Category: Politics

FREEDOM: Fueling the discussion about Climate Change (Part 2)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 17, 2014 – Nature abhors a vacuum and so do our major political Parties. In the absence of a cogent resource policy, they rush to fill the void; not with long-term strategic plans but rather with random musings that only have to survive an election cycle. We deserve better, but it appears that we will have to develop the solution ourselves.

Witness the debate over Climate Change. It sounds like an old Budweiser beer commercial with one side yelling “Man’s fault” and the other shouting “Natural cycle” in response. Of course, both sides are correct to a degree (no pun intended).

The real question becomes: Why argue about it? A real resource policy would establish acceptable parameters within which we could address the issue to the best of our ability and with far less histrionics.

Rather than endlessly arguing over our energy and environmental issues, we need to find common ground. No rational individual truly believes that we should haphazardly expend non-renewal resources until they are completely depleted. Similarly, no rational individual truly believes that we can gain an immediate benefit from technologies that do not currently exist or are so inadequately developed that their costs are prohibitive. Yet, those polar extremes are where much of the debate resides today.

For those who apparently have not grasped the full meaning of the term “non-renewable,” it suggests that at some time in the future the resource in question will no longer exist (i.e., oil, natural gas, etc.). While a failure to plan today may not significantly impact the next several generations, it still reflects an unacceptable level of contributory negligence that will negatively affect future generations.

Correspondingly, for those who think that Congress can “legislate” a solution, it simply cannot. We live in a biosphere; a closed system of multiple ecosystems that are largely self-regulating. Crafting solutions that are unique to our Nation have little to no impact on the behavior of other countries. Additionally, such laws are often used to assuage partisan agendas and to provide new sources of revenue generation for an otherwise inefficient government.

A logical framework to resolve the most complex and countervailing aspects of our energy and environmental challenges was established in FREEDOM: A Resource Policy for Energy and the Environment (Part 1). To wit:

“In order to form a coherent, integrated resource policy, the United States shall constantly evolve and balance its energy and environmental interests in a manner that is consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution. Such policy shall acknowledge any temporal and engineering constraints and seek the most effective and efficient path to transition from a dependence upon non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones as well as from a dependence upon foreign resources to the ability to achieve energy independence. It shall also recognize the difference between controllable and non-controllable elements when formulating regulations, require the fair and efficient application of such regulations, and prioritize the same on the basis of their expected impact on health, safety, environmental preservation, and other societal considerations. In addition, it shall use all reasonable efforts to educate and influence the rest of the world with respect to each nation’s fiduciary duty to function as a steward of the environment, which it shares with every other nation.”

While Part 1 focused on the internally actionable elements of this resource policy, it did not address any cross-functional aspect beyond the obvious relationship between energy and the environment. Part 2 addresses that component as well as the global facets of the issue.

The United States’ energy and environmental strategies are critically dependent and extremely complex. They must be maintained in a state of dynamic equilibrium not only with themselves but within the context of other competing interests.

This can be readily demonstrated by applying The FREEDOM Process™ to test how our Resource policy influences other policies within the FREEDOM acronym (see FREEDOM: A ‘Common Core’ enhancement for political leaders).

For example, improvements in our energy efficiency and independence impacts:

  • Foreign policy by increasing our economic and geopolitical leverage with other producers (particularly with respect to the Middle East, Russia, China and South America);
  • Education policy by influencing the direction of collegiate engineering programs associated with researching technological improvements pertaining to the more efficient, less environmentally invasive use of traditional fuels as well as the advancement of technologies that can deliver renewable energy;
  • Economic policy through any job creation associated with the research and implementation of evolving technologies as well any related favorable swings in international trade that result;
  • Defense policy by reducing the cost of operating aircraft, ships, vehicles, etc. to transport military personnel and supplies (noting that the United States military is the single greatest consumer of fuel in the world) while potentially also reducing foreign threats by suppressing the economic engines that currently serve as funding mechanisms for hostile entities;
  • Operations policy by reducing regulatory replication and overreach within our own Government; and
  • Ministerial policy by preserving and potentially improving the environment “for ourselves and our Posterity” as echoed by the Preamble to the Constitution.

Note how these interrelationships comply with the legislative mandate of Article I, Section 8 that directs us “to provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.” One decision impacts the others, yet we have the ability to maintain an appropriate balance between each of these interests if we pursue them logically rather than politically.

Speaking of political motivation, unrealistic time frames are occasionally established for little more reason than to create a revenue opportunity for the Government (i.e., fees, fines, etc.) or to “repay” a particular constituency for its monetary and electoral support. These regulations negatively impact the economy because their associated costs are routinely transferred to the consumer who has already paid taxes to fund the development of the regulatory infrastructure necessary to promulgate, monitor, and enforce such otherwise useless regulations. They also require the redirection of private sector money to fund compliance; money that otherwise could be distributed, reinvested, or used to lower pricing.

For example:  At the end of 2011, the petroleum industry was assessed approximately $6.8 billion in fines for having ignored a regulation that required the industry to blend certain types of biofuels into gasoline and diesel products to lower greenhouse emissions. On the surface, this seemed to be a reasonable regulation instituted to protect public health and safety, and it certainly placated environmental advocates who disliked “Big Oil.”

However, the particular biofuel that was required did not exist outside of a handful of experimental laboratories. Production quantities were not commercially available at the time nor would they be well into the future. That being said, the “quota” was increased for the next year from 6.6 million gallons of the non-existent fuel to 8.65 million gallons. So, the fines invariably increased while the impossibility of complying remained the same.

Is this fair? No. Is it typical? Yes.

This practice (perhaps better described as a revenue-generating, constituent-calming “charade”) must cease. We deserve and need real solutions.

Using regulation to demand the invention of technologies that do not presently exist is also a benighted approach.  Creating a rule that requires efficiency gains or the replacement of certain non-renewable resources with renewable ones by a specific date is political folly. There needs to be an honest admission that engineering advancements take time and are not always predictable. They also require innovation.

The latter is interesting because the Government’s current approach is punitive. Effectively:  If you don’t comply, you will be fined, sued, imprisoned, etc. It represents a classic form of negative reinforcement, which generally is not the type of “motivation” that is associated with innovation.

What if the Government offered substantive incentives to those who developed more energy-efficient solutions and new or improved renewable energy applications? Would we see an acceleration of development?

The answer is yes. Similar programs have been extremely successful in the private sector (e.g., XPRIZE® Foundation). Competition tends to accelerate development, enhance quality, and stimulate innovation.

The Government could design competitive programs that would “fuel” the excitement of developing enhanced energy solutions that provided favorable environmental results. In addition, successful corporate and university alliances could be fostered, and performance-based scholarships could be awarded or student loan credits could be issued.

The funding for these programs is readily available at no additional cost to the taxpayer. In fact, the programs can be expected to produce a much greater return on investment than the parallel expenditures the Government makes today.

The EPA has a budget of over $8 billion, much of which is spent in a manner that was never anticipated when it was created by President Nixon in 1970. Similarly, the Department of Energy currently has a budget in excess of $26 billion and has not made a great deal of progress toward its mission of eliminating our Nation’s dependence on foreign oil for which it was established by President Carter in 1977. Positive rewards programs can be completely funded from those agencies’ budgets. (Note: It was a Republican who started the EPA and a Democrat who started the DOE.)

This approach represents the “most effective and efficient path to transition from a dependence upon non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones as well as from a dependence upon foreign resources to the ability to achieve energy independence.” It also inherently creates jobs and encourages the voluntary investment of capital in research and development without dictating it.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the most pragmatic issue surrounding our resource policy: We share the Earth with others.

The resource policy statement addresses this as follows: “In addition, it (the United States) shall use all reasonable efforts to educate and influence the rest of the world with respect to each nation’s fiduciary duty to function as a steward of the environment, which it shares with every other nation.”

This is an extension of the “controllable” versus “non-controllable” argument (i.e., that we shall “recognize the difference between controllable and non-controllable elements when formulating regulations”). It also parallels our previous discussion of foreign policy in FREEDOM: The need to form a rational Foreign Policy (Part 1) in which we need to acknowledge and respect the sovereignty of other nations.

While environmental issues that are specific to a particular geography may be controlled by regulation (e.g., forests, water, and other indigenous natural resources), others may not (e.g., winds, seas, etc.). Regardless of how powerful the United States is, it cannot define regulations and impose them on other sovereign nations. To pretend otherwise is insolent.

However, the United States can establish reasonable regulations within its own borders that comply with the reasonable standards prescribed by the resource policy as described above. In turn, these standards can serve as an example to other nations.

Additionally, we can promote education that advances the beliefs that drive responsible environmental behavior.

Voluntary recycling in the United States provides an example of how effective this can be. Citizens were not threatened with fines (at least in most cases) nor provided any specific benefits for recycling glass, plastic, and paper. They were merely educated on the benefits and made to feel that they could contribute in a meaningful way to provide a better environment for future generations. As a result, the vast majority of Americans willingly complied.

The same results can be achieved, at least in pockets of the world, through an educational process that affects a similar cultural shift in behavior. Most people share a common characteristic: They fundamentally want to do “good.” If they are educated on the benefit that environmentally responsible behavior can have on their lives as well as those of their children and future generations, it is extremely likely that they will begin to emulate that behavior.

In turn, this can stimulate innovation on a global basis. There is no guarantee that future environmental solutions will be within the exclusive domain of the United States. In fact, history suggests otherwise.

