Obama: Peter-Principled Presidency or Trail Of Treason?

by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC (RET) October 12, 2014

obama peter principle incompetent dumb + L

History will inevitably determine Barack Obama was the most severely leadership-challenged U.S. president in modern times. Some might argue the title should be shared with Jimmy Carter; but not even his one term presidency can compare to Obama's two terms of failed leadership, lack of principles, incompetency, recklessness and even, perhaps, intention to do America harm.

Interestingly, even Carter-no foreign policy heavyweight while in office-recently lambasted Obama as a lightweight.

Two questions historians will seek to answer about Obama's presidency are "why" it failed and "when" that failure began. While much will be written about this after he leaves office, this President's dismal track record pretty much enables historians to start writing now.

In taking office on January 20, 2009, Obama theoretically accepted a "bailment." This is a relationship in which control over property-in this case, our Nation-is given by a "bailor"-the American people-to a "bailee"-the President-to ensure its safekeeping during a proscribed period of time. The bailee is to take all actions necessary to preserve the bailment, seeking to return it in as good a condition to the bailor as when he first took possession.

Although it will not-and never should-occur in the U.S., we have recently witnessed how one country's fling with democracy and the subsequent rapid deterioration of the bailment by its bailee president resulted in the relationship being forcefully terminated by the bailor. Mohamad Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, took office, quickly resorting to his Muslim Brotherhood ways, setting the country on a course of violence and economic ruin. A military coup sought to preserve the bailment.

For six years, we have entrusted our Bailee-in-Chief with our Nation's well-being. During that time, he not only has stripped it of its luster and leadership standing within the world community, he has set us on the path-like so many other world powers before us-to the dustbin of history.

A recent indicator of this is, for the first time in almost a century, the U.S. is no longer the largest economy in the world, having been surpassed by China. This was not only the result of Chinese economic growth but America's economic decline. Contributing to the latter was Obama's inability to stimulate the economy after the 2008 crash while simultaneously burdening it with programs destroying jobs and wealth-such as healthcare.

Just like champion boxers, world powers inevitably lose their edge as their prime time proves fleeting. But the downward descent is normally gradual-over a lengthy period-making it difficult to pinpoint the exact moment its downfall began. Historians will not have that problem with Obama's America.

While it might be argued it began when Obama was sworn in as President, it did not. It came almost four years earlier-on January 4, 2005-the day he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator from Illinois.  

The "Peter Principle" is defined as a concept in management theory in which a candidate's selection for a position is based on performance in a current role rather than abilities relevant to an intended one.

By this definition, Obama's performance as a community organizer and his failure to have held any kind of leadership position in business or government left him totally unqualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. Yet before voters could focus on this, Obama excited the media, using his Senate seat as a springboard for his presidential candidacy. A man quick to raise the race flag when criticized, received a free pass to run as a totally unqualified presidential candidate for precisely the same reason.

A full six year stint in the Senate would have caused voters to query, "where's the beef." It would have demonstrated just how incapable a leader Obama is.

His Senate tenure ended early once he was elected President in November 2008. Not only did he depart the Senate without a single major accomplishment to his name, he chose not to define himself while seated so as not to upset any particular group-voting "present" more often than not-on various important legislative matters.

Voters not mesmerized by Obama's oratorical skills during the 2008 presidential campaign recognized America's national security demanded a Commander-in-Chief who would be fearless in protecting U.S. interests. With Obama, we got a president lacking "the right stuff" whose actions continue to provide fodder for foreign leaders' jokes about him.

Outrageously, Obama also proves to be no Harry Truman when it comes to accepting responsibility for self-inflicted wounds. While Truman accepted full responsibility ("The Buck Stops Here"), Obama has made a history of blaming others-such as the previous Bush administration. Most assuredly, Obama's performance will now give several generations of future U.S. presidents an excuse for their difficulties in attempting to get America's ship-of-state back on a steady course.

But as the "Blame Bush" logic lost credibility, Obama hands responsibility for his failures off to others in his administration. That was evident during his September 28th "60 Minutes" interview. When asked about being surprised by the strength of the ISIS threat, Obama passed the buck to his Director of Intelligence, Jim Clapper. However, the President failed to share he had missed 60% of the intelligence briefings Clapper gave. It is doubtful Obama had such a high absentee rate when it came to his scheduled golf games.

