I am not a big fan of outrageous salaries. 99.99% of Americans will never get the opportunity to earn fat-cat paychecks of 8 or 9 figures (that’s $10 to $100 million a year or more), and at first blush, some of these compensation packages seem downright un-American.

However, this is America is it not? This is the land of opportunity where anybody who works hard and is fortunate and honest can achieve their highest aspirations whether it be President of the United States or just plain old filthy rich. Last time I checked being rich and successful is not in and of itself illegal or even un-American.

I must admit I have found myself even pondering the notion that I could run a major bank, or a telecommunications firm, or an insurance company. Yeah, two years at $10 million or more ought to do it. Then I could retire without a care or worry in the world.

But, do I really want to be responsible for thousands of employees and millions of customers, or answer to the stockholders and regulators, or fend off con artists and groupies, or work 18 hour days without a day off, or feel like everyone around you only likes you for your money? No, the money sounds nice, but that is where the appeal ends.

So, what is it with America’s fascination with corporate salaries? Why is it that we all feel that nobody in business should be making that kind of money? And it is big money. According to the AFL-CIO, Americas 100 highest paid CEOs start at over $17 million per year and top out at more than $133 million per year. By any measure, those are outlandish compensation packages even if much of the pay is based on performance and paid in stock options.

But, there should be equal outrage at the top-20 highest paid baseball players whose 2007 salaries, according to ESPN, range from almost $14 million per year to $26 million per year. Ninety eight players in MLB made $8 million or more in 2007, and to my knowledge none of them could even hit a baseball 4 out of 10 times at bat.

The liberal pundits also should be talking about the top-20 NFL players who earn from $12 million to nearly $28 million per year for throwing, catching or running with a pig skin. Will any professional athlete ever discover the cure to cancer, or invent the next piece of technology that will make life better for people all over the world, or create jobs that bring people out of poverty and into prosperity? Probably not.

But, America wanted “change” in Washington, DC, and now we have it. We have dozens of newly created Presidential appointed positions called “czars.” Well paid czars I might add. In a strange twist of irony, one of these new positions is called the “pay czar.” Under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), pay czar Kenneth Feinberg has explicit legal authority to cut the salaries of, even “claw back” payments already paid out to, executives at seven companies: American International Group, Bank of America Corp, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC, and Chrysler Financial. Even more striking is the power the pay czar claims to have to cut and/or claw back the pay of executives at any company that received federal bailout money under TARP.

No matter how much I dislike ridiculously high salaries, it seems to me to be abhorrent that any government official would take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide whose paycheck is too big or what an individual ought to earn. I agree that nobody should get an exorbitant paycheck for running a business into bankruptcy, but the decision to hire and fire or to cut a CEO’s pay and by how much is appropriately within the purview of that company’s Board of Directors, not the government.

Some say that because a company received federal bailout money, it is appropriate for government to decide what the CEO gets paid. Really? Next I suppose we will be hearing that government should set the wages for the workers too, or set production levels and the price of the products. This is the slippery slope some people warned us about when we started all this government bailout spending.

It would be different if the companies who took assistance from the federal government were told ahead of time that the government may come back and retroactively set salaries and even take back money already paid out to executives. But, that was not part of the deal. George W. Bush supported TARP because he felt that the financial industry was too important to the rest of the economy to let the big financial institutions fail, but he did not want nor intend to dictate how those businesses were to be operated. President Obama, on the other hand, wants to control businesses and make day-to-day decisions for corporate offices and officers. Reading this writing on the wall is probably why Goldman Sachs and Bank of America wanted to pay back the TARP money last spring and why Obama would not let them pay back the money “early.” President Obama wanted control and nothing controls like the purse strings.

It used to be in America that a deal was a deal. People could be taken at their word and that contracts meant something. In the case of the TARP, there are only provisions for the government to control the salaries of executives at seven companies (American International Group, Bank of America Corp, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC, and Chrysler Financial). But, this Administration has assumed authority to go beyond those seven companies and has even “fired” one CEO. They have exerted authority where they have none. They have changed the terms of the deal unilaterally. They are making value judgments about business practices about which they have little experience or knowledge.

I will not defend what certainly appear to be excessive salaries for CEOs who run companies into the ground and then step into the government trough with all four feet. Somehow though I am equally offended at the notion of some bureaucrat deciding on a whim what constitutes fair compensation and taking back salaries and bonuses after the fact. In my view, the recent actions of the Obama Administration are indeed as unscrupulous as the very CEOs they wish to demonize.