Some of the most innovative solutions to alternative energy and conservation have been driven by scarcity rather than abundance. Resource “poor” societies have often been required to be more creative in their consumption of energy and the sources through which it has been derived. Perhaps it is time to begin rewarding innovation rather than threatening to punish it. Now, that would be a breath of fresh air!

__________

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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

FREEDOM: A Resource Policy for Energy and the Environment (Part 1)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 13, 2014 – Energy and the environment are inextricably combined, yet rarely discussed within the context of a national resource policy. Then again, we really do not have a national resource policy or any other clearly articulated policy for that matter. Let’s fix that by crafting an intelligent resource policy that inures to the benefit of our Nation’s core interests for both our generation and future ones.

Today, we have an energy policy that has been nebulously defined as “all of the above” in reference to our ability to use every form of energy, which apparently includes those that may not presently exist (as will be discussed in Part 2).

Correspondingly, the Executive Branch has encouraged the EPA to expand its authority to a point that essentially circumvents the authority granted singularly to the Legislative Branch by Article I of the Constitution. If a “cap and trade” bill fails to pass Congress, the EPA simply crafts regulations and enforcement provisions that attempt to accomplish the same objective… only without the safeguards of legislative representation.

The two major Parties have also elevated the discussion as only they can: With name-calling and claims that “well-settled science” supports their respective positions, which may change depending upon an environmental condition best described as the shifting of “political winds.”  This allows them to exploit emotional arguments as opposed to factual ones. While it does not solve the problem, it has proven to be exceptionally useful in luring money and votes from zealous constituents as well as the ongoing support of certain lobbyists.

Speaking of solutions, neither Party has offered particularly viable ones. In fact, their more extreme elements have staked out equally absurd positions.

The far Right prefers to ignore the fact that Man’s energy consumption unquestionably has an impact on the environment, while the far Left pretends that the global ecosystem is somehow magically within the regulatory control of the United States.

As was the case with the development of foreign policy in the first article of this series, we do not have the luxury of embracing extreme positions in designing a reasonable resource policy. We must craft a policy that is reality-based rather than politically biased; one that acknowledges its impact on other facets of our society rather than one that pretends to operate in isolation.

As we did in our first application of The FREEDOM Process™, let us begin that task with an acknowledgment that every federal Oath of Office includes the phrase and requires a commitment to “defend the Constitution of the United States.” Therefore, every policy of every Administration must be constitutionally grounded, and our resource policy is no exception.

Additionally, our Nation’s resource policy must be rationally driven rather than ideologically based. Constraints such as time and physics cannot be ignored; a distinction must be drawn between controllable and non-controllable elements, and a balance must be struck between what is technically achievable versus its short and long-term impact on other facets of our society.

Keeping those parameters in mind, let us create a succinct resource policy statement that can be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and can help restore and maintain a balance between energy and the environment both at home and abroad.

The Resource Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“In order to form a coherent, integrated resource policy, the United States shall constantly evolve and balance its energy and environmental interests in a manner that is consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution. Such policy shall acknowledge any temporal and engineering constraints and seek the most effective and efficient path to transition from a dependence upon non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones as well as from a dependence upon foreign resources to the ability to achieve energy independence. It shall also recognize the difference between controllable and non-controllable elements when formulating regulations, require the fair and efficient application of such regulations, and prioritize the same on the basis of their expected impact on health, safety, environmental preservation, and other societal considerations. In addition, it shall use all reasonable efforts to educate and influence the rest of the world with respect to each nation’s fiduciary duty to function as a steward of the environment, which it shares with every other nation.”

If we parse this straightforward resource policy statement, we can gain an understanding of how it might be applied in practice. (Part 1 of this series will address the internal aspects of this resource policy.)

The opening phrase, “In order to form a coherent, integrated resource policy…,” states the purpose of the policy.

It continues, “…the United States shall constantly evolve and balance its energy and environmental interests…” This identifies the necessary components (i.e., the inevitably intertwined policies of energy and the environment) and describes how they need to be addressed to achieve the objective (i.e., “constantly evolved and balanced”).

The final phrase of the first sentence defines the framework within which this must be accomplished: “…in a manner that is consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution.” The policy must follow the law regardless of how passionately some might feel about the environmental aspect of its energy component.

The resource policy statement continues: “Such policy shall acknowledge any temporal and engineering constraints and seek the most effective and efficient path to transition from a dependence upon non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones as well as from a dependence upon foreign resources to the ability to achieve energy independence.”

It is important to “acknowledge any temporal and engineering constraints” that exist. This mitigates the risk of introducing superfluous regulation and the associated damage it can cause. A well-conceived resource policy must be practical rather than theoretically sublime.

It also must reflect a path that intelligently transitions consumption from “non-renewable energy sources to renewable ones.” While “temporal and engineering constraints” preclude a regulatory demand that is chronologically unrealistic, a transition road map must be developed because, by definition, non-renewable energy resources will cease to exist at some point in time. Correspondingly, we have an obligation to serve as stewards of the environment for “ourselves and our Posterity” as the Preamble suggests.

In order to fulfill the legislative intent of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (i.e., to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States”), our Nation’s resource policy must also insulate us against any undue influence by foreign powers. It must wean us “from a dependence upon foreign resources to the ability to achieve energy independence.”

We have the means to become energy-independent. We also have the capability to become the leader in emerging non-renewable energy technologies that will help preserve the environment. We must construct an approach that advances that cause and retains the industry associated with it. If we can accomplish this, the United States will be positioned to address a myriad of issues that have historically led to political unrest at the global level.

The resource policy continues by calling upon us to “…recognize the difference between controllable and non-controllable elements when formulating regulations, require the fair and efficient application of such regulations, and prioritize the same on a basis of their expected impact on health, safety, environmental preservation and other societal considerations.”

This has import on several levels.

  • It limits the use of resource regulations to controllable issues involving energy and/or the environment.
  • It requires that such regulations be prioritized on the basis of their discernible impact on health, safety, and other aspects of our Nation’s general welfare.
  • Correspondingly, this precludes them from being promulgated to promote an ideology, pander to or attack a particular constituency or lobby, or expand the powers of an agency or branch of Government beyond what is defined within the Constitution.
  • It requires that such regulations be clearly communicated and administered fairly within committed time frames.
  • It demands that such regulations not be structured to advantage or disadvantage any particular group or to create a disproportionate hardship upon other equally valid social concerns (as will be discussed in Part 2).
    In addition, it suggests that such regulations have stated objectives subject to termination provisions if evidence indicates that those objectives are not being met.

Regulations are critically important to the degree they preserve, protect, and defend life, liberty, and property. They represent a vital element of a civilized society. However, they should be challenged when they extend beyond that limited role. They are not meant to be used to generate revenue, unjustly favor one entity over another, or placate a particular agenda. Whenever they are abused, they should be challenged and stuck down.

(So far, we have limited our discussion to the internal impact of the resource policy and, more specifically, to the nexus of interests pertaining to energy and the environment. This is not to ignore its international impact or other aspects of environmental preservation and improvement but rather to concentrate on the competing elements that require the greatest balance. Part 2 of this series will explore the international facets of this resource policy and how it ultimately influences other vital factors of The FREEDOM Process within 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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

FREEDOM: Foreign Policy that ‘Redistributes the Wealth’ (Part 3)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 9, 2014 – What would happen if the world began to accept its joint responsibility for maintaining humanity? What if it were to demand that the United Nations be true to its name and its mission rather than lackadaisically expecting the United States to fulfill that role? What would the consequences be from the United States perspective and how might our Nation recast its role on the global stage?

This is where Part 2 of this series on foreign policy ended and where Part 3, the final chapter, begins.

If the United States were to concentrate on building regional coalitions on a more proactive basis and the United Nations began to host global interventions as aggressively as it hosts diplomatic galas, perhaps many of the world’s greatest threats would begin to diminish.

Pragmatically, it is easier to “hate” the United States and a few of its allies than it is to “hate” the entire world or major regional coalitions. Bullying nations and terrorist organizations are comfortable fighting a single-front “war” (whether that war is literally or figuratively fought). However, when those who choose to threaten civilization are confronted by overwhelming odds in a multi-front theater of war, they most often bow to the inevitable because they essentially have no other choice.

While such an approach would dramatically reduce the expectations and burden that presently weigh upon the United States, our Nation’s involvement with the United Nations and other standing coalitions might actually increase. That actually would be an intelligent “redistribution of wealth” to reframe that phrase.

The United States has enormous military and humanitarian resources. If they were coordinated with the assets of other countries and administered in a way that enhances their effectiveness, the overall demand should actually recede with respect to our Nation.

Currently, the United States acts as The Lone Ranger in many regards without the benefit of a trusted aide-de-camp like Tonto (i.e., well-established regional coalitions and a strong United Nations). It is expected to “ride into town” and drive out the “bad guys” whether they are corrupt regimes, invading forces, terrorists, profound poverty, starvation, illiteracy, or a deadly disease

Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to defeat many of those enemies in our own country let alone throughout the world (with the ever-increasing levels of poverty, hunger, and illiteracy in the United States coming immediately to mind).

By leveraging the resources of other nations and managing them in a concerted effort, the world can benefit and so can the United States. NGOs and other humanitarian aid groups can help administer the humanitarian aspects of such initiatives, and nations can bind together to address those situations that demand military intervention or peacekeeping forces.

It makes far more sense to equip and fund the United Nations and other regional coalitions than it does to continue the time-honored political practice of equipping and funding openly hostile nations. Rather than supporting the next generation of dictators and the inevitable conflict they will cause, we could support an effort to eradicate the problem without directing any associated anger singularly toward our Nation.

