Marc Nuttle
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Marc's Previous Work
  • Projects
    • Subscribe to the Nuttle Report >
      • 30 Day Free Trial!
  • Blog
  • CONTACT
  • Subscriber Login

Marc Nuttle Blog

​​Marc Nuttle's blog includes samples of the Nuttle Report as well as regular updates.

Common Sense Leadership

2/25/2015

Comments

 

Volume 2, Issue 6

Picture
Yesterday a major event did not take place in our nation’s capital that should not go unnoticed or unaddressed. Bishop E.W. Jackson, a well-known black evangelical leader, had scheduled a meeting at the Capitol Building among black leaders to seek reconciliation for our country. At the last minute, congressional staffers rescinded the authorization for use of a meeting room. Bishop Jackson had intended to humble himself and appeal to Heaven. Certain staffers had demanded that he change his “appeal to Heaven” to a “focus on legislation.” With this demand, the meeting was cancelled.

Now, let’s think about this a minute historically. George Washington campaigned during the Revolutionary War under the flag of a pine tree and an Appeal to Heaven. It was a cause for unification among the colonies. We know that prayer is appropriate in the Capitol Building. There are prayer breakfasts, prayer group meetings, and the Senate opens its sessions with a prayer. What was the possible intent of the staffers’ action? It defies common sense.

Further, it is a restriction of free speech. Either the meeting’s purpose was appropriate, or it was not. The meeting room was legally available for the meeting, or it was not. To dictate to anyone the content and limits of their speech in the United States Capitol Building is an anathema to the first amendment to the Constitution.

Such a challenge of common sense dealing with our national government has happened before. But in one particular case, a different outcome was realized because of common sense leadership. Ronald Reagan served the United States as President from 1981-1988. He was known as a president who stood on principles. He never worried about conventional wisdom or the social acceptability of society. He believed in a commitment to eternal truths. And he was bound by his commitment to principles. In other words, he led.

There was a time in his presidency when there was a realized crisis of unwed teen pregnancy in the United States. The raging debate was whether or not abstinence should be included as a possible remedy for this crisis facing young women in America.

The establishment progressives in Washington, DC argued that abstinence had no place in the discussion because it was an outdated moral value that had no relevancy at that time. In other words, promiscuous sex was inevitable and a socially acceptable activity of the day. Therefore, the only remedies that were to be advanced were things like sex education and the distribution of contraceptive devices in the public schools.

President Reagan stated that abstinence before marriage was still an option and a directive for unwed teens. He didn’t demand abstinence as a virtue, as a priority, or even as the only option. He only wanted it included as an option. The liberal press ridiculed him, and a leading national newspaper went so far as to editorialize saying that surely we’re not going back to that “quaint old notion of fidelity.”

Lee Atwater, then a consultant to Vice President George H.W. Bush, related a story of the cabinet meeting held on the day the national editorial ran. The cabinet collected in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Everyone was in a jovial mood. In fact, a couple of cabinet members even mentioned the editorial and laughed about it.  The first thing on the agenda that day was the Surgeon General’s Public Health Report on the health of the United States, and the question before the cabinet was whether or not abstinence should be included as a practice of good health for unmarried teenage women.

President Reagan most mornings began the meetings with a smile and with optimism. This morning however, he began with a very stern look on his face. It caught the entire cabinet by surprise. He was holding in his hand a copy of the editorial. Then he said this newspaper has “called me old-fashioned” for suggesting that abstinence should be listed as a health practice to avoid teen pregnancy.

Later that morning President Reagan was to fly to Omaha, Nebraska. He would be addressing an audience of Midwesterners. President Reagan asked his cabinet for advice on what he should say to a husband or wife when they asked him whether or not fidelity was as an old fashioned idea, and further, whether or not commitments made in marriage vows were simply words of convenience. He also added that he believed that people who still believe in fidelity in marriage should be respected for their viewpoints.


At that point he turned to the cabinet secretary on his right and asked for his opinion and advice on the matter. The mood had become instantly somber. No one in the room was now laughing or thought that the editorial had any merit or weight on the issue. Each cabinet secretary answered the same, “I have nothing to add to that, Mr. President,” the next secretary, “I have nothing to add to that, Mr. President,” the next secretary, “I have nothing to add to that, Mr. President,” and so it went on around the table.

