26 August 2014 –

A sad day in Ferguson; a sad day in America. 

Monday was the funeral for 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot during a fight with a policeman on 9 August in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri.   Brown was African-American, as are two-thirds of this town’s population of 21,000.  The policeman who shot him, 28 year-old Darren Wilson, is white, as are 50 of the 53 policeman on the local force.  Sadly, these facts seem sufficient for many to promote more turmoil around this tragedy.  What is worse, there appear to be no trustworthy leaders guiding us out of this maelstrom.   

The dead man’s family and many members of the local community have been solid, responsible players through these explosive two weeks.  Mr. Brown’s father immediately asked for calm from all who demonstrated in the streets.  The local NAACP also asked for a calm and resolute response to events.  The requests didn’t work.  Local police were soon overwhelmed and replaced by state police and Army National Guard forces.  These parties, government and private, acted, for the most part, with courage and composure. The rule of law should now play out in an equitable and just manner, right? 

Nope.  Contention and disruption arrived almost immediately in the form of  professional political agitator, Reverend Al Sharpton, who descended upon Ferguson, and with predictable combative fervor, ranted about police brutality .  Juan Williams, a black political commentator, criticized his antics as “monetizing the civil rights movement.”  Sadly, Reverend Sharpton’s eulogy at Mr. Brown’s funeral continued the agitation; apparently, rather than lead, the Reverend had some monetizing to finish.

Also quick on the scene were outside criminals who rioted, looted, and burned Ferguson.  Of the several hundred people arrested for rampaging and looting since 9 August, fewer than twenty have come from Ferguson itself.  The looting has recently subsided, probably because it is no longer profitable. 

Most government leaders have responded poorly to the situation.  Generally, the higher the level of government, the more leaders abused the due process of law and abandoned courageous leadership.        

Local law enforcement’s biggest mistake was the release of a video showing a 6’4” 290 lb. Mr. Brown robbing a convenience store and assaulting a small store clerk just hours before Brown’s death.  That decision exacerbated unrest and seemed like a deliberate way to influence any future jury pool.  The Ferguson district attorney did quickly call a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Officer Wilson, and it is supposed to deliberate until some time in October. Sadly, however, that extends the time for other political monetizers to exploit the process.   

Soon after Mr. Brown’s death, Missouri’s Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and then cancelled it.  His indecision and political weakness further added to the unrest.  Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson was called to restore security in Ferguson, but the outside criminals continued to loot.  This was probably because Captain Johnson’s efforts focused on calming the members of the Ferguson community, most of whom were already obeying the law.  Johnson’s help was indeed needed, but it was applied poorly. 

The scores of FBI agents sent to Ferguson have been professional and impartial.  They have interviewed witnesses and reviewed local police and legal processes for possible civil rights violations; they have operated well within federal law.  At least they are not the problem. 

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice and President Obama have turned this process on its head.  Attorney General Holder’s personal appearance in Ferguson troubles anyone looking for an impartial leader who could convince all parties that civil rights for everyone would be honored fairly.  His public account of being a black man humiliated by bigoted policemen, and his meeting with Mr. Brown’s family to express his personal regrets, are profound displays of bias that already may have corrupted the local legal process.  

President Obama also showed disregard for the local Ferguson legal process by sending three White House emissaries to Mr. Brown’s funeral.  The President effectively stamped his prejudice on the yet-to-be proven contention that Mr. Brown was the victim of police brutality.  Such pandering to specific support groups should be beneath a president.  

Both the President and his attorney general should stay out of Ferguson.  Without comment they should watch while the facts are established and allow justice to run its course.  That is what the leader of all Americans and his top cop are in office to do.     

15 August 2014 –

Leadership 101! 

The fall general elections are fast approaching.  I appreciate General William Tecumseh Sherman’s blunt opinion of the political process when his name was considered as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1884: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."   But, Grouch Marx’s humor may be more to the point:  “I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member.”  Somebody’s gotta take the challenge to clean up the politicians’ club.  There have to be people out there who are smart, tough, and honest enough to serve society in local, state, and federal government.             

As an Air Force officer, I saw the necessity of these attributes as I worked my way through a bureaucracy that sometimes was asked to focus on the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason.  Those four words: smart, tough, honest, and serve, are the distillation of the requirements for good government leaders.     

