More Derelict Leadership

In theory political leadership should have something to do with looking after the national interest and promoting the common good. This unfortunately is not always the case. Indeed, many times it is quite the opposite. In the past few days there have been two clear examples of this.

The first example has just occurred in the US where President Obama has said he will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. DOMA was passed into law in 1996 by both Houses of Congress and the then Democratic President Bill Clinton, stating that marriage is strictly limited to one man, one woman.

But bowing yet again to homosexual activist pressure, he is caving in here as well, telling us in effect that the institutions of marriage and family mean nothing to him. He is more concerned about placating the miniscule percentage of militant homosexuals than he is the clear majority of the American people.

Not only that, but he is now trashing the US Constitution. Jonah Goldberg explains: “Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that each new president take the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“President Obama announced this week that he will violate that oath. In a decision hailed by gay-rights activists, the White House announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that it has suddenly dawned on the president and attorney general that the law is unconstitutional.”

He continues, “Obama, who fancies himself a scholar of the Constitution, never said a peep about the law being unconstitutional until this week.  Why the public change of heart? There’s good reason to believe that Obama has always been lying — yes, lying — about opposing gay marriage. For example, in 1996, he told the Windy City Times, ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.’ But by 2004, Obama very much wanted to be president, and he understood that supporting gay marriage would be a political liability. So he opted for something other than honesty.

“And in a 2004 interview with a gay publication, Obama strongly hinted his opposition was strategic, not philosophical. ‘Everything we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn’t support the freedom to marry very unconvincing,’ Evan Wolfson, the director of the gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, told the Huffington Post last August.

“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insists that the president still opposes same-sex marriage. But Carney was quick to note that the president has said his views on the matter are ‘evolving.’ Translation: He could completely change his mind at any moment.”

Goldberg concludes, “Imagine if Congress passed — hopefully over a presidential veto — a law that brought back slavery. Such a law would be plainly unconstitutional, and no president worthy of the job would wait for the Supreme Court to tell him as much. More to the point, once the president concluded that the law was unconstitutional, he would be bound by his oath to ignore it, and challenge it in every way possible.

“President Obama says DOMA is unconstitutional, and yet the ‘law professor’ says he will continue to enforce it. In a properly ordered constitutional republic, this would be a scandal. But in America today, it’s cause for eye-rolling, shrugs, and platitudes about the demands of politics.”

The second example is closer to home. We all know that the Coalition will romp Labor later next month in NSW. The Coalition is supposed to be conservative, as opposed to lefty Labor. But the Opposition Leader, Barry O’Farrell has not convinced me he is very conservative with a recent announcement made in the homosexual press.

According to it, he is just as fully committed to the homosexual agenda as is Labor. Here is how the article begins: “New Mardi Gras (NMG) was presented today with a letter from the Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell, committing a Coalition state government to supporting the future of the parade and festival.”

If this is true, one can rightly ask, ‘Why vote for the NSW Coalition if they are the same as Labor?’ If the Coalition is going to promote radical minority groups and social engineering agendas, then there is not much reason to prefer it over Labor.

Of course there would be many NSW Liberals and Nationals who would be appalled at this decision by O’Farrell. They would not at all favour such a move. So the question is what they will do about it. There is certainly no need to have tax-payer funding of this event.

Indeed, it has been in financial distress in the past, and should have been allowed to die a natural death. It does not need to be propped up and subsidised by taxpayers, perhaps the majority of whom would not prefer their tax dollars be supporting such events.

The new conservative government – assuming it gets in – should have far more important priorities than something like this. If this is the best leaders like O’Farrell can come up with, then it is time for some new leadership; leaders who will put principle first, and who will not allow governments to be hijacked by activist minority groups.

