While the world is burning, President Barack Obama seems to be dancing. He is not slowing down his golf games or his fundraisers.
Today, the President is off to California for more fundraisers and partisan politicking.
While there is nothing wrong with either activity, in times of multiple crises - optics matter.
The pictures being seen give an appearance that the President is not in tune with what is happening. The optics show a President more intent on partisan dabbling rather than a display of a world leader in the midst of battle.
The story is not new.
Recently when again optics mattered, the President declined to go to our southern border to view the humanitarian crisis of nearly 60,000 children crossing into our country. The President opted to be seen out at the bars in Denver, shooting pool and drinking beer.
The world, nay the US of A, is crying out for a leader. The world looks at American television or newspapers and see not a leader, but a man too busy to care.
This does not mean that the President is not on top of the situations going on, but the visuals give a different impression.
Today when the first bodies of those passengers slain on Malaysian Flight 17 were returned to The Netherlands, where was the President or Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry?
True, only one passenger with dual Dutch citizenship was an American, but does not the White House realize and understand the signal that would be beamed to the world, to Russia, if the US of A was seen standing in solidarity with the king, the queen, the Dutch people, as those bodies were returned?
It is the visual which has the strongest immediate effect and provides the most stimuli. It is not what is heard nor read which can inflame the emotions as much as what we see.
For a President, who has never been shy of a photo op, suddenly, when it matters - the President doesn't want to be seen in a "photo op" as he said recently about the border crisis.
It is not, Mr. President, what you say, your Secretaries or your ambassadors say which has the most impact as much as what image you send to the world.
From the Cornfield, when will this Administration begin using some wisdom and realize there are photo ops and then there are photo ops?
It is time to realize how you look to the world and Americans determines how the world and Americans perceive you, Mr. President.
To be thought of as a leader, a strong leader, a world leader - you must be SEEN as that image.
As I sat, listened and watched US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power address the UN Security Council the other day charging that Russia and Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine were responsible for the horrendous shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, killing 298 people, I was struck with an eerie feeling that I had heard this or something similar before.
From the remarks of some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, there is a familiarity in those comments. Vice President Joe Biden, never one to shy from speaking his mind, seems to be talking in an uncanny manner of a former sitting vice president. The voice of Secretary of State John Kerry echos in tone and manner one I have heard before from a previous secretary of state.
The press conferences of the White House and press releases have a strange resemblance to those I have heard and read before. Even the call to unite and hold accountable the perpetrators of the shooting down of Flight 17 by President Barack Obama stir memories of the call to arms of a former president.
Difference is that this time around, the President is waning in popularity both at home and in stature around the world. This time around the majority in Congress are reluctant to do more. This time around the majority of the public is skeptical and reluctant for the US to do anything, but bring the troops home.
A recent poll conducted prior to the shooting down of Flight 17 had 67% of Americans saying the nation should limited its action to those that are clearly a threat to national security. Only 22% of Americans see the US as a moral leader in the world. On Ukraine 17% want more US involvement to stop the aggression of Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin. The right amount of involvement is what 33% thought about US efforts in Ukraine. Another 34% thought the US should curtail what efforts it was making in Ukraine.
Of course this was prior to the tragic, deadly flight. Those numbers always change after an incident such as this. But will the numbers swing like a pendulum or be more incremental this time around?
Maybe it is just me. But there is a aura of deja vu to all of this happening over the last few days.
From the Cornfield, as I sit here this afternoon, my concern is that perhaps once more we are in a lead-up to entanglement.
What has come out of this seems to be a meeting of minds from both Republicans and Democrats calling for the need for a leader on the world stage - a leader both sides say should be the President.
The world is also looking for a leader - but, this time the world seems to be looking elsewhere to an Angela Merkel in Germany or a David Cameron in Great Britain.
Now is not the time to reassess. As people from both political parties are saying, now is the time to be firm, to stand tall, to not equivocate.
I agree there is a need for more backbone and less quibbling when our bluff is called. But, I do not want us in another entanglement which never truly benefits us.