C. Everett Koop, the U.S. Surgeon General, was sitting on the side of the room waiting for the first agenda item to be addressed. The President did not call on Dr. Koop to speak, he simply stated that he assumed it would be OK to include in the report abstinence as a possible remedy for teen pregnancy in the Surgeon General’s Report.  Dr. Koop said, “Mr. President, it will be in there by 4 o’clock this afternoon.” And that national newspaper has never opined on the matter since.

President Reagan exercised common sense leadership based on truth. He did not yield to the peer pressure of the national intelligentsia. He did not care what the national press thought was old fashioned or not. By one simple act of leading, in a moment, he changed the entire environment and direction of the debate.

I waited one day to publish this Nuttle Report because I wanted to see whether or not common sense would rule out in the decision to allow Bishop Jackson to hold a meeting in our nation’s Capitol Building for the purpose of unification. It did not.

There is a reason why Thomas Paine, in his treatise on liberty and independence, entitled his work Common Sense. Regardless of what your position is on fidelity or prayer, all opinions should be heard respectfully -- even the conventional ones. Today we need, more than ever, common sense leadership, not sense of perception leadership.

My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.


What do you believe?

Comments

Principle Based Policy and Leadership

2/17/2015

Comments

 

Volume 2, Issue 5

Picture
“Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it.”

Winston Churchill uttered these words at a time when Europe was trying to decide if should they go along with business as usual and hope that things worked out, or if they should they stand against the forces that were undermining the very foundation of their culture. Churchill was emphatic in his warnings to European leadership that Hitlerian fascism must be checked at the German border. Hitler was an anathema to every principle critical to human dignity. Yet there were those leaders who were willing to pursue business as usual through the normal channels to persuade Hitler to change his ways and take up his role as a leader of a nation which believed in the rule of law. Churchill cried out to hold Hitler accountable to principles of law and liberty. The world did not heed his warning and World War II came.

Today we find ourselves in a world without bold leadership. A world silent in the call for principles that bind us as a society. A world that has relaxed into the false hope that the ill winds of destruction will be weathered without facing them.

“I think it is incredible that nearly a half century after Reagan’s speech at the Republican Convention, the debates between advocates of a managed economy and supporters of a free enterprise economy are once again issues in Presidential politics. This time, however, they’re not just issues for the voters in our country; they’re also hotly debated topics around the world. The global economy is in the midst of massive transition as a result of new technologies, advanced communications, and the emergence of new global trade organization, and this is something that’s going to be a major challenge in the years ahead.”  
This is a direct quote from my book, Moment of Truth, written seven years ago in early 2008, and still on point today.

Greece, as of this day, is in gridlock with the European Union in reference to its financial aid package. Greece is demanding less austerity, more money, and new terms. The EU delegation, led by Germany, is demanding that Greece face reality and negotiate in good faith to reform their government financial structure. The citizens of Greece are in absolute denial. They have hit a wall and cannot deficit spend any longer at the expense of other countries. They are threatening to leave the EU and go to Russia and China for economic aid. Russia is in no position to help them. China’s banking system is in no position to underwrite their currency. Yes, it would cause disruptions if Greece defaulted on their debt and left the EU. But at what price can Germany and the EU continue to pay for Greece’s deficit habit without jeopardizing the financial security of their own citizens. The economic conflict in Greece today is a window into our own future in the United States if we do not face the economic principles that you cannot spend and borrow forever without consequences. 
“When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, it was a great day for freedom loving people everywhere. But today we’re faced with a new set of circumstances and a very different political environment. In this first decade of a new century, we’re being asked to deal with forces of unprecedented complexity and diversity – not only the dangers of terrorism and Islamic fascism, but also new forces and problems that will raise questions the men of that earlier generation could never have imagined. Our moral imperatives are still the same – we understand the need to preserve our way of life – but how will we deal with problems posed by the internet, global communications, the rise of non-state states, and other issues that will test our resolve and determine where we stand a generation from now?”
This is another direct quote from my book, Moment of Truth, in the chapter, “World Forces of Change.”

