Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on changes to U.S. immigration policy and whether Romney would repeal President Obama’s Executive Order…

Five days removed from President Obama’s announcement of an Executive Order changing the immigration policy of the United States, GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has yet to directly answer yes or no to media questions pertaining to whether he would repeal the Order if he is elected. As things stand, if Congress doesn’t act in the next month to block the Order, then the children of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 and brought to the country before they were 16 will become eligible to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and will be allowed to apply for a two year work permit. To be eligible for relief, the individual must have lived in the U.S. for five continuous years, have no criminal record and have earned a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military. Thus, because of the wide effect and the urgency to act created by this policy change, it’s of vital importance to millions of young immigrants living in the shadows to know whether a President Romney would be in favor of allowing those qualified under Obama’s order to remain in the U.S.

The biggest political problem created for Romney by Obama’s move is that answering either way will cost him critical votes with Latinos, independents, or with anti-immigrant Tea Party Republicans. Thus, the politics behind his current silence are clear; he is doing whatever he can to avoid taking a position in order to avoid alienating key constituencies. In fact, a recent poll on Obama’s move conducted by Bloomberg this week showed 86% support from Democrats, 66% from Independents, and only 44% support among Republicans. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Romney Campaign is aware of the political consequences associated with advising their candidate on whether to speak or not speak on this Order. What is not clear is why Romney and his surrogates are accusing Obama of playing politics with immigration policy when Romney’s own refusal to answer direct questions is obviously a politically motivated campaign tactic.

To further complicate matters for undecided voters, it also appears from the text on Romney’s campaign website that he has already taken a position in favor of retaining immigrant talent. For example, under the heading of “Attract the Best and Brightest”, the Romney campaign’s website states that the “the U.S. needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.” But this position, without the qualification that it only applies to legal immigrants, is much too liberal a stance for a majority of the Republican base including Tea Partiers. Thus, Romney’s own inconsistency on immigration issues are why he finds himself stuck between supporting the Order and risking losing his already shaky conservative base, or rejecting the Order, threatening to repeal, and risking losing vital support from undecided independent voters and Rubio Republicans.

Considering the above issues and the fact that Marco Rubio recently withdrew his Dream Act legislation from the Senate, an honest analysis of the cost/benefit to the GOP of Romney’s responding directly to Obama’s Order leads to the reasonable conclusion that Mitt Romney will continue to deflect direct questions pertaining to the Executive Order or the Dream Act. Romney, as most are aware by now, is a master political chameleon who typically plays it safe on controversial issues while taking whatever position is popular at the place, time and with the audience he is speaking to. Because Romney is scared to offend fair weather conservative voters by back treading on the rhetoric he spouted during the primary season, we should expect him and his campaign to continue to talk tough about deportations and the problems with illegal immigrants when in front of Tea Party crowds, and similarly, because he is scared to offend undecided conservative Latino voters, we can also expect Romney the chameleon to sound a lot like his possible running mate Marco Rubio when he visits Florida. Just don’t expect Mitt Romney to give the American people a direct yes or no answer any time soon.

Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on the ongoing dispute over the true impact of photo ID voting laws...

America still has a problem. Despite our country’s oft-touted reputation as a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, severe voter apathy and low turnout, not voter fraud (only 9 possible instances of voter impersonation were reported from 2002-2007 according to protectingthevote.com), are once again looking like huge issues for the candidates for the Presidency and others running for office in November’s contests. For a moderate GOP candidate like Mitt Romney, lower than average anticipated voter turnout could mean that white Evangelicals, as well as Ron Paul libertarians have chosen to sit this election out. And for President Obama and other Democrats, a lower than expected turnout might provide evidence that, in addition to the historic narrative of 2008 being a thing of the past, red state efforts to make voting more difficult for the working poor, the young, the disabled, and minorities are working to theirs and our democracy’s detriment.

In states such as Georgia, which along with seven other US states (Texas and South Carolina have not yet precleared their laws with the Department of Justice) has a strict voter photo ID requirement for in-person voting, the elderly poor and other underrepresented groups will no doubt become further dissuaded from making the effort to vote if it means they need to make and additional trip (which requires transportation costs) to purchase a photo ID. The fact that the already dismal voter turnout figures in Georgia (49% average over the past three Presidential elections according to Census.gov) and across the country (54%) are being held down not only by the apathy that already plagues the voting-age populace, but also by the additional ID requirements, means that there is a self-inflicted negative impact on a fundamental tenant of our democracy, the right of the people to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process.

States with strict photo ID laws in place have consistently argued that no one is actually turned away at the polls for not having an ID, and that those without ID can by law cast provisional ballots which shall be counted if the individual produces proof of ID within a specified time period. However, despite wide public support for the ID concept, it is naïve to believe that the chance to cast a provisional ballot, that may not be counted, is going to persuade an individual without a photo ID to make the journey to the polling place to vote knowing their vote will not be counted unless they eventually take the extra step of obtaining an ID and proving they are who they say they are.

It’s also difficult to articulate how requiring additional steps beyond detailed voter registration, where proof of citizenship by social security number or driver’s license number is already a requirement in many states, amounts to anything less than a poll tax if it requires a particular type of photo ID that cannot be obtained without traveling to an office, getting the ID made, and paying whatever fee is required to do so. Taking it a step further, the law in states like Georgia permits only particular photo IDs listed on the Secretary of State’s website, which do not include student IDs from private colleges and universities, but do allow hunting permits to be presented without issue. Still, because it is impossible to measure with accuracy why an individual decides not to vote, the issue of measurability of any disparate impact as a result of this type of de facto tax remains at the heart and soul of the debate over the constitutionality of these laws.

As mentioned above, the argument is that there is no hard data to support the argument that the vote is being suppressed due to photo ID requirements. However, when we consider that most objective people would agree that adding an additional step that costs money to any process, no matter how nominal, at some point becomes a dissuasive factor in choosing to take part in the activity affected, here voting, then as a result it is fairly obvious that there is some sort of impact on voter turnout even if no hard data is obtainable. For example, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Rock the Vote noted that 1/5 of 18-29 year olds don’t have a driver’s license, and according to protectingthevote.com 19% of Latinos, 25% of African Americans, and 20% Asian Americans lack a government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of Whites. Bottom line, our lawmakers should know that one of the underlying purposes of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 was to protect the right to vote as fundamental to all Americans, regardless of income level, race, color, or any other stereotypical classification. Photo ID requirements are simply a proxy for a broader effort to discourage the above classifications of groups from casting a legal ballot.

