Leadership
Forty Years Ago in August: Time for Another POTUS to Resign?
I was in England on August 8, 1974 when Richard Nixon became the first US president to resign while in office. It was a stunning demise for a formidable politician who served as vice president, lost the 1960 presidential race to JFK, then rose from the ashes to be elected POTUS in 1968 and re-elected in 1972.
The bottom fell out when he was caught at the helm of a minor political break-in that became known as Watergate–and then lied about it. Years of malaise, including the inept presidency of Jimmy Carter, followed in his wake.
I’ve been thinking for six long years about the failing presidency of Barack Obama. As jihadists be-head an American journalist, Russia subtly invades Ukraine, racial riots explode in Missouri, the US economy subsists on life support, and the national debt nears 18 trillion dollars–while President Obama vacations and plays golf–I’m wondering if another US president should resign for the good of the nation.
Two prominent women–one a secular progressive and the other a conservative–beat me to the punch this week.
Here are their sobering words for all of us to consider.
I rarely read Maureen Dowd because she is a fixture of the secular progressive left and almost always on the wrong side of issues. But she is a noted columnist for the New York Times who recently chose to part company with her once beloved president.
Her blistering attack on President Obama’s leadership is called “The Golf Address” published in the NY Times on October 23. It is brilliant in its allegory, yet tragic in its comparison of Abraham Lincoln’s courageous leadership 150 years ago and the current occupant of the White House.
The most famous speech in American history was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered during the perilous days of the Civil War. It contains only 272 eloquent words spoken with noble character, passion and burden.
It would be worth your while to take less than one minute and read it here.
Dowd compares Lincoln’s sobering masterpiece to the actions of Barack Obama, who, after lamenting the hideous death of journalist Jim Foley, took all of ten minutes to return to his vacation and get back to the golf course. Minutes later he was photographed smiling and fist-pumping a golfing buddy.
This is not just bad optics. It is a failure of presidential leadership of historic proportions.
Ms. Dowd agrees.
“The Golf Address” – by Barack Obama
As seen through the eyes of Maureen Dowd
“FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.”
“I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.”
“Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.”
“We are met on a great field of that battle, not Augusta, not Pebble Beach, not Bethpage Black, not Burning Tree, but Farm Neck Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard, which we can’t get enough of — me, Alonzo, Ray Allen and Marvin Nicholson, my trip director and favorite golfing partner who has played 134 rounds and counting with me.”
“We have to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for my presidency, if I keep swinging from behind.”
“Yet it is altogether fitting and proper that I should get to play as much golf as I want, despite all the lame jokes about how golf is turning into ‘a real handicap’ for my presidency and how I have to ‘stay the course’ with ISIL. I’ve heard all the carping that I should be in the Situation Room droning and plinking the bad folks.”
“I know some people think I should go to Ferguson. Don’t they understand that I’ve delegated the Martin Luther King Jr. thing to Eric Holder? Plus, Valerie Jarrett and Al Sharpton have it under control.”
“I know it doesn’t look good to have pictures of me grinning in a golf cart juxtaposed with ones of James Foley’s parents crying, and a distraught David Cameron rushing back from his vacation after only one day, and the Pentagon news conference with Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey on the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Syria.”
“We’re stuck in the rough, going to war all over again in Iraq and maybe striking Syria, too. Every time Chuck says ISIL is ‘beyond anything we’ve ever seen,’ I sprout seven more gray hairs. But my cool golf caps cover them. If only I could just play through the rest of my presidency.”
“ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.”
“So how can you blame me for wanting to unwind on the course or for five hours at dinner with my former assistant chef? He’s a great organic cook, and he’s got a gluten-free backyard putting green.”
“But, in a larger sense, we can dedicate, we can consecrate, we can hallow this ground where I can get away from my wife, my mother-in-law, Uncle Joe, Congress and all the other hazards in my life.”
“The brave foursomes, living and dead, who struggled here in the sand, in the trees, in the water, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract a few strokes to improve our score. Bill Clinton was Mr. Mulligan, and he is twice at popular as I am.”
“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we shot here, or why I haven’t invited a bunch of tiresome congressmen to tee it up. I’m trying to relax, guys. So I’d much rather stay in the bunker with my usual bros. Why don’t you play 18 with Mitch McConnell? And John Boehner is a lot better than me, so I don’t want to play with him.”
“It is for us, the duffers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who played here have thus far so nobly advanced to get young folks to stop spurning a game they find slow and boring.”
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us of getting rid of our slice on the public’s dime — that from this honored green we take increased devotion to that cause for which Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy gave their last full measure of devotion — and divots.”
“We here highly resolve that these golfing greats shall not have competed in vain, especially poor Tiger, and that this nation, under par, shall have a new birth of freedom to play the game that I have become unnaturally obsessed with, and that golf of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
“So help me Golf.”
Then there is conservative former judge and current Fox host Jeanine Pirro who worked as a district attorney for 30 years in New York. She is possibly the most fearless commentator on television. Here’s what she said on “Justice” barely one day after the Maureen Dowd massacre.
Please watch her “Opening Remarks” here.
I’ve got nothing personally against President Obama. On the positive side he’s charismatic, a good speaker, a powerful fund-raiser, a family man and probably an excellent community organizer.
But he’s not up to the task or image of president of the United States. Why? Because his worldview doesn’t fit reality, he’s an ideologue who seems incapable of change, he appears detached and distracted by golf, fund-raising and his celebrity status, he lacks real leadership skills and competency–and all-in-all, he’s out of his league.
This August he could do the wisest and most humble act of his life and step down as president–for his own good and that of the nation. At least Joe Biden is older and has some experience in foreign policy. He could be a caretaker until 2016–maybe even a decent one like Harry Truman.
Then we need to elect a president with faith, courage, executive experience and leadership skills like Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
And never vote for a “jayvee” for POTUS ever again.
How the West Was Lost by a Selfie President
I’ve been thinking lately about the gasping Obama presidency–last week rocked by the Veterans Administration scandal, and this week by the Bowe Bergdahl affair where the Administration traded an army deserter for the Taliban Dream Team.
This latest debacle comes after:
- The NSA scandal–collecting the data of American citizens and tapping the lines of world leaders
- The IRS scandal–using the most hated government branch to silence conservative organizations
- The AP scandal–the Justice Department tapping reporters phone records
- The Ben Ghazi scandal–where Americans died, Susan Rice lied, and no rescue took place, and
- Fast Furious–where we supplied thousands of guns to crooks and a border agent was killed.
What in the world is going on?
Here’s an insightful article on how the West was lost by a selfie president.
Last week, my wife and and I watched a moving six-hour History Channel series on The Great Wars that featured portraits of the key leaders of the 20th century. The heroes from WWI and WWII—Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, George Patton and Douglas MacArthur–all learned from their mistakes during WWI and courageously led the Western powers to victory over Nazism and Imperial Japan.
The villains of the Great Wars, including Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, were molded by the horrors of the first world war but applied their lessons toward destruction–not the blessings of liberty and peace.
Thankfully, the world was saved by wise, courageous Western leaders.
(It’s interesting to note that Roosevelt never lived to see the end of WWII, but that he, Mussolini and Hitler all died within one month of each other and Churchill was voted out of office two months later.)
Now we find ourselves in a possibly more dangerous world where Russia is flexing its muscles, Iran is nearing a nuclear bomb, and communist China is the rising power in the Pacific–while our current Western leaders are taking selfies.
The following article appeared after Nelson Mandela’s December 15, 2013 funeral in South Africa. You will remember the famous selfie picture of Barack Obama, David Cameron and the female Danish Prime Minister.
How times have changed since the era of Roosevelt and Churchill! And how desperately we need to pray for and elect courageous leaders who are not enamored by narcissism and corrupted by scandals.
How the West Was Lost By a Selfie President
Michael Goodwin – NY Post columnist
My bookshelves sag with encyclopedic volumes arguing that America and the West are in decline. But proving that a picture is worth a thousand books, the “selfie” seen ’round the world ends the argument.
It’s official — the government of the United States of Obama consists of boobs and bores and is led by a narcissist. It is no consolation that Great Britain joins us in racing to the bottom.
President Obama’s flirting with Denmark’s prime minister would be shameful on any occasion. That it happened at the memorial for Nelson Mandela only adds to the embarrassment.
But the “selfie” episode also symbolizes the greater global calamity of Western decline. With British prime minister David Cameron playing the role of Obama’s giggling wingman, the “look at me” moment confirms we have unserious leaders in a dangerously serious time.
Iran marches toward nuclear weapons and already there is talk in military circles that a nuclear-armed Iran could mean mushroom clouds in the Mideast within five years.
China is flexing its muscles throughout Asia, its ships brazenly confronting ours on the high seas. Russia is expanding its writ in the Arab lands and in Eastern Europe while making casual threats about bombing America. Syria’s Assad uses chemical weapons and Obama and Cameron rattle little sabers before meekly agreeing to become his partner.
The sign-language interpreter wasn’t the only fake at the Mandela funeral. Obama and Cameron were posing as world leaders.
They will never be confused with FDR and Churchill. The fratboys stand in stark contrast to the days when the “special relationship” meant two great leaders uniting two great countries in the fight for freedom. Those leaders understood the consequences if evil prevailed and were committed to victory.
Churchill coined the term “special relationship” during World War II and used it again in his “Iron Curtain Speech” in 1946 that marked the unofficial start of the Cold War. Fearful the West would disarm again, as it did after World War I, he wanted to combat communism by maintaining the “special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”
To him it meant our “kindred systems of society” must grow ever closer to provide mutual security and a framework for global peace. That special bond later cemented the Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher partnership that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Try to imagine any of those four embarrassing their nations by acting like indulgent teenagers while civilization hung in the balance. You can’t because they wouldn’t.
Hitler’s greatest mistake was being born too soon. If he were on the march now, would there be will in Washington and London to stop him? Would there be an arsenal of democracy to save mankind from darkness?
In fact, while Obama and Cameron were yukking it up in South Africa, the White House was denouncing bipartisan efforts in Congress to pass more sanctions against Iran. Doing so, it said, would scuttle the feeble interim deal Obama and Cameron accepted. Incredibly, administration arguments echoed Iran’s position.
Try to imagine FDR and Churchill siding with Hitler against their national legislatures. You can’t because they were the antitheses of the appeasers of their times.
World War II proved that the international order collapses when there is no one to support and enforce it. Obama himself has said that, but apparently believes talk is sufficient.
Cameron also talks a good game, but hollowed out the British military to where it is no longer capable of sustained missions.
Words don’t matter to tyrants and genocidal maniacs. They push until they are convinced there will be consequences if they go further.
Our weakness invites their aggression and makes war more likely, not less. That is the perilous state of the world, as the clown kings of the West party on.
The Meaning of the the Arizona Veto
With Vladimir Putin taking control of Crimea–he was mad at the Ukrainian people for forcing out their pro-Russian tyrannical leader– came the temptation to write on the beginning of a new Cold War.
But that can come later. We have yet to see whether President Obama will act weakly like Jimmy Carter in the 1970s or strongly as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s.
But we do know what happened in America last week when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062. Religious liberty died and propaganda won.
Here’s the real meaning of the Arizona veto.
I will let some other voices set the stage. Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network tells us the facts about SB 1062:
“It was simply an amendment to the 1999 state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a state law similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
“Senate Bill 1062, was designed to merely clarify the protection already offered in the state RFRA. It would have clarified that protections extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization. It protected all citizens and the associations they can form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty or from private lawsuits that would have the same results.”
It seems like an eternity ago when a Democratic president, House and Senate passed a bill that was good for America. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, sponsored by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer-NY, passed on a unanimous voice vote in the House and a whopping 97-3 margin in the Senate.
Bill Clinton signed it. Good law–good leadership.
As Randall points out above, the Arizona bill was a mirror of the RFRA that clarified two minor points. You can read read its 680 words here. (It’s not 2000 pages long like Obamacare.)
What did it strengthen?
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation explains:
“When the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their deeply held beliefs, we have a problem. Unless the government proves that there is a compelling government interest in doing so (and that there was not another, less restrictive means possible), citizens should be left free. We need legislation protecting religious liberty for all, because in a growing number of cases, government coercion and penalties have violated religious freedom.”
Arizona’s SB 1062 took a good law passed by Democrats eleven years ago and added two tweaks: 1) Government can’t force anyone to do anything unless it has a compelling interest to do so, and 2) That there is not another less restricted way to accomplish the same result.
If you took the time to the read SB 1062, you might be surprised that it was a generic bill that applied to all people, races, issues, situations, and circumstances.
It never mentioned gay rights or gay marriage.
So why did the vast majority of media outlets (including Fox News) trumpet headlines that the Arizona bill was “anti-gay” or “anti-gay marriage?”
Ryan Anderson explains in the following Q&A:
Q: How did people’s beliefs about same-sex marriage become an issue?
A: “In New Mexico, a photographer declined to use her artistic talents to promote a same-sex ceremony because of her religious beliefs. The couple complained and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered her to pay a fine of nearly $7,000. Christian adoption and foster-care agencies in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., have been forced to stop providing those services because they believe that the best place for kids is with a married mom and dad. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more.”
Q: Why is this a religious liberty issue?
