Tag: Pres. Obama

Posted on

our response to isis

photo-1415226181422-279a51ca056eWhen I saw shots of the captured Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage last week, I had to look away. This was no fiction, fantasy, nor ad for the seventeenth sequel in pop culture’s latest horror series; this was real life. My response was clear… I was shocked, then grieved, and then outraged. How dare these men — obviously motivated by evil — brutally kill the innocent. How dare these terrorists get away with murder!

Most likely more outraged than any of us was Jordan’s leader, King Abdullah II, a former commander of Jordan’s special forces. King Abdullah met with members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee not long after the news broke. Members said he was furious. The king was quoted as saying, “The only problem we’re going to have is running out of fuel and bullets.” The terrorists were the clear focus of his fury.

Contrast that with Pres. Obama’s response. Wait… Let’s each first do one thing; let’s remove any partisan hats. That means all the Obama-lovers and haters — those friends among us who have a tendency to lose all objectivity at the mere sound of his voice — need to be a little more intentional in removing the hat, so-to-speak. Yes, those enamored seem blind to Obama’s weaknesses; those loathing seem blind to his strengths. I’d like an honest conversation regarding Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism.

While the White House made some at least rhetorical miscalculations in its initial description of ISIS, Obama has been clear that we need to fight this extremist group. I believe their heinous deeds are clearly unacceptable to him. What is not clear, however, is who he thinks they are.

The terrorists claim to be motivated by Islam. Obama continues to claim they are not. Hence, the White House will not refer to Islam when describing this group. On first learning of the Jordanian pilot’s savage death, Obama calmly referred to the terrorists as adhering to “whatever ideology they are operating of.” There was no outrage nearing that of King Abdullah’s — and there was no specificity in regard to the terrorists.

Obama did express specificity a single day later, when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual Christ-centered gathering of 3,500 plus people. He said he wanted to touch on “the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ Excellent. Let’s talk specifically about the evil. But again, there was a complete omission of Islam. Instead he was specific only in mentioning the centuries-old sins of those who “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He did not mention killing in the name of Allah — even though that is the current crisis. Of course, some (still probably with hats on) quickly amen-ed the President’s boldness… it’s about time Christians wrestled with those historical atrocities!… The only challenge with that argument is the lack of boldness Obama utilizes in response to Islam — and the lack of current application.

Unlike the Intramuralist, the President seems to dance around the topic. He will call out Christianity but not Islam. I get that he does not believe they are Muslims — even though they say they are. I also get that there exist religious adherents who distort the tenets of every religion and re-craft religion based upon how they feel; we all sometimes do that. But what I don’t get is why the President avoids the topic…

Nidal Hassan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood while praising Allah, and the administration called it “workplace violence.” When the Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred in Paris, the White House Press Sec. would not initially say “Islamic” or “terrorism.” And last week the Deputy Press Sec. insisted the Taliban was “an armed insurgency” — not a terrorist group. Even left-leaning “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart now questions the White House “tip-toeing” around the terminology. What’s the motive?

Why will the White House not call this what it is? Why are they willing to be harsh on Christianity — sins that are 800 years old — but meek on any mention of Islam? What’s the motivation? I believe there exists something we don’t know.

By specifically calling out old Christian abuses while simultaneously being vague about current Islamic violence, significant questions about Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism are increasing. What’s motivating him that we don’t know? And why can’t he express the outrage and clarity like King Abdullah?

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

the company we keep

johnny_deeper(Soon this new year I may share my own resolutions. Until then… 🙂 )

My resolution for our leaders is to consistently act with wisdom and integrity. Integrity means their leadership is beyond reproach. It doesn’t mean we always agree with our leaders’ choices, but integrity does mean we don’t question their values, their decision-making process, and the core of their character.

So my mind is wandering somewhat today… looking deeper.  As I examine questions of integrity, how does a person like Al Sharpton have such generous access to the sitting President of the United States? According to the White House visiter log — which was last released in August — Sharpton has already visited 61 times since Obama became President (and this prior to the tragic, racially-charged incident in Ferguson, Missouri). Granted, Sharpton’s been included in certain ceremonies and bill signings. He’s also visited to discuss specific policy initiatives — on civil rights, yes — but also regarding job creation, health care, education, and immigration. He has even been invited to Obama’s birthday party. Sharpton thus seems in close contact with Obama. Such an extensive relationship causes me to question this aspect of Pres. Obama’s leadership, as the company we keep, friends, makes a difference.