First:  Government leaders don’t have to be constitutional experts to fulfill their elected or appointed positions.  However, they must be smart enough to know the legal limits of their positions and the moral requirements of their oath of office.  These legal and moral limits are the essence of what makes our constitutional system exceptional:  the rule of law.  Smart leaders recognize that constitutional rules must always supersede political agenda.  Otherwise, the system gives way to tyranny.  Smart leaders trust the Founders’ tragic brilliance and the people’s sovereignty.  

Second: Government leaders must be tough enough to act according to their oath of office.  Binding one’s self to the limits of our constitutional system shows a leader’s toughness far more than does pursuing a political agenda that promises audacious personal hope for “change.”  The Constitution’s rules for limited governance and separation of powers are not hard to understand, but those who are weak of character may find them difficult to honor.  When elected or appointed officials bend or ignore constitutional rules, they are weak and corrupt.  It’s that simple. 

Third:  Leaders know that once they take the oath of office, they honestly assume all responsibility for the new job.  Society should expect that of its new leaders; after all, they wanted the job, didn’t they?  Specifically, that means that every issue within their job description from that moment on is their personal responsibility, not their predecessors’, not somebody else’s, theirs.  Real leaders know this and quickly respond with honest effort, admit mistakes quickly, and go on. 

As well, honest leaders don’t whine about unwinnable situations they may have inherited from their predecessors; they knew what was going on when they ran for the office.  Whining about the evil state of the world is simply dishonest, bad form.  It is just as dishonest when leaders claim success for operations or programs that were started by their predecessors.  Honest leaders are modest and generous in praising all those responsible for success.  This creates trust and cohesion in society’s body politic—something sorely missing in today’s political environment where a niggardly approach to bipartisan praise is the norm. 

Fourth: Real leaders accept that serving in the public sector requires self-sacrifice for the benefit of the American people.  In the military, the harsh requirement of unlimited liability goes with the oath of office.  Real leaders of all ranks are required to spend years away from home and family, doing difficult or dangerous things, for policy objectives they may not agree with.  And, they are often ordered to take the hill or to die trying.  So how do most respond?  Real leaders already accept that if it ain’t illegal or immoral, they salute smartly and take the hill, or die trying.  After all, they swore an oath.  That’s what being in the service is all about. 

The American people will respond to being led in such a manner.  But, I see no political “band of brothers” that attaches to their oath of office the liability of smart, tough, honest, self-sacrifice—sacrifice of political agenda, of personal wealth, of political advancement—in order to lead our society to peace and prosperity.  Instead, I see today’s America as a Russian officer described the British army in the Crimean War of the 19850s: “Lions commanded by asses!” 

Since braying is mostly what I hear coming from our centers of government, and from vacation homes in Martha’s Vineyard, what else am I supposed to think?

7 August 2014 –

That’s why they call it dope.                       

It’s another hot, muggy morning in Houston.  I should clean the garage and replant some bushes along the fence.  Or, I could cruise the Net and relax.  Or, I could turn to channel 5143 and let classic blues erode the edges of reality.  My son, a musician who poses as a lawyer by day, told me that listening to the blues makes you want to do only one thing: listen to the blues.  You gotta be strong, he said, or your life will slide forever into the key of F. 

Maybe there should be a law against listening to the blues at certain times of the day—for my own good.  But the libertarian in me argues that such laws are classic “nanny” government tactics to control our lives.

What about something more serious:  legalized use of marijuana—especially while listening to the blues?  Even the President, our toker-in-chief, said that smoking weed is no worse than smoking cigarettes.  Dude, we adults should be able to do what we want to our own bodies. 

I like the concept of being a free agent in all things, but the responsible, world-weary adult in me sees the argument for the legalization of marijuana as self-serving and short-sighted.  Our Founders stressed that a society based on individual liberties and rights prospers only if its nation’s citizens act responsibly in their daily lives.  In other words, freedom and prosperity reign when people don’t need numerous laws to coerce them to be good.  That certainly isn’t the case now. 