It is already a crime to impersonate another American using false identification; such deterrence takes care of any concern of fraud for 99.99% of the voting age populace. Sure, there may be a handful of cases every decade, but there is no justification for additional legal hurdles if there is no large scale problem to be solved. To the contrary, we should be doing everything we can as a society to make it easier to vote. We should be looking at ways to administer secure online elections, improve online registration services, consider moving the Election Day to the weekend to raise turnout, and begin modernizing our electoral process to make it more convenient for our social media driven society. We should not use the simple fear of losing an election veiled in non-factual voter fraud concerns as a reason to create proxies for voter suppression.

Unfortunately, many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have largely bought into the myth that there is widespread voter fraud which justifies stricter voting laws, but the numbers volunteered by advocates of photo ID laws just do not add up to widespread fraud, and what is truly left is a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. If we are to use grandiose rhetoric in describing our democracy, we should begin to set an example by doing whatever possible to lift our country from the basement of voter turnout amongst free nations. Despite the majority opinion, these new laws are simply a step back in the wrong direction, and the resulting apathy and low turnout is a black eye on our democracy.

Thoughts on whether Karl Rove will be Romney’s Sarah Palin…

He will not appear on the Republican ticket or speak at the GOP Convention, yet his impact on the 2012 race for President of the United States has already been felt. He has skillfully navigated the post Citizens United landscape, helping to push the Tea Party into Congress. He is currently helping to pour millions of dollars into negative ads attacking President Barack Obama in swing states. He has attempted to depict Obama as an outsider, a celebrity, and distorted and twisted the President’s record/persona in order to get his messages across to key voting blocks. His and all other Super PACs are legally bound not to have any coordination with a candidate’s campaign, but it would be naïve not to see the many ways in which the new rules can be skirted (See Newt Gingrich on stage at campaign event with his sugar daddy). He is Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, and his American Crossroads Super PAC cohorts are in the business of throwing political hand grenades.

Although Mitt Romney has not yet selected a running mate, he can rest assured that regardless of his pick the same kinds of inciting statements made to Republican crowds by the likes of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election (at the dismay of the McCain campaign) will be made by groups such as American Crossroads via the air and radio waves and the Crossroads GPS field campaign. Unfortunately for Romney, no matter how much he spends on ads, he will have never truly have control over the conservative message during this election season.

Much like Senator John McCain never had control over Palin’s crowds during the heavy campaign season,, Romney will also have little to no control over Super PACs like American Crossroads. No matter how hard Romney tries to keep things positive or on an economic message, he will constantly be walking back ads that Rove’s group has put out. There is no way he can stop it, so he will either have to embrace it or suffer the same fate as McCain.

It's also notable that McCain was never truly in with the starkest conservatives, and neither is Mitt Romney. Romney, like McCain, is not a big draw, he is not exciting, and he doesn’t give a great speech. Like McCain, Romney was the settled-upon candidate. He is not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. Yet, because of the ill-fated Palin experience, and because FOX News is a defacto GOP network with Karl Rove as an active talking head, Romney will have to walk a fine line by either picking a name that draws ratings or by trying to play it safe with a lesser-known that he can consistently overshadow and keep on message.

He can go with a big name and risk being Palin’d, or he can go with a low profile pick and risk being overshadowed by Super PAC messaging because the ticket is just too boring. Either way, Romney will eventually run into messaging issues. His VP choice will no doubt be difficult, but the end result may be the same regardless of whether the pick is Marco Rubio or Rob Portman. The more outrageous Super PAC messages will always draw bigger ratings on FOX and Rush Limbaugh than will play-it-safe Romney campaign ads, and the Super PAC nonsense makes for bigger headlines with opposition groups. There is simply nothing Romney can do to stop this phenomenon under the current rules.

The conservatives running American Crossroads are not, and never have been or will be true Romney Republicans. Sure, they want to beat Obama, but this group is for the most part composed of ex-Bush aides and veterans of the neo conservative movement who are trying to stay relevant by pursuing the same divisive political messaging that drove the Bush/Cheney to two terms in the White House. They play on religion, they entice the birthers, they are the brains behind the new Tea Party movement, but they are certainly not Massachusetts moderates. They are the same people who trashed McCain in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and both Obama and Romney in 2008.

Karl Rove and company have Romney cornered, because unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment does not have a recognizable uniting voice or platform (not liking the President is not a platform!). There is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and Bush is currently a bad word on the Romney campaign. There simply exists a fractured GOP composed of factions representing different eras of conservatism leaning on an aging Reagan-era base in danger of disappearing if it does not begin to appeal to the changing face of modern America.

This lack of unification, coupled with the Citizens United decision, has opened the door for candidates to be at the mercy of the Super PAC if they are not themselves an intriguing presence. As far as Karl Rove and American Crossroads go, they have harnessed the potential of having the same negative impact or greater on the Romney campaign as did the unchecked rhetoric of Sarah Palin that haunted the McCain camp with independent voters in 2008.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney cannot control Karl Rove even if Rove is trying to help him win. Because Romney will be outspent by Super PACs in an inter-party battle to define the key issues of this election, the Rove message will inevitably become part of the Romney message. Sure it’s still early, but it’s definitely not a stretch to say that Rove will end up having a Palin-like effect on Romney’s bid this November. Maybe Rove can help Romney fire up a segment of the conservative base that Romney cannot reach, but in the end, Rove’s push to fire up the Republican on dated social issues, along with his desperate attempts to create a straw man version of Barack Obama, could seriously backfire for Romney with undecided voters seeking to further distance this country from Bush-era practices and policies. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the money is in the bank and continues to flow to Karl Rove’s and other similar groups, their ads are already hitting the tubes, and the end results will be telling of the true effect of Citizens United on those who fiercely advocated for the Super PAC system.

Thoughts on RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the damaged Republican brand…

Since his 2009 election to the position of RNC Chairman, there has been no lack of drama or satire provided from the curious persona that is Maryland’s own Michael Steele. Though he still maintains loyal supporters within the RNC and the GOP leadership, many Republican insiders would no doubt put Chairman Steele on their main list of potential and present political liabilities to the conservative movement in America. His controversial takes on issues such as race, global warming, and especially the policy decisions of the Obama Administration, have made him a polarizing figure within a majority of the prominent GOP circles of power, with harsh criticism of his actions coming from the likes of Senator John McCain, Karl Rove, and even notorious neocon William Kristol. His recently recorded comments on the Afghanistan War have helped to strengthen the worst fears of the most seasoned Republican politicos. His calling the nine year old war begun under the Bush Administration in retaliation to 9/11 “a war of Obama’s choosing” could go down as one of the most ignorant statements by any party leader in US history. Still, remarkably, and despite the Voyeur Club incident and his other missteps, he remains at the helm of the RNC for the foreseeable future, even as he has become a huge liability for the GOP.

Though the majority of non-cynical minded Americans will brush off Steele’s comments as playing to a crowd that is ignorant to common fact, the bigger problem for Republicans (benefit to Dems) is that this kind of rhetoric makes their brand look bad. Most people are asking themselves, “This is supposed to be the man who leads the Republican cause into the next decade?” When you layer his recent comments on Afghanistan with his “Greenland” remark on the science of global warming, and his constant fictional depiction of what he refers to as the “radical Obama agenda,” it makes sense that many within the GOP are continually calling for Steele’s resignation. Even those standing firm behind Steele, such as Ron Paul of Texas, come off as disingenuous when defending the factually deficient statements of their party chairman. His blog, strangely titled “What Up?” is both misguided in its title and feels out of place when coupled with the realistic look and texture of the current Republican Party. He has also alienated many potential Republican voters with his perceived arrogance and disregard for those who question his spoken words in the media and elsewhere.

Most Democrats are well aware of the Chairman’s negative effect on the larger conservative political movement, and because of this they would be smart to stay silent and let Steele self-implode until the election season heats up. Then, his ridiculous comments can be used to argue against the stability of the Republican Party and its leadership. Though Steele’s backers will always play off his comments as misconstrued satire, his outlandish commentaries, and the disbelief shared by the masses in response to his statements, are impossible to ignore. The Democratic Party basically has an unlikely ally in Mr. Steele, in that he exemplifies the exact persona that political liberals seek to portray when placing a status quo definition on what it means to be a real Republican in 2010. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much tape of Michael Steele is used by Democratic campaigns to counter Republican claims during the upcoming midterm elections. Thus far, as the elected leader of the RNC, it’s been a tight rope act for the troubled Chairman. Though he has backtracked on his comments on the Afghanistan War, and apologized for his mistakes in the past, it seems that he greatly underestimates the intelligence of the greater American populace. Whether he realizes this or not, it will take a major power play on the part of reasonable Republicans to reverse the damage done over the last year and a half by their own party chairman. When this will happen is anyone’s guess.

Thoughts on the key highlights of President Obama’s first Oval Office Address on the BP Oil Disaster…

Going into his first Oval Office address to the American people and the concerned world, President Obama has received a big dose of warranted and unwarranted criticism from increasingly frustrated gulf coast residents who depend on the fishing and oil industries as their lifelines. Stack on the predicted refusal of Republican leaders to work with the President and the Democrats on an energy bill to begin the transition away from deep sea drilling to alternative energy, the complex politics and catastrophic nature of the BP oil disaster becomes apparent. With no guarantees on plugging the leak other than the drilling by BP of a relief well due best case in August, the President is in the precarious position of having to reassure the American people that things are under control while also being realistic in diverging the true scope of the disaster at hand. That being said, here are KTI’s key observations and highlights from the President’s 18 minute speech.

Appearance
Tired, but purposeful
Very clear and concise
Determined to clear the air of rumor
Hopeful, invoking faith at close

Federal Response
Assembled team led by Stephen Chu
Experts for Academia and other Oil Companies to brainstorm solutions
Appointed Thad Allen to head cleanup, largest effort of all time
17,000 National Guardsmen need to be activated by Governors
5 ½ million of boom, barrier islands are being deployed presently
Complex response can never be perfect, will do best to fix all operational problems
More oil is coming, must accept reality of spill and go to battle against oil
Independent 3rd party will distribute claims
National commission to determine cause of disaster
6 month moratorium on offshore drilling until cause of breach is found

BP
Caused and liable for the worst environmental disaster in US history
Spill is an epidemic, fighting and recovering will take months to years
BP will pay for all restoration and cleanup efforts
BP will finish relief well by end of summer, weather permitting

Promises
BP will pay
Feds will do whatever is necessary to help stop, cleanup, and recover
Recovery will be key role of government, troops
Long term gulf restoration plan will be paid for by BP
Taking steps to assure disaster does not occur again
American people deserve to know what happened
Cleaning house at MMS, changing corporate culture
Pace of reform will be heightened, new oil industry watchdog appointed
Drilling today entails greater risk, 2% reserves, 20% of consumption
Oils days are inevitably numbered, must accelerate our innovation in energy
We must seize control of our own destiny and transition from fossil fuels
Can’t afford not to change how we consume energy
R&D in alternative energy must be increased
Inaction on the ground and administratively will not be accepted

Overall Impression
Tonight’s speech, while necessary and purposeful, will be dismissed by opponents of the President as playing politics with energy by using the oil spill as an excuse to pass an energy bill this year. But, this is a shallow argument based on the same kind of “just say no” games we saw during the health care debates. Despite their own acknowledgement of the importance of curbing our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, these same Republicans are opposing the very premise of putting our resources into the widespread implementation of a new energy policy that promotes common sense theories that they support in principal. They are so scared to give Obama a political victory that they are willing to appear cynical and hypocritical in the name of petty partisan politics. Therefore, despite the Presidents best efforts to clear up the air and push America forward with the disaster as a source of momentum in the imminent transition to alternative energy sources, many on the right will try to politicize and capitalize on the anti-establishment sentiment rather than to work with their peers to move America forward. Overall, the speech was well delivered, but in today’s hyper partisan environment it is likely that his words will fall short of the impact of any positively viewed step towards progress on the ground, the sea or in capping the leak.

Thoughts on disasters, the 24-hour news cycle, and unrealistic expectations…

In light of the tragic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is once again an expectation amongst many Americans that a disaster of this magnitude can be fixed on demand within the framework of media talking points. The media is increasingly guilty of dramatizing events which will garner ratings, many times at the expense of the true story on the ground. Some anchors continually look for out of context sound bites and headlines that invoke our worst fears and divisive partisan opinion. To feed a hungry 24 hour news cycle, the press today has no choice but to dig for every angle, whether factual or prophetic, in order to satisfy the needy “hear what we want to, not what we need to” segment of our population.

Take for example the reporting by the major news networks over the past weeks of the oil spill: despite the common knowledge that BP was not truthful as it relates to the nature of the leak, the media is acting as if they knew the extent of the disaster when it first occurred. Next, these news anchors, talk show hosts, and partisan politicians who are swayed heavily by media reports and not researched facts, begin to spread blame along various chains of command and agencies that, while they obviously care deeply about fixing the disaster at hand, were unable to properly respond because of BP’s initial, lobbyist and public relations ridden attempts to cover up the true enormity of the pipe breach.

Unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the scope of the disaster was evident upon the breach of the levees, this disaster occurred nearly a mile below the shore, with technology to monitor the leak provided by the very people responsible. Until the oil became clearly visible from Satellite imagery, and estimates as to the scope of the leak where attained, it was virtually impossible for the US Government to put a plan into action that was based on the tangible, truthful, calculation of the extent of the spill. In addition, President Obama has expressed a sense of urgency and engagement that was absent in President Bush’s response to the flooding as a result of the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly construct the levee system above the city of New Orleans.