To further reduce the targeting of the United States, it is time to enter the twenty-first century with respect to our military and diplomatic liaison activities. Maintaining many of our military bases and diplomatic Embassies, Consulates, Missions, etc. is predicated upon logistics and communications barriers that no longer exist.

When it used to take months to transport people and equipment across the oceans, a brick-and-mortar mentality was fully justified. In today’s world, it is not.

The United States’ global footprint can be significantly reduced. As was suggested in FREEDOM: The need to form a rational foreign policy (Part 1), the starting point is the withdrawal of troops and diplomatic resources from hostile nations. This eliminates the “occupation” justification that has been used by such nations (and other entities) to rationalize attacks against United States citizens and assets.

The stern warning issued in the foreign policy statement of The FREEDOM Process™ puts such nations and entities on notice with respect to the potential consequences of continuing their present courses of conduct. We simply need leadership with the courage to enforce it.

Military bases can be maintained in non-hostile nations particularly if proper multinational coalitions are proactively established. In addition, other military assets (e.g., aircraft carriers, etc.) can be used to create mobile platforms from which the mission of maintaining peace can be launched.

Correspondingly, diplomacy can be predominantly practiced via ever-advancing communication systems. While this may reduce the number of extravagant soirees, which have proven to be of limited importance other than to their attendees, it would allow serious diplomatic relations to be maintained.

The reduction in cost associated with this approach, both in money and lives would be significant. Consider how many of the 900 or so military bases we currently maintain could be closed, how many hard and soft targets could be reduced, and the “green on blue” attacks that could be eliminated. Then, consider how many of our pointless diplomatic outposts could be eliminated along with the Benghazi-like vulnerabilities they inherently create.

The associated money and resources could either be saved (to reduce debt) or intelligently redirected (such as on our own border). Why does this seem to be beyond the comprehension of those who control our decision-making process?

We also need to learn to respond to emerging global issues in a rational way. If a particular issue poses an immediate or impending threat to the United States, the Government’s response should be to consider all options without hesitation as its primary constitutional mandate is to “provide for the common Defence (sic).” All other global issues should follow a more tempered path.

Whenever possible, we should exhaust all diplomatic alternatives in an effort to resolve such issues in a timely manner. If initial diplomatic attempts fail, the next step is to pursue and impose economic and/or other sanctions that are scaled to achieve the desired result within the available time frame.

In the event that other nations choose to provide alternatives that allow a sanctioned country or entity to circumvent such sanctions, we need to deploy cascading sanctions against such enabling nations in a form that would offset any economic (or other) benefit they might otherwise enjoy.

If the issue continues to persist, additional combinations of diplomatic and sanctioning efforts should be tested until the objective is achieved or the issue transitions into an immediate or impending threat to the United States, at which time all other options (including military) must be considered.

Sanctions touch upon foreign policy as it relates to trade as well. The United States needs to establish equitable trade relations that stimulate competition rather than suppress it; a foreign trade policy that rewards innovation and a tax and regulatory environment that does not incentivize businesses to move offshore. Otherwise, our Nation will lose much of the economic leverage it has earned during its relatively brief history.

Consistently applied, this collective approach suggested above would:  (1) stabilize our foreign policy in a manner that is actually consistent with our Constitution; (2) work to create more of a global “equilibrium” with respect to economic and political interests; (3) shift the responsibility for “global order” to global entities (such as the U.N.) while maintaining the United States’ prominent involvement; and (4) dramatically reduce the cost of our forays into the affairs of other sovereign countries. With regard to “costs,” let us not limit our awareness to the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent. Let us also acknowledge the greater cost in human lives that has been incurred.

We have lost the lives of roughly 6,800 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and approximately the same number of contractor operators (who are largely unreported by our Government). When the VA stopped releasing public statistics of non-fatal war casualties in March of 2013, the number of service men and women treated at VA hospitals and clinics upon returning from Iraq and Afghanistan was approaching 1 million. According to a Stanford University estimate, approximately 35 percent of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  With regard to the latter, we only know that more returning veterans commit suicide each year than are actually killed in combat on foreign soil.

These are all real people. They are not just numbers to be reported at a Congressional Committee hearing or reflected upon by the President on Memorial Day, and the lives of each of these people impact the lives of an exponential number of family members and friends.

Correspondingly, we can only guess how much higher the number is in each category for the citizens of the countries that have hosted the theaters of war. One has to wonder if this and the Administration’s increased use of drones might be fostering even greater foreign animosity toward the United States than even the President’s dreaded Guantanamo.

One thing is certain: A consistent and constitutionally valid foreign policy can have a profound effect on many other facets of our lives and the lives of others. To quote the President, “We can do better.”  The real question is:  “Why haven’t we?”

(This ends the three-part series on foreign policy. Too often, our elected officials and potential candidates talk about our need to have a foreign policy but never offer one. Perhaps they are afraid to lead… or don’t know how. Now, you have a foreign policy statement you can actually consider. You may agree with the positions offered, disagree with them, or choose to improve upon them. They are only meant to stimulate thinking and to underscore the need for an actual foreign policy rather than just more rhetoric. – Next up: A resource policy that addresses energy and the 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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

FREEDOM: Foreign Policy leveraging coalitions and the U.N. (Part 2)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 6, 2014 – In today’s increasingly dangerous world, we need leadership more than rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy. That means we need to constantly evaluate what is transpiring on a global basis, what different paths those situations might take, how those paths might impact our Nation, and how and when we should deploy them. One path is built upon coalition management while the other is executed independently.

(Part 2 of this series on foreign policy addresses some of the generic issues that surround implementing a cogent global strategy. It also speaks to the subject of building and managing coalitions.)

The current Administration has constructed a regressive, ad hoc theory of foreign policy as its “leading from behind” descriptor suggests. This is akin to driving down the street backward while looking in the rearview mirror. You can do it, but it is not the safest or most intelligent way to proceed.

For the same reason we drive down the street looking forward, we need to “lead from the front” when it comes to foreign policy. Otherwise, we will be resigned to sporadically claiming victory for our rare successes while being forced to spend the vast majority of our time searching for scapegoats to blame.

In FREEDOM: The need to form a rational Foreign Policy (Part 1), we explored a far more definitive foreign policy than “leading from behind.” It stated:

“The United States shall respect the sovereignty of every other recognized nation and honor the limited responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution. It shall consider all reasonable requests from such nations and respond in a manner that is congruent with the Constitution of the United States. Correspondingly, it shall weigh the demonstrated actions of those nations towards the United States and its allies in the deliberation of such requests. Additionally, it shall reserve the right to respond to any threat issued or posed by any entity that places any citizen or property of the United States, either at home or abroad, in reasonable fear of an impending or imminent attack. In the event that such an attack is actually orchestrated, the United States further reserves the right to respond in its sole discretion and to the degree necessary to eliminate or severely mitigate the risk presented by such entity without any requirement to secure any other nation’s approval or the approval of a coalition of nations.”

A well-orchestrated strategy needs to be in place to support this foreign policy statement. It should anticipate a wide range of scenarios and have multiple alternatives available at any instant in time. The selection and deployment of such alternatives should be predicated upon a variety of factors including, but not limited to resource availability, timing, the probability of success, and the potential adverse consequences if the selected alternative fails to achieve its objective.

Correspondingly, when an alternative is selected, we have no obligation to publicly disclose its nature. This is particularly true with respect to its associated timetables, what resources may or may not be used, and what tactics will be taken. To do otherwise is to put opposing parties on notice, which potentially jeopardizes the best interests of the People.

At most, the mission needs to be defined clearly so the public may act as watchguards to prevent over-zealous politicians from allowing “mission creep” to modify and extend any related engagement for partisan reasons. Why action is being taken is of general relevance; the who, what, where, when, and how are not.

For example: While “no boots on the ground” may be a popular mantra to invoke during an election cycle, the phrase significantly limits our range of response to the current ISIS/Khorasan terrorist threat. It also reduces the alternatives for which these terrorist groups have to prepare.

Even if the Administration is sincere in its intent to limit our Nation’s actual “boots on the ground” to those belonging to the 300 military advisors it has sent to train Iraqi forces (plus 200 more sent to work in the US Joint Operations Centers (JOCs) in Baghdad and Irbil), it might benefit from revisiting the history of how the United States became involved in Vietnam (which started with about 700 military advisors and escalated to approximately 540,000 troops).

Solution: Do not disclose strategies and tactics to potential enemies, and do not deploy troops (even as advisors) without a clear mission objective.

Correspondingly, two things are fairly predictable relative to foreign policy deployment:

  1. We generally know which nations are geopolitically aggressive (e.g., Russia), which are traditionally hostile toward the United States (e.g., North Korea, several countries in the Middle East, etc.), and where terrorist organizations predominately are harbored (e.g., in parts of the Middle East and South Asia); and
  2. We know that regional coalitions can be important in controlling aggression, insurrection, and terrorism within such regions and that they take time to put in place.

Rather than waiting until a crisis has arisen, it makes eminently more sense to build coalitions in those regions proactively. NATO is a prime example of such an approach.

The American public should be outraged that we have to scramble to assemble a coalition in areas we should have reasonably anticipated potential problems. We lose valuable time and resources when we defer this exercise until the last minute. We also sacrifice whatever leverage we might have by allowing this to become a fire drill.

For example: In response to the current terrorist crisis in Iraq and Syria, Secretary of State Kerry seriously suggested that we may need to rely on Iran to provide the necessary resources to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. This is the same Iran with which we are attempting to negotiate a nuclear weapons ban; a negotiation that has already extended well past its 6-month limit even though the crippling economic sanctions, which had been in place, have been lifted.

Correspondingly, it is time to revisit the United Nations and its core missions and methods (as expressed in its Preamble):

  • “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…
  • “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small…
  • “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

“AND FOR THESE ENDS

  • “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours…
    “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security…
  • “to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  • “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples…”

Given those parameters, the U.N. is supposed to reflect an ongoing coalition of nations focused on maintaining peace and promoting human rights and progress. It is to enforce those goals through diplomacy as permitted and through armed force when necessary and “in the common interest.”

Abominations of mankind and behavior akin to ethnic or religious cleansings should not be met with a simple condemnation by U.N. Resolution. It needs to be stopped by the coalition of nations that ostensibly adhere to that organization’s mission.

In that regard, its member nations should demand action in opposition to beheadings, the use or expansion of weapons of mass destruction, or the shooting down of commercial airliners. In such cases, written reprimands are insufficient; a tangibly aggressive response is in order.

The U.N. also needs to begin to take a different tack with respect to its non-peacekeeping actions for which sanctions and Resolutions may be sufficient. Its problem lies with credibility of which it has very little.

Without the infrastructure (and backbone) to back up its perfunctory verbal scoldings and written admonitions, it may huff and puff, but the little pigs of the world are just going to scoff at its attempts. For an organization that has become overwhelmingly cautious about externally appearing to be “politically correct,” its internal decisions in recent years have been astounding.

Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran serve on the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women while continuing to demonstrate to the world what a real “War on Women” looks like.

The U.N. compliments that folly by having China, Ethiopia, Namibia, and Pakistan serve prominent roles on its Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. These nations are not exactly recognized as role models in that area.

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” as the Sudan was performing in Darfur while serving on the Commission.

If the other member nations do not demand reform, the United States should. It provides the headquarters for the U.N. as well as approximately 22% of the U.N.’s general budget and 27% of its peacekeeping force budget. As a result, the U.N. has to listen; particularly if the alternative is the United States’ withdrawal from the organization, which would effectively neuter the U.N.

A strong United Nations and other proactively established coalitions would serve the United States well. Our Nation would no longer need to project itself as the watchdog of the world; a capacity for which it lacks any international or constitutional authority.

Syria’s use of chemical weapons and ISIS’s barbaric behavior in that country and Iraq should draw a response from the entire civilized world. These assaults on humanity should be addressed by the United Nations and a Middle East coalition that should already be in place. They should not fall predominantly upon the United States and some haphazard coalition it might otherwise stitch together on an ad hoc basis.

Similarly, NATO and the U.N. could more aggressively inhibit Russian aggression in Ukraine. The U.N. and an Asian-Pacific coalition could more effectively douse the embers of insolence that occasionally glow in North Korea and protect the innocence of protest we are witnessing in Hong Kong.

However, as long as the United States allows itself to be positioned as the world’s police force, other nations will happily stand back and allow our Nation to bear the weight and risk associated with such responsibility. It is time to wake up, push egos aside, and make sure every nation has some “skin in the game.” Until then, we will merely be reinforcing the definition of insanity.

(Part 3 of this series will address the impact of shifting responsibility to the United Nations and coalitions; the internal opportunities that such a shift would bring; the development of a standard operating procedure with respect to global issues that do not pose an immediate and impending threat to the United States; and other aspects of having a real foreign policy in place.)

__________

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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

FREEDOM: The need to form a rational Foreign Policy (Part 1)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 29, 2014 – Life cannot exist in a vacuum, and neither can global stability. To politically paraphrase the first and second laws of thermodynamics: If energy is not expended to maintain equilibrium, the world will gravitate toward disorder. Less “energy” is required to maintain equilibrium than to rebuild it, so a proactive foreign policy is inherently superior to a reactive one.

In recent years, the United States has chosen to “lead from behind” when it comes to foreign policy. It has taken an ad hoc approach; often waiting until “disorder” has erupted before fashioning a strategy to try to restore “equilibrium.” As a result, the world has disintegrated into a perpetual state of “entropy” from a socio-political perspective.

This needs to stop.

We do not have the luxury of embracing an extreme: Either one of adopting a policy of geopolitical aggression or one of isolation. We also do not have the luxury of responding after the fact because we live in a world in which lives can be brutally disrupted or terminated by genuinely evil people equipped with a wide array of weapons and options.

Instead, we must frame a foreign policy that can be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and can help restore and maintain stability both at home and abroad.

It is time to adopt that type of foreign policy.

FIRST: Every federal Oath of Office includes the phrase and requires a commitment to “defend the Constitution of the United States.” Correspondingly, every policy of every Administration should be constitutionally grounded.

SECOND: The Constitution unfortunately does not provide direct guidance with respect to foreign policy. It wasn’t until 1936 when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), that the Federal Government was deemed to have exclusive and plenary power over the execution of foreign affairs based upon the fact that the United States is a “sovereign nation.” Therefore, the concept of “sovereignty” is a critical element in the development of our foreign policy.

THIRD: Two elements of the Constitution provide insight into the Federal Government’s fundamental responsibilities. Specifically:

  • The Preamble defines the purposes for which the Constitution was “ordained and established;” i.e., “…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity;”
  • Article I, Section 8 reiterates our Government’s two most important functions, which are to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”

These two excerpts suggest that our Federal Government’s primary purpose is to “pledge allegiance” to the People of the United States. They focus internally rather than externally, and they effectively acknowledge that our Nation is not vested with the authority to be the “watchdog” of the world nor is it responsible for the political or socio-economic decisions of other nations.

This is meant to frame an “isolationistic” point of view. It is meant only to reinforce a pragmatic reality.

It does not ban trade, treaties, or any other global interactions (which are generally addressed elsewhere within the Constitution). It simply asserts that the United States has no authority over the governance of any other sovereign nation any more than any other such nation has the authority to exercise dominion over the United States.

If we combine these three elements, we can create a succinct foreign policy statement that can be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and can help restore and maintain stability both at home and throughout the world. In other words, we can achieve the goals we originally established for our foreign policy.

The Foreign Policy Statement of The FREEDOM Process™

The United States shall respect the sovereignty of every other recognized nation and honor the limited responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution. It shall consider all reasonable requests from such nations and respond in a manner that is congruent with the Constitution of the United States. Correspondingly, it shall weigh the demonstrated actions of those nations towards the United States and its allies in the deliberation of such requests. Additionally, it shall reserve the right to respond to any threat issued or posed by any entity that places any citizen or property of the United States, either at home or abroad, in reasonable fear of an impending or imminent attack. In the event that such an attack is actually orchestrated, the United States further reserves the right to respond in its sole discretion and to the degree necessary to eliminate or severely mitigate the risk presented by such entity without any requirement to secure any other nation’s approval or the approval of a coalition of nations.

If we parse this straightforward foreign policy statement, we can gain an understanding of how it might be applied in practice.

“The United States shall respect the sovereignty of every other recognized nation…” reflects a simple international application of the Golden Rule. If we expect our sovereignty to be respected, we must respect the sovereignty of other nations.

We must recognize their right to advance the forms of government and socio-economic systems they choose and to do so in the time frames and via the methods and courses of conduct they deem to be appropriate. The United States has neither the responsibility nor authority to interfere with those choices regardless of whether the time frames seem frighteningly fast or painfully slow, whether the methods are evolutionary or revolutionary, and whether the selected course is channeled through civil suffrage, civil disobedience, or civil war… each of which our Nation has experienced.

In accordance with respecting the sovereignty of other nations, the United States will no longer waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in fruitless “nation-building” initiatives that have resulted in such abject failures in recent years, nor will it try to cast other nations in its image under the guise of spreading democracy. Instead, those assets will be productively redirected to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States” within the context of other policy areas associated with the acronym FREEDOM (i.e., the Resource, Education, Economic, Defense, Operations and Ministerial challenges we face) as articulated by the language, “The United States shall… honor the limited responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution.”

Continuing, “It (the United States) shall consider all reasonable requests from such nations and respond in a manner that is congruent with the Constitution of the United States.” This eliminates any argument that an appropriate focus on internal issues necessarily precludes the consideration of external issues. It does not.

However, it does establish boundaries with respect to foreign aid; boundaries that reflect responsible leadership from a fiscal and political perspective… boundaries that have been “missing in action” for quite some time.

In that regard, the sentence “Correspondingly, it shall weigh the demonstrated actions of those nations towards the United States and its allies in the deliberation of such requests” establishes sensible parameters within which requests for aid or intervention shall be considered.

There is a saying in the law: “He who seeks equity must do equity.” These parameters reflect that approach. The United States shall:

Concerning the latter group of countries, we can respect their sovereignty without contributing to their cause. Often, we can best demonstrate our “respect” for their sovereignty by divorcing ourselves from their interests.

In that regard, there are a number of nations (and other entities) that have been openly or covertly hostile toward the United States. They share a common thread: They base their hostility toward the United States upon its “occupation” of their land, which is usually tied to our military presence but occasionally extended to our business and even our humanitarian presence.

The openly hostile nations and terrorist organizations use our occupation to justify the most severe threats leveled against the United States and the most heinous acts committed against its citizens (such as the recent rash of beheadings). There are also covertly hostile nations that allege to accept our presence but choose to ignore “green on blue” attacks or permit “spontaneous reactions” to result in the deaths of diplomatic personnel and courageous contract operators.