Sadly, baby boomers’ romantic attachment to the counterculture of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll” has spawned the present generation’s embracing of such destructive behavior as the norm.  More or less responsible behavior has given way to license, destructive license.  So most pot heads, of my generation and younger, only want to make legal what they are doing anyway.  Society’s weakness, not strength, is making legalization of recreational marijuana inevitable in most states.    

Local and state government officials also add to the corruption.  They are enticed by the prospects of taxing marijuana’s growth, distribution, and sale.  There is nothing good or praiseworthy about government employees getting into the drug business.  Dollar signs are seducing local and state officials into becoming legal accomplices—pimps, if you will—for Mary Jane.  And all pimps agree: it’s all about the Benjamins.    

We need only look to New York City to see what kind of business our elected officials are getting into.  Because of high local excise taxes, most cigarettes are now purchased on the black market.  New York state and city governments that tax this addictive, health-destroying product in the name of controlling and benefitting from it have created another illegal enterprise in their already corrupt society.  I see no dividends of revenue that can justify such a rise in bureaucratic power and such a drop in moral governance.   But others seem to. 

We need to tip the scales away from another drain on our society’s morals and property.  If idiot pot heads can legally erode the edges of their health and productivity, then our laws should protect responsible adults from paying the huge associated costs.    For example, private health, life, business, and car insurance companies should not be required to insure someone who admits to smoking pot.  Nor should they have to pay benefits if the insured is caught with THC in his system after an accident, health failure, or business setback.  Businesses should be able to deny employment to, or fire someone who smokes dope at work or shows up to work under the influence.  Stores and restaurants should be allowed to deny service to anyone who is under the influence of weed.  Churches, private benevolent organizations, country clubs, private schools, and maybe even property owners’ associations should also be able to dictate membership privileges based on the use of marijuana. 

Limiting marijuana use should come from society, not government, because if left unimpeded, society will do a better job of it.  Society should frame what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t; the government will then follow suit. 

Nothing in the use of marijuana should make it a privileged class under the law.  Too harsh on poor pot puffers?  Tough. 

Remember: Just ‘cuz it’s legal shouldn’t make it acceptable in a responsible, well-mannered society.  

28 July 2014 - 

Don’t Fence Me In!  Bah!

Recently, I drove around Houston without a passport.  I didn’t pass through controlled entry points as I went from downtown Houston City offices to Cleveland, to Crosby, through Kingwood, Atascocita, Humble, Summerwood, Deer Park, and Fall Creek.  After all, I was in Texas, in the United States, north of the Rio Grande.  My travel on public roads was restricted only by the limits of time and gasoline. 

It’s good to be an American. 

I did see a lot of fences, however.  They defined and protected businesses, homes, and government-maintained, collective commons.  When the fences defined property, they often hid their precision with attractive stone, wood, flowers, and shrubbery.  When the fences protected property, they were stark wrought iron or concrete structures, often with spikes or barbed wire; and, security cameras were everywhere. 

Fences punctuate virtually every statement of property in Houston and probably in every town in America. 

It was particularly instructive to see the fences in residential neighborhoods.  In affluent areas, high fences often surrounded entire neighborhoods, with guarded or electronic entry points.  Fences between the large houses were limited in variety to what local home owners’ associations permitted.  Internal fences defined individual property lines, and external fences defined and protected the community as a whole.  These neighborhoods looked like ordered, mini-states protecting themselves from unruly outsiders.       

Less affluent neighborhoods had no defining, outside fences.  Houses were smaller, yards were less scenic.  Nonetheless, many property owners had built fences around their own houses and yards.  High, spiked, metal fences were clearly meant to define and protect sovereign, individual property owners from a larger, unruly neighborhood.  They reminded me of the fence at the end of our cul-de-sac, which we finally convinced our home owners association to help pay for in order to keep feral hogs from continuing to destroying our property and from the real possibility of their attacking our grandchildren. 

It is obvious that no Houstonian or government entity is tearing down fences.  Definition and protection are paramount requirements in a world where people may be good, but not very good. 

Individual property definition and protection, neighborhood and town definition and protection, and state definition and protection are merely graduated assurances of the fundamental American rights of self and property protection.  Ordinary people understand this.  Their actions—their fences—are more eloquent than any politician’s speech on the subject.   

