Skip to main content

An Open Letter to President Obama Regarding the Iranian "Ransom"

Dear President Obama,

You are the President of the United States of America, the "leader of the free world."  You are an authority figure who has been placed over this country by God, so I want to address you respectfully, yet frankly.  I'm not writing to air grievances or make accusations.  My goal here is simple.  I want to inform you that we (informed American citizens) don't believe in coincidences anymore.  You say that you gave Iran back their money and that it was not a ransom.  I guess we'll have to take your word for that.  You're technically correct, I guess, but it just seems a little too convenient.  Can you understand our suspicion?  It seems like one of those Washington cover stories that hide the back-door dealings of world leaders.  Some people may believe you.  After all, they'll believe anything you say!  There are plenty of others who simply don't pay any attention.  Those of us who pay attention, however, have officially stopped taking anything you say seriously.  We never really trusted you, of course, but you've hit a new low.  You've lost all credibility.  You claimed that you would be the President who ended the Washington politicking.  You promised that you would have the most transparent administration this country has ever seen.  You have fallen significantly short of your self-imposed expectations.  You had to have known that this would look bad.  You could have come out and hit this issue head-on, prefacing your decision with some sort of acknowledgment about how it would appear.  You could have been open and honest, but, instead, you fell back on a technicality after it blew up in your face. At this point, we wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth. No matter what you say, we're going to assume that you are warping the truth to fit your political agenda.  So, no, Mr. Obama, we don't believe in coincidences anymore.  We don't believe that we just happened to pay Iran back right when they released prisoners.  It's just too perfect.  It's too convenient.  It's just too much of a coincidence, and we don't believe in coincidences anymore.



Respectfully,
A Disillusioned Citizen                                                                                                                


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...
Post a Comment
Read more