Not even after a former Obama Cabinet member, Leon Panetta, criticized Obama as an impassionate leader who "avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities," the President simply could not let it go.  The White House defended itself against Panetta, unabashedly claiming, "The president is proud of the record of leadership that he's demonstrated."

One wonders if Obama's Pee Wee Hermanesque foreign policy initiatives seek not to disappoint Nobel Peace Prize judges who, lacking any justification for doing so (but, perhaps, experiencing-as political commentator Chris Matthews reported he did-a "chill down my leg" just listening to Obama), voted for him to receive the prestigious award. Or could there be a more sinister motive? Even the law of averages suggests no one president can be so wrong so often and so endanger our national security by happenstance.

As Obama continues to embrace Islam as a peaceful religion, ignoring any connection to Muslims doing violence against both their fellow Muslims and non-believers, one must query whether our president does so intentionally despite the threat to his bailment. There simply is something very disturbing about this President's actions in failing to preserve it not only by ignoring but also encouraging the threat endangering it.

Even in the U.S. where an Army major-who was Muslim-opened fire on his unarmed fellow soldiers-who were non-Muslim-killing 13 in 2009 at Fort Hood, Texas, the government refused to label it as an act of terrorism but as one of work-place violence to avoid any connection to Islam. The same has been done recently with the beheading of a woman-who was non-Muslim-by a co-worker-who was Muslim-in Oklahoma.

Obama's Muslim Outreach programs have given Muslims high government access in advisory capacities, only to have several of them later convicted of terrorist-related funding activities. Such advisors have succeeded in curtailing law enforcement's ability to conduct effective monitoring of domestic terrorism activities within the Muslim community. While such monitoring activities within Italian communities decades earlier successfully brought down the mafia, they are abandoned today.

Those not yet disturbed by Obama's actions should be after the recent revelation of former Ambassador William Miller. He reported he made a secret visit to Iran, not on behalf of "president" Obama, but on behalf of "candidate" Obama. The message Miller conveyed in 2008 to Tehran's mullahs was Obama would be America's next president, and when he was, they would be very happy with his policies.

Miller told the Iranians Obama accepted their criticism of American foreign policy toward them over the years, but he would make it right as U.S. president. Promised a whole new relationship, no wonder the Iranians have failed to stop their nuclear arms program. With such a message, the Iranians immediately knew when Obama was born-as one is born every minute. Obama's overture had to leave the Iranians praising Allah for delivering them such a weak fish as head of the "Great Satan" state.

If Obama spent less time defending himself and more time defending our borders, terrorists would not be crossing them. The President's flippant attitude on this issue now endangers the lives of military families ISIS announced it will target in the U.S. Perhaps Obama lacks concern as he knows he and his family, unlike our military families, will have personal security for the rest of his life.

We also learned from Panetta the President lied to us, disclaiming Islamic terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attack when he was specifically told otherwise. Such lies cannot be dismissed by incompetence but must be attributed to intentional deceit concerning Islamic violence.

Disturbing too is an October 3-5 Zogby Analytics poll giving Obama an overall approval/disapproval rating of 44%/54%. It is worrisome 44% of Americans still fail to see the damage being done to their bailment. It leaves one wondering if they, as bailors, also suffer from the Peter Principle.

Obama is "America's biggest loser." His performance leaves voters regretting our Founding Fathers did not include a clause within the U.S. Constitution allowing a bailor to "buy-out" the balance of the bailee's contract.

But, based on Obama's total disregard and disrespect for that sacred document, it would not have mattered anyway.

We should have known if Obama were to exhibit any principles in office, it would be Peter's. But far more worrisome is the prospect his actions could go beyond incompetence, to intention and treason. 

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," "Living the Juche Lie: North Korea's Kim Dynasty" and "Doomsday: Iran--The Clock is Ticking." He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.



Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-peter-principled-presidency-or-trail-of-treason?f=must_reads#ixzz3GWM7stRN
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!

Join The Patriots For America

Email me when people reply –