With light speed internet sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and major news sites facilitating rumors and opinion at the expense of realistic, fact based schools of thought; it has become increasingly difficult to translate the pace of responsible decision making to the 24 hour news cycle. A thought out decision must include good information that facilitates a proper response. Until BP accepted the ramifications of its transgressions, there was no good way to know what kind of disaster to expect. The fact that it was not until today that the estimate of the size of the spill was revealed, it should not surprise people that there were mistakes and oversights in the Federal Government’s handling of the situation. The prevalent media talking point, that this disaster could have been handled well with such a broken system at the MMS and lack of candor from BP, is clearly a product of the unrealistic expectations.

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the effectiveness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US approach to his visit…

Upon the arrival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the United States today, it is obvious that the State Department and The White House are taking a decidedly more tolerant approach to working with the controversial, narrowly reelected leader of Afghanistan. Following months of critical verbiage from the United States and its NATO allies in the region, Karzai has stayed firm in his own, time tested, ways. He continues to reject the existence of Iranian influence in his country, despite the fact that a plethora of Iranian weapon caches have been seized within the Afghan borders, and the continued condemnation by Iran’s regime of the US mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He is guilty of openly accusing the United States of wanting to make a “puppet” out of him, and most recently claimed that western influence had led to fraud in the latest election, which he won when his opponent dropped out (ironically on claims of fraud and corruption by Karzai himself). Then there is the added tension created by Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and his alleged connection to drug trafficking and poppy production, which further complicates the efforts of US and Afghan forces to root out the money lines used in large part to fund outside terror organizations and the Taliban. Our criticism has ultimately led to a situation where we must re-attempt to reach common ground on critical areas going forward in order to bring a meaningful end to nine years of war in Afghanistan.

We have learned that in criticizing, and essentially backing the opposition to Karzai in the 2009 Afghan Presidential Election, we have proceeded to further alienate ourselves from our most crucial partner in a war we have invested so much life and treasure into. Though his intentions have often been questioned, Karzai has proven time and time again that he is a capable politician in his own right, and frankly he worries more about pleasing his potential voters in Kabul than in conceding positions to the United States or any other country for that matter. Therefore, as he visits the United States at this crucial moment, we must acknowledge that although we may not agree on some of the fine details of how Afghanistan does its business, we all share a common goal of disarming the Taliban, and rooting out the Al Qaeda presence in the region and worldwide. Karzai understands this, and he has known since 2001 that truthful cooperation with the United States and NATO is essential to his hold on power, and essential to his ability to avoid his fragile government from being overrun by the Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in the region.

As the meetings in Washington DC unfold, it should come as no surprise to see all of the parties involved projecting a much more positive, united tone with regards to the nature of the discussions which took place. With the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq looming in the coming months and years, we can be certain that the fixes we make to this timid relationship will be pivotal in the execution of the lofty foreign policy goals and wartime objectives of all parties involved.

Thoughts on President Obama's tight rope approach to Wall Street reform…

Following the contentious health care debate, there was no doubting that President Obama and the Democratic leadership would seek a different approach to the passing of the proposed Wall Street reform package. Due to the initial framing of the proposed bill as a “bailout” by misinformed/cynical Republicans and pundits, it became necessary for The President to take direct control of the message before those looking to derail reform got any further traction. He immediately made the facts of the bill the story, not the opposition, and by doing so forced Senate Republicans, who in many ways had helped write the bill, to return to negotiations and admit their rhetoric was misguided. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee said it best when he stated on the floor of the Senate: "The fact is, the bill has taken a partisan turn. There are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, I grant that. But there's still work to be done," Corker said. "Let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. Let's just finish what we started."

However, as a beneficiary of campaign funding from embattled Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs ($994,795 in 2008), President Obama must walk a tight rope when criticizing those who are responsible for some of the worst practices against consumers of investment products. He knows that during his 2008 campaign he received money that was indirectly tied to the very derivatives market which he now intends to regulate. So, in framing the reasoning for the passing of this bill, he has chosen to make the argument that the proposed regulations will encourage firms to take a look at their worst practices, fix them, and work within an ethical, responsible, and increasingly consumer friendly framework. Therefore, the details of the bill, and The President’s ability to sell its contents, are of the utmost importance to his ability to knock down false attacks on both the reforms he seeks and his true intentions in pursuing them.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, as written in H.R. 4173, outlines new commissions and regulations for the following areas: 1) Creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), a new, independent federal agency solely devoted to protecting Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services, 2) Creates the Financial Stability Council to identify and regulate financial firms that are so large, interconnected, or risky that their collapse would put the entire financial system at risk, 3) Ends “too big to fail” by establishing an orderly process for dismantling large, failing financial institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers, 4) Establishes “Say on Pay” by giving shareholders a an advisory vote on pay practices including executive compensation and golden parachutes, 5) Strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors and regulate the nation’s securities markets (response to Madoff and Stanford frauds), 6) Regulation of Derivatives: the bill regulates, for the first time ever, the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives marketplace.7) Establishes a simple standard for all home loans institutions: They must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold, 8) Reforms Credit Rating Agencies by addressing the role of credit rating agencies in the economic crisis, 9) Requires almost all hedge fund advisers to register with the SEC, and subjects them to systemic risk regulation by the Financial Stability regulator, and 10) Creates a Federal Insurance Office that will monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.


By touting these bipartisan reforms, President Obama should have no problem selling this bill to a public which is fed up with Wall Street betting on their futures. The regulation of the derivatives and hedge fund markets are long overdue. Advisors should be registered with the SEC, and the SEC must have the power to stop the worst practices of financial criminals such as Bernie Madoff and others. With the wind behind his back on the issue, and Republicans in a position which should ultimately force them onboard, there is no reason to expect less than 65 votes for this version of the bill. Senate Republicans, who wrote the 50 billion dollar bank funded side account for responsible deconstruction of failing institutions into the bill, must only look to their leadership for the answers as to why they are against these common sense reforms. The Senate will now debate the intricacies of the bill, and there will be numerous attempts by Republicans, as I mentioned in a previous article, to change the topic or distort the details of the bill in order to prevent a legislative victory for The President. Unfortunately, these deceitful and cynical stall tactics are fresh in all of our minds, and this time Republicans and others who choose the path of “No” do so against the clear will of the American public they so adamantly wish to serve.

In the end, despite his deep ties to the firms he wishes to regulate, President Obama can only be commended for pushing the ball back into the people’s court, and going forward with regulations against the most powerful lobbying forces on Wall Street and in the banking industry. His tight rope walk between his political future and the future of our economic systems are becoming historic in nature. And as for the Republicans, will they eventually support a bill they largely wrote themselves? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the debate in the Senate should once again be contentious.

Thoughts on the impact of today’s taking out of Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders by US/Iraqi security forces…

Seven years after the start of the Iraq War, the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming increasingly visible to American Troops, the Iraqi people, and the families on both sides of the conflict. As the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and the Iraqi Defense Ministry (IDM) gradually assume control of their nation’s security, the elimination of the foreign born terrorist threats from Al Qaeda and other fringe groups will be one of their biggest long term hurdles. Because of a vested interest in their failure by Iranian authorities, as well as other anti-west nation states, the SOI and IDM are likely to encounter constant challenges from groups looking to capitalize on a perceived power vacuum. Ultimately, the fate of the Iraqi people will lie in their desire to unite as a country and bridge their very own complicated divides.

The gunning down of Al-Masri and Al-Baghdadi is an important achievement in the path towards potential stability in Iraq. Both men were directly tied to Osama Bin Laden, and Al-Masri was an import from Egypt whose death exposed high level correspondence which may provide the vital leads we have been missing in the hunt for top Al Qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda in Iraq was created by outsiders after the beginning of the war, and the elimination of this primarily external threat could provide the SOI and IDM with the empowerment necessary to secure the Iraqi population. Their counter-terror training, along with their side by side teamwork with members of the US Military, will allow them to effectively decipher future threats to their country.

As we draw down our troop presence, we must be mindful of the difficult journey taken by so many to reach this point. When President Bush declared “Bring em’ on,” little did he know that his fiery rhetoric would lead disenfranchised Iraqi’s to take up arms against our mission as liberators, and little did he know that an Al Qaeda presence, which didn’t exist previously, would be created to capitalize on his words and an increasingly susceptible population of former Iraqi Republican Guardsmen and Baath Party Members. Coupled with an influx of radical Islamic and anti-western clerics, the recipe for what transpired over the past decade became apparent to everyone who was watching closely.

Under the Obama Administration, and during the post-Surge era of the Bush Presidency, there has been a concerted effort to unify the Iraqi population and to bring in all religions/sects into the emerging political structure. By empowering all Iraqi’s to have a stake in their own futures, we can help them plant the seeds of a prosperous economic future and successfully transition into an era of partnership with a freely elected, all inclusive Iraqi Government. Today’s eradication of these leaders was a big step amongst many taken and needed, but much work is left to be done between now and the planned exit of American forces later this year.

Thoughts on President Obama's decision to reduce the role of nuclear weapons...

Nearly 15 years after the indefinite ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by 189 nation states in May of 1995, The United States and Russia are now on the verge of taking a substantial step in reaching the second major pillar laid out indirectly by the original NPT protocol. On April 8, 2010, President Medvedev of Russia, and President Obama of the US, will sign the newest version of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), effectively calling for the reduction, by nearly a half, of the nuclear weapon stockpiles of each country, as well as setting a new limit of 1,500 deployable warheads starting in 2017. These steps fall in line with the NPT’s non-proliferation and disarmament pillars, essentially paving the way to achieve the treaties ultimate goal for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Today the Obama Administration announced the findings of the Nuclear Posturing Review (NPR), which puts the nuclear policy consensus adopted by the United States Department of Defense on the table for the entire world to see. Essentially, the NPR report states that the United States will not seek to expand on, nor create new stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In addition, the United States will not seek to deploy nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation which has signed on to the NPT. However, the report also acknowledges the need for the US to maintain a trimmed down, yet deployable stockpile of nukes in the case that a non-treaty abiding nation should attempt to proliferate with their own weapons on the United States or its allies.

These sentiments were shared in President Obama’s comments on the findings, where he stated “we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” and on our readiness to respond to military threats; “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal that guarantees the defense of the United States, reassures allies and partners, and deters potential adversaries.” Also confirmed by the President’s statements was his continued support of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, pledging to uphold the guidelines of the ban on testing nuclear weapons systems, despite the opposition by some that the treaty is being abused by countries like North Korea and Iran.

These moves by the Obama Administration are part of a broader goal of ridding the world of nuclear threats. The policy changes also acknowledge the shift in concern from nation against nation proliferation, to a focus on disarming rogue states and removing potential nuclear terror threats. The questions raised by more hawkish lawmakers revolve around whether we will be perceived as weak due to the slimming down of our warhead stockpiles. Will rogue nations feel more empowered by our decision to pursue a non-nuclear based national security strategy? Or, as many centrist believe, will this action by the United States move to further isolate nations, such as Iran, who have non-peaceful nuclear ambitions? Though many will say we are made weaker by participating in the NPT and other global anti-proliferation efforts, an argument can be made to the contrary which leads us to rediscover our core values and the ultimate purpose of our military.

If we are to emerge as the 21st century’s leader in core democratic values, as well as in pure military might, we may want to consider the impact of being a believable role model for other emerging democracies and rogue states. Those nations who seek to become part of a nuclear weapon free union of nations should be able to look to the United States as the ultimate example of nuclear responsibility. By setting a new precedent for non-nuclear engagement, and by relying on our powerful conventional arsenal of weaponry and drone technology, we can effectively position ourselves to move forward the pillars of the NPT in the years to come.

We should ask the bigger question of whether today’s action, coupled with a return to the pre-Bush principals of not pursuing conflict preemptively, will ultimately lead rogue nations towards the pursuit of peaceful nuclear ambitions. Only time will tell if this will be the case, and our future actions will dictate whether we can truly lead this effort going forward. Still, there is now a chance that we will look back in great pride to the historic events of today and April 8th as unifying landmarks in the ongoing pursuit of global peace and prosperity by the United States and its partner nations around the world.

Thoughts on human space flight, the NASA budget, and our exciting travel future…

Today’s successful launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery marks the fourth to last journey in the storied, yet costly history of the NASA Space Shuttle Program. The current mission’s primary destination, the International Space Station (ISS), awaits the American crew and their Multi-Purpose Logistics Module in low earth orbit (LEO). Operating at a staggering cost of nearly a billion dollars per launch, the Space Shuttle Program will be retired later this year in favor of the newer, more cost effective Russian Soyuz spacecraft as a means to visit the ISS. Following the September 8, 2009 findings by the Augustine Commission on Human Space Flight, President Obama announced budgetary decisions had been made that would focus on bringing down the cost of LEO space flight, along with renewed interest in private sector development of the next generation of spacecraft. Therefore, we are now at an important crossroads for both NASA officials and those who will ultimately decide which direction to take our LEO space program.

