” attack on him.

Without question, the latest evidence is the defensive nature with which Obama addressed the “appeasement” statement made by President Bush while in Israel this week. Though it should be noted that the president didn’t call Obama by name, the liberal media networks and democrat leaders have all assumed Obama was the target.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball offered the typical Obama apologist argument. 

"You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy."

On one point, Matthews is right. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, appeasement is defined “the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace”. 

His defense is simply that Barack Obama has offered to have direct negotiations with Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Matthews stated, “You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing.” This defense, used not just by Matthews, is exactly where Obama supporters intentionally lie to the American people.

Iran has applied for membership to the World Trade Organization on 20 different occasions. The previous 19 times they have been denied because of the United States and Israel. Clearly, joining the WTO is something Iran dearly wants and clearly, it is the U.S. that has not allowed that to happen.

If you surf over to barackobama.com, you find the truth.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations.

“If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization”. Let’s not get petty over semantics. What Team Obama calls “incentives” any other rational human being might call “concessions”. Which means Barack Obama’s policy is to meet directly with the Iranian president and offer “concessions to” him “to maintain peace”. 

Barack Obama has pledged himself to the idea of full-fledged appeasement.

How did Barack Obama respond to the President’s statement?

Barack Obama has called President Bush's comments on appeasement "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world."

Yesterday, Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists—early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.

Once again, stating facts about Obama is deflected as an attack. 

It is truly foolish to think that those who want to see Barack Obama elected at any and all costs (the elitist democrats, the liberal news networks, and the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil diehard Obama supporters) will address the issues factually. That is why it is crucial that those of us who are not blinded by party affiliations maintain a vigilant watch on this election cycle and do what others are afraid or unwilling to do—report the truth.