Last night’s presidential debate on foreign policy surprisingly shed little light on the 9-11-12 massacre of four brave Americans in Benghazi, Libya. I was saddened it was brushed aside.

It won’t be in the coming months.

Mitt Romney got the first question on the subject and chose not to press the president. It was an understandable strategy for the evening, but left many questions unanswered. President Obama was probably relieved to not have to explain to millions of people why his Administration blamed a YouTube video for the massacre.

Of course, the great tragedy of Benghazi is the loss of life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Ex-Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and ten year foreign service specialist Sean Smith. There is nothing more sacred than human beings made in the image of God. We lament their tragic murders and long for answers for their families.

But there is a second tragedy of Benghazi that may give us an important glimpse into the heart and mind of President Barack Obama.

Something else died on 9-11-12.

That something is vital for both politicians and nations. Actually, it’s absolutely essential for every human relationship that we share.

Because of what happened at Benghazi and how the White House portrayed it, the important character quality of trust is now an issue between President Obama and the nation. Is he telling us the truth? If not, why not? And if he is lying in this area, then in what other areas is he hiding the truth?

You can’t follow leaders you don’t trust.

Richard Nixon is Exhibit A.

Of course, we would not be in this situation if the Administration had been clear and straight in the beginning. They should have come out within 24 hours and explained to the American people that a barbarous act of terrorism killed our ambassador and those trying to defend him. They should have stated the basic facts and then said there would be a full investigation–and an appropriate response to this act of aggression.

But they weren’t candid about the situation. For some reason known only to themselves, they chose to spin a tale that amounts to a cover-up.

Cover-ups are bad. They often blow up in your face. We learned that in kindergarten:

“H-O-N-E-S-T-Y…no matter what the consequences be, is the very best P-O-L-I-C-Y.”

How do we know that the Administration is covering up something regarding the Benghazi massacre? Here is the timeline that lays out the facts in the case:

September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning the attacks and both point to an anti-Islamic YouTube video that they say provoked spontaneous rioting. The president mentions acts of terror in his Rose Garden address, but only in a general context–not applied to specifically to Benghazi.

September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved (now confirmed by numerous sources).

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns the video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief contradicts Ambassador Rice saying, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” (It was not self-evident during the previous nine days.)

September 20: Obama refuses to call the attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” (Change of word, no explanation.)

September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 26: Libya’s Magarief contradicts the president on the “Today” show saying, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved. Magarief was right.

September 27: “Innocence of Muslims” filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.” (Smokescreen?)

September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

October 23: E-mails that reveal that the White House knew in real time that the massacre was terrorism, the name of the organization responsible (Ansar al-Sharia), and for seven hours did nothing to try and help the embattled Americans.

I understand Mitt Romney’s reticence about the Benghazi incident last night. Governor Romney had personally decided (according to his aides) to not be combative with the president but to act presidential, show command of the big picture and familiarity with facts regarding foreign policy, and not be drawn into a tit-for-tat with the president.

The president, on the other hand, was combative from the beginning, condescending at times with Mr. Romney, and tried to stare him down with a stern look while the governor was speaking.

Last night I believe we saw a glimpse of the true selves of the two men who are vying for the top office in the land. On the one hand, what the American people have seen over the three debates, and confirmed by a lifetime, is that Mitt Romney is a very genteel human being who is polite, well-mannered, sincere, and possesses great integrity.

He comes across as a gentleman.

On the other hand, Barack Obama can be very charming in his public persona (he has a flash smile and hip “cool” to his personality), but as we saw last night, he is very narcissistic (did you notice the references to “I” “Me” and “My” which you never hear from Romney?), can be arrogant and condescending to others, and also looks very “cold” when looking at those he despises.

He comes across as a controller.

The biggest impression for me of the president last night was the smug, calculating stare–which had appeared at times in the second debate. There is a belligerence or mean streak in the president that you just don’t see in his challenger.

I bet many women picked up on that last night. Women have better instincts for these things and arrogance and combativeness turns them off.  Not so much with the male species which sometimes like a good fight.