Recently, the students of a university in the state of California circulated a petition to divest all university funds from all corporations doing business with the state of Israel. Now let’s think about this and apply it to principles. If the United States of America had at its base the consistency for foreign policy of advocating axioms that we want for ourselves as well as for all nation states of the world, then a foreign policy strategy could be developed that the world would understand. I would submit that these axioms include: rule of law, due process, free and independent courts, a free and independent press, and transparency. Whatever form of government a country established to meet the needs of their culture would be satisfactory if in fact that government protected their citizens as well as ours in joint foreign relations if they adhered to these axioms. A strategy cannot be established without a guiding purpose.

The only country in the Middle East that protects all of these rights is Israel. No other country in the Middle East meets this standard in its entirety. We should not divest ourselves of a nation state that agrees with us on the principles of integrity of statesmanship. Through the prism of principles, we may debate with Israel on priorities or policy. But we would not reject them out of hand because of the common purpose of our state’s obligations to its citizens.

I asked a group of Millennials recently what they want from government in their lives today. Most answers centered around their ability to make choices for themselves and their family. When I then asked what principle do you hold tantamount that allows your freedom of choice as well as my own, they answered that the country is on the wrong track and needs to be course-corrected. I rejoindered, “That is not a principle - that is an analysis.” Then it became clear that what we both want is basic freedom.  When we discussed further what is required to maintain freedom, we agreed upon the elements of constitutional freedom, economic sensibility, government by the people, honest foreign relations, and citizen responsibility. Upholding these principles allows us to maintain and environment of freedom.  (For further discussion on these ideas, go to www.newhorizoncouncil.com )

Today in presidential politics, the debate still centers around cosmetic changes to the current system and, therefore, business as usual. No one has yet stated what they would do empirically to face the ill winds. The press is now dividing the candidates in the Republican primary into four categories: establishment, anti-establishment (Tea Party), Libertarians, and Evangelicals. This is over simplified. Journalists spend very little time analyzing the Democrats right now because Hillary Rodham Clinton is leading in the polls with 68% of likely Democratic primary voters. But those who do write about them talk about establishment progressives, new progressives, and social liberals. Bold ideas have yet to be given a fair audience.

I would suggest that there is a category of Americans yet described. It is those who believe that there are valid points made by each faction. But until someone establishes binding principles, partisan politics will only allow the discussion to be held from a viewpoint of self-interest and in direct opposition to another point of view. There is a greater core of America that still believes in individual rights and liberty, that a family should make decisions for themselves without interference of social planning from the government, that limited government is a virtue, and that in freedom for all, there is liberty for all.

“Society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds are too far relaxed, the members would drift apart.”

Lord Patrick Devlin
“What made America great, as the French President (Nicholas Sarkozy) wisely stated, was her ability to transform her own dreams into hope for all mankind. If countries like China, Russia, and France can see it, you have to wonder why our own citizens remain so divided. Unless we can come together in one accord to bring about a new consensus of like-minded men and women who cherish the promise of freedom, our prospects for the century ahead may look bleak indeed. We have the resources and we have the opportunity in this election year to turn a corner. The only question is, will we remain an island of freedom, and will the rest of the world be able to count on us to lead the way?”

Moment of Truth, page 132
This is a question still relevant today.

My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.


What do you believe?
Comments

Unity Through Principled Leadership

2/10/2015

Comments

 

Volume 2, Issue 4

Picture
Throughout history, unity of peoples, and therefore nation states, has been illusive and in fact unrealized without principled leadership. We say individually that we want peace and prosperity, yet we seek it through our own self-interests rather than pursuing it through general principles that provide liberty for all. Our position in life and our relationships in life are not identical, but they can be equal in liberty and freedom. It is critical then to seek freedom for ourselves without infringing upon or jeopardizing anyone else’s freedom.

Last Thursday the 63rd National Prayer Breakfast was held in Washington, DC. This is a gathering of over 3,000 people coming together for the purpose of seeking peace and prosperity in the world. The organization represents citizens from over 180 countries on every continent seeking “the better way.” It first began in April of 1935 when 19 business executives in Seattle, Washington, met together to face a critical situation in the life of their city.

