ummm, isn't this kinda, sorta like the FISA problem of retroactive immunity?

I have always been amazed that politicians, when they give back money that allegedly was ill-gotten, think that it absolves them of all blame, wrong-doing and questionable alliances.

The Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday had a front page banner, actually it was the entire page saying, well, read it for yourself:





If you read the story on pages 8-9 - Obama Cuts Rezko Ties, it gives the impression that since he gave $157,835 that is traceable to Tony Rezko to charity everything is all right.

Obama did this with the Hsu affair, as did Senator Clinton. So, he's not alone. They all seem to do it. Once they get caught.

The one part of the story that is interesting is the land purchase deal that Obama did for a piece of land next to his $1.65 million Kenwood, Illinois home for $104,500 from Rezko's wife who bought it originally for $625,000 at the same time Obama bought the house. Then, of course, Rezko raised money for Obama's campaigns also.

Yes, I admit, I am picking on Obama a little bit more than the others, but I also am more familiar with how Chicago politics work. This is nothing more than business as usual, from which Obama has claimed he is above.

I also am enraged by the audacity of the Chicago Sun-Times giving him a clear pat on the back and "job well done" for Obama breaking his ties to Rezko.

He still did it all. How does giving it all back turn into "everything is now all right?"

With that type of thinking, maybe we should give the big telecoms retroactive immunity.

So, again I ask, "ummm, isn't this kinda, sorta like the FISA problem of retroactive immunity?"

Oh, and here is another big question that pops into my head. It's about the full-page Sun-Times banner from the NEXT day's, February 1, 2008, paper:




maybe it isn't a real question...

maybe it's more like WTF?