The Bible says “the lamp of the body is the eye” (Matthew 6:22). What this means, among other things, is that oftentimes you get a glimpse of a person’s soul by the look in their eyes. Think of Adolph Hitler or other evil people into whose picture or face you have gazed.

Of course, human beings are pretty adept at covering things up–but not always. What’s in your heart comes out. What’s lodged in your inner being is often displayed through the countenance.

That’s why I was fascinated with what I saw last night. Even when Barack Obama was attacking Mitt Romney, Gov. Romney’s gaze was respectful and non-aggressive. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s stare was smug, stern, piercing, even controlling in some ways. He wanted to “dominate” in his heart and that motive was clearly displayed on his face.

Now back to Benghazi. It is very clear from the timeline above and the evidence that we’ve seen in the past six weeks that the Obama Administration did not tell us the truth about the disaster. In real time, without question, the White House, the State Department, and the intelligence community all knew that a sophisticated terrorist assault had killed four Americans. But then someone decided they needed to lie about it. They chose to blame it on a YouTube video.

Why?

• Because they were embarrassed by the security breach?
• Because the attack didn’t fit the narrative of their success in killing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda being on the run? 
• Because a terrorist attack this close to the election could harm the president’s chances?

We don’t know the answer to that question. But someone in the White House does–and that certainly includes President Obama.

To be fair, all leaders on the level of the American presidency, spin events and statistics to prop up their image and accomplishments. Some even send “plumbers” to steal important documents. Truth be told, we all stretch the truth from time to time.

But most American presidents don’t get caught in a lie and cover-up (as Clinton and Nixon did). They can’t take the risk because the effectiveness of their leadership is based on trust. Destroy trust and the leader must go.

That’s Benghazi’s second tragedy. Four Americans are dead–and one American president is “dying.”

Not by loss of blood, but by loss of respect.

Maybe it shows in his eyes.

 

 

 

Nearly a year ago, the National Association of Evangelicals polled our leadership regarding their preference for president.

At that time there were many accomplished men and women that were pursuing the prize. Our group favored many of them including Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann and others.

I chose Mitt Romney–and because that seemed like an unusual choice for an evangelical, they quoted my assessment in our monthly publication.

I believed Governor Romney was the best choice a year ago. The primary season only verified my conclusion through the broader electorate. And next week I will fill out my all-mail ballot and put a check by his name.

There are five reasons why I will vote for Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States.

But first, let’s enjoy a little humor about why Mitt Romney–in the eyes of the “Lamestream Media”–might not be qualified for POTUS.

(The following Internet blurb is from my friend Steve Boyce at Northwest University.)

“Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney”

1.  Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura.  Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2.  Been married to one woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.
3.  No scandals or skeletons in his closet.  (How boring is that?)
4.  Can’t speak in a fake, southern, “black preacher voice” when necessary.
5.  Highly intelligent.  Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, and his academic records are not sealed.
6.  Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college.
7.  Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a success.
8.  Has a family of five great sons and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab.  But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” deserves America’s scorn.
9.  He’s a Mormon. We need to be very afraid of that strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.
10.  He can’t relate to ordinary Americans because he made his money himself as opposed to marrying into it, inheriting it from dad, or receiving it from the government.  Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unreliable to Americans.

That piece is worth a few chuckles, but it’s also quite revealing about what the secular world values  and how they’ve made “good bad” and “bad good” in modern society.

That might be worth a few tears as well.

So why do I hope that the majority of Americans will vote for Willard Mitt Romney to be the 45th president of the United States? (First hint: It’s not because we share the same birthday of March 12.)

Number One: Mitt Romney’s worldview

This is always high on my list of qualifications for government service. What is the candidate’s worldview? Does he believe that there is a God who is the Supreme Judge of the earth and who delegates his authority to human governments to protect the life, liberty, and property of those that he loves?

Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the 2012 race who will govern from a Judeo-Christian perspective–the one that made America both successful and great. Barack Obama professes a personal faith in Jesus Christ, but he governs as an atheist or secularist whose values are not founded in Scripture but in the shifting winds of human opinion.

For example, President Obama’s views have “evolved” regarding marriage being between one man and one woman. Mitt Romney’s view is anchored in biblical revelation going back to Genesis 2 and 3 and confirmed by five thousand years of human history.