Currently, the cost to hitch a ride to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft is approximately 50 million dollars per seat. This puts the cost for six astronauts at between $300 and $400 million per trip, or what amounts to nearly a 600 to 700 million dollar savings from the current cost of launching astronauts and scientists via the Space Shuttle. Since there will likely be a minimum five year gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the anticipated initiation of the next generation Orion spacecraft program (Run by Lockheed Martin), NASA will most likely choose to team up with the Russians for rides to the ISS in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, private sector space companies around the world, such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, may offer NASA intriguing, cost effective, alternatives and models for successfully transporting mission crews and equipment to and from the ISS; and eventually to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

This collaboration will need to be accelerated should Russia, as expected, decide to hike up the price per seat for a ride on the Soyuz given our demand and the gap between now and the proposed Orion launch in 2015. As mentioned above, NASA’s future collaborations with the private sector will be of vital importance for the development of future means of human and robotic space flight. In November of 2009, Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo had its impressive model debut at the Mojave Air & Spaceport. Launched from a specially designed transport plane called a “MotherShip”, SpaceShipTwo will prelude the larger SpaceShipThree and will break ground in the testing required to allow civilians to travel to and from other spaceports via sub orbital space in the near future. Based on the surprisingly low current per person cost of $200,000 for a test ride on SpaceShipTwo, it could be feasible for NASA, and other national space agencies, to significantly lower their mission costs in the future by adapting these new found forms of space travel to low earth orbit space flight.

In 2007, realizing the need for a genuine collaborative effort going forward, NASA and Virgin Galactic entered into a symbolic memorandum of understanding regarding the need to work together to progress human space flight and to share their meaningful innovations with each other. Along with the continuing Lockheed Martin Orion/Altair project for an LEO springboard to the Moon and Mars, payloads, and ISS missions which would launch from the Ares I rocket vehicle, NASA will one day have the welcomed alternative of launching to LEO via a “MotherShip” for crew trips only, and larger robotic payload transport missions. This exciting future for human space flight is expounded by the prospect of a two hour flight from London to Sydney via the proposed SpaceShipThree from Virgin Galactic. It’s not a science fiction movie anymore; in the next twenty years we will more than likely see both commercial and government spacecraft traveling from destination to destination in sub orbit in the same fashion as jet liners today. The anticipated ability of spacecraft to cruise into LEO in the future, launched by the much less expensive MotherShip method, has the incredible potential of transforming space travel from both a budgetary and practicality standpoint.

Given the promising future of the international Spaceport concept, the impending retirement of the US Space Shuttle, and the newly outlined objectives for NASA under the Obama Administration and the Augustine Commission, the critical next steps in human space travel and exploration are most likely to be dependent on effective collaboration through contract work with commercial space travel companies and space agencies across the globe. No matter what direction the President and Congress decides to take with regards to future human space travel, we can at least rest assured that there is a conscious effort to lower the blinding cost of spaceflight without compromising the future of space exploration. By looking to the ingenuity of the less budget restricted private sector for the future development of multifunctional spacecraft, there is no reason to believe that NASA will have any trouble accomplishing its long term goals in spaceflight and exploration. In the short term, the reality of the current budget situation dictates that we transition to more cost effective methods of achieving our goals in space. We’ll have to do this by taking our fiscal medicine, launching ISS missions with the Russians, with the knowledge in the back of our minds that the next generations of US spacecraft are on the verge of usability. This knowledge, and the important fact that modern technology is quickly catching up with the costs of reaching space, give great hope to the prospects of both astronauts and civilians in their quest to reach new heights, achieve great things, and visit distant destinations that will transform the way we think of the universe and each other.

The above revelations about future space flight lead us to bigger questions about the future of humanity as it relates to visiting other worlds; will the international nature of space exploration lead to a more “world based” view as opposed to “nation based” viewpoints? Will the next generation of Americans actually get to fly on these proposed spacelines such as Virgin Galactic, taking hours out of international travel? And finally, are we closing in on a need for an increased focus on international space regulation, given the prospect of increased security concerns for satellites and other low orbit communication objects? The next two decades are sure to provide the answers to these important questions; in the meantime, let’s take some time to appreciate the ever expanding nature of human intelligence and scientific innovation.

Thoughts on the politics of fear and homegrown militant groups…

Over the past few weeks, there has been a sharp increase in the mainstream media’s coverage of domestic born militia groups. These fringe groups have existed for some time, tending to loom in the shadows while leaders they support are in charge, only to pop up when leaders they perceive as a threat to their liberties are in power. The 2008 election of President Obama has fueled the fire for some of these mainly conservative militias and impressionable activists who fear that the end of times is coming, and that a socialist big brother type government is coming to get them. Recent action from groups such as the “Hutaree” and the “Guardians of the New Republics”, have reopened the conversation on the cause and effect of militia groups in modern day America.

On the surface, it’s easy to dismiss the members of such organizations as crazy, confused, and mostly talk, but when a militia begins to act out on their credos, we must remember our not so distant past and apply the lessons we learned from domestic based terror incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. With political conditions that are all too similar, if not more intense, the time has come to put a collective clamp down on these groups before their radical messages reach the wrong ears.

The fact is that none of these armed militias are truly capable of individually or simultaneously challenging the United States Military in a fire fight, but their calls to action are a cause for concern to those whose jobs it is to protect our elected officials and government workers in the workplace. These groups tend to do all of the talking, but none of the action, relying on lone wolves to carry out their dirty work. Militia leaders prey on these fearful souls, and are actively looking for those who will take the fall in order to become a “hero” of their particular cause. Fanning the flames of these types of movements, though indirectly, are certain political leaders who have chosen to use hateful discontent for political gain. This is not only irresponsible and borderline illegal under the Smith Act, but extremely dangerous given our fragile history.

Though it is not scientifically provable, the provoking actions of the past year by Republican members of Congress, along with targeted fear speak from primarily Conservative talk show radio hosts, has no doubt indirectly resulted in a call for action to paranoid homegrown extremists. Given today’s revelation that the GNR sent letters to 30 US Governors, telling them to “leave office within three days or be removed,” and the recent arrest of the Hutaree Militia in Michigan, the responsible action by political leaders and talk show hosts is to condemn these actions, not to promote them through dangerous rhetoric.

Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Bachmann in particular, along with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Erick Erickson, and other fringe feeding radio and TV hosts, are increasingly guilty of fueling the fires of domestic discontent. From drastic claims of Armageddon and “death panels” during the lead up to the passing of health care reform, to the inciteful waving of “don’t tread on me” flags in front of an angry mob-like crowd in the capital by Republican members of Congress, the first year and a half of the Obama Presidency has been marked by increased fear mongering by fringe activists and pundits. Distorted political scare tactics fed by irresponsible elected officials and media people in a position to reach millions of Americans every day, who put their stamp of approval on the behavior of the radical few.