If we are to honor our responsibility to “provide for the common Defence (sic),” we need to eliminate the “justification” that these nations and other entities assert. To do so, we should “respect” the sovereignty of these other nations by withdrawing all U.S. military personnel and “in-country” diplomatic liaisons and encourage all U.S. businesses and NGOs that are operating “in-country” to do the same.

Correspondingly, we should further demonstrate our “respect” for the sovereignty of these nations by withdrawing every single dollar and form of foreign aid and assistance we have historically provided. After all, these nations must perceive such aid and assistance to be an insult to their sovereign ability to lead their countries without outside interference.

Again, we could redirect a majority of the $30-plus billion in foreign aid we currently provide to address issues that have been growing within the United States such as illiteracy and poverty. Ironically, the preponderance of our foreign aid goes to a handful of nations (predominantly hostile to the United States) to fund their military investments. In effect, it is used to provide the weapons that perpetuate regional violence and often foster the underpinnings of dictatorships or splinter groups that might subsequently pose a threat to the United States.

Rationally speaking, the actions proposed above eliminate any purported justification for injuring or killing Americans at home or abroad. If the threats and killings continue, the final elements of the foreign policy statement are available to address them:

“Additionally, it (the United States) shall reserve the right to respond to any threat issued or posed by any entity that places any citizen or property of the United States, either at home or abroad, in reasonable fear of an impending or imminent attack.”

Henceforth, any nation or other entity that chooses to threaten any citizen or property of the United States will know what to expect.

More particularly: “In the event that such an attack is actually orchestrated, the United States further reserves the right to respond in its sole discretion and to the degree necessary to eliminate or severely mitigate the risk presented by such entity without any requirement to secure any other nation’s approval or the approval of a coalition of nations.”

In other words, any nation or entity that elects to attack any citizen or property of the United States can expect the issue to be resolved with extreme prejudice.

This is not meant to foster an era of geopolitical aggression but rather to dissuade those who might otherwise choose to test the resolve of the United States to reconsider their actions before taking them.

Note that the United States will not be compelled to ask for permission to “provide for the common Defence (sic).” It already has a document that clearly expresses that responsibility and authorizes any necessary action to fulfill it. This foreign policy statement simply puts the world on notice that our Nation will fully honor such obligation.

Going forward, potential perpetrators of monstrous acts would be well-advised to reflect upon the relatively immediate consequences of any assaults they are considering against the United States and its interests. A good rule of thumb might be to anticipate that the more violent the acts, the more disproportionate the response will be… and no options will be openly withdrawn for political purposes.

There you have it: A succinct, clearly articulated foreign policy that can be viably executed and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and can help restore and maintain stability both at home and abroad. Now, that wasn’t hard was it?

[Part 2 of this series will explore how The FREEDOM Process Foreign Policy would address the utilization of coalitions, organizations such as the United Nations, and the use of strategies ranging from reprimands to military action.]

__________

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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

FREEDOM: A ‘Common Core’ enhancement for Political Leaders

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 22, 2014 – Whether the Common Core State Standards Initiative is a success or failure, it was spawned by the plummeting performance of the public education system in the United States. Given the plummeting performance of our political leaders, perhaps it is time to consider establishing a set of expectations for those who aspire to provide leadership but seem to consistently fall short of the mark. Allow me to reintroduce The FREEDOM Process™.

I designed The FREEDOM Process to provide a framework within which to build and test national-level political solutions during the 2012 Presidential campaign. It offered a stark contrast to the political pablum offered by traditional Party platforms that promise everything to their core constituencies while ultimately delivering upon few of those promises.

It also strayed from the campaign practices that major Party candidates have become all too willing to adopt, which is to say:

  • Use your Party’s infrastructure to raise over $1 billion by pandering to the Seven Deadly Sins of Pride, Greed, Envy, Anger, Lust, Gluttony, and Sloth (as I described in my 2010 book, The National Platform of Common Sense);
  • Spend money on image consultants who will tell you how to look, dress, and act;
  • Spend more money on pollsters, political strategists, and speech writers to craft carefully scripted speeches that can be thoughtlessly read from a TelePrompTer as well as sound bites that can be memorized by candidates who otherwise might not be able to remember the names of the Federal agencies they intend to dissolve;
    Deliver those meaningless messages in an endless chain of sycophantic media interviews, “meet-and-greet” photo ops, and grossly over-orchestrated debates;
  • Spend even more money on marketing gurus whose sole purpose is to create emotional advertising messages (devoid of any serious content) coupled with often unfounded personal attacks on the “opposition” in the belief that the American voters are either too dumb or disinterested to question them; and
  • Mobilize a “ground game” to get the most zealous and easily manipulated voters to the polls to cast Party-conforming votes.

If I sound angry about how our political system has degenerated, it is because I am angry about it. But as former President Kennedy was fond of saying, “Don’t get mad. Get even.”

The FREEDOM Process is a way for each of us to “get even” with those who have trampled upon the Republic we were given. It is our chance to respond to the challenge Benjamin Franklin issued in answering a question posed by a certain Mrs. Powel at the conclusion of the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?” Without hesitation, Franklin answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” (Emphasis added.)

Today, we are faced with “leaders” who favor sound bites over solutions; “leaders” who can profess to have “no strategy” without suffering any consequence; “leaders” who are absolved of any culpability for favoring campaign fund-raising and vacations over doing the People’s work during times of crisis; “leaders” who portray past laws or practices as horrific yet use the same to defend the choices they make today; and even aspiring “leaders” who cannot find the courage to admit they are running for office yet can suggest that such decision hinges upon building a definitive plan they have, in fact, had six years to author. When this passes for leadership, I admit that it makes me angry.

In The FREEDOM Process, FREEDOM is an acronym. It originally stood for the following policies: Foreign, Resources, Economic, Education, Defense, Operations, and Medical (with the latter extending to any quality of life initiatives including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other “entitlement” programs). While others may not have made progress on their platform positions since 2008, I am hereby offering a modest revision to mine to improve its use among potential candidates and members of the general electorate.

I have chosen to move Economic Policy to the middle of the acronym because every other policy has an economic component that is central to its success. Secondly, I have changed the word Medical to Ministerial to more broadly describe the policy decisions that are related to that final category.  Henceforth, The FREEDOM Process will provide a road map for building and testing:

FOREIGN Policy

  • How we consistently interact with the rest of the world

RESOURCE Policy

  • How we intelligently balance the interests of energy and the environment

EDUCATION Policy

  • How we offer the true basis for equal opportunity and remain globally competitive

ECONOMIC Policy

  • How we continue to pursue “a more perfect Union” in a fiscally responsible way

DEFENSE Policy

  • How we diligently “provide for the common Defense” of our Nation

OPERATIONS Policy

  • How we establish and maintain the most effective and efficient Government possible

MINISTERIAL Policy

  • How we thoughtfully “provide for … the general Welfare of the United States”

The FREEDOM Process approaches policy formulation from a different perspective. It is meant to develop strategic solutions rather than political ones.

There is a meaningful difference between those two approaches.

A strategic approach:

  • Defines a problem;
  • Identifies its root cause(s);
  • Assesses all viable solutions (i.e., those that can achieve the desired objective within the constraints of time and resources that are available as well as in recognition of what elements are controllable, or at least subject to influence, versus those that are non-controllable); and
  • Vets the potential adverse consequences of each alternative (i.e., what happens if any associated assumptions prove to be incorrect; does life on Earth as we know it cease to exist, or can we just say “oops” and move forward over a relatively unlimited time frame?);
  • Before executing, monitoring, and adjusting the selected solution.

A political approach:

  • Only defines a problem in a way that conforms to the political objectives of a particular Party in power;
  • Applies a similar restriction to how it can identify the problem’s root cause(s);
  • Considers only half of the alternatives (or whatever percentage is offered by the Party);
  • Adverse consequences to the Party’s alternatives are assumed to be non-existent; and
  • The only time frame within which proposed Party alternatives are tested must coincide with the next two-year election cycle (since nothing matters to the Party beyond that period).

If this raw assessment strikes a partisan nerve, do me one favor: Before you attack the premise in the Comment Section that follows this article, please succinctly articulate the Foreign, Resource, Education, Economic, Defense, Operations, and Ministerial Policies of the most recent partisan Administration of your choice (i.e., the Obama Administration or the Bush Administration). There may be a Cabinet position in your future since the current and past residents of those esteemed offices seem challenged to communicate coherently in that regard.

In the following weeks, I will revisit the Foreign, Resource, Education, Economic, Defense, Operations, and Ministerial Policies I presented in 2012 and the impact they may have had on the direction of our country had they been implemented. I will offer them to stimulate a civil discussion of the issues (which seems to be otherwise woefully lacking in our Country), to openly share them with those who presently serve in positions of leadership or who intend to pursue such positions in hopes that they will either embrace them, improve them, or reject them with a rational argument rather than political one.

Additionally, I will expose some of the interdependencies of the policies in hopes that you will discover others. Each has an obvious economic impact either in cost or savings. Many policy decisions also influence other policies either favorably or unfavorably, and these influences should be taken into consideration in the formulation of any associated strategic decisions.

If we apply an intelligent approach to the formulation of our FREEDOM policies, we can learn to do significantly more with less; not only with fewer resources, less money, and in a shorter time… but with far fewer adverse consequences.

We need to learn to anticipate possibilities and have plans in place to respond to them when we choose to take actions that can have far-reaching consequences. There is no excuse for the plummeting performance our Nation has exhibited on a global level.

Benjamin Franklin warned us during the very infancy of our newly formed Government that it is our responsibility to preserve the Republic we were given. The Constitution’s Preamble suggests that it is an ongoing project: “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and provide the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” (Emphasis added.) These words do not suggest that the Republic was perfect in its inception nor that justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, or the blessings of Liberty were already in place. They suggest that we have an obligation to work toward those objectives, and we cannot honor that obligation without a full range of policies, intelligently assessed, impartially selected, and clearly articulated.

While dividing people into opposing political camps and fomenting fear among them may be an effective way to solicit political contributions and win elections, it will not help us make progress toward forming “a more perfect Union.” Neither will an ad hoc approach to crises. It is time to put partisan politics aside and begin taking our responsibilities seriously. It is time to focus on FREEDOM.

__________

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).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

Read more

13 Hours: Perhaps the ‘fog of war is finally lifting

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 11, 2014 – Two years have passed since the attacks on the diplomatic Mission and the CIA Annex in Benghazi during which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA Security Operators Tyrone “Rone” Woods and Glen “Bub” Doherty were killed. Yet, the details have been shrouded by the political “fog of war” that has filtered the facts… until now.

13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi is a new book that provides a fresh and unvarnished perspective of what transpired that fateful day. It is the story of the 13 hours of on-the-ground fighting in which its co-authors participated in trying to save the lives of those who came under attack in Benghazi.

Kris “Tanto” Paronto and John “Tig” Tiegen fought at both locations. Mark “Oz” Geist joined the fray at the Annex. Oz had been assigned to protect a Case Officer who was attending a dinner, and he was away from the Annex when the call for help came from the Mission.

Tanto, Tig and four others, including Rone, immediately prepped to respond to the Mission’s request for assistance that came with the words, “We’re under fire.” Rone contacted Oz and told him to terminate his operation and return to the Annex without delay.

After quickly gathering what they needed, Tanto told the Chief of Base, “We’re ready to go.” The Chief of Base looked past Tanto and told the Team Leader to tell his team “they need to wait.”

Ten minutes passed. This time, Tig was told to “stand down” and received a similar “wait” command like the one that had been given to Tanto.

About 10 more minutes passed when Tanto said, “We’ve got to go.” Again, the team was told to “wait.”

This time, Tanto and Rone decided to ignore the directive because of what they heard in the last transmission from the Mission: “They’re starting to light the buildings on fire. You need to get here.”

They recognized that time was of the essence. The book details what ensued thereafter at both the Mission and the Annex as well as during the escape to the airport.

Tanto, Tig, and Oz (the latter of whom was seriously wounded by the mortar rounds that killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at the Annex) have given testimony before closed Congressional Committees. Most recently, they have also been interviewed by Bret Baier of Fox News and Jake Tapper of CNN, and their stories have been seriously vetted by both networks.

As part of the vetting process and before he conducted his interview with these heroes, Jake Tapper queried the CIA about the delay in allowing forces to respond to the crisis at the Mission. The CIA responded as follows: “Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.”

Notice that the CIA did not say that such orders weren’t given. Its statement only indicates that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.”

State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki also gave a statement concerning the same issue. She said, “The Chief of Base wasn’t telling the contractors to wait under malice or unwillingness to help those under attack. There’s a huge and fundamental difference between a short delay for security considerations and a stand-down order.”

It should be noted that neither Tanto nor Tig suggested that such orders were given with “malice” or that the instructions should ever be interpreted as an “unwillingness to help those under attack.” The men simply presented the fact that the “waits” were issued three separate times (twice to Tanto and once to Tig).

While Ms. Psaki highlighted that, “There’s a huge and fundamental difference between a short delay for security considerations and a stand down order,” she didn’t address the fact that there may also have been “a huge and fundamental difference” with respect to what happened to Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith had the 20-25 minute delay not occurred. For those individuals, what constituted a “short delay” from Ms. Psaki’s viewpoint may have had eternal consequences for them.

But then, the world of politics often seems to operate in a different dimension than the real world. Apparently, what might appear to be a well-orchestrated attack to even the most casual observer can initially appear to be the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest over a video to seasoned political operatives who have the entire Intelligence community, DoD, and State Department at their disposal.

Here is the timeline concerning the political pronouncements of causation with respect to the attacks:

  • September 12, 2012 – President Obama gave a brief statement in the Rose Garden in which he cautiously stated, “… it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about” before leaving to attend a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas and then heading toward another one in Colorado.
  • September 12, 2012 – Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
  • September 14, 2012 – Then-Press Secretary Jay Carney offered the following: “We don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this (the Benghazi attack) was not in reaction to the film… We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.”
  • September 14, 2012 – President Obama and Sec. Clinton attended a ceremony upon the return of the remains of the slain Americans.
  • September 16, 2012 –  Then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made her infamous tour of the Sunday political shows reiterating that: “The information, the best information, and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”
  • September 19, 2012 – National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen testified before the Senate that the attack was an act of terrorism.
  • September 19, 2012 – Citing Dir. Olsen’s testimony, President Obama began distancing himself from Ambassador Rice’s remarks and denying the existence of a cover-up saying: “If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information. Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So, the whole thing defies logic.”
  • September 20, 2012 – President Obama and Sec. Clinton released an ad on seven networks in Pakistan in which they denounced the anti-Islamic video that had initially been referenced as the potential source of the first attack in Benghazi.
  • September 20, 2012 – The President declines to call it a “terrorist attack” at a town hall meeting during his Presidential campaign.
    September 24, 2012 – The President again declines to refer to Benghazi as a “terrorist attack” while making a guest appearance on The View.
  • September 25, 2012 – The President mentions the anti-Islamic video six times in his speech to the United Nations: “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”

The confusion over the cause was most famously dismissed by then-Sec. Clinton, who chalked it off as “the fog of war.” Two years after the event, the fog hasn’t cleared in the political sense.

  • We still do not truly know why Ambassador Steven’s requests for additional security were not honored;
  • We still do not know why past attacks in Benghazi (including several on the Mission itself), which drove the Red Cross and British outposts from the city, did not serve as a sufficient warning to the State Department particularly in parallel with the significance of the September 11th date;
  • We do not specifically know why Ambassador Steven chose to be in Benghazi on that date (given that the Embassy in Tripoli would have been far more secure); and
  • We do not know what the President’s involvement was after he was initially informed of the attack at approximately 5:30 PM (EDT) by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey (other than he made no appearance in the Situation Room that evening).

What we do know is that Former Secretary Panetta, Gen. Carter Ham, then-head of AFRICOM who broke the news to Panetta, and Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region have all testified that they initially reported that the assault of the Mission to be a terrorist attack. Yet, many Americans characterize the vacillation of initially blaming the actions of September 11th on a video rather than a terrorist attack to be little more than a partisan witch hunt. After all: “What difference at this point does it make?”

The reason it might matter is because this Administration promised to be the most transparent in history; it promised to be non-partisan; and it promised to be far more reflective than the Bush Administration. It might also matter to the families of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. It might also matter to Tanto, Tig, and Oz as well as several other individuals (who have chosen to remain anonymous); men who were there trying to save the victims and who fought side-by-side for 13 hours.

As Jack Nicholson said in his poignant portrayal of Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise, as Lt. Kaffee, demanded the truth: “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? … I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom … And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, “Thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”

Some of us don’t deserve the truth. Still others may not want it. For those who thirst for it and are willing to accept the consequences, pick up a copy of 13 Hours.  Find out what it’s like to “stand post” and be “on that wall.” Tanto, Tig, Oz, and their teammates were there. They courageously fought through the real “fog of war,” and their book, 13 Hours, offers the “truth” for those who want 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

Election season and ISIS: The two contexts of ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 8, 2014 – In recent months, the Islamic State went from “a JV team,” according to President Obama, to “a threat to the civilized world… beyond anything that we’ve seen … (and) as sophisticated and well-funded as any group,” according to Secretary of Defense Hagel. The President has since revised his position to reflect a need to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Had the President reflected upon the political environment in which he participates, perhaps he would have come to that conclusion earlier. After all, it’s an election season; a time when the Parties traditionally attempt to “degrade and ultimately destroy” each other.

Brace yourselves; we are in the final two months of a mid-term election. This is a period of no-holds-barred politics featuring massive ad campaigns, a suspension of ethical behavior, and a surge of “boots on the ground” to get uninformed citizens to cast an emotional vote.

The Democrats will trot out the words racist, sexist, and homophobe to try to damage the reputations of their Republican counterparts sufficiently to defeat them. Conversely, in an ironic twist of fate, Republicans will try to tie their Democratic challengers to President Obama, whose approval ratings are plunging faster than property values in northern Iraq.

The Parties will not hesitate to misrepresent the truth to “degrade and ultimately defeat” their nemeses or to fund-raise among their most ardent, low-information supporters. Name-calling, innuendo, and fearmongering will be the “name of the game” until November 4th. If they get caught, they can always “walk back” their comments and pretend they cannot be held responsible for what they have said.

The candidates will also flood us with campaign promises they have no intention of honoring. After all, they know we won’t hold them accountable… because we never do.

In 2012, we returned over 90 percent of our incumbents to office despite their dismal approval ratings. That is why we have so many elected officials who pontificate change but seem incapable of achieving it after serving multiple terms in office.

Behavior doesn’t seem to enter into the equation either. For example: When Senator Robert Byrd passed away in office after serving 51 consecutive years, former President Clinton dismissed Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan in a eulogy by saying, “I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, (and) he was trying to get elected.” Okay then… now we understand the Senator’s membership in the KKK and his vehement opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was just politics.

To tip the scales further, the Parties have taken it upon themselves to draw Congressional Districts in a manner that makes little sense other than to ensure their incumbents get re-elected. Until we begin to vote for the best candidates rather than defaulting to whoever represents the Party with which we most closely identify our political leanings, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for the debacle our Government has become.

We live in an interesting time when form often triumphs over substance; when name recognition and public persona seem to have become more important in the selection of our leaders than their character or solutions. We have allowed our major Parties to foster a divide in this country and to profit from it. Yet, we appear to be continually surprised at how ineffective and inefficient our resultant Government is.

It is time to wake up.

Too often, we have allowed followers to be hailed as leaders. Individuals who might find themselves hard-pressed to qualify for management positions in the private sector are cast as being the best our country has to offer for higher office.

Actually, “cast” is a good word because so many of our elected officials merely play a role that is written for them by their Party.

Think about it.

Because we have allowed the cost of running for office to become prohibitively high, we tend to attract followers rather than leaders; individuals with such a deep, narcissistic need to “win” that they are willing to surrender their right to exercise independent judgment in exchange for the massive sum of money that’s required to successfully compete in the political auctions that have replaced our elections.

In return for the millions (to billions) of dollars it now takes to be the “high bidder,” they must bow to their Party.

An image consultant grooms them, styles their hair, and tells them what to wear. That is why we see so many of them during election years wearing jeans and an open-collar shirt to show that “they’re in touch with the common man”… and of course, their sleeves are inevitably rolled up in the tired metaphor that suggests “they’re ready to get to work.”

Meanwhile, the Party’s marketing gurus are waging their own “War on Dignity” as they convince naïve people that it’s an honor to stand behind a politician as he or she reads a speech and serve as little more than human wallpaper. The truth is that the bobblehead brigade is selected on the basis of its composite mix of age, sex, race, heritage, and any other characteristic that can be visually exploited to add credibility to the speech.

There was a time when credibility was established by the stature of the office and the “content” of the speech… but no more. Now, it must be manufactured by a marketing gimmick.

Also, behind the scenes, pollsters are scurrying about trying to determine what we “want” to hear rather than what we “need” to hear. The data is parsed by a group of political consultants who separate the favorable information from the unfavorable and pretend the latter never existed. Next, they share what’s left with a team of professional writers.

Then, the writers craft the message that the actors… sorry, I meant “political leaders”… read from a TelePrompTer. If they do a good job reading the text, they’re somehow deemed to be great orators and worthy of leading us forward.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, we have little insight into our candidates’ breadth and depth of knowledge. We only know the words the writers chose to reflect the points the strategists favored from the data that was harvested from the polls that were taken. We really don’t even know what our candidates would have worn had someone not dressed them.

So, the next time you hear a politician speak and find yourself feeling frustrated… at least now you know why.

Luckily, it doesn’t have to be this way.  If you’re willing to become more informed and cast an intelligent vote on November 4th as opposed to a political one, you can begin to do something about it. As a picture published by ProLiberty.org suggests, there are three types of voters: Leftwing, Rightwing, and Knowing. Which one are you?

__________

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

Putin, Cameron, and Obama: A vivid contrast in leadership

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 30, 2014 – While many members of the media seem to be preoccupied with President Obama’s fashion choices, those of us who live in the real world have a greater concern about his choice of priorities. He appears to place a more significant emphasis on political fundraising and delivering canned speeches than he does on developing cogent strategies and providing visible leadership. Die-hard supporters may dismiss such charges (arguing that the President is diligently involved in the background), but the facts belie their zealous commitment.

In recent days, we have witnessed three distinctly different styles of leadership: Vladimir Putin’s “actions speak louder than words” tactics with respect to Ukraine, Prime Minister David Cameron’s direct and specific approach to the threat of ISIS, and the President’s laissez-faire attitude toward global crises.

Which one do you consider to be most effective? Let’s examine all three.

President Putin’s strategy is the most transparent. Whether we like it or not, we know where he stands because his actions are taken openly. He may publicly deny Russian involvement in Ukraine, but it is difficult to ignore evidence in the form of the tanks, missile systems, and large convoys he has authorized.

However, we get the impression that President Putin really doesn’t care if his intentions are obvious. He only cares if someone responds to them. In that regard, he seems to believe that he, too, will have “more flexibility” during our President’s final term.

Then, we have Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom. Today, he discussed the elevation of Britain’s terrorist threat level from “substantial” to “severe.” By the time he finished his comments, we knew what the elevated status meant, why it was changed, and how citizens of the UK should respond to it.

PM Cameron reflected upon the beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley. He did not equivocate in his description of ISIS stating, “What we are facing in Iraq now with ISIS is a greater threat to our security than we have seen before.” He called it “the most important issue facing this country today.” He distinguished ISIS from al-Qaeda and the Taliban by saying, “With IS (sic), we are facing a terrorist organisation not being hosted in a country but seeking to establish and then violently expand its own terrorist state” while noting that it could not be “appeased.”

The Prime Minister also provided the details of specific actions that would be taken. These included: The passage of new legislation to simplify the process of canceling extremists’ passports if there is probable cause to believe that they may be traveling in support of ISIS; the need to fill “gaps in our armoury” to address the ongoing threat posed by jihadists in the UK; and a push among member countries, who will be in attendance at this weekend’s European Union Summit in Brussels, for a more coordinated effort to track jihadists. The latter would restore a compact that previously enabled police and security services of EU members to share passenger records.

While some American pundits continue to blame President George W. Bush for inciting jihad as a result of the Iraq War, PM Cameron was quick to state, “The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq War ten years ago. It existed even before the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves sometime before the War.”

He continued, “This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with perceived grievances over Western foreign policy. Nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship, or instability in the region – as important as these things are. The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear. It is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that is condemned by all faiths and faith leaders.”

Meanwhile, President Obama went on record by saying, “We will continue to consult with Congress … but I don’t want to put the cart before the horse; we don’t have a strategy yet.”

Cynics may say, “Why should we have a strategy?” After all, it was only this past January that the President dismissed the ISIS threat by saying, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it’s accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers’ uniforms, it doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”

However, we must realize that misinterpreting global issues and entities has been elevated to an art form by this Administration.

  • During the Arab Spring, the Obama Administration characterized the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” and “moderate” group that did not have a large enough base to win the Egyptian Presidential election; assertions that it rapidly disproved on all counts. We committed to providing the Morsi regime with tanks and planes before they began persecuting Christians and women.
  • Additionally, Morsi was revealed to have denounced Israelis as “bloodsuckers”, “warmongers” and “descendants of apes and pigs.” Try to imagine how much more difficult the current Israeli/Hamas conflict would have been had Morsi remained in power. Luckily, we were spared further embarrassment when Morsi was imprisoned and Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi replaced him as the sixth President of Egypt.
  • The Administration didn’t immediately embrace President el-Sisi because it had already acclaimed Morsi to have been “democratically” elected. Since that time, President el-Sisi has been an important ally in tamping down the conduit of munitions to the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza. While peace has yet to be achieved between Israel and Hamas, the situation might have been far worse had it not been for the el-Sisi regime.
    Speaking of the war in Gaza, the Administration has done little to quell tension in that area. Despite having renowned Secretaries of State in Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, the situation in that area has degenerated rather than improved.
  • Then, there is President Obama’s famous “red line in the sand” in Syria. The President’s “calculus” was to change if chemical weapons were used by the al-Assad regime. Approximately 14 chemical weapons later, one was captured on video and the Administration was forced to react. Our Nation was posed to unleash a missile attack on Syria when calmer heads prevailed, which is a strange description to apply to Vladimir Putin.
  • However, Putin stepped in and used his political leverage to back down the Assad regime and reach a settlement on a disarmament plan for its chemical weapons.
  • Speaking of President Putin, the Obama Administration has pummeled him with words and limited economic sanctions since he inserted Russia into the Ukrainian revolution. So far, those admonitions have severely intimidated him… except for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and recently unveiled occupation of eastern Ukraine.
  • Meanwhile, North Korea remains as unstable as its leader, and China has become comfortable buzzing our planes and beginning to encroach on territories it has desired for years but has been hesitant to pursue.

With another September 11th on the horizon, we can only hope that the “fog of war” has cleared sufficiently to prevent the Administration from missing all the signals that the UK seems to have recognized. We might also wonder if the lessons learned in Iraq will make the Administration less likely to take a victory lap when it completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of the President’s term. Then again, it will just be the next President’s problem; perhaps leaving the door open for the next occupant of the Oval Office to blame the previous President as has been the recurring tactic of this Administration.

Correspondingly, President Obama has admonished several members of his Administration, including his Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., for suggesting that a strategy needs to be put in place.  According to the President, “…folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

Particularly in an election year, Party sycophants will try to rationalize the lack of a discernible strategy. We will undoubtedly be told that President Obama is “thoughtful” and his approach is “far more measured than Bush’s.” The President will rely on the phrase “no boots on the ground” well beyond its actual application, and he will use limiting terms like “for humanitarian purposes” and “to protect our citizens abroad” to explain the bombings he will authorize in lieu of troops.

The reality is that “no strategy” is a little too close to “no clue,” and we deserve better as a Nation.

If pundits were to pick a color to describe the leadership styles of Putin, Cameron and Obama, we might rightfully expect President Putin to be assigned a bold, primary color that leaves little doubt as to its wavelength, Prime Minister Cameron to be portrayed by a more refined, conservative color with a decisive hue, and President Obama to be defined as “beige.” Come to think of it, maybe that’s why there was such an interest in the President’s summer suit.