I don’t know who fired the first volley. I am not sure when all the political hostilities began. I don’t know who shot John, or whatever it was that started the latest version of the legendary Hatfield and McCoy feud. The Hatfield and the McCoy families went after each other for several decades over a pig. These days Republicans and Democrats appear to be feuding over pork among other things.

The ideological divide within this great nation has grown to epidemic proportions over the last few decades. I attribute part of this divisiveness to the journalists who have made a national pastime of playing “Gotcha” with politicians ever since Woodward and Bernstein tasted President Nixon’s blood during Watergate. Somehow, from that point forward, Americans have developed disdain for public service, contempt for politics, and diminished respect public offices such as the Presidency.

I get nearly a dozen emails a day that refer to tax payer revolts, revolution, tyranny, and vote the rascals out. Even more disturbing for me are the messages that use inappropriate humor or suggest that the cost of travel and security for the President and his family are waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, if you know me, then you know that most of my emails are from conservative organizations, but I know the liberal outfits are out there doing the same thing. I see it on Facebook and in the media. They most definitely went after George W. Bush with a vengeance and irrational anger that was unparalleled in it ferocity. By now many of you are probably saying to yourselves that I should either “unsubscribe” or utilize the “delete” button on my keyboard.

But, remember that this is America and the First Amendment affords all of us the inalienable right to free speech. Unfortunately, that does not make everything we say “right” or “productive.” Free flow of information, honest debate on the issues and policies, civil discourse, agreeing to disagree—those are all the attributes that make this country great and strong.

My concern is that we appear to have devolved into name calling, slander, and a kind of ugliness that should, quite frankly, be an embarrassment to us all. So, again, I ask, “Who shot John?” Who crossed the line first? Who fired the first salvo at the figurative Concord that started this modern-day war of words?

The answer to this question is elusive. It is a little like trying to figure out how the Arab-Israeli conflict got started. Let’s face it; that one started several millennia ago, and at this point in time, it really doesn’t matter who committed the first wrong.

As I look back on this contemporary conflict that has grown to an epic scale, I have to say—and you have no idea how much this hurts—that it began with the Republican Revolution of 1994. Having said that, let me lay some ground work for what happened and why, not to justify it, just to better understand it.

In 1994, the Republicans swept into the majority in both the U. S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for the first time in some 40 years. This was especially significant for the House Republicans of that time, many of whom had known nothing but a Democrat majority in the House all of their lives.

When you are in the minority, regardless of your party, you do not control the legislative agenda. The only available tactic is to oppose and defeat the legislative programs of the majority. You become an attack dog of sorts. There is nothing really wrong with that; it’s just the way of legislating. Legislators don’t operate in the world of cooperation and collaboration. Their world is dominated by a divide-and-conquer mentality.

After 40 some years as legislative naysayers, the newly established Republican majority had a difficult time making the transition from opposing everything to developing and driving an affirmative legislative agenda. Oh, there was the Contract for America, but that was short lived and Republicans soon found themselves back in the old mold. And, of course, there was President Clinton, a prime target for any red-blooded Republican. He raised taxes, he pushed health care reform, and his moral conduct was not quite what many Americans considered appropriate for a President. And after 12 years of Republican Presidential appointments for Federal judgeships being filibustered to death by Senate Democrats, Clinton’s judicial appointees became fair game for the new Republican majority.

Fast forward to when the Democrats regained the majority in the U.S. House in 2006. Pay backs are heck, and in this case, it was heck for the Republicans in Congress and for President Bush’s judicial nominees.

As we look toward the next mid-term election in November 2010, the political landscape begins to look a lot like the mid-term election in 1994. Two years of a Democrat in the White House who followed a Republican who was there for eight years. Remember, Clinton followed 12 years of Republican Presidents. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would put even money on another Republican Revolution in 2010.

But, in order for a Republican Revolution to happen in 2010, the Republicans need a revolution of their own—inside the party. Republicans must turn away from pork-barrel spending. They must turn away from corruption and scandals. They must accept responsibility and stop blaming the Democrats for all their woes. And most of all, Republicans must have a vision for America—one that takes us back to what made this country great and one that involves being brutally honest with themselves and straight forward with the voters. Republicans need to pursue this vision grounded in principles such as integrity, strength of conviction, accountability to the voters, and adherence to what is right and good for America.

If Republicans can do all of this and more, if Republicans can turn the other cheek, then they can look forward to a new day and it won’t matter one whit “Who shot John?”

You don’t have to work hard these days to hear plenty of thoughts about Health Care Reform. Opinions abound. And the anecdotes to back up these opinions are coming out faster than cars off the assembly line in Detroit.

I am from Wyoming and we have a saying out there, “Everything in Wyoming is political, except politics, that is personal.” Because everyone needs health care at some point in their life, it is personal too. Mix health care and politics, stir in a little economics and your pocketbook, and you have achieved the kind of social critical mass that makes nuclear warfare look like child’s play.

I have also heard it said that, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own set of facts.” But which facts are true and which ones are just cooked up to make someone’s case? It pays to looking deeper into the facts. What was the methodology that led to the stated conclusion? What was asked and who gave the answers? We all need to exercise some due diligence before we embrace the things we hear today.

So, by now, you are wondering what my angle is. Am I for health care reform, or am I against it?

First, like everyone else, including Congress and the President, I have no idea what “it” is. And that may be the most troubling part of the debate. We are all fighting windmills.

Secondly, if you are asking me if I think we need health care reform, then the answer is “Yes.” If you ask me if I am supporting what we all think is working its way through Congress, then at this point in time, I would have to say “No.”

Let me point out a few things that everyone should be factoring into this debate:
• With all its challenges and problems, I firmly believe the health care delivery system and technology in America is among the best in the world, bar none.
• It has been said that somewhere around 45.7 million people in this country do not have health insurance. The reasons vary including: they can’t afford it, they have been declined, some refuse to buy it, others do not use available public health care, or they are here illegally. That said, nobody in America goes without health care. We are already paying for the uninsured every time we pay for health care or our health insurance premiums. A recent CNN story estimated the cost of providing health care to the uninsured at about $1,200 per household per year.
• A government run health care system would be unfair competition. You may have the right to choose your plan and your doctor, but sooner or later, only the government plan and doctors will be left standing on that uneven playing field.
• The question of how can the US economy (personal and corporate taxpayers) finance health care reform is the single most important question in this debate. When you consider that 61.6% of the President’s 2009 Budget ($2.9 trillion) is non-discretionary spending (add another 12.1% if you consider Defense spending non-discretionary), then one has to ask “How can we afford to tack another trillion dollars a year of non-discretionary funding on to that?”
• If you don’t have tort reform as part of health care reform to reduce the number of frivolous malpractice lawsuits, then you will not contain the escalating cost of health care.
• Let’s stop calling it “health insurance.” Insurance is the pooling of money to pay for an event that has less than a 100% likelihood of occurring. The fees you pay are based on mathematical analyses of the risk of a certain event occurring, factoring in the cost of remedying the event and the number of payees into the system. Insurance is for things like fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. Because everyone needs health care at some time in their lives, what we buy when we pay for health insurance is really a pre-paid medical expense plan.

There is every reason in the world for Congress to proceed cautiously. And the American people should be wary of any new government program of this magnitude. If you think Congress will tax the rich and provide the poor with health care at no cost to the poor, the middle class, and the rich, then think again. Having majored in economics in college, there is only one thing I can say about the economy with absolutely certainty, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Like Newton’s Laws of Physics, the no-free-lunch principle is an unavoidable fact of life.

What we need is more portability of health care insurance (HIPAA provides some portability now), a way to insure those with pre-existing conditions, tax incentives to offset the cost of employer and individual health insurance premiums, and tort reform.

What we don’t need is another government run mega-program. History has shown government programs to be inefficient, ineffective, ripe for fraud and abuse, and much more costly than anticipated.

The subject matter is complex. The health care industry makes up 20% of our national economy, so the impact could be huge. The current proposal could add a trillion dollars to a $3 trillion budget. The wrong move by Congress could cost us jobs when we can least afford to lose them. In the end, health care reform deserves much more than a passing interest and a gloss over by our leadership.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced he wants Everglades National Park to be re-inscribed to the List of World Heritage in Danger saying “…when we achieve restoration, we can remove the park from the list of sites that [are] in danger.”