The West is in desperate need of solid, principled leadership. It seems to be a rare commodity today. For the West’s sake, we had better find some soon.

www.nationalreview.com/articles/260680/throwing-towel-constitution-jonah-goldberg
sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/coalition-guarantees-mardi-gras-future-008467.html

[923 words]

18 Replies to “More Derelict Leadership”

  1. The choice in New South Wales between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party seems to be the like the difference between tweedledum and tweedledumber. I often think the coalition parties don’t have an interest in serious reading. They, like so many of the take-away food advertisers whose television commercials seem to be aimed at the homesexual community, they don’t realise that they are courting 1.9% of the male population and about 0.90 of females. Also I do hope we are not expected to believe that somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000 people will come to Sydney to view the march. I’ve done the maths on the 2,500 metre course. The largest crowd which could fit on the two footpaths there would be 60,000 people.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  2. When someone supports such things as the killing of unborn children and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, should we be surprised that they lie?
    Tas Walker

  3. Bill

    You should have added a third episode of political betrayal. Try Gillard’s deceitful backflip on the draconian carbon tax. Alan Jones gives her the shelacking she deserves and her responses are obfuscating and arrogant

    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8186

    Bolt is also damning

    http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_podcasting&task=playaudio&id=41&f=0&Itemid=41

    Everyone needs to sign the petition against this tax that will shoot up electricity prices, the cost of most goods and make us uncompetitive internationally;

    http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

    Damien Spillane

  4. It’s way past time we had a “tea party” of our own here in Oz. Who is able to get the ball rolling?

    Kev Downes

  5. A very small fraction of the population is homosexual or identifies as such – though the figures are often wildly exaggerated by vociferous activists in order to gain political influence and leverage.

    So why do lefty-liberal politicians pay such deferential attention to a numerically insignificant fragment of the body politic? There isn’t enough of them to swing even a closely contested election except maybe in very unusual circumstances. So the question hasn’t much to do with simple political calculation.

    Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have become a kind of Rorschach Test that indicates how successfully individuals have been psychologically programmed by “liberal” ideologues. It’s a flagship of the liberal project.

    As Francis Beckwith observes: Lefty-liberal philosophy includes the belief that no sexual practice is more or less good than any other so long as all the participants exercise their personal autonomy. Moral opposition to homosexual practices and demands is therefore characterized as evidence of irrational animosity.

    Alex Anderson

  6. “The West is in desperate need of solid, principled leadership. It seems to be a rare commodity today. For the West’s sake, we had better find some soon.”

    You make an important comment here Bill. I have a sinking feeling that it will NOT be found soon – or not in big enough quantities anyway.

    However we should continue to demand it nevertheless. The prophet’s task is to pass on the message. What those who hear the message do with it is their responsibility.

    John Symons

  7. Is the Mardi Gras next weekend? Why is it that every year the crowd estimates are grossly inflated?
    Ross McPhee

  8. While I agree that “solid, principled leadership” is urgently needed in our world, the prevalence of postmodern thought with its inclination to semantic and ethical anarchy only leads me to expect the emergence of that Biblical figure, “the man of sin” as paramount world leader in the not-too-distant future. Sadly, people get the kind of leadership they deserve!
    John Wigg

  9. For quite some time, biblical Christians have been withdrawing from the political process. Even to the extent of just not caring one bit about what our elected representatives are doing. Western nations like Australia used to get by on being a nation founded upon Christian principles, however this is no longer the case as groups like the homosexual lobby and aggressive secularists have been chipping away at it in attempts to reengineer society or undermine Christianity. It is also these groups who are most active in political circles (or more willing to speak up), so they naturally are taking control of the debate and the political parties. GetUp is a perfect example of this.

    The fact of the matter is as long as Christians withdraw from the political process, then these groups will continue to take over and we will see more examples like those raised by Bill. Now more than ever, Christians should be reengaging in the political sphere. Whether that is directly by joining a political party (ideally one that as close as possible reflects Christian values) or indirectly through exerting influence via lobby groups or directly communicating with our representatives. Personally I joined the Liberal party as it is the party members who help to shape the party agenda (and I still see hope for the Liberals).

    Nathan Wahl

  10. Nathan, forgive me for putting this bluntly: did you read Bill’s comments on Barry O’Farrell? You could also throw Ted Baillieu, Premier of Victoria, into the same camp(no pun intended). The major Parties have forfeited their ‘divine right’ to rule. Look instead to Parties of Principle (you know which these are); and perhaps, if you must support a major Party, consider giving it your SECOND preference, after placing your first preference with a Party of Principle. That way your vote will flow to your favoured Party in the event that the candidate from the Party of Principle is eliminated first.
    Dunstan Hartley