A poll of Houstonians would probably confirm what I have seen: Fence owners span the entire political spectrum.  Democrats, republicans, libertarians, socialists, fascists, criminals, and even illegal immigrants preach a lot of things, but they all directly enjoy the benefits of fences. 

Is it hypocritical to benefit personally from being an American citizen and at the same time to build fences around the nation to restrict illegal immigrants from enjoying those benefits?  No. Defining and protecting our country are fundamental elements of national sovereignty.  Such protective fences are no more hypocritical than the practice of maintaining fences to protect one’s personal in any Houston neighborhood. 

It is hypocritical and illegal, however, for politicians to pander for votes by circumventing existing immigration laws and to thereby enable the current immigration crisis.  America is America because it is ruled by laws, not by fiat.  A legitimate rebellion would ensue if local politicians and supporters mandated the destruction of all personal fences in a neighborhood to deal with a rise in local home break-ins.  So, why is it noble for the President, living in the most securely-fenced house in America, to tell the rest of America that the national fences to their sovereignty must come down?

For political gain, the President is exploiting transnational ties in ethnic communities, the acquiescence of caring people, and the money from businesses who benefit from illegal labor.  His shameless actions reject constitutional law and dilute national sovereignty—far more than does his hapless approach to any current shooting war or international crisis.  Politics are destroying our sovereignty. 

The U.S. government no longer controls our borders.  Illegal foreigners, foreign criminal cartels, and foreign governments now control our southern border.  The President acquiesces, and foreigners define who is and will be American. 

Mr. President!  Enforce existing laws.  Close the border.  Protect, do not tear down, our sovereignty. 

Otherwise, you should find a retirement home in El Salvador along a golf course—with plenty of high fences, of course.  

23 July 2014 - 

Courage:  Moral and Physical

Every Friday morning I meet with friends at McDonalds in a local Walmart.  These old guys are experienced in business and government, and their views span the political spectrum.  They are passionate and compassionate about life.  They are Americans in the finest sense. I feel good about being accepted as one of them.

Thirty years in an Air Force uniform taught me the strength of the concept being “one of us.”  You take an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies.  You exhibit moral courage as you honor rules that may not apply to others, risking punishment including possible banishment from among us if you fail.  With moral and physical courage, you do your duty no matter how dangerous or difficult.  Sacrifice and trust are your currency. They make you one with your compatriots.

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl is not “one of us” to the soldiers of his unit in Afghanistan. He abandoned his post, broke his comrades’ trust, and chose to morally bankrupt his life.  His fellow soldiers honorably and courageously fulfilled their battlefield duties.  Later, their measured, calm words about Bergdahl’s perfidy were telling counterpoints to the President’s White House homecoming celebration with Bergdahl’s parents.  The President did not see Bergdahl’s battlefield failures as important, and thereby, he displayed his ignorance of military culture.  He may be Commander-In-Chief, but he certainly has not shown that he is “one of us.”   

I trust that the Army, up the chain to the Chief of Staff, will follow their soldiers’ example of moral courage as they adjudicate Sergeant Bergdahl’s case.  The Army must strictly follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ignore political pressure from an administration that seems to view Duty, Honor, and Country as obsolete chatter.  I trust that those in charge will do their duty.  They know that if they don’t, they will never again be worthy to be “one of us,” no matter how many medals or stars they may receive.  

Who besides members of our military services take the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and be servants to their sovereign, i.e., the people?  Who besides those in uniform create a cohesive “one of us” culture, a culture built on trust, personal sacrifice, and strict adherence to constitutional rules?   The President and Congress have taken the government oath of office and have declared their duty to defend the Constitution as it is written, no matter the sacrifice of individual agenda.  Doing their duty requires at least as much moral courage as the oath of military office requires of our men and women in uniform.   

But where in our government’s culture are men and women who display the moral courage to defend the essence of the Constitution: the separation of delineated powers, the defense of our borders, and the maintenance of limited government intrusion into our lives and property?  They are few and far between. 

I struggle to find elected officials and appointed bureaucrats whom I can trust to sacrifice personal and party agenda—to resist picking up the phone and the pen—as they fulfill their versions of constitutional duties.

Who among the majority of today’s politicians is “one of us,” worthy of  the praise of the American people?  Their “club” culture is not one of personal sacrifice and trust.  The President, in between fund-raisers, golf, and vacations, does not inspire the American people with courageous decisions in the face of internal or international crises.