According to the official brochure of the National Prayer Breakfast, these executives turned to the 2000 year-old story of Jesus of Nazareth at a meal to find ways to deal with the tensions and fractures that often accompany public life. These teachings and principles of Jesus are still at the center of the National Prayer Breakfast movement for men and women at all levels of society in our modern world to find “the better way.”

The first National Prayer Breakfast wherein the President of the United States attended was in 1953. The President was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Every President since 1953 has attended the National Prayer Breakfast. We often quote the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, and the Founding Fathers in reference to principles that unite us. One may take issue with the Founding Fathers, that is one’s constitutional right of free speech. It is interesting, however, to note excerpts of President Eisenhower’s remarks at the inaugural Washington, DC Prayer Breakfast:

“In the company of fellow believers united in faith and hope there is strength for renewed effort to serve our God and neighbor. In such a spirit, the magnitude of our common task diminishes, the obstacles to their accomplishment becomes less and less formidable. This is a time to confront our common problems with confidence. I am sure the Nation and the world can and will find the wisdom and courage, the inspired leadership required for the living of these days.

You can’t explain free government in any other terms than religious. The Founding Fathers had to refer to the Creator to make the revolutionary experience make sense; it was because ‘All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ that man could dare to be free. They wrote their religious faith into our founding documents, stamped their Trust in God upon the faces of our coins and currency, and put it boldly at the base of our institutions. And when they drew up their bold Bill of Rights, where did they put freedom of worship? First: in the cornerstone position. That was no accident.”
Regardless of your belief, faith or confidence in the National Prayer Breakfast, I can attest to the fact that there was a spirit of unity among the delegates in that ballroom, anticipating each speaker’s words. Elected officials were there who served  and spoke as co-chairs of the event representing both the Democrat and Republican parties. They repeatedly cited examples of how, when they meet in the spirit of prayer, they see themselves not as partisan politicians, but as Americans seeking a better way for their country.

There were many faiths represented in the delegation of attendees. The opening prayer was led by a Rabbi. His Majesty Abdullah II, King of Jordan, was scheduled on the program to read from the New Testament. The Dalai Lama was in attendance. King Abdullah left Washington to return to his country to provide national leadership in the aftermath of the horrific execution of a Jordanian pilot at the hands of ISIS. A prayer was offered in support of the Jordanian people during this time of emotional tragedy. There was unity in the room for support of the nation state of Jordan.

President Obama in his address spoke of the need for humility as a basis for religious belief. I agree with him. By this, I believe he meant that no one should come to the conclusion that he or she knows God in His entirety, for no human can possibly grasp the vast love of God. 

He did, however, state that Christianity has, in its history, led in efforts that resulted in judgment without authority.  He cited the Crusades and the Inquisition.  He then implied that we should not get on our high horse lest we repeat these mistakes.

Providing leadership in the world today to find unity and produce common cause is not getting on your high horse when it is your responsibility and obligation. Only the United States of America has the ability and the resources to support other nations on a worldwide basis to protect their sovereignty. It requires the U.S. military to provide the satellite communications for the coordination of Jordanian airstrikes against ISIS. Also required is the support of American pilots. The geopolitical diplomacy of the United States allows Jordan to participate in the alliance opposing ISIS without causing a rift their Arab neighbors.

Without U.S. presence in the world militarily, the world would fly apart into pieces. The conflicts between India & Pakistan, China & Taiwan, Russia & its immediate neighbors, and the entire Middle East could explode overnight.  We should not look at the U.S. as the world’s police force. The world should look at the U.S. as the defender of cultural security. By this I mean allowing sovereign nations and peoples to determine for themselves how they want to live without the threat of oppression.

We must be humble, but we must be prepared to defend eternal principles. Unity of peoples has never been accomplished without leadership. Without principled leadership, unity will remain an unrealized hope. 

Future Nuttle Reports will begin to address world economics, world affairs, government policy, and the national elections of 2016. We will discuss together how world and national events impact you personally and your family. 