Governor Romney’s values–from economic principles, to social issues, to foreign policy–are American through and through. The American way of life (despite our sins) and the American system of government (despite its weaknesses) are a social and political expression of biblical ideals (that can always be improved). “Forward” in America is not back to perversity and heathenism. It must be a repentant renewal of “In God We Trust” and a commitment to live out his principles both at home and abroad.

Only Mitt Romney shares that perspective in the 2012 presidential race.

And what about Mormonism? Yes, some of its beliefs are outside mainstream biblical faith, but the people it produces are, on the whole, exemplary human beings who seem to live out the essence of the Christian faith better than many Catholics and evangelicals–despite their historical heresies.

Mormons practice Judeo-Christian values. That makes them trustworthy in the governmental sphere.

Number Two: Mitt Romney’s personal character and moral values

Integrity is always vital on my list–and Mitt Romney seems to possess it in abundance. He has been respected all his life as an honest, straight-shooting guy with admirable traditional values, great humility, and incredible generosity.

In the past few months we’ve heard numerous stories about how he served his church and their needs, reached out to those in difficult straits, and how much he gives to help others. In fact, last year he gave 19% of his income to charity, compared to 1% by President Obama and .013% by Joe Biden.

His personal values are biblically centered. Importance? He knows right from wrong and lives it with conviction in his own life.

Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church and Master’s College rightly explains that the 2012 presidential election:

“… is not about politics, although there are things we could talk about: You’re not voting for a pastor, you’re not voting for a spiritual leader, you’re voting for someone who has some sense of morality. Since the Bible says that the role of government is to punish evil doers and protect the good, you better have somebody in power who understands what is good and what is evil.”

Number Three: Mitt Romney’s preparation for the job

There is a major difference today in how the two political parties pick their candidates for president. The Democratic Party is more personality driven. They usually promote whoever is the “shooting star” of the moment. That’s why they nominated a relatively unknown peanut father/governor named Jimmy Carter in 1976 because he had a nice smile, and professed to be born again. Never mind that he had a secular worldview and was incompetent as a leader.

Barack Obama rose to the presidency under the same promises of stardom and the “making of history” (being African American). Yeah, he was a great speaker, cool character, and chose some lofty slogans about “Hope and Change.”

But he’d been a questionable state senator–the only one in the Illinois legislature that was strongly committed to infanticide–then stepped up to a bland stint in the US Senate and finally the presidency with little vetting, no executive or business experience, questionable associations, and little real life experience.

This is no way to evaluate or elevate a leader. Little preparation = little success.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has been better at promoting leaders to run for POTUS only after they have paid their dues of service, success, loyalty, building a national following, and being “next in line.”

This is the biblical principle of gathering “little by little” instead of “get-rich quick.” Character is proven through patience, struggle and growth over time. Ronald Reagan built a lifetime of proven character that eventually got him the Republican nomination and then the presidency. He waited (earned) his time and moment–after losing to Gerald Ford in 1976.

In 2000, John McCain finished second to George W. Bush. Eight years later, after a lifetime of public service, he had earned the right to lead the party in 2008. He was unsuccessful, but his preparation was thorough.

In 2008, Mitt Romney finished second to John McCain. He paid his dues, learned the ropes, and grew as a national leader. It was obvious to me that he was the most prepared candidate to rise to the Republican nomination in 2012.

He did it the right way–by patient perseverance. In 2012 he is most prepared man in America to be president of the United States.

Number  Four: Mitt Romney’s business competence

Since the number one issue in this election is American economic malaise, including staggering federal debt (16 trillion dollars), a lack of jobs (23 million unemployed) entitlement problems (Social Security and Medicare), plunging incomes ($4500 per household), the need for dramatic tax reform, and a lack of confidence in future, doesn’t it make sense to elect a man who is one of the best businessmen in America?

Mitt Romney spent 25 years in the private sector and created thousands of jobs through his businesses; he almost single-handedly rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from financial ruin; he has a thorough understanding of the best economic system possible in a fallen world–free enterprise capitalism.