Today’s elected officials seem hardly to care if they display to the American people that correct constitutional principles resonate with them, or that the concepts of Duty, Honor, and Country compel courageous compliance.

So, now what?  If you were in Chicago during this election period, you could vote early and often.  In Houston, thank goodness, you show your ID card and vote your conscience.  You solidify your place as one with American patriots, who, alongside my Friday-morning friends, embrace and implement the Founders’ vision of service and sacrifice—to your country, to your community. 

Meanwhile, the “constitutional scholar” in the White House reminds us daily that fund raising, photo ops, and tee times are more important to him than being one of us. 

21 June 2014 –

Turkey Is the Key

The President has mishandled the crisis in Iraq.   Never mind that the previous administration probably should not have invaded Iraq in 2003.  Never mind that the previous administration waffled until 2007 before committing sufficient troops to create the conditions necessary for nation-building and long-term peace.  Presidents inherit situations and become personally responsible for them.   

What matters now is, that stability in Iraq was finally achieved by 2007, that President Obama inherited a legitimate chance to solidify that stability, and that his inattention threw that chance away.  Now, he faces chaos and must do something to regain the confidence of the American people.  But, where is his strategy?  His record is one of throwing tactical solutions at strategic problems, publically hoping that crises will pass.  Hope, however, is not a strategy.  

What should be the U.S.’s strategy to protect vital U.S. interests in the region?  We must first identify those vital interests.  I suggest the following: 1) the unimpeded flow of oil out of Iraq; 2) the suppression of jihadist violence against the U.S. and her allies; 3) the protection of Israel’s sovereignty; 4) stability among the myriad players in the region. 

Next, we must identify major players who share our common interests and can actually help us achieve it.    

First. Iran benefits if Iraq’s southern oil production is disrupted or if Iran controls it.  Iran openly supports jihadist violence against the U.S. and our interests, proven by Iran’s long-term funding of radical violence in Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and elsewhere.  Iran continually declares its intention to wipe Israel off the map, using its soon-to-be-deployed nuclear weapons.  Clearly, Iran foments violence to achieve its objectives. 

There is no common area in which the U.S. should work with Iran to achieve our objectives.  Iran is an enemy, period. 

Second.  Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated government under Nouri al-Malaki is incapable of helping the U.S. achieve any objectives.  It could have evolved into a capable friend if President Obama had continued with the Bush administration’s commitment to professionalize the Iraqi Army, institutionalize the rule of law, and create a nation-wide sense of being Iraqi.  It’s too late for that now.  President Obama, always playing catch-up, must “reset” his thinking to mitigate the chaos resulting from his pullout of U.S. troops.  Iraq is quiet about it now, but it still refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist. 

There is no common area where the U.S. can rely on the Iraqi government to help achieve our objectives. 

Third.  Saudi Arabia stands to gain if Iraqi oil production is disrupted.  Saudi Arabia also is the world’s biggest funder of Sunni jihadist violence throughout the Middle East and Africa.  The Sunni-dominated Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) may have gone too far in Iraq to suit some in the Saudi government, but the current pressure on Iran and the Shi’ites in Southern Iraq is welcomed by the rulers in Riyadh.  Of course, Saudi Arabia has always refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist.  Finally, the Wahabbist Saudis view unrest in the region as acceptable as long as it advances their form of medieval Islam. 

There is no common area in which we can work with Saudi Arabia to achieve U.S. objectives in the area.

Fourth.  Turkey benefits from a continued flow of oil from Northern Iraq and Kurdistan through Turkey to the Mediterranean.  Turkey is the U.S.’s formal NATO ally and has worked with us to condemn jihadist violence in the West.  Even under Prime Minister Erdogan’s increasingly radical and corrupt direction, Turkey understands that Israel’s sovereignty ultimately benefits Turkey.  Finally, Turkey’s geographic prominence has enabled the Byzantines to the Ottomans to the Turks to dominate the Levant by controlling northern access into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.  Our not working openly with the Turkish government from the beginning of the Syrian conflict, in order to prevent radical expansion into Iraq, showed our shallow understanding of how to build and execute workable strategies in this complicated region.  

Turkey has a military trained, manned, and equipped to NATO standards.  It is the obvious choice as our lead partner.  A Turkish-U.S. force could move into Northern Syria and Iraq, cut off ISIS from its base of operations, and cause it to wither all along the southern borders of Turkey.  Our combined force could then stabilize the Turkish and Arab community in Northern Iraq, ensure continued oil production in Northern Iraq and Kurdistan, and facilitate oil delivery through Turkey to world markets.  The world would then focus on a separate conflict south of Baghdad, with Iran as the obvious villain. 

Oil flows, terrorism and the Syrian conflict are contained, Iran is discredited, and Turkey and the United States benefit. 

Turkey is the key.  Where are we?  

18 June 2014 - Wrapping Up the Trifecta 

The Strategic Picture - Part Three

The third major strategic threat to U.S. sovereignty, after our federal debt and our failure to deal with illegal immigration, is our dependence on unreliable sources of foreign energy.  This threatens our sovereignty because some of the very countries that sell us oil, use their petrodollars to fund Islamic jihadist attacks on the United States.  As well, our reliance on these foreign sources of energy puts pressure on our foreign policy process to try to solve intractable problems in places like the Middle East and Africa.  Our dependence on foreign energy overly complicates what should be a more straightforward, effective foreign policy and more secure sovereignty. 

The solution to this energy dependence is not complicated: we drill for oil everywhere we can in the United States and in its sovereign waters.  The increase in natural gas and petroleum production in the U.S. during the last decade has come from entrepreneurial drilling on private lands.  Now, the President should immediately lift the moratorium on drilling on leased federal lands, and even encourage expansion of the program by stipulating that companies that do not start exploration and drilling within a year will lose their federal leases.  He should also allow drilling in places like Alaska’s Coastal Plain, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).   

The President should facilitate the building of new oil and natural gas refineries in such ports as Houston, Long Beach, and Seattle.  He should encourage this construction by taking back the billions of federal dole dollars now being wasted on failed alternate energy production and give that money back to the energy industry in the form of lower taxes.   

The President should lead out in creating a long-term accord with Canada and Mexico to coordinate their energy production and export systems with those of the United States.  This North American Petroleum Exporting Countries (NAOPEC) pact would further cement our friendship with Canada and promote a much firmer friendship with Mexico.  This last step obviously should include the immediate building of the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas.  The pipeline will create jobs, infuse money into the economy, and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  Such increase in exploration and production would give the United States the independence, flexibility, and market dominance it does not now have, and would help secure our sovereignty in the world.    

In addition to increasing prosperity, a burgeoning energy industry would fortify U.S. sovereignty by reducing the flow of dollars into countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.  These nations use dollars to fund terrorist activity against the United States, and they finance radical Islamic jihad movements in their neighboring states.  If we bought far less of their oil, the terrorists and rebels—domestic and international—would have far less money for weapons, logistics, and training.  With far less money, Middle East conflicts would continue to simmer but would explode far less often.   

The petrodollar-funded jihad of the last several decades is just the latest campaign in the thirteen-hundred-year war between Western civilization and the civilization of Islam.  Radical Islamists hate the U.S. – the Great Satan – with a fervor that most westerners refuse to understand or accept.  Using petrodollars, they plot greater, bloodier wars against us. We cannot change their minds or win their hearts; therefore, it would be prudent for us to defund their campaign. 

With fare less reliance on foreign sources of oil, our decision matrix for U.S. involvement in Middle East and Africa’s messy, centuries-old, intractable, hostile-to-infidel religious and tribal conflicts would change.  No matter the crise du jour, a compelling case for involvement would be harder for either interventionist or do-gooders to make.  We would continue to make mistakes because that is the nature of foreign policy decision-making.  But, those mistakes would not have the effects on our sovereignty that our mistakes are having now. 

Oil is our defining strategic interest in the Middle East, and it is also the fuel for Islamic jihad.  Both sides of that petro dollar erode our sovereignty.   If the President really wants his domestic and foreign policy legacy to endure the next generations, he must enable our energy independence, not stifle it. 

Then, in our increased safety and prosperity, many more Americans will be playing golf as much as he does.   

Comments can be sent to mac.coleman.colonel@gmail.com