  11. I wrote earlier that the crowd limit for the Homosexual Mardi Gras would be about 60,000 total or fewer. Here’s how I worked it out. The course of the “parade” has usually been 2,500 metres. Any changes this year would be insignificant. If the front line on the footpath along that 2,500 metres had 2 people standing in a square metre, the front line would contain 5,000 spectators. If the crowd on that footpath happened to be 6 people deep, then there would be 6 x 5000 = 30,000 viewers on that footpath. If the footpath on the opposite side of the road had a similar situation, then another 30,000 would make a total of 60,000, that is if they were chock-a-block. An exaggerated claim of say 600,000 in attendance would have ten people standing in a square metre of space. One would hope that they believed in using a very strong deodorant after a shower.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qd

  12. Dunstan, while i do agree with the idea behind parties like CDP and Family First, the reality is they will never gain more than one of perhaps 1 or 2 seats (in upper house). This means they will never achieve any ability to actually change legislation. Yes i think some atrocious leaders have got in charge of Liberal governments, but they are only there because the party (and members) puts them there. Theoretically if we remove ourselves from these parties, then they just go futher in that direction.

    You also pull up some bad Liberal examples, but what about the good ones? John Howard, Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews for example. Often some of the strongest opponents to radical agendas and legislation like abortion and gay marriage are coming from the Liberals.

    We have to be realistic when dealing with politics. Short of devine intervention, the parties of principle as you put it will never gain any ability to actually govern in Australia and undo any of the horrendous things already done. The best chance stands with Christian influence in mainstream parties who aren’t too far gone.

    Nathan Wahl

  13. Anyone that can get away with lying about his citizenship to become President of the US doesn’t worry about the US constitution. He wants to rule the world from his kingdom in north Africa.
    Rich Thompson

  14. The power of the Gay movement lies in the desire of fallen man to find someone who is worse than himself – thus they feel justified in saying “Well I’m not as bad as them.” God of course has only one yardstick – His Son – and we all fail to measure up to Him.
    The Gays represent the ultimate in rebellion of the physical world against God: they are saying “We’re alive and don’t need you or even your natural rules to continue as a species.” But then “God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.” Due to their consent, our nation is reaping also.
    I urge all Christians to pray for these lost with love and do not despise them, they are desperate for agape love, which of course can only be found in God, and in Christ’s disciples if we follow Christ’s command to us “…by this shall all men know…” When we are united under Christ, their mockery will be hollow and they will desire what we have, and beg of us “What is this that you have?” This was how the early church grew so fast and transformed Roman and other ancient societies, “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit.”
    I also urge Christians to stand up and support each other in their called ministry in spheres of influence in the world. So much innovation and benefit in our modern society was created and implemented through godly men in business, government, science, and other areas. God is interested in our work and He will bless it for His glory if we ask Him.
    We bring the Kingdom of God wherever we are and into whatever we are doing, provided we’re not trying to build our own kingdom that is. I like to think that I’m following Jesus to work rather than Him following me, especially when I don’t feel like going!
    Bjorn Schmid

  15. Frank, the number started at 700,000 (later admitted to as an estimate). Then it was reduced to 600,000. When that number was challenged by Peter Stokes and others with verifiable mathematical calculations, it came down to 300,000. I read today in a comment about the mardi gras by a homosexual that they can get no more than 25,000 watching.

    If you haven’t discovered already, the homos never believe in ruining a good story by telling the truth. The number of 700,000 was invented to bolster the sponsorship of the event. When it came down to 300,000, it lost a lot of its sponsors and that is why the government props it up.

    That is why the numbers are grossly inflated Ross, but as we know you can’t disagree with a homosexual because that is homophobic.

    Roger Marks

  16. Our God is Sovereign, not the President. See the video Citizens’ Arrest by Coral Ridge and also my prior talk on YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhdy_LvnQoM
    This has largely been overturned today in the government is viewed as Sovereign, and God must be reigned in and kept in the background.
    1 Timothy 6:15 “our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in His own time. [He is] the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords.”
    George Wash. said “Government is dangerous servant and a fearful master.” John Adams our 2nd president said
    “Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases”. Dr. J Kennedy said government has changed from a mad dog to be fed for protection, to a fat cow to be milked for a handout. An example of activist judges is found in Ca. prop. 8 amendment overturn by one federal judge with homosexual leanings. See Wikipedia Prop. 8.
    James Tofflemire

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: