2016 Governor Bobby Jindal Presidential Ambition: Power Vacuum in Louisiana Capitol or What?

Keywords or terms: Governor Bobby Jindal; Louisianans; Personal Ambition; Times-Picayune; New York Times; Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne; State Capitol; AWOL; American Exceptionalism; Indian-American; Poverty Rate; Health Outcomes; Health System; Aggressive Slashing of budget on Education; CNBC.Com; American Economic Legislative Council; Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran; and US Presidency

Bobby Jindal is gradually, if not completely, abdicating his responsibility to citizens of Louisiana; and, the various interest groups forming his constituent are crying out for help. There were reports that the governor has been out of the state for about fifty-percent of the time, seeking his personal ambition for a national office, while the duties and responsibilities of his office are left unattended. No matter how indifferent the governor is to current assessment of his state’s economy by many well-meaning Louisianans and outside observers, the shadow of his constant absence from the State’s Capitol, is unacceptable to tax payers and continues to undermine whatever achievements he may be adducing to his stewardship as the Governor of the Pelican State.

In what is probably an indication that things are not well in Louisiana, the State most read and probably the leading circulated Newspaper, the Times-Picayune, called for Republican Governor Bobby Jindal to step aside and let the lieutenant governor take over, in an editorial arguing that his national ambition is overcrowding the enormity of the challenges confronting the state. Coincidentally, or collaboratively, Charles Blow of the New York Times, saw the sense in Times-Picayune position and advanced that Louisiana has enormous problems and deserves a full-time governor, not one that is always ready to take off; concurring with the argument that Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne, take over at the State Capitol. If the State’s economy and revenue base ever turn uglier, the strains over the governor’s constant travels outside the state will not only divide the state, but also create probably the worst advisory for his national ambition.

The state of four and a half million people, bordering the Gulf of Mexico, has been going through revenue short-falls due to the falling world oil prices and poor priorities in budget cuts. The Pelican State or Sportsman paradise, is gradually losing its zing as her governor goes AWOL, making residents wonder why they allowed the first Indian-American governor to last this long, as they watch their health, education and infrastructure deteriorate, and economy tank.  The ultimate issue before residents of the state now is for how long they are willing to have a governor, more interested in his national exposure rather than the advancements of the state’s economy and objectives. The backbone of the State Economy, big oil, is now in rough waters, will the state leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, continue to accommodate a fly-by governor? It was, and remains, the inevitable question, is the falling oil prices a pre-amble to more challenging future for the State’s economy?

Further, Poverty rate has been multiplying in Louisiana under Governor Jindal; health outcomes and health system, not much to write home about; and, an underfunded education system that is undermining the accomplishments of the State’s Research Universities in the past three decades. The governor is reported to have been away 165 days in 2014 and 74 days in 2013, while the state relies on borrowing and spending cuts, especially at public university to shore up the state’s budget. Aggressive slashing of the state’s labor force and budget, has handicapped so many business activities in the state and made Republican counterparts decry in no uncertain terms, the impact of budget cuts to all Louisiana public university system.

To make matter worse, Governor Bobby Jindal has directed his anger to all these observations in a letter forwarded to the New York Times editorial board insisting these observations regarding his stewardship as: “good examples  of how liberals at The New York Times and I have a different opinion on how to measure successful governance.” The reality however, about how bad things have gone under his stewardship as governor of the state, is probably indisputable with current statistics on education, business competitiveness and economic performance ranking by CNBC.COM and the Conservative Group, American Economic Legislative Council. Comparatively with other states in the union, Louisiana is 45^th on education impact of its citizens; 40^th in business competitiveness, and, 29^th economic performance and ranking. The future from here is not as promising as many of the state’s residents know and are clamoring for alternative direction for the State. These are what Governor Jindal has failed to recognize by taking issues with others who are assessing his stewardship against criteria that are universal for all governors; and are reasons to alert him that his absenteeism from the state capitol is impacting the residents adversely, and may be doing more harm than he might be thinking.

The moral and political implications of how Governor Jindal has conducted himself, bring out two fundamental questions: is the governor really ready for the dream he is chasing? Is he really ready for the national stage, if he cannot appreciate that his state is standing on a sinking ground? As the governor crisscrossed the nation in private planes at the largesse’s of wealthy business supporters, giving speeches and campaigning for Republican candidates to local offices, his own state continues to be mired in economic woes. While residents of the state are expecting leadership in many areas of the state’s economy, the Governor’s attention is completely focused outside the state, looking for other opportunities for himself. By one estimate, it is feasible that the governor will be gone away from the state capitol for more time, as the campaigns for the White House precipitate over the next one year.

Moderate Republicans in the state worry that there is a gap between Governor Jindal’s ambition and the reality of the national political terrain; competing against other well-established and better funded Republican aspirants, Bobby Jindal hardly stands a chance. The former vice-chairman of Republican Governor’s Association continues to live off the largesse’s of rich Louisianan’s families as the Davidsons of Ruston, Zuschlags of Lafayette and Chouest family of Bayou Lafayette as reported in the Advocate Online, while advocating draconian economic restructuring that has led to loss of jobs for thirty thousand state public servants and an unending shrinking economy. The rationalization of Jindal’s stewardship of the State Capitol in Baton Rouge by the governor himself as a success, brings out another angle to his national ambition, can this man understand the fault line in confrontations with other national governments, if arguably he ends up becoming the US President. A leader who can hardly appreciate that his state’s budget is facing a new reality due to the falling oil prices, can he know when to, and when not to, deploy force against perceived or real threats from Iran or North Korea?

It is conceivable that Governor Jindal current ambition to seek supports and funds for a National Campaign for the office of US Presidency, is more important to him that being the Governor of the State of Louisiana. What will hanging around Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the State’s Capitol, do for him considering his national ambition? Such a question is probably the explanation for his muted decision to travel outside the state constantly, without batting an eye-lid. However, that is hardly what honorable statesmen do. When you are confronted with a decision to seek a different office; and the responsibility and duties of your current office seem to be overshadowing the possibility of reaching your higher or national goal; the ideal thing to do is to step down, give a genuine and heart felt explanation to your constituent for stepping down and immerse yourself in your new endeavor or enterprise. Anything short of this, is hardly honorable; and, this is what Louisianans are seeing and calling for the governor to step down.

Just as the apostle of Noam Chomsky’s caricatured new religion, American Exceptionalism - Bobby Jindal, has a muted response to his job approval rating of 28 percent as a governor of his home state, so is Louisianans’ discomfort with his using the state as a stepping stone to the higher office. It is true that the US Presidency is a more prestigious office for the child of an immigrant like him, so also are Americans outside the state wondering about the Governor’s antics with the context of national politics. Is he just lip-frogging the concept of American Exceptionalism to divert attention from his ineptitude as a governor or shortcomings in executive office? Can Governor Jindal really mount a successful campaign for the White House, when he has conducted himself as a traitor to the nation by signing Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran, on current White House negotiations on that nation’s Nuclear Ambition? The major opposition to the governor’s action on this issue is good enough turn-off to kill his ambition. The current slate of Republican candidates seeking their party’s nomination have a better chance of being nominated over Governor Jindal as the party’s flag bearer; and this alone, is good enough for the Indian-American to see the writings on the Wall and return home to Baton Rouge. However, if he doesn't, there is no other way than see him as a governor not only about to go through implosion at his state level; but also, on a national stage.