In this category alone, comparing Mitt Romney to Barack Obama is like comparing an elephant to a flea–Barack Obama has no real world experience in either job creation or understanding how free societies work and succeed. He’s a big government hack. Unfortunately, big governments destroy wealth (and re-distribute it)–they do not create it.

Number Five: Mitt Romney’s executive experience

Barack Obama rose charismatically to the office of the presidency without ever having led anything. That’s a stunning oversight by the American electorate. He not only had never run a business, but his only experience in government was legislative–not executive. No wonder his administration has been filled with governing snafus like the ram-rodded health care bill debacle and the recent lapse in security in Libya that cost four American lives.

Barack Obama never learned to lead before he arrived on the scene.

Mitt Romney has been a leader all his life–including being the highly successful governor of Massachusetts where he worked in a bi-partisan manner with a majority-Democrat legislature.

Barack Obama has shown no such inclination on Capitol Hill. In fact, a former staff member intimated recently that he really doesn’t like people–that’s why, she said, it’s “stunning he’s in politics.”

Mitt Romney genuinely likes people and is very effective at working with leaders of other persuasions.

Summary

Worldview, character, preparation, competence, and experience. These are the characteristics that produce good, successful leaders. No human being possesses their full orb–but some people get a lot closer than others.

When you check the ballots of those you vote for in the crucial 2012 elections, keep those qualifiers in mind. They are the difference between good leaders and bad or mediocre ones.

May God help us choose wisely.

 

 

 

 

 

The most controversial article I ever wrote–one that prompted a spate of negative responses from all over the world–was one of my first Revive America blogs in October, 2008.

It was called “One Hundred Reasons Why I Will Not Vote for Barack Obama.” I had just returned from a trip to Asia where, over the course of a long flight, I jotted down one hundred policy stances that I felt disqualified Barack Obama from being a successful US president. They encompassed economic, social, and foreign policy positions then held by the Democratic candidate.

But don’t worry if you’re staring at the title above. Even though the most critical election of our lifetime is just four weeks away, I will not make you sift through 2700 bullet points this time around.

I can bring it down to one.

First, a little backdrop.

I wrote my first book in 1976 about that year’s presidential election–originally a three-way race between Gerald Ford, the Nixon-appointed incumbent, Ronald Reagan the conservative challenger, and Jimmy Carter the liberal Georgian peanut farmer.

Before the age of the Internet and computers, I sent snail mail to all the campaign headquarters requesting the three candidates’ positions on thirty areas of public policy. I wanted to know what they would do to improve the economy, where they stood on social and moral issues, and what type of foreign policy they would conduct.

Once I received their position papers, I condensed the data, and with the help of Intercessors for America, produced the first presidential “Voter Guide” that was distributed across the country.

I collected so much material that summer that I decided to turn it into a book. The publisher eventually determined that it would be most helpful as an expose on James Earl Carter because he was the least known of the candidates running–and professed to be a born-again Christian.

So What About Jimmy Carter? rolled off the Third Century Publishers press one month before the November election. Ronald Reagan had just lost out at the Republican Convention (Shirley and I cried that night) and the battle was set between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

But my expose of Carter was too little, too late. He won in a close election.

What followed was a government that moved rapidly in a secular direction, brought gas shortages, American hostages in Iran, and produced a numbing “malaise” that zapped the American nation of its vim and vigor.

Fortunately, the ’80 Reagan Revolution brought “Morning in America ” four years later by turning the nation back to its Judeo-Christian roots, free enterprise principles, and “peace through strength.”

In Jonah Goldberg’s most recent bestseller The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas, Mr. Goldberg, who calls himself “a fairly secular Jew,” says that elections are like “circuit-breakers” that stop the flow of ideas in one direction and help them flow another way.

The “circuit breaker” of the 1980 election did that very thing. It also produced, according to famed economist Arthur Laffer, “the greatest time of prosperity and peace-time economic expansion in the history of the world.”

But that was thirty years ago.

Now back to Barack Obama and the 2012 election.

When I first heard Mr. Obama speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I was very impressed (just like everybody else). He was a great speaker, charismatic, a family man, talked about bringing the “blue states and red states together,” and professed to be a follower of Christ.