Has 45 years really passed since man first stepped on the moon?
I remember well that hot July Sunday night in 1969 my eyes locked on the black and white television screen after church. With total awe, I watched mesmerized as Neil Armstrong's booted foot made contact with moon dust.
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Skip ahead over 20 years later. I was sitting in a diner in Linton, Indiana sipping coffee, my notepad on the table in front of me. Across the table sat a man who was more than just a man, but a space traveler.
I was interviewing Neil Armstrong for a piece in the Linton Daily Citizen. Armstrong was in Linton as he did every year to participate in the Phil Harris Scholarship Golf Tournament.
And here was I talking with this true American hero!
I recall sitting down with Armstrong and asking him about that historic night. He was humble and did not dwell much on his part in making history. Armstrong concentrated on praising the endeavors and work of all those involved in the project past and present.
He talked about the devotion of those NASA techs and scientists who seldom were given the credit and praise for making the impossible possible. Armstrong told how those techs and scientists were the ones that turned science fiction into scientific fact.
Today we celebrate the 45th anniversary of that momentous occasion.
Today there is no talk about returning to the moon. The space program as we knew it has been shut down.
True during the 2012 presidential primaries, Newt Gingrich did talk about setting up a colony on the moon. The only reaction was how looney Newt sounded.
The days when children dreamed of going to space camp in the summer are from a bygone era. The days of wanting to be an astronaut when a child grows up seem long forgotten.
Armstrong is gone now, but will always live in my mind.
From the Cornfield, we fulfilled the promise made by President John F. Kennedy to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade - the 1960s.
Today we need a new promise to renew the American spirit that was so prevalent back in those days of Camelot.
The White House apparently knew and was preparing for an influx of 60,000 children along our southern border back in January. (None Dare Call It Complicity)
In his press conference Wednesday evening, President Barack Obama stated that $3.7 billion was needed to house and to deal with the 57,000 children in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The President said there was no money to deal with the situation which is why Congress must give him the funds he is requesting.
Then why did the government put out an ad offering a contract to provide for the care, transport, security and dealing with an expected 60,000 children at the border in January, 2014?
The money apparently was already put into the budget for this.
The crisis apparently is one allowed to become by the White House in order to push for passage of the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
From the Cornfield, the President needs to provide justification for the $3.7 billion requested. He needs to explain why the government was aware of the coming 60,000 children this year and waited until it became a humanitarian crisis to act.
On Tuesday a CNN iReporter, mab91c, shared at interesting link in comments to my article, Should We Redact These Words?
The link was from FedBizOpps.gov. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in January of this year put out a contract for a vendor, company, to provide care, housing and transport for approximately 60,000 unaccompanied children arriving at our border.
So much for the idea that the government was not aware there was an upcoming flood of children reaching our shores.
This brings up many questions:
Why isn't anyone in Congress addressing this or why is none in the media reporting it?
Why are none of the border governors putting the spotlight on this?
Was the vendor solicitation in response to the fact that that is the approximate number who came to the border last year?
In order to insure the security and safety of the expected number of children again this year, was ICE trying to find a respectable company to handle the influx until the correct disposition of each child could be determined?
Was the Administration of President Barack Obama complicit in accelerating and providing incentive for the Children's Crisis on the border?
If the Administration was expecting at least 60,000 children to arrive at the border, why was nothing done to stop the inflow in 2013 when it saw around 60,000 children hit our land?
Why seven months later is this just now being addressed by the Administration and Congress?
Who was asleep at the wheel?
Who is giving the smugglers, the drug traffickers ammunition to entice parents to send their children to the US of A?
Who is providing the incentive for parents to commit their children to a hazardous journey north?
Would a simple change in the law to treat those from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador the same as those who skirt the law from Canada and Mexico, where they are sent back immediately, be a solution to the crisis?
From the Cornfield, these are questions that need answered.
I see this as a failure also of members of Congress for not paying attention and providing proper oversight, as required by the Constitution, of the Executive Branch.