According to Politico’s senior staff writer Glenn Thrush, what melded the relationship between Obama and Sharpton was their “shared commitment to racial justice and a hardheaded pragmatism that has fueled their success.” Thrush further elaborates that Sharpton not only visits the White House regularly, but also frequently texts and emails with top aide Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. As said of Sharpton by his colleague, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House; he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” The relationship between Sharpton and Obama is ongoing and real.

Wanting to be respectful of all yet not in denial, let’s acknowledge that this is the same Al Sharpton that came to fame by loudly and falsely accusing and defaming a white prosecutor in the late ’80’s. He has made controversial, derogatory public comments about Jewish, Mormon, gay and lesbian people amongst others in the succeeding decades. He has faced questions of marital infidelity and also over a million dollars in unpaid taxes and penalties. He currently faces questions regarding inciting unrest directed toward the nation’s law enforcement.

The Intramuralist has long been an advocate of second and third chances, so-to-speak; each of us has something to offer, as we are capable of change. With the extended, inflammatory record of Sharpton’s, however, I find myself seconding the question posed earlier last year by New York Post editorial writer Michael Goodwin: “How is it possible… that he [Sharpton] carries so much tainted baggage from the past, yet still enjoys enormous pull with the political class?… Why isn’t he politically toxic?”

Why does Pres. Obama allow Sharpton such access and influence?

In all fairness, from our obvious, limited vantage point, we cannot discern exactly how much influence Sharpton actually has with Obama. We can’t tell how much he has altered or added perspective or policy on job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc. But that’s the problem: we can’t tell. If we can’t tell, then both the decision-making and hence, integrity are in question.

With the recent racial conflicts, Al Sharpton has been more visible, making louder public statements. He has somehow become the President’s “go to guy” on race. Sharpton has thus been very focused on the behavior of others — on the so-called large “specks in another’s eye.” Perhaps it would be first wise to wrestle with the “log” in his own.

Back to working on my own resolutions… my “specks” and “logs,” too…

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

trusting obama

images-1For some time I’ve considered penning this post. For some time more I’ve shied away, knowing the mere mention may be strongly offensive to some. My desire, however, is never to offend nor avoid simply due to offending’s sake; my desire is to dialogue respectfully — and that means taking on the tough topics — even though increasingly often in our hyper-sensitive culture, many will be offended that the conversation ever existed. Such is inconsistent with the Intramuralist’s mantra The more we are willing to discuss the hard stuff — and proceed in a manner respectful of those with whom we disagree, recognizing that good people possess varied opinion — the more we can be educated, learn from one another, and grow.

Today’s topic: I don’t fully trust Pres. Obama.

It’s not that I believe Obama’s a bad person or evil or whatever other sensational adjective some may insist upon. It’s not that I’m an “Obama-hater,” “Bush-lover,” or any other manipulated moniker one may use to dismiss me and my opinion. I’m not. I don’t hate the President. I simply don’t fully trust him.

In a cyberspace conversation last week, I made the comment that I wasn’t certain we could trust the President to lead us through the Ebola situation well. A friend asked why not. “For many reasons,” I thought, but the bottom line? Obama’s “yes” hasn’t meant “yes,” and his “no” hasn’t meant “no.” In other words, his words and the reality of the situation often contradict one another.

Whether it was the plethora of Obamacare promises, claims of IRS non-corruption, foreign policy mischaracterizations, or the blaming of all things bad on someone else, my perception is that Pres. Obama’s words have often been confusing or even untrue. Have his statements been knowingly false? Great question (and undoubtedly one that partisans will pounce upon). My point is that Obama has consistently, in my opinion, misused his presidential platform rhetorically. He has repeated aspects and claims that sound good regardless of truth — appearing to control the dialogue, control his image, or control something… i.e. “In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores…” Two weeks later Ebola was here.

What I’ve learned through the Ebola outbreak is that I am not alone in this unfortunate perception…

NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd opened his Sunday show two weeks ago addressing the administration’s “trust deficit.” He mentioned multiple situations and Obama’s rhetorical response…

The NY Post’s Michael Goodwin ran the following Sunday, discussing how a single Ebola death has morphed into an unwarranted panic: “In rational and medical terms, they may be right. But their calculations omit another factor. It’s the X factor. In this case, X stands for trust. President Obama has spent six years squandering it, and the administration’s confusion, contradictions and mistakes on Ebola fit the pattern. This is how he rolls. Don’t worry, there’s no chance of an outbreak, they said. Then it was, Oops, we must rethink all procedures for handling cases. Then there was no worry about a ‘wide’ outbreak, yet quarantines for lots of people. The irrational fear of an alien pathogen is fueled by rational suspicion of an incompetent and dishonest government.”