Whether or not you believe that the National Prayer Breakfast organization provides a protocol for unity, you cannot criticize it without stating the principle you cite that should guide each of us. We should debate policy based upon priorities derived from principles that unite and bind us. In other words, you must believe in a cause greater than yourself. Otherwise, everything is about self-interest. 

It is critical that we as Americans decide not only for ourselves, but also for our brothers and sisters in the world, what we want as guiding principles for the inheritance of values for our children. We have inherited values from previous generations. We have to decide-- will we commit to them or do we want to change them? But we cannot leave them to stand on their own because without defense, values will fail.

I believe in the principles established by our Founding Fathers. I am committed to their defense.

Our Founding Fathers established principles of freedom -- the Greatest Generation defended them with their lives. It is now up to us to commit to them for the generations. We must find unity in purpose through binding principles, for without unity in purpose, the greater cause of freedom and liberty cannot be advanced.


My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.


What do you believe?
Comments

Citizen Commitment

2/3/2015

Comments

 

Volume 2, Issue 3

This past week, former governor Mitt Romney announced that he would not run for President in 2016. This is not a surprise. However, what is a surprise is how the press has reacted to the impact upon the presidential race. All the discussion has been about who will get the big money now that Governor Romney has removed himself from the equation. Why is this a concern? It is as if the only thing that matters in politics is money. It is important, but it is by far not the most important element.

The people still have within their control the ability to manage the debate and the issues addressed, if they will just simply engage. Some would say, “We have no power. I don’t even know how to engage.” Let me suggest that a simple first step is to determine what you believe, as guiding principles, for the society and culture you seek. Next is to simply communicate your ideas to your friends. Movements are started by people at the grassroots, never by leaders and money from the top. From the Reformation to the Civil Rights movement to the New Right movement, it was people demanding that principles of human dignity and liberty be addressed.

The gentlemen most often mentioned as billionaires who contribute large sums of money to politics have every right to do so. They care about their country and seek to impact the debate from their world view. They do have influence, yet they have not been able to control much of anything. Thank goodness we have an open society where freedom of speech and the right to assemble are protected constitutional rights. Yes, it may take more effort without money, but the modern age of social media works to the benefit of a people’s movement.

At the New Horizon Council website (www.NewHorizonCouncil.com), we encourage the conversation about principles - principles that bind us rather than policy that divides us. It is the New Horizon Council’s objective to give every citizen a voice, which collectively matches any billionaire’s money. Candidates will migrate to a movement based upon truth.

We have discussed in previous reports how the times in which we find ourselves are very similar to 1776 and 1787 in our country’s history. It was a time when citizens felt oppressed by an overbearing government that restrained their individual liberty. It was a time when people discussed individual liberty rather than liberty for all. It was a time when uniting principles were beginning to emerge in the writings of Thomas Paine in Common Sense and James Madison in the Federalist Papers. It took time for discussion and debate for the citizens to see liberty through the prism of liberty for all, not just liberty for some.

 In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of values. In 1787, the Constitution was a statement of principles. Together, these values and principles have been the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world.

It is time for us as citizens to recommit to these values and principles.


My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.


What do you believe?
Comments
    SUBSCRIBE
    $25 per year
    Marc Nuttle

    Marc Nuttle

    Marc Nuttle is a lawyer, author, consultant and businessman who's had a varied career. He has represented and advised Presidents of the United States, leaders of foreign countries, state officials and corporations. Marc has worked on government policy and has predicted economic trends. Marc managed the successful Right to Work campaign in Oklahoma in 2001. 

    Marc Nuttle's blog includes samples of the Nuttle Report as well as regular updates.

    Archives

    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    August 2020
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    September 2017
    May 2017
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Links

    newhorizoncouncil.com

    Categories

    All
    Elections 2016

    RSS Feed

Marc Nuttle
Home | Biography | Projects | Contact | Terms of Service
All website design, text, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all software are owned by The Right Strategy Group LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Any use of materials on this website, including reproduction, modification, distribution or republication, without the prior written consent of The Right Strategy Group LLC., is strictly prohibited.
Powered by The Right Strategy Group
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Marc's Previous Work
  • Projects
    • Subscribe to the Nuttle Report >
      • 30 Day Free Trial!
  • Blog
  • CONTACT
  • Subscriber Login