Senator Ted Cruz’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Message, uncompromising conservatism: the first among the Republican pack

Keywords or terms: Ted Cruz; Presidential Campaign; Republican Party; Extremism; Liberty University; Canadian-born; Natural-born Citizen; Foreign-born Citizen; Abolishing IRS; Repealing Affordable Care Act; American Taliban; Narrow and hallowed vision of Nationalism; Pro-Choice, Abortion; LGBT

There are many superlatives associated with the declaration of the first Republican to announce his run for the White House in 2016. Ted Cruz, born in Canada, recently naturalized as a citizen, US Senator from Texas, announced his candidacy yesterday before an audience of supporters at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia; with the mantra: the most conservative of all Republican Candidates. He wants his supporters to imagine a President who would repeal the Affordable Care Act, abolish the Internal Revenue Service, defend the sanctity of human life and uphold the sacrament of marriage. If you are in a different world from where the hardliners, call them American Taliban resides, you will be aghast at such a mission; you will be appalled that a 2016 Presidential Candidate is seeking to be extreme in his submission or judgement regarding what Americans want; and, you will probably want to tell Ted Cruz, you are a long shot candidate.

However, if you reside in the world of Tea Party, conservative idea-logs, angry Anglo-Saxon White male and anti-establishment gurus, whose ultimate goal is to vanquish order in the World of American Politics, then you are definitely with the foreign-born American who is seeking to rule over America, by undoing an institution with its roots in over two centuries. If I quote strictly the constitution as purist will often do, Article II Section 1 Clause 5 says, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Purely on this basis, Mr. Ted Cruz, is automatically disqualified. On the other hand, if I refuse to be a constitutional purist out of deference to other people; an accommodation that the extreme conservative brand of Senator Cruz’s candidacy and anti-establishment follower-ship hardly appreciates; then, I believe Ted Cruz’s 2016 candidacy is probably based on Amendment XIV, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” To share in the fourteenth amendment, it is unfortunate that the Senator’s candidacy is based on a principle he is hardly aligned; since he considers himself, an extremist of a kind in the Republican Party; a member that cuddles the strict interpretation of the US Constitution.

Factor all these out, it is probably questionable if centrists among Republicans will offer a candidate seeking to abrogate the Internal Revenue Service, not to talk of repealing the affordable care act, an opportunity to fester his brand of presidential campaign beyond Iowa or South Carolinian primaries. Though libertarians are all for the abrogation of the only institution known to bring revenue to Uncle Sam to afford for governance, non-other factions in Republican party of today, has that much clout, to help the Canadian-born Ted Cruz achieve his improbable ambition. If Conservative Republicans are fed up with leadership of both major political parties in America, it is going to take more than a forty-four year old, Canadian-born, naturalized citizen of less than three years, to accomplish their mischievous dream.

Apart also from the question of eligibility in the case of Senator Ted Cruz, the issue regarding his Cuban father and American mother in a foreign land, giving birth to a Canadian child who ended up in Texas, who not till recently, three years’ US citizen I understand, will be one that the US Supreme Court may have to attend to lay to rest the question of eligibility. In case Cruz’s Presidential Campaign galvanizes enough support among the Republican Proletariat to move on to being the party’s flag bearer, the nation still has the question to answer: do we like or appreciate his kind of politics in 2016 and beyond? I have no issue with Ted Cruz’s candidacy based on his nature of birth: natural-born citizen vs. foreign-born citizen. My issue lies in his brand of politics, extremism.

To a great extent, controversy keeps everyone on his or her toes, and there are many academics who will argue that controversy is not only healthy for a bugging democracy; it ensures that the status-quo, does not just get over confident or complacent. The brand of controversy that Ted Cruz’s candidacy fans, is probably the disruptive kind. Imagine getting rid of the internal revenue service or denying females from having choices when it comes to issues of their health? Except Senator’s Cruz’s extremist rhetoric is different from his political reality, it is hard to appreciate his tone of advancements in political campaign message that may lead to further national government disruption or paralysis. It is not only benign, imagining what extremist groups and extremism have done to the current occupant of the White House, Ted Cruz candidacy’s message narrows democratic discourse to profanity: abortion, discrimination, pig-headiness and anti-establishments. These are subjects that close-off compromises and make governance very difficult. To adhere to the principal of my-way or the highway, as is often associated with conservative extremist’s rhetoric, hardly borders well for either a democracy, aristocracy, or theocracy.

For the baby boomers, a generation that experienced the Second World War and the nuclear arms race, the basic longing for team efforts in resolving national issues is very primordial. That generation understands what extremism can do to public psychic, just as we all saw in former USSR, Vietnam, and Eastern Germany. To maintain a thriving economy and a free democracy, no one must accommodate, let alone, tolerate extremism, the kind that is associated with Ted Cruz and his bedridden tea party supporters. With the rise of Tea Party and extremist groups, Establishment Republicans are gradually recognizing with dismay, that those mainstream Republican values they assumed will be passed on to succeeding generations, are now becoming mirage. Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign message is not only an affront to Democratic values; it is actually calling to question the authenticity of mainstream Republican values. No argument, no matter how good, will justify extremism in a democracy. Part of the lure for the brand of Ted Cruz’s extremism in presidential campaign message lies in the conception that you can passionately believe in an idea or ideas, and vigorously chase those to the end, without caring about whose  gore is being let out; who is being devalued and what institution is about to be damaged.

Expression of extreme single-minded vision of what the future of America must be, Germane to Tea party and fellowship, has tendency of creating uncertainty, complexity and frustrations, even among die-hard extremists. The challenge that this kind of group or politician faces, is the question of resolving needs of multiplicities of peoples and multitudes of opinions on the way to addressing national political problems. In addition to the potential of ostracizing many minority groups in a democracy, extremism ideas or initiatives have the potential of breaking alliances that make people feel a sense of shared responsibility, commitment and reward. It is not only dangerous for our kind of democracy, it evaporates confidence and endangers public interest in pluralistic democracy; and in the long run, citizens become disenchanted and increasingly troubled on the course of the nation.

The impression that extreme group(s) and political agenda fanned by Senator Cruz’s presidential candidacy have to do with narrow and hollow vision of nationalism. Hardly justifiable, there is a form of succor that makes people like him and fellowship, feel a sense of ephemeral achievement or accomplishment, one only recognized by the extremist group’s membership. This is why, it is difficult to build a teaming fellowship behind that kind of candidacy. In the following months, Senator Cruz will find out that many Americans, including the deep pockets, are unwilling to give their money to extremist candidates; and hardly share his vision for America. In comparing donation to other Republican candidates as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, Ted Cruz’s campaign manager will ultimately find out that, whatever initial support that his candidacy may now be generating, will easily evaporate and the campaign left in shambles because of his chosen campaign message.

Further, the cornerstone on which Ted Cruz’s presidential candidacy rests can closely be aligned with hatred of others and governmental institutions. The campaign rhetoric is hardly built on the essence or reasonable persuasions of opposing groups, or others who hardly share his vision of America. Our Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people; not a minority fringe group(s) working to bring down the whole system. Our democracy depends on the dual strategy of securing a balance of power between the three arms of government, the legislative, executive, and judiciary; and, an openness of cooperation of people inhabiting those arms or carrying out the duties of those offices. This dual strategy means that each arm of government must see each other as both a potential opponent and a possible and formidable partner. The complexity and the ambivalence of this dual strategy, does not mean that Americans seek alternative course that can quickly turn the whole thing to a menace, nightmare; or persistent gridlock of unsolvable differences.

Finally, America will never be strengthened by a candidacy built on division and discrimination. If a presidential candidacy is to succeed, it must not subordinate the interest of a particular minority group, just as Ted Cruz’s campaign message to defend the sanctity of human life, a code phrase for anti-abortion and denying women’s right to choice in matters affecting their bodies; and, uphold the sacrament of marriage; another phrase of denying equality of sexes, or ostracizing folks with alternative life-styles (LGBT communities). His campaign message is a difficult sell in current day America, because of growing shift in American public opinion towards these issues. To make a counter insurgence or opinion to what progressives have considered imperatives in modern day America, seems a political suicide for any candidate seeking votes to help him or her win the US Presidency.

2016 Chris Christi’s Presidential Campaign message, Reforming Medicare and Social Security

Keywords or Terms: Retirees; Baby-boomers; Reforming Social Security and Medicare; Governor Chris Christie; Retirees and Senior Citizens; Tanked stocks and bonds; Recession and convoluted derivatives; Boeing Corporation; Bridgate; Mayor of Hoboken; New Jersey Public Pension Reversals by Courts; and, FBI interviews and criminal investigation. 

As a public servant and member of a country club a while back, I met two great couples; both retirees and former engineers with the BOEING Corporation, before they threw in the towel and substituted their engineering gabs for golf clubs and sweet river boat cigars. Unlike the rest of their friends in nursing homes, these retirees hardly depended on their social security benefits; however, they both swore that Medicare and Medicaid have been a life-saver. Without Medicare, I would be bankrupt considering the cost of keeping my wife and self alive after two by-pass heart surgeries, said one. These two couples vote; and they do so religiously every two or four years, or whenever there is a vote to be cast at the precinct. In fact, many of their friends, age mates and former colleagues, at home and in nursing homes, have one singular purpose and objective, to prevent any politician, any person if you ask them, from messing with Social Security and Medicare. Take the last statement as a mantra or assured commitment as long as these age group lives.

These committed Baby boomers are about to meet,  2016 Republican candidate for the White House, Garden State governor, Chris Christie; with his message of entitlement reforms. The governor is about to inform these retirees that their long earned entitlement needs a tweaking; or probably, eradication. Speaking with a round-table of policy analysts, Governor Christie intoned that` he will like to make overhauling of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs as the center piece of his presidential campaign. A politically risky theme that will not only shock the two retirees or poke a finger in their nose; but will set in motion an avalanche of retirees’ interest, including a few who consider torching Social Security and Medicare, the holy grail of social-welfare programs, a no-go area for any presidential aspirant. This is probably one reason, many who heard about Governor Christie’s campaign for 2016 White House, wondered what in the world is the Republican former US Attorney for the State of New Jersey, with a guaranteed monthly pension and subsidized health care package attempting to do to America’s senior citizens: “Mess with the holy grail of entitlement programs?”

When I raised this alert with the two former Boeing engineers at the Church the other day, all I got was a somber, head shaking over the possibility of Governor Chris Christie getting their vote. In fact, one of them went as far as saying: Republicans like every now and again to mess with the old and elderly, the unfortunate and the helpless. This time around, they are going to get it! If you ask me what “it” means, I’ll just say, stay tuned. Though the nation had long been challenged with sustaining these social welfare programs for a very long time for generations of Americans who are retired, retiring or waiting to collect part, if not all their contribution to the system, a young brassy and probably flamboyant Republican candidate for the White House oval office wants to use them as puns. Early in our 2008-2011 recession, some Wall Street analysts and economists reminiscent over what would have happened if the proposal to privatize social security during George W. Bush (43rds) Presidency had materialized. Had that proposal materialized, many of our senior citizens, who lost a lot of their investment portfolios due to the recession and the bungled real estate market derivatives, will have resorted to the soup kitchen for sustenance. Many of our seniors and retirees still remember the fear they had on their faces, and the cloud of uncertainty that beclouded their future, as under-performing investments stock had turned to wastelands, about the time President Obama was taking office; with several stock portfolio and bonds rated close to junk by Moody’s. This is the same issue Mr. Chris Christie is about to re-visit once again as he shoots for the White House oval office in 2016.

Though divestment in social security contribution and handing over prior contribution to the system were seen as foregone conclusions during the last debate under another Republican White House, with a proposal allowing individual employee to invest part of their contributions in the stock market, very few at that time and even today, believe the proposal was a better alternative than the current arrangement. It defied logic, why a discredited proposal; or probably another complex economic postulation is going to be advanced by another Republican candidate; or Chris Christie’s campaign team, as a way forward for reforming Social Security, Medicare, and any other entitlement program. Frustration from the experience of the last recession is probably still fresh on the minds of many baby boomers; and any proposal, coming out of a Republican candidate, is probably going to raise an eye brow, if not derail any advancement by a seemingly interminable presidential candidate, Governor Chris Christie of the State of New Jersey.

Still the conclusion by Christi’s handlers and political advisers is: indeed, it is possible to advance the reform of Social Security and Medicare, despite the resentments and oppositions to those ventures at this time; and, still win the White House. A complaint that gained credence during George Bush era was that Social Security was about to go bankrupt and to shore it up, it was necessary to allow employees to take out their contributions while still employed and invest them in stocks or bond portfolio. In hindsight, was this a good proposal or was it not? Are the clumsiness and fraud in the financial sector that nearly brought the nation to her knees, wouldn't have done damage to the psyche of investors who would have lost huge sums of money just before the economy tanked? With the insistent and continued attack on Dodd-Frank reforming the financial sector by Congressional Republicans, do these people not know that Americans are wiser and can read between the lines?

Governor Christi seems to be making a statement, Social Security and Medicare need reform; and embracing the question, what would America do about it? Reforming Social Security and Medicare is long overdue and as a candidate for the Republican Party nomination, I am sending notices to friends and foes, that, though a former President failed to accomplish that needed reform, I am bringing in my bravado and New Jersey brashness to shake things up. Really? What America would want answered are: 1) whatever happened to the pension cut proposal for New Jersey’s public pension system? Did a judge not overturn the scheme to balance your state’s budget on the backs of retirees? 2) Whatever happened to the case of the closure of access lanes on George Washington Bridge – is it still part of a traffic study? 3) How is the reformer-crusader thing working for you – after Mayor of Hoboken insisted your office pressurized her to approve big development projects to your cronies? 4) How about your self-deluded mythology that you are a bipartisan problem solver? 5) is corruption not still well and alive in New Jersey, with all the news about your launching a PAC, are the self-interest groups already contributing, and expecting you to rob their backs, just as you did in your nomination to become the first inexperienced US Attorney prosecutor for the State of New Jersey? and, 6) How is the FBI interview and possible criminal investigation coming on?

One of the greatest difficulties of our time is the challenge of dealing with probably corruptible public servants. No one is alleging that the great Governor of New Jersey is corruptible, because of the political landscape in his state; however, there are some actions taken by the self-styled reformer governor of the garden state that beg for scrutiny. The cloud over Governor’s Chris Christie’s handling of some issues in his state, probably will serve as a fodder for many who are hearing his speeches and ambition for the White House oval office. We may not discover any fishy thing about some issues of directives from the New Jersey’s governor’s office; however, there are enough suspicion to believe that there is more to the campaign message to reform the bed crust of social program in United States. There is more to a Presidential aspirant who would like to balance the state or federal budget on the back of the elderly and fixed income earners.

The way Governor Christie has handled the Bridge gate scandal, and the way in which many away from his State consider his brash bravado, have already reduced his clout as a viable Republican nominee. There is no sign at this moment that he is not beleaguered by past executive actions that call his ability to run a White house squarely and fairly. The consequences of many of his past actions in position of power, are hardly forgotten by those who had suffered tremendously from Christie’s executive decisions, inaction or actions. For these and other reasons, it seems  rather unlikely that we are going to get his proposed reform to Social Security and Medicare; because, he is very unlikely to be the Republican flag bearer, with Jeb Bush in the race. Now, to my compatriot retirees, let’s just let him make all his noises, while we get back to our golf game and smoking our river boat cigars!

Governor Scott Walker: Contemplating Republican Foreign Policy Issues in the age of global terrorism?

Keywords or Terms: ISIS; Gov. Scott Walker; Terrorism; Computer virus; Foreign Policy Craft; YOUTUBE; Minnesota; Texas; Berlin; Belgium; Middlesex; London; Paris; Middle-East Conflicts; Former Governor of State of Alaska

2016 White House Republican aspirants’ ignorance of foreign policy issues has moved from party hallways to the front page. No longer can at least one of the candidates, Governor Scott Walker, be overlooked as merely fallible in a challenging world, where journalists are beheaded and broadcasted on YOUTUBE by ISIS and or Al-Qaida in Arabian Peninsula to the horrors of millions across the globe. Nor can his interpretation of how to combat global terrorism likened to a sound understanding of the new cankerworm on the world’s stage.

Just Saturday, March 14^th, Governor Scott Walker, one of the Republican aspirants for the 2016 contest, likened combating terrorism to a computer virus. It is becoming obvious that the Governor does not have a basic grasps of what terrorism is and what a huge challenge it has become on the world’s stage. For the records, terrorism is not a computer virus; neither can it be interpreted in a very narrow sense, as a mere problem that can be eradicated by ground hostilities in faraway places. Broadly defined, terrorism is a systematic use of violence, terror and intimidation to achieve an end. It is neither a computer virus susceptible to MacAfee antivirus eradication; nor a tangible object that could be flushed down a drainage pipe of foreign policy.

The diplomatic policy of interaction with other nations is complicated; the use of violence to accomplish this policy has been embraced by neoconservatives; however, experience has shown that neither the use of violence of war by state nor intimidation by extremist groups can accomplish this selfish end. The trade craft of foreign policy has been complicated with the rise of terrorism on the global stage.  It is no secret that global terrorism has become hard core, with religious alliance of multiple groups from several parts of the globe. This is why an aspirant to the highest office in the land must show a sincerity of purpose in understanding the new world’s challenge; alternatives to violence in combating it; and, the innermost secret that drives groups into alliance to fight for a dastardly common course.

Nearly everyone involved in this modern day gore feels he is fighting an entitled religious or philosophical war that will lead them to martyrdom. Further, many in the forefront of this bloody enterprise will be classified as having blind faith; however, a few are in revenge hostilities for many foreign policy blunders of leaders in both the western and eastern bloc. As a matter of note, there is a present and anticipated revolutionary commitment of both young and old people, whose only answer for failures in life’s choices has been to default to this unfortunate enterprise that gives them some sense of accomplishment(s). To have a Presidential aspirant label this horrible nightmare as a virus that can be eradicated by additional violence, is rather unfortunate.

I have never belonged to the sanctum sanctorum of religious extremists, let alone understand the inner secrets that drive a youth born or raised in the heart of Minnesota, Texas, Berlin, Belgium, Middlesex, London borough, or Paris, to succumb to propaganda put out by extremist groups in the name of religion to recruit for devious purposes; or, an un-winnable war. Neither have I dealt with counter-intelligence agencies fighting the new wars of the twenty-first century; however, as an observer of terrorist events that have taken place in the past two decades, here and abroad, I can say convincingly, it is going to take more than physical wars or annihilation, to win the hearts and minds of terrorist groups splintered across the globe. Revolutionary groups with religious manifestos are hardly interested in finding a common ground or settling for peace; rather, they have greater determination to have their voice heard, either through continuous violence or insistence disorderly behavior that are difficult to explain to the average person. A determination to avert further destruction are better met with negotiated diplomatic relations rather than meeting their force with another force. Examples of this last assertion are found in Iraq; Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria; Lebanon, Indonesia, Malta, and more.

I do not want to sound as if, from the point of safety and convenience of my northwestern suburb home– far from the tragedy of the World’s Trade Fair Center or the daily machination of Middle-East conflicts– that I am indifferent to the impact of terrorists’ violence; however, insurgency of any kind, are symptomatic of deeper issues, including past international confrontations, unsettled execution of treaties or settlements, and an unexplainable commitment of people to ideas that they probably hardly understand. I listen with immense delight or displeasure to characterization of serious issues as mere virus or excusable challenge that can be solved with violence of war; and ask, where has all these people been? Are they living in a different planet from me? Politicians seeking office have tendency to make superfluous statements to arrest the moment or get attention; however, when the statement rise to the level of ignorance of what is being discussed, I have no option but to see the politician as unfit for the political office.

It may not be naïve to consider Governor Scott Walker as unfit for the Office of the US Presidency with his characterization of terrorism as a computer virus. Most Americans who are assessing candidates for the 2016 White House contest are probably asking themselves the same question: Is Governor Walker really serious, or was he in jest, when he said fighting terrorism can be symptomatic of fighting a computer virus? The wisdom of admitting that he is in error over the weekend in New Hampshire may help salvage his image; however, if Governor Scott Walker continues to honker down on this trail of mis-characterization, he will probably end up like that Governor from the State of Alaska, who sounded just too incoherent at the meeting of Republicans in Des Moines, Iowa, a few months ago.

Not even in Republicans’ wildest dream would they have thought one of their champions of conservative values, would end up mis-characterizing terrorism. Many Neo-conservatives probably thought a few months ago that Governor Scott Walker displayed tenacity and valor in fighting trade unions in Wisconsin that could be translated to the whole country. However, with the current misstep over the weekend in foreign policy, they are probably realizing that this unicorn has lost his horn. The good news though for these neo-conservatives, there are abundance of other neo-conservatives among the field of Republicans aspirants seeking nomination as Republican Party flag bearer; it may just be time to move on to give these a closer look. The others preach economic freedom and rugged individuality, values that the neo-conservatives cherish. It may just be time to move on to them!

Executive Emails and Oil Fields Fracking: New Considerations in the run for 2106 White House

Keywords and Terms: Secretary Hillary Clinton; Governor Jeb Bush; Emails; Presidential Campaigns; Fracking; Super-fracking; Gulf-Coast States; ABCTV News program, THIS WEEK; General Colin Powell; Keystone XL pipeline project; Environmental, Social and Financial impacts; Republican Aspirants: Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Tom Cruz; Governor Rick Perry

During Ms. Hillary Clinton’s service to the nation as the Secretary of State, it was hard to understand why a remote server and personal account would not be ideal for official email traffic, just like some previous US Secretaries of State had done. There is an inherent indifference and probably a conflict of interest as we watch former Governor of the State of Florida make available email addresses of presidential campaign benefactors or prospective donors on the WEB, recently. The focus today is neither why a former US Secretary of State or the Governor of the State of Florida fell into doldrums or miscalculations of executive actions; or, why some citizens feel both actions of front runners for the 2016 Presidential Campaign for the White House are misgiven; however, it is to explore why fracking, a modern means of exploring oil and gas may be the key issue in the race for the 2016 White House.  It is a huge issue because the Democratic Party front runner, Secretary Hillary Clinton, has not shown her obvious opposition; but her probable opponent, Governor Jeb Bush, has affirmatively blessed and accepted the process as a viable technology to increase the source of carbon-based energy source.

In case you are wondering why not pay attention to exploring the former US Secretary of State action regarding personal emails for official duties, there is a current US House Committee seeking the secretary’s personal account and looking at the possibility of some error of judgment.  Meanwhile, for the records, it is not the place of this blog to look at issues under investigation; we always default to waiting until all the facts are in before looking at the merits or demerits of past actions of politicians.

In case you missed the news over the weekend, Former US Secretary of State under President Bush (43^rd), Republican General Colin Powell, informed George Stephanopoulos, on ABCTV News Program, THIS WEEK, that he conducted public affairs on a personal email account while US Secretary of State; and, unless State Department server kept records of such emails, he does not have a hard copy of most of those emails. Discussing further politics on ABC Good Morning America on Sunday, March 8, 2015, Mr. Stephanopoulos believes critics of Ms. Clinton probably overacted on the email issue and he can hardly fathom why this rabble rouser issue is likely to fold up the 2016 Presidential Campaign of the former US Secretary of State under President Obama. However, since past actions seem to predict future actions, it is not out of place to re-visit this issue at a future date, if necessary. For now, we have chosen to explore a burning issue in the hearts of many environmentalists, scientists, oil and gas explorers, and our neighbors to the north, not to exclude one thing many Republicans are miffed about: The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project and the failure of Congressional House Republicans to override a sitting Democratic President’s veto on the project.

FRACKING

What is fracking? This is a process for drilling down into the heart of the earth until a high-pressure water mixture is used to release or loosen gas and oil from shale rock. Water, sand and chemicals are used under high pressure to accomplish these processes that allow gas and oil to pass through a head well. The vertical or horizontal process through rock layers create pathways for gas and oil to move through extended channels to a head well storage for harvesting. In a 2005 journal article published in Volume 27 of Ore Geology Reviews, Dr. Blundell, D. defines hydro-fracking as a well-simulation technique in which rock is fractured by hydraulically pressurized liquid made of water, sand and chemicals. A new technology in the exploration of gas and oil, very controversial if you ask farmers who are at odds with fracking that runs them off their lands, including their herds, as their farmlands are gradually being dominated by oil and gas wells employing fracking.

Fracking is gradually becoming an issue on the 2016 White House Presidential campaigns because some visionaries and skeptical environmentalists have raised grave concerns regarding the associated risks of fracking for the water table in many states with increased fracking activities. Like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tom Cruz and Rick Perry, all Republican aspirants for the 2016 White House, each will likely inform you he has a policy statement regarding fracking vis-à-vis his Presidential Campaign; but is probably not ready to give it away. However, no one will be surprised, if each of these 2016 White House aspirants catty-up to fracking as another option to look at in harvesting carbon-based fuel. Candidly, in support of these aspirants, many voters in their constituencies hardly a bad word for fracking because, it has provided some level of financial security for them and their families, especially in the deprived and desperate South Eastern and Gulf Coast States, North and, South Dakotas.

Unfortunately, the environmental, social and financial impacts of fracking as a drilling technology make it a subject of controversy; and, when a probable Presidential front-runner of a major political party is in complete support of the technology, it is important to look closely at the issues raised by scientists as well as skeptics, even if only for information sake. Environmentalists’ complaints about the risks associated with fracking as drilling technology, including: 1) release of hazardous pollutants and emissions of methane and diesel fumes to the environment from the process; 2) fugitive emissions from several stages of natural gas production and methane leakage from shale gas during fracking make the environment unsafe; 3) water used in hydraulic fracturing are diverted from other uses, municipal and industrial purposes; 4) induced seismicity from fracking trigger large quakes that impacts people’s life; 5) disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater has been a difficulty; and, 6) noise pollution from the fracturing activities and moving equipment, have been of concern by some residents of the US; and, are well documented by geological scientists researching this new technology in the field.

It is widely believed in some oil-producing Gulf States, and probably enthusiastically supported throughout majority of those state governments, where fracking is the new norm of harvesting oil and gas from the bowels of the earth, that there are no other safer means of dislodging oil and gas that remain imbedded in the rocks for ages and were unavailable for harvesting before the arrival of the technology. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth; the assumption that fracking is safer for dislodging oil and gas from shale, is a mistaken assumption, driven by opportunities for added profits and extra revenue from taxes to State government coffers. Yes, fracking may bring huge supplies of oil and gas to the market; yes, the US has been a global leader in the use of the technology, with companies as Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes leading the way; however, the choice to stretch this technology, including what is referred to as “super fracking” has led to increased tremors and earthquakes in some states where there have been increased activities of oil and gas exploration.

POLITICS, PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Should the nation have reasons to worry that this activity may lead to other increased pressure on the horizontal and vertical stability of the earth surface? Should our politicians have their say regarding this new technology? Should we question the position of each candidate for the 2016 White House regarding this technology? Majority of the political campaigns may have some talking points regarding this technology and its place in increasing the supply of US petroleum supplies and bi-products; however, it is probably impossible to say each of them have other innovative ideas regarding how to increase carbon-based fuel. A few may even subscribe to the use of the technology just as Jeb Bush, the leading Republican candidate for the 2016 White House race; however, none of them could place an argument for cutting back on the use of the technology because of the identified associated risks and daringness of the technology in exploring for oil and gas.

This technology opens not only doors for increased oil and gas production; however, it comes with associated risks that may bring more problems in the future. Oil producers may see profits and states may see energy security from the expansion of use of the technology; however, can any Presidential aspirant ask pragmatic questions regarding the unsettledness of the earth and earthquakes in many states with increased fracking activities? Leaders, especially Presidential office aspirants, are expected to be visionaries. The conventional view today of fracking is that the technology is bringing unprecedented volume of oil and gas to the market and has increased US exports of gas. While helping cut back on oil and gas prices and making US a new net exporter of carbon-based fuel, the question to ask maybe is: at what trade-offs?  We have had wild swings in oil and gas prices lately; however, no one has been able to explain to the public, why this is so; or, whether the increased use of fracking had helped soften the world market spot prices.

2016 Presidential aspirants have opportunity to recognize the trade-offs here; and lift up concerns for increased use of the technology. There are reported use of the technology in Canada, Mexico, Poland, Russia and other Middle- East State. However, how can we put associated problems of this new technology in focus as we enjoy the extra oil and gas that it has afforded on the market? If the technology is already internationalized, should there be an international conscience and cautiousness of the repercussion of the use of the technology for harvesting oil and gas? Obama’s administration’s displeasure with the Canadian Keystone XL project seems to have miffed Republicans – it has even grown to what some Republicans describe to as a full-blown threat to American Energy Security – however, none of the 2016 presidential aspirants have offered a clue as regard what they would do, except, once we vote a Republican into the White House, the project is a certainty. Have any of the current Republican aspirants considered why the president of the United States vetoes the project in the first place? Could it be as recognition of the level of output from fracking that has emboldened or advised the White House to say no to the project? These are plausible issues that need to be explored by the Presidential aspirants.

How Rudy Giuliani interprets President Obama as Un-American: misconceptions about presidential powers?

Keywords or Terms: Rudy Giuliani; Un-American; Un-Patriotic; Rudygate; Henchman Mentality; Maligning leadership; White House; Presidency of Barack Obama; Ronald Reagan’s Presidency; Jimmy Carter’s Presidency; Iran-Contra Affairs;  Republican Party Leadership; Governor Scot Walker; US Congress; Cabal of uncivilized Republicans; New Yorker; US House Speaker John Boehner; and First African-American President

Anyone who is not blinded by his own leadership style or slight achievement while in political office must recognize that Rudy Giuliani’s comments regarding President Obama’s patriotism is close to self-incrimination. How did Mayor Giuliani come to the conclusion that the President is not patriotic? Can he truly identify all actions taken by the President that are genuinely un-American? Many Americans, including those of us who are staunch supporters of the President can identify some actions taken by the White House under President Obama that we are not in complete agreement; however, none that we know of has risen to the level of being un-American or unpatriotic. No President in the history of this Democracy has genuinely set out to damage the country; none. But the immediate perceptions of some statements or actions taken by the President could have been seen or construed as not in complete interest of the people; however, none can be assessed as a first or deliberate effort to be unpatriotic, because he hates America. How many people do you know go through the stress of running two national election campaigns, including the rigors and pressures, the highs and the lows of primaries, the irredeemable exhaustion that have led one or two of our Presidents to collapse and die, just few days or weeks after coronation; just because they want to destroy the country or are un-American?

We are not concerned here about Party politics, henchman man mentality and suspicious intentions of Mayor Giuliani to make the adverse comments. To level head Americans, if you do not have anything good to say about a person, why not try reserving your comments; or like my son puts it: shut up! Yet there are many who would agree with Rudy Giuliani that it is within his rights to assess the President as un-American and there are actions that have failed the consistency of matching the challenge of the moment for the nation, coming out of Obama’s White House. However, do these actually mean the President is un-American or unpatriotic? In Mayor Giuliani’s stewardship of New York City, could he say he exercised leadership that is beyond reproach, that couldn't be perceived by others as non-New Yorker or unpatriotic to the oath he took?

Two mistakes are replicate of Mayor Giuliani’s comment. One is the failure to understand President Obama’s leadership style in the past six years – the failure to realize that the President comes with a variant of emerging decisions, some of which are designed to make the country a more equal or fairer society regarding health, finances, religion, and sexual orientation issues. President Obama’s leadership brand would not have survived, if he subscribes to the hawkish policies supported by Mayor Giuliani and many Republicans, because Obama won his first election on an anti-war platform. All, but a few of his leadership decisions has been in fulfilment of his promise to voters; and millions of Americans who are tired of the Republican war mongering flair and orientation, saw it fit to allow him win a second term. An ideology using war and terror to drive foreign policy is not completely emblematic of patriotism; it is actually the contrary. Sending young children, the best of our twenty-something to die in Iraq, for a misplaced choice of decision in Presidential leadership, is essentially and inevitably, unpatriotic. Does this necessarily make President George W. Bush un-American? Either Mayor Giuliani is playing politics or he is more interested in maligning the leadership style of the President; or, he is out to destroy the personality of a sitting President of the United States.

The second and equally prevalent mistake of the Mayor’s comment is to assume that decisions taken by the President are consummated by him and there are no outside inputs to them. In case Mayor Giuliani is oblivious of it, no President, none in modern history, ever made a comment with policy implications that do not have inputs of advisors, party leadership, pressure groups, and believe it, lobbyists. Before a President rises to the rostrum to proclaim a policy statement, hundreds of staff hours had already gone into deliberations regarding the statement. Mayor Giuliani’s erroneous statement skews the perception of challenges that people in leadership confront everyday of their incumbency. The misinterpretation of many of President Obama’s policy statements as being un-American or unpatriotic is fraught with tragic consequences; and this is probably the reason why the White House Press Secretary labels Rudy’s comment at a private dinner with probable- 2016 presidential-candidate, Governor Scott Walker, as unfortunate. Democrats and Republicans are no less irked with comments from a former mayor who is admired by some in the country and considered by others to have had a profound response to the unfortunate event of September 11, 2001.

Seasons of presidential political campaign have tendency to bring out the worst in some undisciplined politicians. One no longer has to wait for the full season of 2016 Presidential Campaign before insults and unscrupulous comments are flung around by mischievous politicians. “Rudy-gate?” Millions of Americans, who are apprehensive of Politian’s intentions, now have a good reason to see once admired public stature of another politician, as complete rues. If Mayor Giuliani is ever going to redeem himself, he must henceforth be cautious of his utterance; however if he chooses otherwise, he is welcomed to continue in his ruinous and destructive way to talk about another human being, not to talk of a sitting President of this great nation.

Many Americans receive information regarding a President’s performance from poles, perceptions of families and relatives, and occasionally, other politicians. These days, Americans receive information about the performance of their President from the following sources: the Internet, Network Television News; Satellite and Radio Broadcasts; Podcasts; Mass Emails; Professional Journals, Newspapers and a host of unconventional sources. I am not including other sources, which credence is hardly given, including after drink dinner party comments of unscrupulous and mean intention washed out past politicians, who have cashed out on their past political glory in office to claim security expertise in defrauding some third world countries. Rudy Giuliani and Scott Walker may decide to take on President Obama on other issues; however, many of us have had enough of the ruthless and uncivilized way many Republicans continue to treat a sitting President of the United States. If Rudy Giuliani is any good for the Presidency why was he cast aside by his party on his first run?

When historical records of past Presidencies are considered, the paucity and distortions of Republican Administrations’ performance are alarming. How about, Iran-Contra Affairs and the behemoth acceptance by Ronald Reagan that US sold weapons to Islamic Republican of Iran as part of unsuccessful bid to secure release of American Citizens held hostages in Lebanon? How about Reagan’s Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary and his associates’ act of rigging housing bids to favor Republican Contributors to Reagan campaigns or rewarding lobbyists? What would you say of Reagans’ Secretary of Interiors sixteen convictions, including twenty-four felonies? How would you interpret Reagan’s campaign team acquisition of briefing papers that were supposed to be used by President Jimmy Carter for preparation for the October 28, 1980 debate? Were these considered un-American for President Reagan? Were these involuntary duplicity or treacherous act that may rise to the level of being labelled un-American?

It is sufficient to recall that until recent time, the very act of impugning a sitting President of the United States is considered un-American. The scope and cruelty with which some Republicans have gone after President Obama leadership have been rather shameful; and a reflection of how degenerative the Republican Party’s decorum has become. To take a further example, the Sitting US House Speaker, Republican John Boehner, has gone behind the Obama’s Whitehouse to arrange for another leader of a country that is involved in interacted and persistent unwinnable Middle-East war to come and address the United States Congress. Violating all known protocols and showing disregard for the providence of the US Presidency in foreign policy? Where has this been ever done in history? The authors of the willful disregard for the office of the US Presidency under President Obama must be ready for a backlash, when next a Republican ever holds that office. The country is now tired of the continued insult to the United States Presidency; we are convinced that there is a cabal of uncivilized Republicans, who are not only racists, but actually ignorant of what the office of the Presidency entails.

The interpretation of the current “un-American” comments from Mayor Rudy Giuliani underscores the current fervent radicalism in the Republican Party. In recent time, the Republican Party is noticeable dominated by far-right extreme groups bent on discrediting anything good about the first African-American President of the United State. Different derogation means and approaches have been used to undermine the Presidency of Barack H. Obama, some of them are symptomatic of the racist-inclination of some extreme neo-conservatives of the party. The recent comments of Rudy may be explained away by several superficial analogies; however, what many Americans draw from this are the unconscionable and infuriating underclasses that the Republicans have gradually metamorphosed into. While American patriotism is still the object of indisputable drawing, no one would entertain a situation in which the President of this great country is accused and or ascribed as un-American for anyone reason.

Another Bush Enters the Race for the White House: Can you hold fast enough to your task dollars if you know it may fall to another foreign war?

Keywords or Terms: Jeb Bush; foreign voyeurism; cataleptic financial meltdown; National and Global Security; Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz; Arab World; Diplomatic Relations; AIPAC; US Congress; Smacks the brilliance of Innovation; Commerce; International Trade; Republican Conservatives; US Department of State and Defense; CIA; Irish Republican Army; Emerging Former Soviet States; Liberty Diplomacy; and, National Security Agency’s Mass Surveillance of America; CIA sanctioned interrogation techniques; Water Boarding; Civil Liberties and Freedom

If you are contemplating supporting or voting for Jeb Bush for the Presidency in 2016, I implore you to think again. The team of foreign policy experts and cabinet members milling around his campaign are replicas and extensions of his brother’s and father’s cabinets that led the nation to the two Iraq wars: Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, James Baker, George Shultz, John Negroponte, Stephen Hadley, Tom Ridge, Porter Goss, Michael Mukasey and Meghan O’Sullivan. With all the attempt to distance himself from the 41^st and 43^rd President of the United States, Jeb Bush has shown that he is either shallow in his search for alternative competent team of advisers; or, he prefers bureaucrats who were either remotely or directly connected to policies that led the country to foreign voyeurism, detainees' torture and water boarding, cataleptic financial meltdown and a barrage of abuses of political powers.

Never mind the, ‘I- love-my-father-and-brother-but-I-am-my-own-man’ message, his campaign team of advisers is emblematic of hawkish foreign policy experts from the 41st and 43rd's Presidency theatrics; “experts” whose only aim is to lead the nation possibly to another foreign war and violation of international laws. If a man’s speech on national security boils down to restraining them [terrorists], tightening the noose and taking terrorists out, concepts shy of a world’s view of interplay of power, civil liberties, international law and national security, vis-a-vis, the shifting of world order on global security, that man is not ready to stand up and claim a place in the sun.

Combating terrorism demands that as President or candidate, you understand the key players and power brokers in the fight against terrorism, nationally and internationally; and able, to appreciate rules and regulations of international law, including the nuances and decipher realities from illusions as advises are offered by your foreign policy “experts”. Did Jeb ever think that President Obama’s consolation visit to Saudi Arabia at the instance of the death of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz had nothing to do with stability in the Arab World, Oil and Gas Trade, Global Security and Playing to the Gallery? If he doesn't, then welcome to reality, Virginia. Commerce, International trade and combating terrorists are all intertwined in global security; including discountenancing suspicion that an ally may have prior knowledge of the events of September 11, 2001. 

The debate on national security has been galvanized by global security; old assertions that America is far away geographically to experience the dastard act of terrorism or invasion are now dead. America has an interest in global security and stability not only because they are helpful to our national security, but also, to our friends and allies. Maintaining diplomatic relations or supporting agreements between Israel and Palestine over their unwinnable and persistent wars, is a way of promoting global stability as well as national security for America. If in doubt talk to AIPAC; call up Netanyahu and ask him why he wants to come and plead his case before US Congress over issues concerning his country’s national security. There are historic, national and regional rivalries that impact America’s security; that is why the State Department is all over the world, pouring waters on political fires, before they en-flame regional stability that may impact national security of our allies; and by extension, ours.

The emerging shift from state-sponsored terrorism to new splintered groups as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar-E-Taiba, Irish Republican Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Bodu Bala Sena, Boko Haram, and others, demands a worldview interpretation of national security and a President who is able to articulate America’s National Security in the context of global security. The nation no longer has the luxury of raising another leader with a myopic view of the world, who sees America’s national security strictly on the ability of the nation to wage foreign wars to make others comply. The nation can no longer afford a governor with a steeper learning curve on foreign policies and international affairs; who is finding it hard to define himself in seeking the highest political office in the land. Coming to speed and articulating dynamic foreign policies are no longer options, they are requirements of anyone attempting to become the President of the only global power left standing: Our beautiful and graceful America.

The fact of the matter is Jeb Bush’s speech on national security smacks the brilliance of innovation; rather, it seems more of a hodge-podge of recently parroted message of Republican Conservatives, who believe they can bomb the daylights out of terrorist groups and achieve national and or global security. Maybe his first run at the National Security Speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a trial run at bigger and better speeches to come; however, if Jeb Bush wants us to differentiate his candidacy from his dad and brother’s time in office, he has to show that he is at least versed in international laws, foreign policies and our national interests beyond a fifth grader. Allowing old hands to forge rejected foreign policies that have failed and created more terrorist activities across the globe is no longer good enough. America wants a President who understands alternative ways of combating religious radicalism, counterinsurgency, and how best to relate to formal and informal diplomatic relations that will yield lasting national security and global stability, in the absence of committing troops to unnecessary foreign wars and expenses.

Furthermore, because foreign policies are strongly identified with the image of a country, talks about viable national security and global stability policies are particularly intractable when seeking stronger and mutually beneficial and enduring national and international security. America’s interest in global security is not limited to curtailing Islamic terrorist insurgencies in the Middle East, it encompasses addressing issues related to stability of emerging former Soviet States, Settlement of the grievances of the Irish Republican Army, Confronting mutual objectives in US-Russian relationship on the New START talks Initiatives and expounding US foreign policies to Asia Minor and Eastern Europe. There is no reason to assume, for example, that direct bombing and annihilation of terrorists across the globe will guarantee national and global security. Each day, new terrorist gangs are metamorphosing into formidable national security threats for many of our friends and allies. A worldviews of ‘liberty diplomacy’ as defined in Jeb Bush’s National Security Speech seems more in the right direction; however, America is no longer ready to travel the road of losing their personal liberty at the expense of their leader’s choice. To subscribe to the National Security Agency’s Mass Surveillance of America started under Bush 43^rd Presidency, is a no go area; and for many, grounds to reject Jeb Bush’s candidacy.

What the 43^rd did as President that has irked men and women who cherish their civil liberties is, create avenues to doubt the efficacy of the government to be honest and truthful in policy implementation. Civil libertarians not only questioned the intension of government as George W. Bush went about net-email-wire-tapping of innocent citizens, the character and consequence of fighting terrorism abroad degenerated to a design of national eavesdropping on Americans, a behavior the constitution explicitly frowns at. At inception, fighting against global terrorism after September 11, 2001 dastardly act, was seen as a component of the CIA, State and Defense Departments function; the interplay of the National Security Agency introduced a quagmire that degenerated to government unwritten policies to play big-brothers to Americans, within and without. Whether this was a good policy or not is better left to history to judge; however, from what we now know, the 43^rd committed what is construed as war crimes and broke international laws in the process of fighting terrorism. The two legacies of the 43^rd’s administration: CIA sanctioned interrogation tactics and CIA’s use of waterboarding techniques in 2003, were not used within the (national and international) laws and hardly protected American citizens at home and abroad. Any Presidential aspirant that subscribes to these outlaw behavior as recently articulated in Jeb Bush’s speech, is not worthy of the US Presidency.

Some saw the 43rds Administration’s aggressive quest to fight terrorism as an embodiment of un-American values; one that civil libertarians are not at peace with. General Michael Hayden’s vast knowledge of security which may have been invaluable to the 43rds, was railroaded by insiders, some say his Vice President Dick Cheney, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, for more aggressive option to fight terrorism. Popular reactions to the damning Senate report on interrogation techniques of the CIA, cross-purposed the need to fight terrorism against the liberties and freedom granted under US constitution. Whether foreign terrorists should retain the same rights as Americans during time of hostilities is a subject for another day. What we know now, again,  is that the techniques of fighting terrorism, including water boarding and extended interrogation are torture and no American is willing to go to bed, knowing these actions were taken in their name. If Jeb Bush fails to recognize this position of Americans, then, he hardly needs to run for the Presidency of this great nation.

Before Jeb’s Bush announcement to seek the presidency of the United States, critics have wondered if America has some sort of ascendancy to the Office of the Presidency. After his announcement, a few neo-conservatives saw the name brand of Bush as an advantage and a possible choice to outlast or give Mitt Romney good run for his money if he chooses to run. Romney’s choice not to run, seem a great opening for Bush’s clan; however, with yesterday’s speech and the roll out of Jeb’s foreign policy advisors, many Americans are saying Jeb may be more dangerous than the 43^rd President of the United States, who just happens to be his brother. There are other concerns from the public regarding the candidacy of another Bush for the White House, many of which I intend to shine light on as we travel the road to the 2016 general elections. 

For now, merely subscribing to the notion that the 43^rd President faced agonizing choices about how to pursue Al Qaeda and prevent terrorist attacks against the country, is tepid and does not sit well with many people; consequently, civil libertarians do not want anything to do with such accommodation. Aggrandizing any sympathy for outlaw behavior in governance sabotages any chance for Jeb Bush or his ilk from becoming our next President. 

Forming a Government where the girls moved the boys: A projected look at a possibility in the ascendancy of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Elizabeth Warren to US Presidency?

Keywords or Terms: Hillary Rodham Clinton; Elizabeth Warren; Executive Suites; Females; Women Suffrage; US Senate; US House of Representatives; African-American Women; Asian American Women; Voting Power; Female Apathy; Madeleine Albright; Condoleezza Rice;  Middle east; Foggy-Bottom; Nicolas Sarkozy; and 2016 Presidential Election

The urge to project a female President inspires females across the globe. So it is with the possibility of ascendancy of Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or any other female that may be interested in becoming the President of this great nation. Females are not in short supply in the population; however, there is dearth of them in fortune 500 business executive suites; and, none of them has ever occupied White House oval office. Female governors have been admired; female National Security Advisors, Attorney Generals, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and a host other executive positions in government have been cherished; however, going for the golden crown or the highest office in the land, has always been the goal, if I am to affirm or model the women’s right convention in Seneca Fall, New York in 1848. Women's conception of their own power and efforts to nominate and vote into office one of theirs must not be dispelled in 2016.

The notion that Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other female will become the next President of the United States is a progressive one; ahead of the initial attempts of 1984 Democrat Geraldine Ferraro and 2008 Republican Sarah Palin run for the Office of the Vice President. Not since the ninetieth amendment to the constitution in 1920, affording women right to vote, has there been a more promising opportunity to actually have a woman run and win election into the White House oval office. There has been a lot of first break through at state and local government levels; but none as progressive and promising as having a female with the type of clout and admiration in Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren to win the crown. In Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren, women, especially the baby boomer generation, will have the choice to exercise their vote to elect one of theirs to win the big prize, coveted by men for over two centuries.

In many respect, women are tailor-made for the challenges of leading a nation, because of their past successes in various spheres of life, beginning with the first unit of human endeavor or organization, the family. Because of their multi-tasking abilities and refined bullheadedness in time of crisis, women are not short of energy and wherewithal to handle the stress and pressures of leadership. To scorn or prevent women to install their ninth-time most admired person in the oval office will be synonymous with attempting to favor an unbroken chain of male Presidency since the inception of the nation in 1776.

Yet, a closer look at the possibility – and at history – might suggest that women can end up being their own greatest enemy. Some women, huge religious conservatives, still believe that a woman’s place is at home. A couple will go as far as insinuating that their religion or God ordains or proclaims it likewise; and any ambition on the part of a woman, no matter how promising or expansionary, is fruitless and must be ignored or halted. This is sadly true if one considers prior voting patterns of the female population on the quest of females for national executive offices.  Factoring out dearth of female candidacies for national executive offices, women have consistently failed to exercise their power at the ballot box to enthrone their own in comparison to their ratio of the population.

First, within the national executive structure, US Senate and US House of Representatives, the nation is dying to have more female participants.  In 2014, the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University documented One hundred females in US Congress; twenty of them in Senate and eighty, House of Representatives. Carol Mosely Braun (D-IL) (1993-1999) has been the only female African -American ever elected to serve in US Senate and Mazi Hirono (D-HI) (2012 to date), the only female Asian-American to be elected to serve in the same capacity. A minuscule forty-nine women of color have ever served in the US House of Representatives. This is partly because of several factors; however, a few progressives associate this low occupancy as a result of apprehension on the part of some female to seek the offices and partly because of the structure of the political parties and or, failure of female activism in recent memory and persistent female voter’s choice not to exercise their dominance relative to the voting population.

Second, within the bound of American Political System, females continue to see politics as much of a male sport. None can claim to know-it-all in politics; however, there must be conscious efforts to encourage women to seek higher national offices; and probably an incubator of some sort for women activists, seeking and working tirelessly to put women in higher national elected offices; including the three executive branches of government. The notion that political campaign hostilities is hardly appealing to females is somewhat of a cop-out. Given that political campaign hostilities, including mudslinging, could be brutal and have the potential of choking a new aspirant in a whirlwind of competition, there are still enough room for everyone to rise up to the soap box. Ignominious male utterances, where females are referred to as ribs from the chest of men, can be made impossible, if women let their voices be heard by actively participating as candidates and voters. Without continuous apprehension or apathy from some women towards seeking higher national political office(s), hardly will many men occupy the current slate of offices at the national level, because they can hardly amass the critical mass of votes to win elected offices with many women in a race.

Third, with male dominance in national political elections set to wither away with more female candidates, there are endless synergism in women power to enthrone more females in higher national or federal offices; and, with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren candidatures in 2016, who may doubt or deny the possibilities of women enthroning one of theirs into the oval office. The problem in the past has often been the wave of uncertainties encumbering women voting power that dissipate consensus towards a female candidature. Women tend to vote for male candidates for national offices, partly out of choice or tradition; sometimes, their support are directed in multiple directions, thus denying critical mass needed to put one of theirs ahead. How about concentrating your votes into one huge basket and letting one of yours carry the day?

The beginning of wisdom in modern-day politics is to recognize that women political power has meaning; and it is about time female voters become less gullible to responding to party loyalty just because of hitherto male dominant voices in national politics. A close to in-depth understanding of how males play the game will suffice, once you have a charismatic and admirable leader. One rarely meets elite educated lawyers with national level political experience as voters have in Hillary Clinton and or Elizabeth Warren in 2016. Self-hatred, self-disenfranchisement or parochialism must not triumph over commonsense, if women are going to have one of their own in the White House oval office. Most aspirants for the oval office are speaking to multiple constituents – across states, regions and within their groups. It is not difficult to become adept to tradition, or what are the historical pattern and experience; however, it takes determinations, guts and believing in yourself to make dreams come true. Remember what Bobby Kennedy said: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

In Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, you see the fulfillment of a dream of generations of women. You see a candidate, who has been through the trenches in 2008, a woman who has once experienced the use of character assassinations in national elections by the opposing political party, a woman who once chastised the presidential incumbent of a spouse that what he hardly understands is that, you have to pound the opposition party’s attack machine and run against the press; a candidate who appreciates that a presidential campaign is a mirror reflection of a candidate’s aspirations and dreams; A politician that believes that a political campaign team that goes through a tough battle together must continually bond together, because their survival depends on staying together in the face of crisis; A candidate who thrives in somewhat chaotic presidential campaign and still maintain the intimacy of a one-on-one communication with her brilliant team members; A grandmother who knows how to harness the energies of past warriors of political street fights and never bets against the potential of an adversary to overcome initial failures or defeats at the state primary levels. This is a woman who understands that balancing the budget must never be done at the back of the vulnerable groups, children and the elderly; who knew firsthand what a backlash a former house speaker suffered when he attempted to cut the school lunch program to balance the 1995 budget; this is a lion of a woman who has roamed the den and ally when food and resources were scanty and survived the austerity not by clubbing down the down trodden, but by helping up humanity in dire times. To paraphrase Attorney- General Bobby Kennedy once again, fewer women will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each woman, working together to change a small portion of events; will spring forward the progress clock for women suffrage in a rather handsome and beautiful way in our national politics.

In deciding who to vote for, in deciding the course of 2016 election, all women need to look at the mirror and contemplate what is going on in America today, issues of immigration, wage stagnation, income inequality, possibility of a universal health coverage, same-sex marriage and fighting terrorism, and ask which candidate is best to gather together policy wonks and strategists to turn around the nation's fortunes for better, while recognizing the pains of the vulnerable, women, children and the elderly. Is it the Republicans or the Democrats?

What Hillary Clinton offers is experience working alongside brilliant men and women from all walks of life, race, gender ethnicity and national origins, to bring about change we can all relate to. Yes, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice broke the glass ceiling at US State Department, but Hillary Clinton made the foggy-bottom clearer with her speech to students in the Middle East during the dawn of Arab Spring. Would you rather vote for a politician respected by other world leaders with one, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, admonishing her as tough, smart and a good person, or vote for a brash New Jerseyan or the engineer of a settlement of national split vote that ushered in, his brother, a President that brought the nation to her financial knees and an unpaid-for-war in Iraq? The choice is yours. However, you may want to positively consider the girl, once in the state department, boys were mystically scared was driving the national debate on foreign policy!