__________

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

Ferguson: Beyond the protests and politics

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 25, 2014 – The shooting death of any human being is a tragedy. However, the shooting death of a Black individual by a White police officer is a temptation for the media and a selfish opportunity for others. If you had any doubt, you need only look at the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

In a rational world, a legal process would be followed; the same legal process that is followed in every other type of case. Evidence would be gathered including but not limited to forensics, witness testimony, and any possible recording(s) of the incident.

If the Prosecutor’s office believes the evidence suggests that a person has committed a crime, the individual is arrested and booked, and a bail hearing is conducted. Then, an arraignment is held in which the criminal charges are read, the Defendant is asked if he or she has an attorney or needs to have one appointed by the Court, and the Defendant is asked how he or she pleads (i.e., “guilt,” “not guilty,” or “no contest”). Bail may be modified at this point at the discretion of the presiding Judge.

In the event of a “not guilty” plea, the next step is either an adversarial preliminary hearing (in which the Judge hears from both sides) or a non-adversarial hearing before a Grand Jury comprised of members of the community (in which only the Prosecution’s facts are heard). This step has nothing to do with determining guilt or innocence. It merely decides whether there is sufficient evidence to indict the accused and proceed to trial.

The Grand Jury need not reach a unanimous decision; it only requires a super-majority of two-thirds or three-fourths (depending on jurisdiction). Additionally, its role is advisory. Even if it concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to proceed, the Prosecutor may still independently choose to indict (although, the Prosecutor will have to prove to the trial Judge that sufficient evidence does in fact exist).

The reason this process has been put in place is to prevent a rush to judgment by an individual Prosecutor while preserving a very cautious approach to the dismissal of charges. The system is designed to support indictment if there is a reasonable amount of evidence that suggests a crime may have been committed by the accused.

Yet, there are those who disregard the importance and safeguards of this process when it is beneficial to their cause.

For example: A few individuals consistently travel across the country to give impassioned speeches about “the need for justice” while essentially ignoring the well-established process that has been put in place to assure it. Instead, they inflame emotions and call for protests in the street.

They emphasize that such protests should be “peaceful” while knowing full well that history suggests that this rarely will be the case. A small group of individuals can be counted upon to use the protests, which invariably grow larger at night, as a subterfuge for vandalism and looting.

Major media outlets will send dozens of reporters and camera crews to such sites in anticipation of vandalism and looting. Nothing makes for better television than broken windows, burning cars and buildings, and the ransacking of a few stores… unless the call of “shots fired” is heard. Tear gas, tasings, and baton beatings add to the video excitement as do worthless interviews of uninformed individuals.

Governors mobilize their National Guard (particularly during election years) to underscore their responsiveness and concern. They call for quick prosecutions; skipping all but the trial phase of our judicial system.

If the initial rabble-rousers have done their job well and the media is fully engaged, higher-ranking public officials may even become involved. The President might even interrupt a golf game to tamp down embers of animosity and even loan his plane to the Attorney General to visit the scene to insert Federal law into a crime that otherwise can be readily managed by the State.

This is a synopsis of what transpired recently in Ferguson, Missouri. Rather than allowing the facts to unfold, certain individuals immediately arrived on the scene to demonstrate why they would be the favorites to win Gold in a Conclusion-Jumping event if it were to be held in the next Olympics. They routinely pretend to possess the ability to see into the hearts and souls of individuals they have never met… shrouded by the word “racists” if their prophetic abilities are challenged.

“Pathetic” might be a more accurate description of their abilities than “prophetic.” Most of these individuals have had decades to author a solution as opposed to merely inciting anger. What material accomplishments do they have to show for those years?

Then, there is the media. The news side of the industry used to function as a profession. It once reflected the responsibility that is inherently tied to its First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, those days have passed. Only a small cadre of reporters and networks seem to believe that the Press still has a duty to capture and present the facts in a trustworthy manner.

Perhaps this is because shows like Jersey Shores, Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, and Sixteen and Pregnant draw large audiences and loyal followers. After all, the news is no longer about communicating the facts and allowing individuals to reach their own conclusions. It’s about spinning stories in a manner that attracts and retains viewers… no matter how biased and benighted. It’s focused on the advertising dollars that are tied to “share.”

We also have our highest elected officials. They ostensibly are the best and brightest America has to offer, or at least they should be in a society that has the freedom to cast an informed vote. In the case of the President and the Attorney General, we even have attorneys who should be familiar with Due Process and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Both gentlemen offered their comments with regard to Ferguson under the guise of trying to instill “calm” and “preserve justice.” However, their comments seemed to have a prejudicial tone.

President Obama was measured in his response this time; not claiming any family resemblance if Michael Brown had been his son (perhaps learning from the Trayvon Martin incident). Instead, the President said: “I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

Subsequently, the President appropriately condemned violence, vandalism and looting as well as the police’s use of excessive force.

These words, taken alone, articulate how we should approach these situations. However, the President also inserted the Department of Justice squarely into the issue by calling for an FBI investigation and for Attorney General Eric Holder to visit Ferguson, Missouri.

We never seem to question why local and State officials and laws are considered too incompetent to address circumstances such as these when a particular racial combination is involved. This isn’t to suggest that the facts will not reveal the influence of a racial motivation or cultural gap but rather that we should allow the facts to make that determination rather than the impressions of one or more elected officials (regardless of the office they hold).

After a brief visit to Ferguson, AG Holder called a press conference as well in which he shared a personal story of a time when he was mistreated on an apparent basis of race. While this conforms to a Clintonesque “I feel your pain” moment that may provide relief to some, it actually underscores a potential personal bias on the part of the Attorney General.

This Nation needs a much greater level of impartiality particularly among its highest-ranking leaders.

Mistrust does exist between certain communities and the police. It also exists between many other groups of people and our elected officials… not because of race, but because of a general breach of integrity.

If we do not take steps to fix the mistrust, it will continue. All the rhetoric and protests in the world won’t affect change. Change requires action.

The President has the greatest power and individual authority of any elected official.  As he has often self-proclaimed, he also has a pen and a phone. He should use them for more meaningful things than to promote his personal agenda.

The purported economic recovery has not been enjoyed by the masses. This is particularly true among Blacks and Hispanics, who were crushed by unemployment and crushed by the decrease in their median net income and net worth. What progress has been made in these areas over the past six years?

Education and opportunities are still lacking among our urban population. What progress has been made in these areas over the past six years?

Affirmative action “points” do not fix the disparity in our education system; they only temporarily mask the problem. An expanded welfare system doesn’t resolve poverty; it entrenches it. False political promises that are made to lure votes do not build trust; they destroy it.

If we fix these problems rather than pontificate about them, many of the cultural differences, including the mistrust and misunderstanding that contribute to Ferguson-like scenarios, will dissipate.

To the President’s credit, he has at least authorized an investigation into the militarization of local law enforcement that has become prevalent during his two terms.

As for the distrust that exists between segments of our communities and the police and justice system, what solutions has the Attorney General crafted in the past six years?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the police officer in Ferguson acted inappropriately. Under State law, he is likely to then be charged with crimes ranging from Manslaughter to Murder. Is charging him with a violation of Michael Brown’s civil rights more meaningful? If so: How?

It almost sounds demeaning to the decedent to claim that the loss of his life has been reduced to a violation of his civil rights. It does little more than allow the Federal Government to gain exposure from the case and strip away the power of the State court.

Doesn’t the latter further undermine the trust the community is likely to have for the court system (i.e., the Federal Government had to take over the case to make sure justice was served)?

Think about the process that is being circumvented. In a Missouri court, the Grand Jury would be comprised of Ferguson residents unless there was a change of venue. Ferguson’s population is 70 percent Black. Therefore, the Grand Jury is statistically likely to reflect the racial mix of the community. No such guarantee exists in the Federal Court process, which only offers a preliminary hearing.

The only advantage the preliminary hearing offers is that it generally is held in public whereas a Grand Jury convenes in private. However, remember that a preliminary hearing is adversarial. While the Prosecutor gets to present evidence, the evidence can be rebutted by the Defense and witnesses can be cross-examined.

Conversely, under a Grand Jury model, the Defense does not participate. Therefore, the Grand Jury approach is more likely to conclude that there is probable cause for an indictment since it only hears the facts that are most favorable to the Prosecution. Subsequently, the actual trial is subject to public scrutiny, and any concern about the “secret nature” is removed.

Given that our Federal officials have made far more speeches than progress when it comes to overcoming the challenges of our urban Black population (and other disadvantaged classes), why should we be so quick to yield to that same governing body? Why not follow a process that has worked for hundreds of years; a process that is seriously challenged only when the media, external agitators, and politicians join forces to create a level of exaggerated interest?

Why not try a new approach?

Conduct truly peaceful protests during daylight hours, and don’t wear masks if you believe in your message;
Invite the media to cover the story but not to sensationalize it;
Allow the families who have suffered a loss (and who almost always demonstrate far more class than the leeches who exploit the situation) to retain their dignity and grieve privately;
Discourage outside individuals from using isolated incidents and local tragedies to build their national image; and
Extend that same discouragement to elected officials and celebrities who seem more interested in a photo op than a solution.

To those same elected officials and celebrities: It’s time to “put up or shut up.” Offer solutions rather than speeches. Craft legislation and reach into your own pockets to help rebuild community relations. Stop talking and start “doing.”

Let’s see peaceful protests that call for solutions. If our officials do not hear us from the streets, then let them hear us from the polls.

__________

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