Obama continues to rhetorically assert himself in ways where the perceived reality of the situation does not clearly substantiate his actual words, which causes the nation to lose trust in their leader. Therefore, Obama’s current trust problem (which I believe is also evident in his historically low approval numbers) is not due to partisan hatred. It’s due to Obama’s own words.

Let your “yes” mean “yes” and your “no” mean “no.” Don’t say things that aren’t true — regardless of motive — regardless of whether one shares your partisan persuasion. If a person is too concerned at controlling the narrative, he or she will unfortunately, eventually lose trust — even in an over-hyped crisis.  And trust is incredibly hard to reclaim.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

why/when race matters

Tell me:  why does skin color matter?  When does it matter?

 

In an interview with the BBC to promote her new film, “The Butler” — a film about race relations — Oprah Winfrey discussed race relations and the White House.

 

The BBC interviewer asked:  “Has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced and some of the reporting he’s received is because he’s an African American?”

 

Noting the celebrity status and thus power of Winfrey, there is ample credence to the notion that Oprah’s public relations team most likely provided this question to the interviewer beforehand.  Nonetheless, here is Oprah’s response:

 

“Has it ever crossed my mind? … Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind.  Just the level of disrespect.  When the senator yelled out, ‘You’re a liar’ — remember that?  Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

 

While the timing of Winfrey’s public assertion may have more to do with her theatrical release, it’s interesting indeed that the claim comes simultaneously with Pres. Obama’s approval ratings sinking steeply.  With the flawed rollout of Obamacare and the recognition of unknowns, mistruths, and broken promises, Obama has plummeted to approval numbers comparable to Bush after Katrina and Bill after Monica (… sorry, that line flowed off the keyboard just a little too quickly).

 

But my point today is not about approval numbers.  In fact, my personal impression is that our leaders and their staffs pay far too much attention to polls and perceptions; too much decision-making is guided by their perceived image.  My question today centers more around race.

 

Regardless of whether the question was posed prior by her own PR staff, I have little doubt Oprah said what she meant and meant what she said.  She believes that Pres. Obama has been disrespected many times because he is black.  In other words, she believes skin color matters.

 

I struggle with that.  I don’t struggle because I disagree with her.  No, the reality is that there exist people in this country who dislike and disagree with this President and his policies solely because he’s black.  The reality is equally true, however, that there exist people in this country who like and agree with Obama and his policies solely because he’s black.  Neither of those scenarios represents objective, critical thinking.  In both select situations — regardless of opposition or advocacy — skin color matters.

 

Where I hesitate is when a person asserts a definitive conclusion from a limited vantage point… when someone such as Oprah concludes a motive exists, which may be based more on their own passion and opinion than on a complete and comprehensive perspective.  For example, when the congressman yelled, “You lie,” what logical, irrefutable information do we have that ties the assertion of falsehood to the color of Obama’s skin?  Note that no president should ever be chastised like that; no leader should be chastised publicly, so disrespectfully.  Let us also note that the comment was in response to an Obamacare promise, a subject which we are painfully now learning was enacted with some significant mistruths.

 

It is well known here that I believe the Affordable Care Act, in totality, to be an unwise law.  It’s too big, too costly, and too prone to corruption.  Let me also state unequivocally that my perspective has zero to do with the color of anyone’s skin.

 

Race does matter in our country.  It matters to many blacks, whites, Hispanics, you-name-it.  We don’t always know why.  But unknown to Oprah, we can’t tell you when.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

respect vs. rhetoric

Last week I had a tough conversation with a leader in my church.  It was tough because of the subject matter, as we disagree on a way to solve a current challenge.  It was not tough in the way we related.  It was not tough because there was a lack of respect. It was not tough in our means nor manner of communicating; neither of us worked to rally more to our side.  Respect trumped rhetoric.

 

Last week we witnessed our government’s leaders do exactly the opposite.  We watched way too many seemingly smart people employ rhetoric and disrespect, and work more to rally others to their side.  Friends, political affiliation did not — and sadly, does not — matter.

 

Once again, our federal government has spent the maximum amount of money it is legally allowed to borrow.  They have maxed out their credit cards, so-to-speak.  Funny, but regardless of party, the majority always wants to spend more; and regardless of party, the minority always desires to spend less.  Such is evidenced in the following, amazingly insightful comment:

 

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

 

The above quote is from Barack Obama, when he was a senator — and voted against raising the debt ceiling.