A: “Many religions teach that marriage is the union of a man and woman, and the religious liberty concern in these recent cases is that people are being coerced into violating that belief. While Americans are legally free to live and love as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into participating in activities that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Q: But isn’t government supposed to guarantee equal treatment for all?
A: “These are cases of private individuals offering (or not offering) their services, not government officially recognizing same-sex relationships—which is another case altogether. There is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event.”
Q: Would laws like these open the door to lots of businesses discriminating against gays and lesbians?
A: “Claims that proposals like Arizona’s encourage refusing service to gays and lesbians are simply nonsensical. Arizona’s proposed legislation never even mentioned same-sex couples or sexuality; it simply clarified and improved existing state protections for religious liberty.”
“Some people have claimed, for example, that it meant a pharmacy could refuse to serve gays and lesbians. But I know of no sincere religious belief that says you can’t sell penicillin to someone because they are gay or lesbian. Ensuring that all citizens have access to crucial medical care is a compelling government interest. And requiring every pharmacy to sell penicillin might very well be the least restrictive means possible of ensuring access.”
Q: What about people whose religions say different things, or Americans who choose not to practice a religion?
“These types of freedom protections are important for all Americans. As Cato’s Ilya Shapiro put it, ‘For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations…and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.’ When it comes to this particular issue, all Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”
Is that too hard to understand? Arizona’s reasonable law protected all people from being forced, in a myriad of situations, to violate their religious beliefs.
Forcing violations of conscience–in any area–is bad. Freedom is good. If government is going to force us to go against our strongly held religious beliefs (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheistic), then they better have:
- A very compelling reason to do it,
- In the least restrictive way possible.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put it this way:
“All SB 1062 did was ensure the government couldn’t force business owners to violate their religious beliefs. If that’s controversial, then so is the First Amendment…As Americans, we have a proud tradition of respecting each other’s differences — a tradition that was never threatened by this bill. On the contrary, it would have extended to Christians, who have suffered the loss of jobs, security, and money at the hands of the liberal agenda, the same courtesy of tolerance.”
Here are two other sane explanations of the Arizona bill.
Rich Lowry, writing in Politico, “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view — their own.”
On last weekend’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) hit back at the massive misinformation regarding SB 1062:
“The notion that someone because they are gay would be denied service at a restaurant is something that Americans don’t support. The other side of the equation is imagine if you’re a Southern Baptist or a Catholic or even evangelical photographer, who does not believe, because of your faith, in gay marriage. And because of that, you don’t want to provide photographic services to a gay marriage. Should you be punished by the state for refusing to do so?”
The answer to that question should be a resounding NO.
So why did Governor Jan Brewer veto SB 1062? What is the meaning of the Arizona veto?
1. The current US Administration–and those who cowtow to it–are determined to enshrine secular values by force. These values include forcing us to pay for abortions through the Affordable Care Care, removing the Judeo-Christian heritage from American life, and demanding that we support the re-definition of marriage.
Because government is all about force–the only sphere of society thus designed–it is crucial that this power is used minimally–and never to trample human rights to life, liberty and conscience.
2. We are becoming a banana republic where propaganda is more powerful than thoughtful argument and debate. The Brewer veto of a good law–one that would have helped all Arizonans–came about because the media, some businesses (like the NFL), and government elites distorted a good law. The propaganda pressure over a politically correct issue (gay marriage) was too much for Governor Jan Brewer to resist.
She wilted–and freedom died.
Waves of propaganda are common in totalitarian countries–such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China and Russia. But they are now finding their way into the West because of our ignorance, sin, and rejection of godly values. This is a troubling trend that sets the stage for Hitler-like deception and evil under the right circumstances.
3. Christians must be prepared to suffer for their faith if present trends continue. The success of propaganda is the first step toward alienation and suffering by the “offensive” social group. Ask the Jews about that one–and followers of Christ in other eras. If authoritarian governments, in sync with media boosters and duped masses, can silence those who disagree with their objectives, then those “traitors” to the new order can be rounded up and a “final solution” served.
I believe the Western World is closer to Christian persecution than at any time in the past five hundred years.
4. Only a tidal wave of godly renewal–and fearless leaders who will call for it! (think 21st century Martin Luther Kings)–can defeat the propaganda and its secular goals.
We are standing at a watershed moment in history. Russia, Iran, and China form formidable foes from without–and apathy, ignorance, and sin are destroying us from within.
May the Church rise up and pray, and may a new generation of leaders call God’s people to a rebirth of faith, morality and religious liberty.
May that be the result of the Arizona veto.