However, by the time he ran for president in 2008, much of the truth about his worldview and positions had become known–if you knew where to look for them. So I wrote down my one hundred reasons why I couldn’t vote for him. It had nothing to do with race. That year, I would have gladly voted for Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, or J.C. Watts for president.

Color doesn’t matter. When it comes to presidential politics, it’s the worldview, stupid.

I couldn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2008. I feared that his tenure would be a major “circuit-breaker” in American societal direction. In fact, he announced it that way. He’d come to the presidency to “fundamentally transform the American nation.”

So what are the 2700 reasons not to vote for him? Well, it’s his signature bill that actually encompasses 2700 pages.

Obamacare–whose proper name is “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

It tells you all you need to know about why you shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama:

1. It is a huge government power grab of nearly one-sixth of the American economy. By making Obamacare his number one priority of the first two years, President Obama told us exactly who he is–a Big Government liberal-progressive who wants the State to control every aspect of our lives. His motives may be good–to provide healthcare to all Americans–but the means is ugly. Governments are lousy providers because they lack competition and use force to achieve their ends. Obamacare is the biggest tyranny ever hoisted on the American people.

2. When the nation desperately needed a political cocktail of lower spending, tax cuts and tax reform, fighting for the entrepreneur, and unleashing the power of innovation and opportunity, President Obama allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to throw together a nearly three thousand page job-crushing monstrosity that froze money in the banks, caused businesses large and small to curtail hiring, and created paralyzing fear for the future. That’s why we’ve had 8% unemployment for four years now with trillions of corporate dollars sitting on the sidelines. The wealth-creators of America are distrustful of the new taxes, increased regulations, and the 200,000 new IRS agents that will police the system and destroy the America way of life.

3. Ms. Pelosi famously told us during the process of ramming the bill through Congress that “we need to pass the bill to find our what is in it.” All that we learned from that statement is that there’s isn’t much in Ms. Pelosi’s brain except a hunger for tyranny. How dumb does she think we are? Paste together a wish-list of government bureaucracies and declare with a straight face that this is good for America and will lower the cost of healthcare? Well, now that we’ve found time to examine the bill over the past four years, we know that it raided 716 billion dollars from Medicare– jeopardizing its future–has upped health care costs every year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cost at least three times what we were told. And that in an era of 16 trillion dollar budget deficits.

4. The way Obamacare was passed was instructive of Barack Obama’s leadership style–Chicago-style slash and burn. Instead of doing what Mitt Romney had done on a state level–bringing Democrats and Republicans together in a bi-partisan way on a health care bill that was supported overwhelmingly in the Massachusetts legislature with only two votes against it and support by nearly every special interest group in the state–President Obama used bribes and kickbacks to foist his vision on America with not one Republican vote and against the will of the American people. Massachusetts healthcare law is still supported by at least 67% of the electorate. Obamacare has never crossed the 50% barrier.

5. What we also learned from Obamacare was the aggressive secularism of the Obama administration in clamping down on Christian morality and religious liberties in America. Obamacare is loaded with secular mandates that put a dagger into two hundred years of religious freedom including forcing faith-based institutions to violate their conscience on contraception and abortion–to name a few. This is a dagger aimed at religious liberty, morality, and traditional family life. It has motivated Bishop E.W. Jackson to encourage African-Americans to abandon the Democratic Party.  He says, “Clearly, the Democratic Party is the anti-Christian Party in this nation. They reject the Bible, what Bible-believing Christians embrace and they encourage the growth of what we can a ‘non-traditional’ family. That is morally wrong and a disgrace to our nation and our Lord.”

It was very interesting that in the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, when Governor Romney referred to “Obamacare” the first time, and apologized for using its colloquial name, Barack Obama said he actually “liked it”–and smiled.

He likes the 2700 pound gorilla.

He doesn’t seem to understand that his signature issue tells us all we need to know about where he wants to take America if he gets another four years:  toward a secular, socialist nanny state where faith is no longer free

I don’t know what your reasons are, but I’m not voting for Barack Obama.

2700 pages of Obamacare say it all.

It must be repealed by a new president, House, and Senate that we the people elect on November 6.