We don’t want to see a repeat of our tragic history, and lose more of our best leaders due to unfounded fears and hate. If we see a friend, family member, or colleague engaging in incendiary or hateful commentary, we should let them know that we have already traveled down this path, and the results were devastating to our country. In 2010, we must be smart enough to realize the amazing power of our words. Whether you do or don’t support a politician, policy decision, or certain ideology, we must all agree that violence and hate are not the answer to attaining a better union. Let’s hope that our leaders in Washington DC, state capitals, townships, and in the media will take heed of their responsibility in keeping the discourse of our debates and conversations civil. Only then can we avoid the same tragic consequences suffered by generations before us.

Thoughts on President Obama's proposed offshore drilling plan...

Today, the President announced a controversial plan to raise offshore drilling bans on previously untouchable areas off the eastern US coast, from Virginia south to just north of Florida, northern Alaska, and the southeastern Gulf of Mexico; thus opening the door to bidders from the American oil and natural gas industry. This action should come as no surprise to those who followed Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. He stated, as a candidate, that he would take a hard look at reasonable ways to increase our domestic oil and natural gas supply while also taking into account the need to protect environmentally vulnerable areas, such as Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the numerous protected areas lining America’s west coast.

This decision is by no means apolitical, and the usual suspects have already begun to take their shots at the President’s drilling proposal. Critics from both sides of the aisle, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner, who stated “keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking 'Where are the jobs?,” and environmentalists, opposed to any new drilling whatsoever, were quick to jump on the President’s decision. These left and right reactions act as further proof that Obama is governing primarily down the center of the political spectrum. The White House has called this kind of decision making “principled post partisanship”, largely basing their decisions on pragmatism, as opposed to party politics and short term gain.

Though the decision to increase drilling at home may be pragmatic, given that we unquestionably need to transition from foreign energy sources to domestic and alternative ones, this move was ultimately a strategic political concession made to appease conservatives in Congress in the name of the bigger picture. In order for Obama to gain broader bi-partisan support for the administrations larger agenda on energy reform, the Administration decided to go ahead with portions of the offshore drilling ban initially proposed by the George W. Bush Administration in 2008.

The difference in approach by the two Presidents’ is something that many environmentalists need to take note of. Obama, as opposed to Bush’s plan to use Bristol Bay as a drilling area, put the bay and other sensitive areas onto the list of forbidden places to drill. In addition, the plan also requires drilling to be at least 125 miles offshore from Florida, out of the view of those enjoying the coastline. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the plan is to drill near areas where platforms already exist, and to expand towards the southeast, not towards the western Florida coast. Governors in eastern states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, obviously aren’t excited by the prospect of oil rigs off their shores, but they do, for the most part, recognize the need to bring energy reform and independence to the forefront.

The Presidents broader point is this; as we now produce only 2% of the world’s oil supply, while we use approximately 25% of the global supply for our energy needs, it is in our best interest to harness domestic oil and natural gas as we develop new ways to power our grid and our cars. The imminent transition to clean energy will require a period of change where we wane off foreign suppliers in favor of domestic sources. Though in the short term there is the unfortunate chance of spills and harm to wildlife, there is no other way forward in the long term. The alternative is continued importation from nations in tense, war torn regions abroad. Given the entrenched views on the subject of environmental responsibility, inevitably, this is set to spur another fierce debate with a plethora of faces and arguments for and against it.

Liberal coastal populations will most likely be against this plan, but this opposition is to be expected. Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to behave in a bi-partisan manner, and join in on a policy change they have traditionally supported, or to continue the strategy of opposing every policy proposed by the Obama Administration. Democrats and Independents will need to look to the long term plan for comfort, as the prospect of offshore drilling and environmental impact is a hard pill for any environmentally conscious individual to swallow. None of these strategic decisions will be clean or without drama, and we should expect nothing less.

But, if we are to ultimately become an energy independent nation, this decision may be the crucial second step, along with increased focus on nuclear energy announced earlier this year, in a series of policy changes leading towards the larger goal of self-reliance. More steps will obviously be necessary, and the debate will probably get personal and heated, but as the national conversation pivots towards the future of the climate and energy, we will likely look back to these first two Obama decisions as crucial turning points in the long term pursuit of an energy independent America.

Thoughts on education and our future progress...

There is an educational paradigm facing the United States of America. Every time a student drops out of high school or college, the collective intelligence and prosperity of the entire nation suffers, and the future of that individual becomes statistically bleak. According to the UN Education Index, the United States ranks at a dismal 19th in educational attainment. This is unacceptable by our lofty standards, and hints at a cynical standpoint by some who claim that we have the best educational system in the world. The bottom line is that unless we address the standards by which we judge a good education, from teachers and parents, to the student loan system, we will continue to see rising underemployment and unemployment in this country. Given this fact, it is useful for us to address the learning deficit problem head on.

This criticism of our educational system acknowledges that there are also exceptions to the status quo. There are many great schools in America, primarily in well off districts, which have high graduation rates and send a majority of their students to college. But, this is not the case in many less fortunate school districts across America. The truth is that many middle and lower income communities have an educational crisis on their hands. Minority populations, in particular African Americans and Hispanics, are falling too far behind, collectively graduating approximately 53% (according to the Alliance for Excellent Education) of high school students in 2009; A rate that is 19% lower than that of their White and Asian counterparts. Not only are thousands of public school budgets in the red, Federal programs, such as No Child Left Behind, are in need of increased funding and improved direction.

As America slowly climbs out of this recession, the heart of the recovery lies in our unified ingenuity and ambitions. We have a collective responsibility and a vested interest in creating an environment where learning and continuing education are the norm. In order to compete globally today and in the future, our educational standards must rise, and our tolerance for ignorance must shrink. The facts of the matter are staggering. As states make tough financial decisions regarding education budgets, the numbers tell us that the future success of a majority of Americans lies greatly on the education level attained by that individual.

According to recent polling data, there is a direct link between underemployment, unemployment and a citizen’s education level. Though there are always exceptions to the norm, the collected data tells this highly predictable story. A recent article by Gallup states that amongst the underemployed, “the underemployment picture for those without a high school diploma is even bleaker. They currently face a 36.2% underemployment rate, and are 50% more likely than high school graduates to be underemployed, three times more likely than those having a college degree, and four times more likely than those who have done postgraduate work. High school graduates are twice as likely as college graduates to be underemployed.” These numbers are identical in proportion to overall unemployment. These staggering figures also show why it is imperative that we tackle the problem of preparing our citizenry for global competition. If graduation levels do not improve, with an emphasis on all subjects, we will continue to see falling tax revenues and an increased need for hiring foreign talent to work in jobs that will not go to an unprepared American job force. Our interests in all sectors of the economy are at risk if the government does not act. Take healthcare, the majority of the increasing number of the uninsured are those who are unemployed or working part time shifts. To buck the costly trend towards increased underemployment, we need our schools to produce a better educated workforce capable of creating opportunities for the next generation who should aspire to do great things in America.