 

Nonetheless, as President, Obama and others now desire more freedom to spend.  This is a tough conversation.  But the Intramuralist would propose that asking to increase our credit limit is not primarily tough because of subject matter; it’s tough because of how leadership feels justified in communicating…

 

“If you go to the 1940s, Nazi Germany.  Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them.’”  — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), comparing Nazi Germany to not standing up to debt and Obamacare

 

“The reason Ted Cruz stood up and asked for a delay is so that he could have a vote during today when the ‘tea baggers’ in his Tea Party were going to watch.”  — Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

 

”We are for cutting spending. We are for reforming out tax codes, reforming out entitlements.  What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.”  — White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer

 

Or the other phrases utilized… “political terrorism” by Al Gore… “tea party anarchists” and “stupid” by Harry Reid… “legislative arsonists” by Nancy Pelosi… “holding hostage” by multiple Republicans and Democrats… “raping the American people” by television commentator Tamara Holder… even “blackmail” by Obama.

 

My point is this… this conversation is going to remain tough because our leaders have allowed rhetoric to trump respect.  They chide instead of humbly communicate and consider; they insult instead of respect and submit.  We can’t keep spending more then we take in, but we also can’t tackle the problem when our leaders continue to stand in front of the cameras and work most to rally others to their side.  They should instead be meeting one-on-one, face-to-face, listening and submitting to one another, resisting the cameras and campaign stops…  just as I did with the leader in my church last week.

 

In my meeting, I will share that we did not end by agreeing on a singular solution and then living happily ever after.  But we heard one another; we each felt respected.  We vowed to work together, listen, and go forward together, recognizing that we are on the same team.  Our leaders need to do the same.  In fact, with their generous use of disrespect, perhaps they would first benefit by going back to church.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

actions louder than words

Let’s start with what we believe to be the facts:

 

The federal government has been secretly collecting information about the telephone records of millions of Americans for years.  In addition to phone calls, under a surveillance program code-named “Prism” — a covert collaboration between the NSA and FBI — online activity is also being monitored by the federal government, as they’ve had unprecedented access to citizens’ internet behavior via scouring the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, etc.  While there exist claims of this being solely to prevent terrorism, the claims are ambiguous, as the reality is the federal government has been secretly spying on people for years.

 

Transparently speaking, I find myself with multiple instantaneous — sometimes even emotional — reactions…

 

“Hmmm… doesn’t sound good…  doesn’t sound healthy… sounds a little deceitful… dishonest… doesn’t sound like a practice that’s good and pure and right… sounds like it has way too much potential to be corrupted by those in power… how can it not be corrupted by those in power?…”

 

The Intramuralist hasn’t completely made a conclusion regarding the goodness of this practice.  One bottom line is that if bad people are up to bad things, then it would help us to know about it ahead of time.

 

However, there are still 2 things that bug me.  First, the glaring hypocrisy…

 

… the hypocrisy from Pres. Obama…

 

Confronting the public uproar, Obama only defended the vast collection of data.  He said that “modest encroachments on privacy” were “worth us doing.”  Yet as a one-time senator, Obama’s words were strikingly different.  He blasted Pres. Bush for the same activity, calling it “a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.”  He continued, “I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.”  (Note:  sometimes I think all persons running for president should realize that perhaps there are a few things they don’t really comprehend prior to assuming office…)

 

There also exists hypocrisy from those who want to make this an issue all about Obama…

 

True, the warrantless surveillance has expanded under Pres. Obama, but it was initiated under Pres. Bush.  Republicans and Democrats have advocated the covert cause.  Republicans and Democrats continue to support it now.  If it’s wrong for one, it’s wrong for both.  This is not a partisan issue; it’s an issue of individual liberty and potential government overreach.

 

More than the glaring hypocrisy, however, there is one aspect that bugs me more.  I believe the root cause of a government that believes it has the right to access our private data is one thing and one thing only:  government is too big.

 

Smaller government is more efficient.  Smaller government wastes less money.  Within smaller government, the actions are less covert; there’s more transparency — less secrecy — and we can actually discern what our elected officials are doing; there is valid reason to trust.  Within smaller government, there is increased humility; there is a realization that the elect actually serve the people.  There is less narcissism — less confusion with those who desire — and desire to be — a king.  There are fewer speeches primarily designed to sway public opinion — and more actions that truly speak louder than words.

 

Yes, actions always speak louder than words.  Such is why the fact that our government is secretly spying on its people speaks very loud indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR