Author: testsite_tjohara

Using the power of the People to fix a failed foreign policy

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 10, 2014 – We live in a strange and troubling world. There is a civil war in Syria and civil unrest in Ukraine. A 72-hour ceasefire is as close to peaceful coexistence as Israel and Hamas seem to be able to get. ISIL is orchestrating a caliphate against Christians and non-Muslims in Syria and Iraq, and “Green on Blue” attacks continue in Afghanistan.

How will the United States respond to each of these situations as they move forward? No one knows for sure.

How should the United States respond to each of these situations? Most people have an opinion, but very few have offered a cogent strategy.

Are you one of the few?

This is an election year, so your elected officials and Parties cannot be counted upon to offer much help. They are too afraid of making a political mistake to provide any real leadership.

Instead, you can expect the President to be reactive rather than proactive and to follow the most benign course possible. His Party’s members will define his decisions as “deliberative”… unless they are running for reelection. Then, they might try to distance themselves from his foreign policy just as Hillary Clinton is trying to do.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders will attack whatever choice the President makes. It will not matter whether they would have made the same decision themselves because the mid-term elections loom on the horizon and they are compelled to disagree.

You do not suffer from such a benighted approach. Your thinking is not constrained by partisan concerns… unless you allow it to be.

You have the luxury to structure a rational foreign policy rather than a political one. You can draw your own “Red Line in the sand”… or draw no line whatsoever. You can think beyond the election cycle and anticipate the long-term consequences of your policy and its associated strategies. Hopefully, you can even craft an approach upon which this Nation and other nations can depend.

Are you up to the task?

The Comment Section of this column is designed to create a forum in which opinions can be shared and vetted in a civil manner (see A Civil Assessment, July 9, 2013). All sides are welcome. There are only three rules:

  1. Frame your comments in a civil manner;
  2. Base your arguments on facts (rather than emotion); and
  3. Be respectful of the opinions of others with whom you may disagree.

No one has all the answers, and the collective wisdom of a group is almost always superior to that of an individual. However, you must be willing to listen to the opinions of others… even when they disagree with your position… and even when they are wrong. If you want your opinion to be respected, you have to respect the opinions of others.

Anyone can criticize a position. Anyone can recite mindless talking points provided by others with ulterior motives… and anyone can call someone names. It takes personal integrity to reserve your opinion until you have researched the issue and considered the relative merits of differing views. Only then are you in a position to forge a coherent solution. That is what real leadership demands.

In that regard, pretend you are President of the United States and have the full resources of the Nation at your beck and call. Your only limitation is the Oath of Office; the one in which you said:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Then, tackle the issue of foreign policy and the strategic decisions you would make with respect to one or more of the various international issues this week’s article has raised. See who agrees with your assessment as well as who disagrees with it and on what basis their arguments are made.

How do you believe the United States’ foreign policy should be framed? Think through a wide variety of scenarios and test how your policy would fare in both the near and long terms. Evaluate how your policy might impact other Nations and how they might respond to it.

Then, consider what strategies you would deploy with respect to:

  • Syria?
  • Ukraine?
  • Israel/Palestine?
  • ISIL/Iraq?
  • Afghanistan?

Would you support one side over the other in these conflicts? If so, which one and why?

How would you use diplomacy versus sanctions versus military intervention (either direct or indirect)? The choice is yours.

Past and future Presidents are welcome to join the discussion. In the event that neither description pertains to you, please recognize that your opinion is every bit as valid and important as theirs. Here’s hoping you will join the conversation, obey the rules, and encourage every other citizen you know, who truly cares about our Nation, to participate as well.

Together, we may begin to offer evidence that people of different persuasions can come together to form effective solutions. Maybe someone in Washington, D.C. will take note of what can be accomplished when rational thought trumps political posturing… when civic responsibility triumphs over partisan polarization… and when we come together to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Impeachment and lawsuits: Party tools of emotional extortion

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 4, 2014 – In a Nation that favors sound bites over solutions, it should not come as a surprise that the term “political integrity” has become little more than an oxymoron. Ethics be damned: If the Parties can use something to “stimulate the base,” you may rest assured they will pursue it. It is irrelevant whether it makes sense or is morally reprehensible as long as it can be used to extract money and votes. The recent discussion of impeachment and lawsuits are cases in point.

Impeachment is loosely defined under the Disqualification provision of our Constitution in Article II, Section 4. Uninformed individuals, which apparently include most members of Congress as well as the majority of the White House staff, confuse the term “impeachment” with “disqualification.” To use a baseball analogy, they seem to believe that impeachment is synonymous with the fans’ encouragement of an umpire to “throw the bum out.” They are incorrect.

While an umpire can act unilaterally, the House of Representatives cannot. The House can only preside over an impeachment hearing to decide whether a sitting President can be justly accused of having committed an impeachable offense. If the House votes to impeach the President, there are no immediate consequences other than the stigma of impeachment and a subsequent trial in the Senate.

Two former Presidents share the distinction of having been impeached: Andrew Johnson (who violated the Tenure of Office Act) and Bill Clinton (who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice). However, both avoided disqualification when the Senate could not raise the necessary votes to convict them in the second step that our system requires.

A President can only be removed from office if he or she has been impeached in the House and convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Our Founding Fathers recognized that a single Chamber should not have the authority to unilaterally take action against a President. They also recognized the extreme nature of removal and buffered any political manipulation by requiring a two-thirds vote for removal from office.

As an aside: You may wish to reexamine Senate Majority Leader Reid’s exercise of the “nuclear option” that eliminated the two-thirds requirement that formerly was necessary to overcome a filibuster. If that same standard had been revoked with regard to the Senate’s responsibility to conduct impeachment trials, both Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton would have been summarily dismissed from office and forced to live with that disgrace for the rest of time.

It is important to note that the Senate also created a burdensome precedent in the trial of former President Clinton. While a vast majority of Senators agreed that then-President Clinton had committed perjury and obstructed justice, they refused to convict on the basis that his conduct did not present a danger to the Nation and did not impair his ability to conduct his official duties. That rationale establishes a significant barrier to ever securing a conviction under the nebulous “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” language of Article II, Section 4, and effectively limits that outcome to the clearer elements of “Treason” and “Bribery.”

In today’s hyper-partisan environment, impeachment would be easy to secure against President Obama in the House if Republicans truly wanted it. Conversely, disqualification would be impossible to secure in the Senate. It is a simple matter of math.

Instead, the Parties pretend that “impeachment” is synonymous with “disqualification”… or they simply do not recognize the difference. In the first case, they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth with the intent to inflame emotions and rally their respective bases. In the second case, they are just stupid. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they know what they are doing.

In recent weeks, Democratic spokespersons have suggested that Republicans want to impeach President Obama while their Republican counterparts have denied any intent to pursue such action. This was good for fund-raising but bore little resemblance to the truth.

Speaker Boehner offered this statement in defense of the Republican position: “This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the President’s own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. We have no plans to impeach the President. We have no future plans.”

However, many Republican leaders have called for, or alluded to the impeachment of President Obama over the past few years including Representatives Bentivolio (R-MI), Burgess (R-TX), Chaffetz (R-UT), and Farenthold (R-TX); former Representatives Tancredo (R-CO) and West (R-FL); and Senators Coburn (R-OK), Inhofe (R-OK.) and Scott (R-SC).

More recently, former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Palin stirred the pot by calling for the President’s impeachment and chiding Speaker Boehner for his preferred alternative of suing the President. Ms. Palin said, “You don’t bring a lawsuit to a gunfight. There’s no place for lawyers on the front lines.” Apparently, America’s Sweetheart has a “fire in the belly” to impeach the President, or perhaps she was just using the comment to help launch her new television network.

Meanwhile, Democrats played the role of “innocent victim” while fanning the flames of the controversy. They deftly avoided any mention of the fact that they tried to impeach former President George W. Bush in 2008.

Perhaps the most entertaining denial was made by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-TX), who gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the House on July 30th in which she stated, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” In fact, Rep. Jackson was one of the 11 co-sponsors of House Resolution 1258 that did exactly that.

Rep. Jackson’s spokespeople have since tried to distinguish her comment by limiting it to Articles of Impeachment based on the use of Executive Orders that encroach upon authority reserved to the Legislative Branch under Article I. She was, in fact, disputing a motion on the floor to have the House pursue a lawsuit against President Obama for his abuse of power in that regard.

She argued: “(The approval to sue) smacks against the Constitution, which says there are three equal branches of Government. Therefore, the Executive has the right to perform his duties. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the President to do his job.”

Interestingly enough, Rep. Jackson actually frames the legal basis of the potential lawsuit in the first sentence. It is because the Constitution defines the authority of “three equal branches of Government” that the suit actually has merit.

Given that many members of Congress seem to struggle to understand the difference between impeachment and disqualification, it should not come as a surprise that many also seem to think that having “three equal branches of Government” means that they all have similar authorities. The concept of maintaining a “separation of powers,” as is implicit in the Constitution, seems to be lost on these individuals.

While the potential lawsuit has technical challenges based on standing, it is not frivolous based on facts. President Obama has stretched Executive authority to new limits and well beyond anything this Nation has ever experienced.

There are those who like to emphasize that the President has signed fewer Executive Orders than his predecessor. Unfortunately, the quantity of Executive Orders is irrelevant. It is the degree to which they expand Executive power or trample upon the separation of powers that matters.

For anyone who still wants to track numbers: The Administration has lost 20 cases that dealt with Executive overreach by a vote of 9-0 in the Supreme Court; a Court upon which two of the Justices were appointed by the President. If the House does file suit and secures standing, that number will likely grow to 21.

We need to remember what then-Senator Barack Obama promised in 2008: “The biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the Executive Branch, and not go through Congress at all. That’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” That “change” was totally within his control. He simply has chosen to ignore his promise.

Instead, President Obama has exploited his power and position in a relatively unprecedented way. He has grown comfortable in signing bills into law only to modify them outside of the legislative process. He has also grown comfortable in criticizing his opponents for the same behavior that he and his Party’s leadership also exhibit.

Immediately following the House’s vote to sue the President, the Democratic National Committee began an e-blast campaign to its constituents to gain political leverage. Its chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz even sent out a fund-raising e-mail entitled “Let’s give ‘em hell.” In it, she disparaged her Republican colleagues in the House and asked for donations of $10, $20, $50, $100 or $200 to help “send this shutdown/lawsuit crowd packing.”

Similarly, the President gave a speech in Kansas City, Missouri, in which he mocked his opponents: “Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hatin’ all the time. Come on.”

Missing the irony of his rhetoric, he went on to say:

“Think about this: They have announced that they’re going to sue me for taking Executive actions to help people. So, they’re mad because I’m doin’ my job. And, by the way, I’ve told them. I said, ‘I’d be happy to do it with you. So, the only reason I’m doin’ it on my own is because you don’t do anything. But if you want, let’s work together.’

“I mean, everybody recognizes this is a political stunt, but it’s worse than that because every vote they’re takin’ like that means a vote they’re not takin’ to actually help you. When they have taken 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, that was time that could have been spent workin’ constructively to help you on some things. And, by the way, you know who is payin’ for this suit they’re going to file? You. You’re payin’ for it.”

Mr. President, with all due respect, please consider the following:

  • The House is considering filing a suit, not because you are doing your job… but because there is evidence to suggest that you are trying to do theirs.
  • Telling members of the House that you would be happy to work with them may not be as effective as actually demonstrating a willingness to work with them. Perhaps you would have a stronger argument if you stayed in Washington, D.C., to address our Nation’s foreign and domestic crises rather than traveling around the country to attend fundraising events for your Party.
  • Partisan speeches before partisan crowds, in which only applause lines are delivered rather than constructive solutions, are considered to be “political stunts” by informed members of the electorate.
  • Time spent on fund-raising trips, rounds of golf, and luxurious vacations may also be perceived by some as time that could have been better spent “workin’ constructively… on some things.”
  • We also are acutely aware of who is paying for those activities, and some of us even recognize how much productivity is lost with respect to the People’s business when it is spent doing the Party’s business… or on private indulgences.
    Please consider trying something new such as leading by example.
  • Then, the Republican transgressions that seem to annoy you would become far more pronounced and your anger would seem to be more justifiable. As Secretary Kerry is learning in Israel, someone must agree to a ceasefire before peace can be brokered. It is much the same with respect to the political polarization in our country.

If both Parties continue to engender conflict so it can be exploited to create the fear that drives political donations, turnout on Election Day, and thoughtlessly partisan votes, our Nation will lose. Someone needs to agree to stop the insanity. If one side has the integrity to stop attacking its opponent and the other side continues to fire political rockets, then the world will know who the aggressor is. Otherwise, as the great philosopher Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Does U.N. stand for United Nations or Useless Neurotics?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 28, 2014 – Civil unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine (just to name a few), incomprehensible malnutrition and disease in the middle-African country of your choice, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, and serious immigration issues on the United States’ southern border create a disturbing level of unrest in the world, yet the United Nations seems to be missing in action. Instead, it spends time and money calling together the U.N. Security Council to vote on whether to adopt a resolution condemning the downing of the Malaysia Airlines passenger plane… as if the issue really needed to be debated.

The U.N. is broken. It either needs to be fixed or disbanded as was its predecessor, the League of Nations.

This is not to suggest that the U.N. serves no useful purpose. Some of its debates and resultant resolutions call appropriate attention to issues that might otherwise be ignored. However, on a world stage driven by critical issues, it is an emasculated organization that is difficult to take seriously.

As was mentioned in Presidential Chemistry: UN-wind the Syrian crisis (September 9, 2013), the first purpose of the United Nations is: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” (Chapter I, Article 1, Section 1.)

The record is fairly clear with respect to how ineffective the U.N. has been in that regard.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine (first mentioned above) are all Member States of the U.N. What progress has been made by the United Nations in addressing those countries’ civil unrest?

Israel is a Member Nation of the United Nations. The U.N. recently “demanded” that Israel and Palestine agree to a ceasefire to take steps toward achieving “a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders as envisioned in Security Council Resolution 1850.” It is worth noting that Resolution 1850 was originally passed in 2008, so you may not wish to anticipate its having an immediate impact on the current conflict.

El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have all been Member Nations since 1945. They also are at the root of the massive immigration that now confronts the United States on its southern border. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has called for a resolution that would essentially proclaim all illegal immigrants to be “refugees.”

Adrian Edwards, a spokesperson for the High Commissioner offered the following justification for the blanket definition: “They are fleeing an environment of transnational organized crime and other problems there, and we believe that amongst that there are people who will be in need of international protection.” One might sarcastically ask, “Who isn’t these days?”

At least the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is consistent. It has challenged Europe to apply the same rationale to the people who are fleeing across the Mediterranean Sea to escape the challenges that dominate the continent of Africa. It will be interesting to see how cooperative the French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese governments, et al. will respond to this edict.

The United Nations also has issued a myriad of resolutions on issues ranging from women’s rights to one of its favorites: Resolutions concerning humanitarian rights violations. Unfortunately, while these resolutions create a brief moment of “bad press” for any associated violators (as well as an instance of “political gain” for those officials who find a way of exploiting the decrees), they have limited practical impact.

Of course, the United Nation’s position on women’s rights, as espoused by its Commission on the Status of Women, might bear more weight if Member Nations such as the Pakistan and Islamic Republic of Iran did not serve on the Commission. Their occasional foray into the public stoning of a woman for what the rest of the world considers to be “Stone Age” transgressions diminishes the relevance of effort.

Similarly, the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights might have more gravitas if Member Nations like China, Ethiopia, Namibia, and Pakistan did not serve such a prominent role on the Commission. It is worth noting that Sudan is no longer a member of the Commission for Human Rights. Apparently, the U.N. “draws the line” at an active program of “ethnic cleansing.”

Then again, perhaps the United Nations is simply too busy issuing resolutions against the United States for its ongoing human rights violations vis-à-vis detention without charge (Guantánamo), use of the death penalty, drone strikes, NSA surveillance, and gun violence (just to name a few). The latter is interesting in light of the fact that one of the High Commissioner for Refugees’ rationales for pressing the U.S. to embrace all illegal immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is the violence that occurs in those countries.

The United States’ position on immigration (to the degree it has one) has also come under fire as a human rights violation; particularly with regard to instances that can be tied to racial profiling. Then-Secretary of State (now President-in-waiting) Hillary Clinton even provided the U.N. with “ammunition” to make the argument in her 2010 Report of the United States Submitted to the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review. She raised Arizona S.B. 1070 as an example of the type of racial profiling (with respect to immigration) that the Obama Administration rejects, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights quickly used that as a basis for its admonishment of the United States.

As an aside: Please read the entire report and then research the facts that underlie the Secretary’s 26 pages that proclaim our Nation’s outstanding record (unless an issue can somehow be tied to the Republican Party). It will provide you with excellent insight into the authenticity with which diplomatic documents are cast.

In any event, it may be time to present the United Nations with a “gold watch” in honor of its retirement as its behavior has become increasingly neurotic.

If it doesn’t find a way to become more relevant in the future, perhaps the money it spends on diplomatic dinners and trips could be redirected to buy food, water, medicine, etc. for the nations that so desperately need those resources. The world would be a better place if the U.N. were to deliver a few less meaningless resolutions and a few more meaningful actions.

What is your opinion?

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

POLITICAL SOLUTIONS: When rational thinking just won’t do

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 21, 2014 – From the apparent shooting down of Malaysian flight MH17 to the flood of immigrants across our southern border, only one thing is certain: Our response will be random rather than strategic. Since we have divorced ourselves from the concept of being a “Nation of Laws” and replaced it with an ad hoc approach that allows for more “flexibility” when it comes to addressing crises, the world may “like” us more when times are good, but it can no longer count on us when times are bad. We need a definitive foundation upon which to base our decisions, and we need to become far more consistent in setting an example rather than merely advocating one.

Our political leaders have demonstrated their proclivity for condemning someone or something whenever a crisis arises and then distancing themselves from the responsibility of having been caught by surprise. They apparently could not have anticipated civilian casualties in the conflict between Ukrainian forces and Russian separatist rebels. No one could foresee any renewed fighting between Israel and Hamas. Who could have possibly predicted any terrorist organization’s attempt to disrupt the newly formed “democratic” regime in Iraq? You can almost be assured the Administration will be dutifully shocked if there is any change in the status quo in Afghanistan after our scheduled troop withdrawal.

Our leaders evidently could not even envision an acceleration of illegal immigration attempts across our southern border when we announced that we would not be enforcing the letter of the law.

What if we were to demand exceptional results from our leaders rather than merely accept incremental improvement, embrace the status quo, or even endure a decline in the quality of our Nation’s performance and the opportunities it offers? That would require a transformational change from where we are today.

To quote R. Douglass Carter (an outstanding behaviorist and professional trainer), “Transformational change doesn’t come from doing things bigger, better, or faster. It comes from starting from a different place.” Mr. Carter is absolutely correct, and it is time we began to examine a different “starting place” for our Government’s actions.

Returning to the precept of being a “Nation of Laws” might be a good place to commence. Every individual who is elected to Federal office or appointed to the Judiciary either swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” (as is the case with the President) or to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Let’s start there since it establishes common ground among our leaders who have otherwise degenerated into hyper-partisan activists.

The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government. If we assiduously adhere to allowing only the Legislative Branch to create laws, then we absolutely know who to hold accountable if the laws fail to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States” as is their mandate under Article I, Section 8.

Correspondingly, if such laws become impossible to enforce by the Executive Branch (Article II), they should be resubmitted to Congress for reconsideration (i.e., amendment, replacement, or abandonment). Congress may follow a similar course with respect to any law that is deemed to be unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch (Article III).

The Executive Branch should remain focused almost singularly on the effective and efficient enforcement of the law under Article II. It has no constitutional authority to legislate or selectively administer the law. Perhaps it would not be challenged by suits it deems to be “stunts” nor would it have lost 20 Supreme Court decisions by 9-0 votes if it were to simply comply with the Constitution in this way.

If the members of the Legislative and Executive Branches honored their Oaths, the Judicial Branch might feel compelled to honor its Oath as well and restrain its actions to the directives contained within Article III.

If technological or societal shifts require a change in the Constitution, Article V provides the means for passing such Amendments. All other rights would be reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment or to the People under the Ninth Amendment.

See how easy that approach would be?

Now, let’s improve it with one more commitment that would eliminate the hypocrisy that seems to have infected our Government.

On March 20th during the 2012 Presidential campaign, I wrote an article entitled Foreign Policy: A rational approach for the U.S. In it, I posed three questions followed by a clear statement:

“What if all that time, money, and effort (spent in “nation building” abroad where we are not particularly welcomed) were redirected at resolving our own economic challenges rather than attempting to influence the political environments of other countries?

“What if we concentrated on reducing unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy in the United States (areas in which our performance has markedly worsened over the past few years)?

“What if we created a model of excellence that inspired other nations to look to us for guidance rather than trying to impose our ideals on them through our purported “nation building” efforts?

“That is the United States of America that I envision: a country that presents such a robust model of success that every nation aspires to learn from our model; a country that engages in the affairs of other nations upon invitation rather than by dictate.”

If we “started” from there, we might be able to take a more rational approach to the current crises.

UKRAINE

Earlier this year, we supported “rebels” in the Ukraine. At the time, that term applied to citizens of Ukraine who favored stronger relations with Europe and the United States rather than with Russia. When those “rebels” were successful and overthrew the pro-Russian government that previously was in power, the roles shifted.

Now, we oppose the new “rebels” in Ukraine. They are Ukrainian citizens just like their predecessors. However, they have been renamed “pro-Russia separatists” because they favor re-alignment with that country.

Russia has provided the “pro-Russia separatists” with weapons while Europe has been selling arms to Ukraine and Russia. The United States has only provided “non-lethal” assistance to Ukraine, but it has stepped up military aid to neighboring Poland and nearby Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

The situation escalated recently when the pro-Russia separatists allegedly used a sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missile to shoot down a commercial airliner. The attack killed 298 innocent victims. As a result, the pro-Russia separatists have been re-branded “terrorists.”

Contrast this to the fact that the new Ukrainian regime has only killed other Ukrainians with less-sophisticated weapons during the internal conflict; although to the victims, that may not seem to be much of a distinction.

The United States quickly and appropriately condemned the attack on MH17. Breaking from the protocol the Administration applies to internal issues, President Obama said, “Our immediate focus is on… investigating exactly what happened and putting forward the facts. We have to make sure that the truth is out and that accountability exists.”

With regard to the latter, many have blamed Russia as if it fired the missiles; asserting that it should be held accountable because it provided weapons and training to the “terrorists.” The Administration might be well-advised to shoot down that reasoning rather than allowing it to “drone on.”

Some have called for strong action to be taken against Russia “like Reagan would have.” Those who had the pleasure of knowing President Reagan rather doubt that he would have reacted irresponsibly. He was focused on stopping the Cold War rather than starting a new one.

What solution are some leaders suggesting? Possibly providing more direct military aid to the Ukrainian regime. That should fix everything.

ISRAEL, HAMAS, SYRIA, ISIS and IRAQ

Let’s simplify this discussion. We provide weapons to Israel. We also provide them to Egypt, which serves as a supply pipeline for Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

We also provided weapons to Libyan rebels to assist them with the overthrow of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Some of those weapons made their way into Syria to assist the rebels in that country’s civil war.

After we were bailed out of our “Red Line in the sand” fiasco with Syria (by Russia of all countries), we decided to support the Syrian rebels more directly in their effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Naturally, we began supplying them with weapons; some of which drifted into the control of ISIS, which used them to attack Iraq’s democratically elected and US-armed-and-trained regime.

Are you detecting an irrational and hypocritical trend yet?

Immigration

Meanwhile, while we are contributing to the unrest throughout the rest of the world as best we can, our own southern border is under attack in a certain sense.

Congress is compelled by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to “establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which it has done. However, the Obama Administration elected to ignore, or at least selectively apply such laws. It even admonished and sued the Border States that attempted to fill the void. Simultaneously, it tacitly endorsed flaunting violations of the same law by so-called “Sanctuary Cities.”

Somehow, our leaders failed to realize that this might be interpreted as an open invitation to ignore the rule of law when it comes to crossing our borders. Citizens living in countries with more widespread violence and poverty than the United States began to view our Nation as a viable and highly accessible alternative.

Luckily, the President has a phone and a pen. He recently called upon Congress to approve a $3.7 billion request to address the influx of illegal immigrants. While his “solution” allowed him to politically address “an urgent humanitarian problem” (as he described it) and shift the burden to Congress, his bill ineffectively masks the problem rather than solves it.

As was stated in last week’s article, the United Nations weighed in as well. It declared the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors, who flooded the United States, to be refugees based upon their flight from gang violence in their countries. To date, the U.N. has been silent as to why this is singularly a problem for the United States as opposed to an issue for its 193 member nations to resolve. It will be interesting to see what resources the U.N. allocates to the crisis beyond words.

Correspondingly, since the President was willing to immediately request $3.7 billion to assist these “refugees” who were fleeing violence, can help be far behind for U.S. citizens who live in similar environments? For example, over 82 Americans were shot (14 killed) in Chicago over the recent 4th of July weekend.

Need a little extra money? Foster a foreign refugee child. An organization is advertising tax-free reimbursements ranging from an average of $1009 up to $6045 per month per “refugee.” Just as a level set, our country has approximately 400,000 foster children of its own and over 100,000 orphans who are American citizens and would like a home. Where does the old phrase say that charity begins?

IN SUMMATION

  • What if we started from a different place?
  • What if we returned to being a “Nation of Laws”?
  • What if our elected and appointed officials were to honor their Oaths of Office?
  • What if we stopped supplying weapons to hostile groups in unstable nations in the interest of establishing “democracies”?
  • What if we focused on reducing unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy in the United States rather than immediately adding to it?
  • What if we were to become “such a robust model of success that every nation aspired to learn from our model”?
  • What if we were to become “a country that engages in the affairs of other nations upon invitation rather than by dictate”?

Then again, that might just exacerbate the immigration problem … but at least by then, we might actually have a rational strategy in place to address it.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Why our approach to immigration ‘borders’ on the absurd

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 14, 2014 – Our political “customs” are in evidence as we see the immigration issue unfold. Recently, over 39,000 families and 52,000 unaccompanied children have been detained for entering our southern border illegally. This latest surge adds to the 11-13 million individuals who are estimated to already reside in our country illegally. Yet, our elected officials are calling for emergency measures as if the problem represented a new phenomenon.

To put things in perspective: If these 11-13 million people were to reside in a single new State, it would have a greater population than all but seven of our existing 50 States, and on the high end, it would exceed the population of all but four States (California, Texas, New York and Florida). Roughly speaking, it would also qualify for somewhere between 16 to 18 members of the House of Representatives to go along with its two Senators. That represents real political power even when distributed among the existing States.

Now, you should understand how politically disruptive blanket amnesty could be.

Conversely, for those who would like to deport every individual who resides in this country illegally, here is some additional insight. According to a 2010 study by the Center for American Progress, it would take at least five years and cost approximately $285 billion dollars to apprehend, detain, prosecute, and deport even the lower estimated number of violators (i.e., 11 million) under our current law (assuming it was even possible).

Now, you should understand why blanket deportation is not a realistic option.

Why would our country not pursue an intelligent way to address the immigration issue that would protect the sanctity of United States citizenship, avoid threatening our Nation’s economy, and preserve the opportunities within our borders that attract more people to our shores each year to pursue citizenship legally than those who choose to immigrate to all of the other countries in the world combined?

The answer is easy: Our elected officials are driven to make political decisions rather than rational ones.

The actual issue is relatively complex and neither our Legislative Branch (which is vested with the responsibility under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution “To establish an (sic) uniform Rule of Naturalization”) nor our Executive Branch (which controls all of the Departments and Agencies that are vested with the responsibility and authority to enforce the related laws that are on the books) seems to be able to conscientiously address it.

The Legislative Branch (particularly with respect to its Conservative members) appears to be stymied by the word “comprehensive” in any discussion pertaining to immigration reform while the Executive Branch appears to believe it can pay limited deference to the Constitution and attend to the subject with a high degree of autonomy.

For purposes of simplicity, let’s examine the Obama Administration’s foray into addressing immigration given that enforcement is ultimately its responsibility.

As a starting point, here is an excerpt from a speech the President delivered in El Paso, Texas on May 10, 2011:

THE PRESIDENT:  “So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goalposts on us one more time.”
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER: “They’re racist!”
 
THE PRESIDENT: “You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”
 
“But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results… And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.”

Two years later on February 13, 2013, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano reaffirmed the President’s point during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s first hearing on immigration reform by saying: “I often hear the argument that before reform can move forward, we must first secure our borders. But too often, the ‘border security first’ refrain simply serves as an excuse for failing to address the underlying problems. It also ignores the significant progress and efforts that we have undertaken over the past four years. Our borders have, in fact, never been stronger.”

Obviously, these assessments were flawed. So, what has gone wrong?

The Administration chose a path of selective enforcement. Rather than enforcing the immigration laws as written, the Department of Justice went to great lengths to pick and choose from among those laws. It spent taxpayer money to sue border States that had the audacity to attempt to protect their citizens and property rights in the absence of Federal enforcement.  Meanwhile, the DOJ blatantly ignored the concurrent violations of Federal law by certain “sanctuary” cities.

While the DOJ’s position was upheld by the courts on the basis of the Supremacy Clause and the Federal Government’s usurpation of the field under Article I, Section 8 (as previously cited), the courts did not rule on the issue of selective enforcement. That opportunity might arise if the House moves forward with its recent threat to sue the President for exceeding his authority (with respect to the administration of the Affordable Care Act).

Other Departments and Agencies were also ordered to “stand down” with respect to the enforcement of the immigration laws as written, which brings us to the President’s most recent rhetoric and action.

President Obama declared the most recent surge in illegal immigrants to have created “an urgent humanitarian situation.” This is particularly true with respect to the unaccompanied minors who are being sent here with the belief that the current Administration will offer them amnesty.

The United Nations agreed with the President and demanded that the United States receive these children as refugees due to the violent environments in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala from which many of them have fled. You should ignore the fact that the homicide rate on a per-capita basis in the south side of Chicago rivals anything seen in these countries. You should also assume that the U.N. has no greater global crisis upon which to comment; just ask the citizens of Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, or Ukraine.

While the President has visited nearly every other “urgent humanitarian situation” that has occurred during his two terms (i.e., the aftermaths of hurricanes, mass shootings, etc.), he avoided visiting a detention center in Texas during his recent trip to Austin for a political fund-raiser and a relatively meaningless platform speech. Perhaps it’s because the situation continues to broaden (unlike a hurricane or shooting), or maybe it’s because the Administration’s past decisions may have contributed to the chaos.

The President offered the following clarification about his decision not to visit the detention center: “This isn’t theater. This is a problem. I’m not interested in photo ops. I’m interested in solving a problem.” Unfortunately, his subsequent political stops did not necessarily reinforce that refrain.

However, the President did take action. First, he followed the time-honored tradition of blaming the other Party (which a Republican President would have done as well). Next, he called upon Congress to pass a $3.7 billion supplemental spending bill to provide the obligatory Band-Aid. Then, he washed his hands of any responsibility and shifted that charge to Congress in the event the bill didn’t pass.

The President’s $3.7 billion supplemental bill asked for:

  • $1.8 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide housing for the detainees along with medical treatment for those who might be bringing communicable diseases with them;
  • $1.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to increase border security;
  • $433 million for Customs and Border Protection to cover its labor costs and pay for additional detention facilities and air surveillance capabilities;
  • $64 million for the Department of Justice to hire additional immigration judges and lawyers to process more cases; and
  • $303 million for other expenditures the Administration believes might be necessary (including paying repatriation funds to countries to which deportees are returned).

Here is the challenge: Part of the responsibility of the Executive Branch is (or should be) to prioritize the expenditure of approved Department and Agency funds for administering the laws of the United States.

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security (and Customs and Border Protection, which reports to DHS), and Justice, for which the President is seeking supplemental funding, have tens of thousands of employees and tens of billions of dollars in their cumulative budgets that are specifically allocated to address immigration issues. Someone should ask:

  • Why have these resources been so ineffective?
  • How will the supplemental funds be directed to solve the current problem rather than just mask its symptoms? (Note: The stipulated uses of funds seem to predominantly focus on handling the logistics of processing individuals who are entering the country illegally rather than preventing the occurrence.)
  • What is the obligation of the State Department to address the issue directly with the countries that are permitting and, in some cases, even encouraging the violation of our borders (i.e., the application of possible sanctions such as reducing aid on a per-capita basis with respect to the cost of detention, arraignment, disposition, etc. associated with each country’s contribution to the problem)?
  • What is the root cause of the sudden surge in illegal entries, particularly among children?
  • What alternatives exist to address the root cause to prevent the problem from expanding?

These are legitimate questions. Unfortunately, they remain unanswered as we are expected to accept partisan attacks and political posturing in their place.

The current dilemma is a petri dish from which child endangerment, human trafficking, potential pandemics, criminal activity, and even terrorism might be expected to grow. It’s our money and our country, and we will be directly impacted if this “urgent humanitarian situation” is not resolved quickly and completely.

If you haven’t read this column’s July 4, 2014, article (It’s called the ‘Declaration of Independence’ for a reason), you should.  There is a certain level of irony when you compare the situation we are facing today with several of the indictments against King George, III that led to the Revolutionary War.

For example: King George was charged with acting independently to create or delay legislation that negatively impacted the colonies. He was also charged with having failed to protect the borders of our country, which placed lives and property at risk. It would appear that little has changed in the 238 years that have ensued.

While there is little you can do with respect to the actions of the Executive Branch prior to 2016, you can at least address the ineffectiveness of the Legislative Branch. All 435 seats in the House and 33 seats in the Senate are up for election on November 4, 2014. Don’t just vote for the “D” or “R” after a candidate’s name. Take the time to become informed and cast a responsible vote rather than a partisan one. It’s the best chance you’ll have in the near term to prevent situations like the immigration crisis from spiraling out of control.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

It is called ‘The Declaration of Independence’ for a reason

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 4, 2014 – While small-town parades, backyard barbecues, and fireworks displays may be what many people associate with the 4th of July, Independence Day deserves far greater respect. Fifty-six men signed a single piece of parchment on this day in 1776 that contained 1338 words that changed the history of the world for the better. That hallowed document claimed independence not only for a Nation but for a People. Unfortunately, 238 years later, we are in danger of surrendering to the temptation of dependence.

Our Founding Fathers were quite different from us. Some people like to mock them for the hypocrisy of their ways (i.e., “They were just a bunch of rich, old, racist white guys who said ‘all men are created equal’ but owned slaves”). Try to ignore the irony that such criticism itself has ageist, racist overtones and displays a relatively benighted sense of historical context (given that the Founding Fathers were not all rich or old nor did they all own slaves or support such conduct).

These men had the courage to stand up to the greatest military power on the face of the Earth to establish even the possibility of the individual independence we now enjoy. The depth of their commitment can be seen in the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

In their case, the “pledge” of their “Lives” and “Fortunes” was not rhetorical. They were, in fact, risking their “Lives” and their “Fortunes” against enormous odds. Other than those who have served our Nation in armed combat, who else among us can even come close to making that claim?

“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen States of America,” in effect, brought a 27-count indictment against King George, III. It specifically stated how the King had:

  • Precluded the colonies from administering an effective form of self-governance;
  • Interfered with the establishment of a fair judicial system;
  • Acted independently to create or delay legislation that negatively impacted the colonies;
  • Failed to protect the borders in a manner that left the colonies subject to invasions that could result in the loss of life and property;
  • Obstructed justice;
  • Manipulated the judiciary;
  • Created a “Multitude of new Offices… to harrass (sic) our People;”
    “Kept… Standing Armies, without the consent of our
  • Legislatures;”
  • Quartered troops among the citizens and protected them from prosecution;
  • Interfered with world trade;
  • Imposed taxes without consent;
  • Denied the benefit of “Trial by Jury;”
  • Etc.

Note how many of these offenses were specifically addressed within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may also draw your own contemporary conclusions as to how far our Nation has come since overthrowing the despotic leadership of King George, III. Just try not to be too cynical.

Beyond pronouncing that we were “Absolved of all Allegiance to the British Crown,” the Declaration of Independence also provided a framework within its Preamble for the establishment of individual rights, the role of Government, and our responsibilities as citizens. To wit:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect (sic) their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States…”

Yet today, we still struggle with these concepts. While we may ostensibly “hold these Truths to be self-evident,” our actions often belie our words.

Are “all Men created equal”? Yes, but they are most certainly not treated that way.

We continue to categorize people based on their discernible physical differences and overt beliefs. Rather than diffusing the practice, our political Parties exploit it. They foster fear, envy, anger, and greed among groups based on sex, race, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, etc. in an effort to create more controllable demographics that can be targeted and counted upon to deliver money and votes. King George would be proud!

Correspondingly, many Americans have abandoned their political independence in favor of identifying themselves as a member of one of the major Parties. In turn, they conform to their Party’s position on the vast majority of issues and vote relatively straight Party tickets without giving either element much thought.

If you have been following this practice, take a moment to reflect upon how well that has been working. What great strides has your Party made toward its core agenda in the years you’ve been surrendering your vote to it? Try to avoid blaming the opposition for your Party’s lack of success. It’s no more accurate than when they blame their Party’s failure on your Party.

Moving on: Among the “unalienable Rights” that are mentioned in the Declaration, only one is qualified: “Happiness.” We are not guaranteed “Happiness.” We are only guaranteed the right to pursue it.

Those who would like the Government to guarantee at least some modicum of “Happiness” (or success) need to recognize that, in return for assuming that responsibility, the Government would have to be vested with the authority to define “Happiness.” Only then can the Government guarantee it.

However, that would allow the Government to exercise choices on our behalf like what we can own, what fuels we can use, what light bulbs we can buy, and even what type of health care insurance we must have.

If that were to happen, we’d be at risk of having a Government that might even extend our individual rights to entities that are little more than a legal fiction created to help organize society; entities like corporations and unions. Soon, those groups could be in a position to exploit their economic power to manipulate their members’ votes to unjustly influence the very foundation of our Nation. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers protected us by establishing our individual sovereignty.

Correspondingly, they succinctly described the role of Government in a way that had never been done before: “That to secure these (unalienable) Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Thus, our Government’s role is not to create, deny or limit Rights but rather to “secure” them.

More importantly, our Government’s “just Powers” exist only with our consent. We have the power. There is no King; there is no ruling elite. Otherwise, we might expect our President to act unilaterally when the mood strikes him, our Legislative Branch to exempt itself from the rules that apply to us, and our Judiciary to legislate from the bench based on personal beliefs and biases rather than a strict construction of the law. Again, thank goodness the Founding Fathers protected us by establishing our individual sovereignty.

The Preamble even explains what our responsibility is if those in office ever try to usurp our individual sovereignty: “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect (sic) their Safety and Happiness.”

This responsibility need not be exercised impulsively nor achieved through force. In fact, the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to explain that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” The first and best step is to independently become well-advised on the issues and candidates and affect change by casting an informed vote devoid of any Party influence.

The Founding Fathers instructed us that major reform is only required “…when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

While it may be fashionable to advance ideas such as socialism and the redistribution of wealth or to throw around terms like treason and impeachment, in most instances it is only done for the political purposes of inflaming the emotions of a constituency (particularly during an election year). The Founding Fathers advised us to take a more tempered approach.

The Government’s role is clearly limited by that other document, the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, its responsibility is to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general welfare of the United States” beyond its fundamental responsibility to secure our Rights (as suggested by the Declaration). We will not fall prey to the temptation of becoming dependent upon the Government to solve our problems. Otherwise, we might expect to see an expansion of both Government and spending; actions taken to attract the favor of special interest groups as opposed to serving the best interests of the general population of the United States.

The symptoms of such a systemic failure would be obvious: A push for higher taxes to cover increased costs and rising debt; a growing gap between the rich and the poor with an ever-shrinking middle class; increased levels of poverty, illiteracy, and the need for public assistance; and even a radical increase in the cost of running for public office as the money involved would create a political environment more akin to an auction than an election.

Luckily, the Founding Fathers graced us with independence, and we would be beyond foolish to relinquish it.

  • We have the independence to ignore the self-serving rants of others and instead respect and celebrate each other’s similarities and differences.
    We have the independence to pursue our own definition of “Happiness” and embrace the concept of meritocracy over mediocrity. If this approach ever fails, we will no longer be faced with the problem of immigration because our standard of living and the potential that surrounds it will no longer distinguish us from the rest of the world.
    We have the independence to exercise our best judgment when it comes to our representation as opposed to being forced to capitulate to choosing between “the lesser of two evils.”
    And we have the independence to reform Government (or those within it) if “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” create “the Necessity… to alter their… Systems of Government.”

In the meantime, enjoy the parade, eat a hot dog, and cheer for the fireworks. A bunch of rich, old, white guys did the heavy lifting in the past and never even expected a “Thank you.” Have a Happy Independence Day this Fourth of July.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

IRS and Political Targeting: Phony scandal or phony excuse?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 30, 2014 – The Internal Revenue Service has historically functioned as the glue that bonds Conservatives and Liberals together: No one likes the IRS. Unlike Robin Hood, who took from the rich and gave to the poor, the IRS takes from the rich and poor alike and gives to the inept (i.e., Congress). Correspondingly, its audit and confiscatory tactics would make the Sheriff of Nottingham pine with envy. Yet, it has finally found a way to split the country apart like so many of its sister agencies.

Conservatives now see the IRS as an evil wing of partisan enforcement while Liberals see it as an innocent agency whose minions made a few minor mistakes. Such is the politically polarized world in which we live today.

As a result, we miss an intelligent discussion about how our Nation survived its first 125 years without an income tax, why the Congressional budget isn’t indexed to force prioritization and preclude irresponsible spending, and even why IRS regulations are presupposed to supersede codified Federal law.

With regard to the latter, the recent battle over the possible partisan bias in its investigation of 501(c)(4) organizations ignores the contradictory standards established by 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)(A) versus Reg. 1.501(c)( 4)-1(a)(2)(i).

Under the Revenue Act of 1913, Congress passed 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)(A), which provides tax-exempt status to “Civil leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.”

In 1959, the IRS created Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i), which provides tax-exempt status to “An organization (that) is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.”

Unfortunately, the word “exclusively” applies to an absolute standard while “primarily” suggests a subjective analysis, and therein lies the problem.

Conservatives would like the term “primarily” to be interpreted liberally with regard to political organizations while Liberals would like the word to be interpreted conservatively. However, the current problem resides with the fact that the law can be subjectively interpreted at all.

The popular conservative view is that someone in high office directly or indirectly commanded, influenced or condoned a partisan interpretation of the Regulation in a manner that precluded, or at least impeded Conservative groups from receiving 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.

The popular Liberal view is that someone in low office acted independently to preclude or at least impede Conservative groups from receiving 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status during a Presidential election cycle.

Should we be asking the question: “Who is correct” or “Who cares?”

The first question goes to the essence of the political turf war. Many Conservatives would like to impeach the President since they have not been able to find a way to beat him in an election. Conversely, many Liberals would ignore any fact pattern brought before them to protect their President (just as the Conservatives did during the two terms of the prior Bush Administration).

The compelling nature of the question “Who cares?” is that it suggests that there may be a greater issue to solve; i.e., the two Parties’ willingness to divorce themselves from reason in an effort to continue their affair with their two favorite mistresses, money and power. As a result, political manipulation has now crafted a world in which money is “speech,” corporations are people (just as unions have pretended to be), contradictory statements are to be ignored, and facts are to be dismissed as coincidences.

An intelligent approach to campaign finance reform would address the issues of money being equated to “speech” and the fiction that corporations and unions are people. Since the Parties will never permit that, let’s concentrate on the more readily identifiable cases of contradictory statements and untenable coincidences.

President Obama and former Press Secretary Carney provide stellar examples of contradictory statements.

  • April 22, 2013: Jay Carney mentioned that White House Counsel had been apprised of the Inspector General’s pending report about the handling of tax-exempt applications by the IRS office in Cincinnati.
  • May 10, 2013: In an effort to preempt the impact of the IG’s report, which was to be submitted to White House Counsel later that day, Lois Lerner responded to a question at the American Bar Association’s conference that she had “planted” the day before. She exposed the “inappropriate” targeting of Conservative groups by a few low-level IRS employees in her answer.
  • May 13, 2013: President Obama says, “I first learned about it (the IRS targeting) from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday.” He goes on to describe the behavior as “outrageous.” Some believe it is “outrageous” to believe that White House Counsel would not have apprised the President of the pending report.
  • May 14, 2013: Perhaps recognizing the conflict with his comment of April 22nd, Jay Carney stated that the White House was notified about the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups “several weeks ago” but that neither he nor the President were personally notified. This calls into question how he could have mentioned it at a Press Conference on April 22nd when he says he didn’t know about it. Later that day, the President termed the behavior described in the IG report as “intolerable and inexcusable.”
  • February 2, 2014:  President Obama did an interview with Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) and responded to a question of whether the IRS had been used for political purposes to target Conservative groups by saying: “That’s not what happened… (a few IRS officials made) some bone-headed decisions… (and there is) not even a smidgen of corruption.” Note: This statement came after the President’s original assessment of the situation and after IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman and his successor, Steven Miller, both stepped down, and after Lois Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment right, was placed on administrative leave, and then “retired” from the IRS.
  • June 24-27, 2014: The President dismissed the challenges to his Administration as nothing more than “Washington fights” and “fabricated issues,” and he claimed that the Republican Party had created “an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals” with regard to the IRS.

While those are but a few of the contradictory statements, they exhibit the full range of variance we have experienced: From “outrageous,” “intolerable and inexcusable” to “fabricated” and “phony.” No wonder people are confused.

Next, let’s examine coincidences. Here are a few relevant facts from which you can draw your own conclusions.

  • Colleen Kelley, President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that represents employees of the IRS and 30 other government agencies, met with President Obama in 2010. The NTEU’s PAC supported the President’s campaign in 2008 (and again in 2012) and consistently opposed TEA Party candidates.
  • The day after the meeting, it appears that IRS employees began using certain phrases associated with the TEA Party to isolate 501(c)(4) applications for screening.
  • A few months later, emails are exchanged between an IRS official and an IRS attorney suggesting that the Washington-based Exempt Organization Technical (EOT) unit “is working the TEA Party applications in coordination with Cincy” and that Washington needs to be kept in the loop.
  • About a month later, the first “Be On The Lookout” (“BOLO”) memo is issued by the IRS calling for agents to pay particular attention to TEA Party groups seeking tax-exempt status as well as those of other groups that appear to be critical of the Obama Administration.
  • In a February 2011 email that wasn’t lost, Lois Lerner advised her staff that the TEA Party is “very dangerous” and that its applications could potentially be used to re-litigate the Citizens United case.
  • On June 3, 2011, David Camp, Republican Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, made the first of numerous Congressional inquiries of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman about the unusually high number of audits that are being conducted by the IRS with respect to Conservative 501(c)(4) groups and their donors. Commissioner Shulman denied the presence of any political influence about a month later.
  • Ten days later, Lois Lerner’s computer crashed, which resulted in the loss of all emails sent and received by Ms. Lerner between
  • January 2009 and April 2011 (even though Federal law mandates that such records be archived).
  • On September 8, 2011, the IRS canceled its email-archiving contract with Sonasoft after six years. Note: The Federal Records
  • Act requires that Federal agencies save email records both offsite and in hard copy format to prevent the loss of data in the event of a hard drive crash.
  • A month prior to that, a meeting was held with IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins, one of only two Presidential appointees in the IRS, in which he was informed of the targeting of Conservative groups. Subsequently, Carter Hull, an IRS attorney who oversaw tax-exemption applications, was told that any TEA Party applications would need to be referred to the Chief Counsel’s office (something that had never before been required during Mr. Hull’s nearly 50-year career with the IRS).
  • Republican Senators and Representatives continued to pressure IRS Commissioner Shulman about the screening anomalies as Democratic Senators and Representatives pressured him to “take… steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities.”
    On March 22, 2012, Commissioner Shulman testified before the
  • House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee that, “I can give you assurances… (t)here is absolutely no targeting” and the IRS reaffirmed the same in its report to the Subcommittee the next day.
  • Both Parties continued to press their points of view with Commissioner Shulman, Lois Lerner, then-Deputy Commission for Services and Enforcement Steven Miller, et al. causing Mr. Miller to order an internal review.
  • IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins met with President Obama in the White House on April 23, 2012.
  • The next day, Commissioner Shulman, two other IRS officials, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Jeffrey Zients, and a top White House official met in the White House for 8.5 hours. One day later, Chief Counsel Wilkins released new guidelines for screening Conservative applications.
  • On May 3, 2012, the IRS’ internal review determined that there had been a significant and inappropriate targeting of Conservative group applications.
  • A few days later, Steven Miller suggested that two “rogue agents” in Cincinnati were responsible and had been disciplined.
    On June 4, 2012, the Treasury Department’s Deputy Secretary and General Counsel were informed by the Inspector General that an investigation into the targeting was underway, which makes it difficult to assert that the White House had not been put on notice nearly a year before Press Secretary Carney acknowledged that fact.
  • The IRS remained in denial mode in its response to Congressional inquiries.
  • On March 27, 2013, Lois Lerner sent an internal email about possible assistance from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in which she stated, “So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”
    On April 22, 2013, Jay Carney mentioned the IG report that was pending, and the public saga began to unfold.

More recently, John Koskinen, the new IRS Commissioner told a Congressional Committee that 26 months of Lois Lerner’s e-mails had been lost and her hard drive had been shredded. He only informed Congress in June after he was specifically questioned about the issue even though he testified that he had learned about it in April. He also stated that the IRS reported the problem in February… just not to him.

Please note that Lois Lerner and others obviously knew of the issue before the formal investigation began because the crash occurred three years ago on June 13, 2011.

We were told that the unrecoverable emails involved communications with other federal agencies including the White House, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, the Treasury Department, and Democratic Members of Congress. Commissioner Koskinen also revealed that six other systems, which contained potentially relevant evidence with respect to who knew what and when they knew it, crashed. As Lois Lerner said of the original crash, “Sometimes stuff happens.”

Perhaps it’s just a strange series of coincidences that have befallen the IRS. After all, coincidences do happen.

For example, it’s probably a coincidence that Commissioner Koskinen reached the conclusion that “I don’t think an apology is owed (for the 26-month gap in Lois Lerner’s email record and the six other relevant crashes)” even though a majority of Americans seem to disagree. After all, he was brought in to “restore public confidence in the IRS” as the non-partisan head of the IRS.

In his previous role as a Presidential appointee, serving as Non-Executive Chairman of Freddie Mac, Mr. Koskinen received a total compensation of $550,713 from the Obama Administration.  Prior to that, he had been a major supporter of Democratic candidates and groups for a number of years donating over $100,000 to their campaigns.

Additionally, no apology is necessary for the IRS’s recent need to spend tax dollars to cover a $50,000 settlement for illegally disclosing the confidential donor information of a particular Conservative group. Speaking of coincidences, one of the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon charged that he “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”  It’s just like a certain 18.5-minute gap in a tape recording that would be the 1970s equivalent of a hard drive crash.

In today’s political environment, contradictory statements are common, and coincidences seem to occur as frequently as the concept of plausible denial. It would be nice to see the current Administration rise above the fray, recognize the legitimate concern the general public may have with the IRS, and take definitive steps to ensure that the facts will be thoroughly vetted by an impartial entity to ensure the full transparency that helped win the 2008 Presidential election.

Congressional Committees have proven to be ineffective in this role as have the political appointees and the Department of Justice. Perhaps it’s time for the President to call upon the DOJ to appoint an Independent Prosecutor to consolidate the investigative efforts. Let the facts be considered without any political bias and let the chips fall where they may. The Preamble to the Constitution calls upon us “to establish justice.” Let’s demonstrate that we still have that capacity.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

EMBARRASSMENT: Applying the President’s view of Iraq to the US

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 23, 2014 – With a demanding schedule the prior week that included a round of golf, a few fund-raisers, and several fairly irrelevant speeches, President Obama must have been pressed for time to prepare for his scheduled press conference on June 19th. Arriving an hour late, the President spent slightly less than 30 minutes presenting his five-point plan and answering a limited number of questions about the crisis in Iraq. However, that was more than enough time to raise serious concerns about his strategy and to draw a disturbing parallel between the sectarian regimes in Iraq and the political regimes in America.

President Obama’s five-point plan was stated as follows:

  • “First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq. As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas.”

Perhaps this is a “lessons learned” experience spawned belatedly by the fatal attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

  • “Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq, and this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located and how we might support efforts to counter this threat.”

Please note that we withdrew our last troops from Iraq on December 18, 2011. Yet, we evidently did not anticipate the possibility of a weak or sectarian-skewed Iraqi Administration. Otherwise, we would have already established a robust “intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance” program with regard to Iraq.

  • “Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces. We’re prepared to create joint operation… to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL. And through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund… provide additional equipment. We have had advisers in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisers — up to 300 — to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward. American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.”

Does the term “slippery slope” come to mind? It should. Also, you may wish to remember the promise that “American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists.” The political nuance of that phrase may become critically important over time.

  • “Fourth, in recent days we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region. Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL, and going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it. If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region. I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces like Iraqis take the lead.”

Let the nuance spinning begin. “American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq” but “we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region” and “we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.” Apparently from this day forward, taking “targeted and precise military action” will not constitute “returning to combat in Iraq.”

“Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq. At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners. And just as all Iraqi’ neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.”

Again, we withdrew from Iraq in 2011. Why are we just beginning to “lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq”? Political unrest surely could have been anticipated, and the need to build a regional coalition should have begun immediately upon our withdrawal (if not before).

After the delivery of this relatively feeble strategy, the press conference really became interesting. President Obama continued:

“Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds, all Iraqis must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities…

“The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.

“… It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.”

Substitute the words “America/American” for “Iraq/Iraqi,” “Republicans” for “Shia,” “Democrats” for “Sunni,” and “TEA Party members” for “Kurds” and you have the following:

“Above all, American leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for America’s future. Republicans, Democrats, TEA Party members, all Americans must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across America’s different communities…

“The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Americans.

“… It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the American people together and help them through this crisis.”

Ironic, isn’t it?

If you’d like to extend the irony, substitute the words “the American people” for “we,” “President” for “Prime Minister,” and “I” (or “me”) for Maliki (or “him”) in President Obama’s answer to the first question that was posed after he delivered his remarks. (Coleen McCain Nelson asked whether the President had any confidence in Prime Minister al-Maliki and whether he believed Maliki could bring political stability to Iraq.)

President Obama said, “Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own destiny and chose (sic) their own leaders. But I don’t think it — there’s any secret that, right now at least, there is (sic) deep divisions between Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders. And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.

“And so, we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki. And we’ve said that to him privately. We’ve said publicly, that whether he is prime minister or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia, and Kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interest through the political process.”

After making the word substitutions, this becomes:

“… Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in America was the right and the opportunity for Americans to determine their own destiny and chose their own leaders. But I don’t think it — there’s any secret that, right now at least, there is deep divisions between Democrats, Republicans, and TEA Party leaders. And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an American central government to direct an American military to deal with these threats.

“And so, the American people have consulted with me. And they’ve said that to me privately. They’ve said publicly, that whether I am President or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Democrats, Republicans, and TEA Party members all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interest through the political process.”

A day later in an interview with CNN’s Kate Bolduan, President Obama stated, “…if we don’t see Sunni, Shia and Kurd political support for what we’re doing, we won’t do it.” Why doesn’t he apply that same rule to his internal political decisions?

Why is the problem so clear to the President when it pertains to other countries yet so foreign to him when it pertains to our own?

Perhaps this will help. Sunni Islam is the largest branch of Islam just as the Democratic Party represents the largest element of our Nation’s registered party voters. Shia Islam is the second largest branch of Islam just as the Republican Party represents the second largest group among our Nation’s registered party voters.  In fact, the only material difference in the analogy is that Shia Islam found a way to win the most recent election rather than lose it as their Republican brethren did.

Meanwhile, the Kurds are an ethnic group rather than an Islamic alternative much like the TEA Party is more of a movement than a political Party.

To continue the analogy: The Middle East has been torn apart by sectarian differences for thousands of years, while the United States has been divided by political factions for several hundred. The majority of Iraqis pray to different forms of Islam, while the majority of Americans worship one of the polarized political Parties. In both cases, elements have evolved that harbor deep animosity toward one another driven by their radical interpretations of ideological beliefs.

Both threads of hatred and dissension seem to have become more extreme in recent times. Perhaps it is because communication technology has become far more advanced, so the animosity has gained greater public awareness. Then again, it could be because “sticks and stones” have given way to weapons of mass destruction and other high-casualty capabilities.

While the President was criticized by Conservatives for his initial “apology tour,” it may be time for him to consider doing a second one that acknowledges his contribution to the problem. His baiting and blaming of the “opposition” have grown to epic proportions (as has theirs of him).

The President (like his compatriots on both sides of the aisle) has been guilty of committing the “Holy Trinity” of political failures:

  1. Solving the wrong problem;
  2. Trying to shape solutions that conform to his Party’s platform and placate its base; and
  3. Either ignoring the potential for adverse consequences or limiting the window of such consideration to a single election cycle.

In the case of Iraq, we allowed hubris to create “mission creep” under the guise of “nation-building” and our support for “democracy.” Next, we shaped both surges and reductions in forces (as well as other forms of support) to follow political polls and correspond to election cycles. Then, we pretended that a democracy had been established and that no further action or assets would be required on our part other than the obligatory infusion of taxpayer money in the form of foreign aid and the sale of weapons systems to ensure that a hostile government could remain well-armed.

You can apply the formula above to the country of your choice and anticipate the same long-term results (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, etc.).

We haven’t exhibited a particularly strong proclivity for entering and exiting civil crises in an effective manner in other sovereign nations, and as long as we adhere to the “Holy Trinity” of political failures, we probably never will. Until we learn to recognize our own failings and begin to fix them, maybe we should be hesitant to lecture or interfere with others.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

Iraq implodes while President Obama wages “Golf War”

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 16, 2014 – With the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) marching on Baghdad, President Obama took bold and decisive action: He tried to reach the green at Sunnylands with a 7 iron from 180 yards. Much like his foreign policy, it fell well short.

That is not a “typo” in the title. The President of the United States spent this weekend giving a commencement speech, attending yet another Democratic fund-raiser, and playing golf in Palm Springs. For those who are inclined to lecture others about how the President deserves a vacation, please consider that there is a time and place for everything. We have a right to expect the President to do his job, particularly during a time of global unrest.

It was reported that President Obama had been in contact with National Security Advisor Susan Rice and requested that she keep him apprised of what was transpiring in Iraq. We can only assume that she was also asked to keep him informed about Ukraine as well since pro-Russian rebels shot down a military transport plane to cap the bloodiest day of fighting since that rebellion began.

Luckily, the President can count on Advisor Rice to use the same sharp assessment skills she brought to her analysis of the consulate attack in Benghazi and her recent judgment of Sgt. Bergdahl’s exemplary military service. Given that the President didn’t consider the former to be important enough to personally monitor in the Situation Room as it was transpiring and that he celebrated the second with a ceremony in the Rose Garden, it would appear that Advisor Rice and he share similar mindsets.

In the absence of a discernible foreign policy, it would seem that ISIS’ march on Bagdad might merit President Obama’s personal attention. Then again, he probably had already committed to give the commencement speech, attend the fund-raiser, and play a round of golf much like he had committed to attend two fund-raisers in Las Vegas for his re-election campaign less than 24 hours after the attack in Benghazi began. Perhaps, we should take pride in the fact that he obviously is a man of his word.

However, one might legitimately question President Obama’s apathetic approach toward the job he was elected to do. One need not be a Conservative to question the President’s priorities. Liberals and Independents should question them as well.

The President has given more speeches, remarks, and press conferences than he has spent days in Office. Would the impasse in Congress be as great if he were as engaged in breaking it as he has been in criticizing it?

While the President lectures about Climate Change and denigrates those who disagree with his position (i.e., referring to them as “flat Earthers” and “climate deniers”), he often does so by flying around the country (as he did this past week). Should he not be expected to reduce his own carbon footprint by using traditional media outlets and social media platforms to spread the word?

Should we not also question whether his interminable fund-raising schedule complies with the first part of his Oath of Office (i.e., “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States”)? Is fund-raising truly a part of any President’s fundamental duties? It certainly has nothing to do with the second half of the Oath in which each President swears to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Keep in mind: You pay for the fund-raising trips. You pick up the tab for Air Force One (at $181,000 per operating hour) as well as for Marine One, the Beast (the armored Presidential limousine), the motorcades, Secret Service and other event security, the President’s advance team, staging costs, and the travel, hotel, and food costs of the massive entourage that accompanies the President on these trips. Try to keep that in mind the next time you hear a speech about raising the minimum wage.

As an example: This past weekend, President Obama flew approximately 5,400 miles. The use of Air Force One alone cost taxpayers about $1.6 million. That would fund over 7.5 years of minimum wage employment at $10.10 per hour. Was it money well spent? You decide.

Of course, the President could have remained at the White House and become personally involved in plotting our course with respect to the insurgency in Iraq. Bizarrely enough, in his absence, Iran offered to protect the Iraqi government we left behind.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel repositioned the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf. If that proves to be important, you may rest assured it will be proclaimed to have been the President’s decision. Otherwise, it will be the Secretary’s (as occurred with respect to the five-for-one Taliban prisoner swap for Sgt. Bergdahl once public favor for the decision began to sour).

Inconsistency appears to be the hallmark of this Administration’s “lead from behind” approach to foreign policy.

After almost nine years of fighting and the loss of nearly 5,000 American lives, we failed to successfully negotiate a status of forces agreement before withdrawing from Iraq. This led to that country’s current state of vulnerability.

In fairness, we did provide the Iraqi military with weapons and equipment, and we attempted to train them. However, our Administration’s geopolitical naiveté was underscored by its Pollyannaish belief that a democratic form of government had truly been installed and that the Iraqi military would defend it. Guess what is going to happen in Afghanistan after we withdraw from it?

This isn’t to say that we should have lingered so long in Iraq or Afghanistan. We should have had defined missions in both countries and left as soon as those missions were completed. Unfortunately, we continued to follow our failed pastime of “nation-building” as if every country should be created in our image.

What makes the current aggression in Iraq interesting is that we not only supplied the Iraqi military with many of its weapons and equipment, but we also did the same for ISIS.

You see after our air strikes helped Libyan rebels overthrow and assassinate Muammar al-Gaddafi, weapons began migrating from that country to the rebels in Syria. There is speculation that the United States may have even been supplying weapons for that purpose.

Meanwhile in Syria, the better-trained troops among the rebel forces trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were al-Qaeda affiliates or members of other extremist groups. Can you guess who ultimately acquired the weapons flowing from Libya? Apparently, our Administration could not.

Then, President Obama drew a “red line in the sand” over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. After more than a dozen additional chemical attacks occurred, one of them gained sufficient media coverage to force the President to “change (his) calculus.” We were set to light up the Syrian night with massive missile attacks until Russia intervened.

Since then, the Administration has been delivering light weapons and non-lethal gear (e.g., advanced communications and medical assets) to “moderate” rebel groups in Syria in an attempt to curry favor with them should they successfully topple the Assad regime. Congress has even considered escalating the level of weapons to include surface-to-air missiles, etc. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

It should be noted that the most powerful anti-Assad factions are militant groups such as ISIS, which is so extreme that it has been denounced by al-Qaeda. Let that sink in for a few moments before you continue.

As you might expect, “moderate” rebel groups find it difficult to say “no” to ISIS and its ilk. Similarly, many members of the Iraqi Army abandon their equipment, drop their weapons, and run when ISIS approaches. Guess who scoops up the leftovers and gains strength? Now, guess who paid for all those goodies?

We apparently have done an excellent job of equipping ISIS as it is moving through Iraq almost as quickly as our troops did. Of course, there was greater opposition when we invaded because there was a strong government in place and the Iraqi military was committed to defending it.

For those who would argue that it was necessary to go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a despotic dictator, keep in mind who funded his emergence and supplied his army with weapons. If you need a hint, it is the same country that supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Mohammad Rezâ Pahlavi in Iran (among others) in hopes of garnering new allies in the region… much as it hopes to do again if it can influence the replacement of old regimes with new ones in Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.

Correspondingly, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run” is a campaign slogan rather than evidence of a cogent foreign policy. In many ways, al-Qaeda is a greater threat today than it was on September 11, 2001. It has metastasized and is no longer headquartered in one area or maintained in one form.

Beyond that, groups like ISIS have now been spawned and we are indirectly arming them. What sense does that make?

We need leadership and a clear foreign policy. Given President Obama’s seeming disinterest in either, perhaps we need to frame the issue differently.

Dear Mr. President:

We are in the deep rough and desperately need you to play the right shot. While you’ve gotten out of a lot of bad lies in the past, you can’t rely on your luck to continue.

If you play this too strong, we could all end up in a bunker. If you play it too weak, we could end up in a trap. If you play it too far left or too far right, we’re guaranteed to lose.

So, take all the elements into account. Then, don’t just take a swing at it. Know how you want to play it, where you want to land it, and how it will finish.

Giving a speech about what you’re going to shoot isn’t the same as actually doing it. At the end of the day, there will be a scorecard that tells the tale.

We hope you’re using the new balls you said you had in 2008 and 2012 because, so far, we haven’t seen them. And remember: You need an Eagle to win.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more

CLIMATE CHANGE: How Political Pollution is Affecting It

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 9, 2014 – The cold truth about Climate Change is that we should be working together for the betterment of the planet and mankind regardless of our political persuasion. Instead, most people have been pushed by their Parties to adopt extreme views reminiscent of the movie Dumb and Dumber. What we need most is a change in our political climate.

One group pretends that there isn’t any evidence of global warming while the other argues that we better begin building an Ark and it is entirely Man’s fault. Both sides insist that they are correct while the factual evidence suggests otherwise.

If there is one thing that the Republican and Democratic Parties can agree upon it’s that a divided electorate is better than a united one. Otherwise, the People might make rational choices rather than political ones.

The Parties greatly prefer to orchestrate incendiary campaigns that are designed to “polarize” opinions, heat up emotions, and extract cold cash in the form of political contributions. A political debate over Climate Change provides the perfect foil.

President Obama first launched his “all of the above” energy strategy during the 2012 campaign and reiterated it during his 2013 State of the Union address. From a political perspective, it was nebulous enough not to mean anything. However, it was difficult to reconcile with the President’s 2008 campaign rhetoric: “Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” and “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

It doesn’t appear that coal fits into the President’s plans for an “all of the above” energy strategy.

The President first tried to pass Cap and Trade in 2009 when the Democratic Party controlled both Chambers of Congress. While the bill narrowly passed the House (with eight Republicans supporting it), it was defeated when it finally reached the Senate floor a year later. Keep in mind: 2010 was a mid-term election year; a time when Senators are more likely to bow to the will of the People than to their Party in order to win re-election.

Effectively, the Legislative Branch had spoken. Nonetheless, as the old adage says, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” You just have to be willing to ignore the principle of separation of powers.

So, on June 2, 2014, the EPA invoked its own version of Cap and Trade by mandating a 30 percent reduction over 2005 rates of carbon emissions by fossil fuel plants by 2030. It had to distort its existing powers to assume such authority; but then, how else was it to exert dominion over our Legislative Branch?

Fortunately, the Executive Branch has the responsibility to preclude any misuse of power. Otherwise, we might be suffering from wars that were not supported by facts, a disparate system of taxation, government invasions of personal privacy, agency discrimination against politically targeted groups, attempts to intimidate the Press, and an intentional suppression of evidence with respect to investigations into such abuses. We might even be witnessing the use of Executive Orders and Signing Statements to manipulate laws passed by the Legislative Branch. That could never happen in the United States.

In support of the EPA’s recent action, its Administrator, Gina McCarthy declared, “We have a moral obligation to act.” Please note: She did not say, “We have an obligation to act morally.”

The nuance is important because the latter would engender rational Climate Change debates and solutions rather than political ones; applicable standards would have to be achievable rather than arbitrary and capricious, and positive incentives might take precedence over punishment.

Let’s compare our current political approach to Climate Change with a rational one.

THE POLITICAL APPROACH

The political lines were drawn early. Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, advanced the concept of Global Warming. During his first Presidential run in 1992 (which was a particularly dark period of his personal life), he wrote an ominous book about the pending ecological crisis. Then, he made a documentary in 2006, a few years after he failed in his second Presidential bid.

Because he was a highly partisan Democrat (and not George Bush), he was awarded an Oscar by Hollywood and a Peace Prize by the Nobel Committee. Accordingly, his movie became somewhat of a cult film within Liberal circles.

The media did its part by ignoring his abysmal academic performance in the field of science and the complete absence of any math courses during his college career. Instead, he was hailed as an ecological guru who, at the 2009 U.N. Climate Conference, boldly stated that computer models predicted that the polar ice caps may have melted away as early as 2014.

Naturally, Conservatives rejected Mr. Gore’s theories because he was a Democrat. While he obviously lacked credible credentials, they wouldn’t even entertain the thought that he might accidentally have a point worth considering.

As a result, the Parties were able to take two extreme positions. This allowed them to emotionally divide the electorate so it could be exploited for money and votes.

Both sides have since claimed that “the science is well settled” and “on our side” while neither actually understands it. We are left with the following scenario.

Each Party’s followers selectively decide what data to embrace or ignore based on how it conforms to the preconceived beliefs they have been conditioned to adopt. Many of their more vocal members lack even a basic understanding of the multivariate logistic regression that is required to fashion a viable theory. However, they will not hesitate to quote statistical data without ever questioning its reliability or validity.

If ongoing data doesn’t consistently support their Party’s position, they will ignore it or redefine the problem more generically. The latter is how “Global Warming migrated to “Climate Change” (a term that can accommodate any data).

The least knowledgeable among the Parties’ sycophants will try to conceal their ignorance through the time-honored political tradition of name-calling. This tactic is designed to shut down any intelligent debate that might otherwise ensue. Needless to say, politicians excel at this… probably because they have more practice.

The Party in power tries to pass (or block) legislation that matches the expectations it has created for its core constituency. If this fails (as it did with respect to Cap and Trade), the Administration may be forced to explore extra-constitutional measures to achieve its goal. Often, this approach is neither legally nor morally justifiable, but the last several Administrations have not seemed to care.

As a result, we have EPA regulations that accomplish the political imperative of delivering a “win” for a core constituency that is important to the upcoming mid-term elections. While the regulations create standards that have been described as “difficult to reach,” the industry will be punished with fines if it fails to the objectives.

Of course, these fines really won’t impact the industry. They will simply be passed on to the consumer in their own unique version of “trickle-down economics;” disproportionately impacting those who can least afford it.

In other words, the new regulations are reflective of the results that can be expected when partisan solutions are applied to real-world problems.

THE RATIONAL APPROACH

“Science” is mankind’s attempt to describe and explain natural phenomena, which it does not intuitively understand, through observation and experimentation. It often represents little more than a highly educated guess and rarely does the term “well settled” apply at the formative theoretical stage.

Does this mean that science should be ignored? No!

However, it does mean that all data should be assessed before defining the problem, identifying its root cause(s), evaluating its alternatives, analyzing any potential adverse consequences, and selecting a solution. It also means that the reliability and validity of the data should be proven within an acceptable range.

Without turning this into a scientific research paper, there is a strong body of evidence that demonstrates the Earth is warming (1-1.4 0F over the 20th Century). However, there is also evidence this is within the + 5 0F range that the Earth has cyclically experienced over the last 3,000 years.

We also know that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that accumulates in the Earth’s atmosphere to the degree it isn’t absorbed by natural CO2 sinks (such as the ocean, forests, etc.). However, there is evidence to suggest that elevated levels of CO2 are a trailing indicator of Global Warming rather than a leading indicator (i.e., CO2 is released by CO2 sinks like the ocean after warming occurs).

The discussion could continue but suffice it to say that legitimate arguments and counterarguments abound. So, let’s take a more pragmatic approach and explore the issue civilly.

Now, let’s have an intelligent discussion about how to reduce and ultimately eliminate our consumption of fossil fuels.

You cannot deliver “all of the above” by circumventing Congress, ignoring the Constitution, and crushing one of the resources you need as you transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. You also cannot drive growth through negative reinforcement. Entrepreneurs and inventors respond better to opportunities than they do to threats.

In 2011, EPA issued regulations that required gasoline and diesel fuel to be blended with certain types of biofuels to lower greenhouse emissions. “Big Oil” failed to comply and was assessed $6.8 billion in fines. The percentage of biofuel was scheduled to increase in subsequent years as were the fines to punish the industry’s non-compliance.

Unfortunately, the specific biofuel that was required did not actually exist in production. It only existed in a few experimental laboratories, which made compliance impossible. As a result, the Government was guaranteed to benefit from the fines while consumers undoubtedly absorbed the cost.

In contrast, what could have been accomplished if the Administration had taken the $535 million it paid to Solyndra (whose chief investor was a major political bundler for the President during his 2008 campaign) and used it to create a series of XPRIZE-like incentives to stimulate the types of programs described in the bullet points above?

The truth is: We can have “all of the above.” We just need rational solutions rather than political ones and positive incentives rather than punitive fines. We need to “energize” the private sector rather than deplete it of its resources. Maybe we should begin by cleaning up our political environment.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

Read more