Going forward, it will be important for our schools to put students in a better position to succeed. Along with encouraging responsible parenting, we need to examine nationwide curriculum standards with an emphasis on building up the weakest links on the educational chain. As mentioned in my previous article, the return of nearly 8 to 10 Billion dollars per month of taxpayer money to the treasury, following the end of the Iraq War, will provide much needed funds for an educational system in dire economic straits. Along with updating the standards set in No Child Left Behind, actions taken to address state budgetary issues will provide a much needed boost to schools underperforming and/or on the brink of closure.

Today, President Obama signed legislation which will take big steps to remove bank greed from the student loan process. This law, coupled with changes to the health care reform bill, sets limits on the interest rates and minimum payments for those who are taking part in this expanded federal student loan program. In addition, the fact that many middle and lower income families will now have an added incentive to push their children to the college level, because of an even financial playing field for all Americans seeking student loans for continued education ,will encourage a culture of learning and innovation in minority communities nationwide.

America’s ambitious students deserve an honest bi-partisan effort to reform the educational system. As the Iraq War winds down, and resources become available to solve the problems facing our schools, let’s hope that our leaders will realize the urgency of renewing America’s intellectual status worldwide. We must use these incoming funds wisely. The education of our citizenry is a matter of national interest that must be addressed both immediately and responsibly. In the upcoming months, we should keep a close eye on the education debate. The time has come to bring the American educational system into the 21st century for all citizens, not just the elite and/or fortunate few. The future viability of American progress is at stake, and our ability to lead globally lies in addressing the paradigm facing our educational system.

Thoughts on war and the domestic agenda of the United States…

Upon analysis of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, it has become obvious that the priorities of the United States are in great jeopardy due to massive debt incurred from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only have over 4,000 servicemen (including my first cousin) and women died in the war on terror, but over 30,000 will return home with life altering battle wounds. In addition, billions in taxpayer dollars have disappeared due to mismanagement by hired contractors, overpayment to companies like Halliburton, and corruption by those who are responsible with using these funds appropriately as directed.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the war debt created by the Bush Administration has now come due, and with heavy interest. This year alone, it is estimated that US taxpayers will foot a bill of nearly 200 billion dollars for debt incurred over the past decade. Our military budget is 1.2 Trillion dollars this year, and the fact that war spending was billed as a separate budget entity under President Bush, only recently to be included in the full budget, demonstrates the degree to which fiscal irresponsibility was ignored in the name of fighting the “axis of evil” abroad.

The Obama Administration, despite escalating troop levels to finish the fight in Afghanistan, has already begun to reign in wasteful defense spending. Not because they intend to back down to outside threats, but because the cost of waging war for nine years has taken a critical toll on the domestic agenda here at home. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are at risk because we are spending nearly $10 billion a month fighting overseas. To date, the Iraq War has cost over $740 billion. In comparison, Afghanistan, the true stomping grounds of the 9/11 planners, has cost a mere $260 billion or one-third of Iraq. In all, over one trillion dollars have been spent on anti-terror based operations, and only now are we truly focused on finishing the job of dusting off the Taliban and capturing Al Qaeda leadership.

In stark contrast, W. Bush’s father was able to wage the first Gulf War at a total cost of $62 billion, including returning our troops home to safety upon completion of the mission. W, as opposed to his father, declared victory, but then chose to extend the conflict into an ambitious nation building operation. This decision was made with budgeting practices which ignored the long term viability of such an action. As the price of the War in Iraq skyrocketed, it became apparent that defense spending was spiraling out of control. Thus, the Bush Administration told the Pentagon to scrap unnecessary projects, such as a new fleet of Presidential helicopters, in a shallow attempt to appear frugal.

With defense spending dominating budgetary matters, the mainland American public was suffering dire economic consequences. From unregulated banks, Wall Street greed, and an exploding housing bubble, there is no denying that fighting two wars, while largely ignoring the home front, ultimately led us to near chaos in late 2008. While it cost taxpayers over $390,000 to deploy a solider abroad, middle class and lower income families saw their wages remain stagnant amidst inflation in healthcare costs and gas prices that peaked near $6 dollars a gallon at the height of the Iraq War.

In a sense, our country has not only lent its heart, soul, and children to fight these wars, we’ve sacrificed a decade worth of monetary progress to avenge a savage act on our soil. To debate the necessity of the Iraq War is futile; as it is coming to an end as you read this, but there is no doubt that the American people are less well off because of the irresponsible manner in which it was conducted. Our reputation abroad was damaged because of holes in the game plan, and the proximity of the conflict to Iran and Israel has allowed tensions to reach a boil. This brewing conflict took center stage, while our education, healthcare, and immigration systems required attention that was not being given to them.

Now is the time for us to focus on the problems that are right under our noses. President Obama has begun to draw down the troop levels in Iraq, diverting additional resources to the fight in Afghanistan, and setting his sights on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. The eventual return of a majority of our armed forces to the mainland will have a dramatic effect on the morale of the country, and aid in our ability to handle tough domestic issues. Going forward, it will be vital to refocus on building an America that is ready to lead both militarily and intellectually in the 21st century.

We need to become a healthier nation from a mental standpoint, and we need to reevaluate what kind of country we want to be going forward. Are we to be defined by our wars or by our ideas? Are we going to be a nation that fears the future, or relishes it? These questions are important to think about as we witness new foreign and domestic policies begin to take form. It will be in the vested interest of all Americans to take note of the impact of a less confrontational world view on our perception abroad, as well as the effects of having an extra $10 billion per month to use for domestic purposes.

Though in the end these wars we have waged are but a blip in the violent history of the world, we must realize that this is our time to regroup as a nation. The decisions that are made by our leaders going forward will ultimately define all of our futures. For this reason, we must all agree that no matter what our petty differences may be, our common needs do not change because we are at war. It is because of this fact that future wars must be fought within the realm of financial reason. Ultimately, we cannot afford to fight preemptively if it means bankrupting our nation again. The time has come to take note of what has happened to us, and to avoid repeating history in the future.

Addendum I: Effects of ending the War in Iraq: The successful return home of the brave soldiers stationed in Iraq should have short term positive boost on the morale of the entire nation. It will be our responsibility to help our biggest patriots mesh into the non-war world. We have to remember that this has been the longest War we have fought in several lifetimes, so it will be difficult even for the strongest minded of our troops to adapt to the calmness of daily life in America. In addition, a decline in tension between the US and Iran may be possible some time down the road given that much of the current day paranoia expressed by the President of Iran is due to our proximity to their border and their fear of American imperialism. Finally, world markets should welcome the renewed flow of billions more in domestic spending to renew the American economy, leaving the potential for a late 90's type boom.