Many people have argued over the years that being on the World Heritage List somehow puts the United Nations in charge of United States property and impinges on private property rights. I am very familiar with the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee, its Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure and I disagree with those who believe the U.S. surrenders it sovereignty and that property rights are violated. I base my conclusion on knowledge acquired while serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and leading the U.S. Delegation to the World Heritage Committee for five years.

However, when the Clinton Administration talked the World Heritage Committee into putting both Yellowstone and the Everglades on the List of World Heritage in Danger in the early 1990s, the flames of fear and loathing against the United Nations and UNESCO, which runs the World Heritage Program, were fanned into a conflagration.

Neither park should be considered “in danger.” The List of World Heritage in Danger is a tool the World Heritage Committee uses to gain the attention of the owner of a World Heritage Site when its conservation is “threatened by serious and specific dangers.” Putting a site on the In-Danger List achieves two ends. It is designed to encourage the country in which the site is located to take action or actions necessary to ensure the site’s conservation and it makes international assistance (technical and monetary) available to the property owner for such conservation actions. A country or private owner of a World Heritage Site is under no obligation to take any action requested by the World Heritage Committee. Under the World Heritage Convention conservation only occurs through “cooperation and assistance.” If in the final analysis a property loses its Outstanding Universal Value for which it was inscribed as a World Heritage Site, the Committee may then vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage.

The World Heritage Committee removed Everglades National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2007. Many people cried foul blaming the Bush Administration for advancing the idea of removing the site from the In-Danger List before the restoration is complete. Here are the facts. The World Heritage Committee has been monitoring Everglades for nearly two decades and they have been continuously awe struck at both the dollars spent and efforts taken by the U.S., the State of Florida, and others to restore this site. Taking action is all the Committee ever wants to see. They do not expect restoration to be complete before taking a site off the List of World Heritage in Danger, especially when the restoration of the Everglades is likely to be a 20-40 year process. The Committee expressed a desire to remove the Everglades from the In-Danger List at every meeting where I represented the U.S. from 2002 to 2006. In 2007, they had seen enough and they asked Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Todd Willens, to make a motion to remove the site form the List of World Heritage in Danger. He did, and though the Committee usually does not vote, but seeks consensus, no member of the Committee or any one else present spoke against the motion.

The United States should not seek to re-inscribe Everglades to the List of World Heritage in Danger. Instead, Americans should be proud that the international community recognizes our significant and costly efforts to undertake the largest ecosystem restoration project the world has ever known. The restoration is far from complete and nothing should deter the ongoing commitment and efforts to restore and conserve this unique and valuable marsh land habitat. Unfortunately, some environmental groups cannot stand success. Success apparently does not sell enough memberships and does not perpetuate their power base. Too bad, because the United States does more for conservation than any other nation in the world and we should welcome the international recognition of our leadership in this area and the well-deserved pat on the back for doing the right thing for Everglades National Park and the South Florida Ecosystem.

A recent post on the British Telegraph website by Gerald Warner referred to President Obama as “President Pantywaist.” Coincidently, I was reading my wife’s newsletter from the Alumni Association of the American Community School at Beirut. In that newsletter, there was a reprint of a January 31, 2009, post on The Daily Beast blog and the article describes the psychological phenomena called Third Culture Kids.

Third Culture Kids are people who spent some portion of their formative years living in a foreign country. The argument is that people who do part of their growing up outside their “passport country” have a global perspective, are socially adaptable and intellectually flexible. They are quick to think outside the box and can appreciate and reconcile different points of view. At the same time, Third Culture Kids (TCK) can demonstrate a certain sense of detachment and feel rootless. Barack Obama, the article goes on to say, is a textbook example TCK and this is highlighted in his book, Dreams of My Father, where he searches for self-definition. Obama’s Harvard Law Review colleagues observed his excellent negotiation skills as well as his “aloofness” or “above-it-all” attitude. The article goes on to talk about how the Obama Administration is staffed by a number of TCKs and how that affects their vision of the world and the Administration’s approach to international issues.

My wife is a TCK. At the age of 12 she lived for a couple of years in Maricaibo, Venezuela, and when she was a high school sophomore in the seventies, her family moved to Beirut, Lebanon. They witnessed the beginning of Lebanon’s civil war and were in Beirut up until all Americans were evacuated. Living in an apartment between the Black September and PLO camps with bullets and mortar rounds flying over head can and usually does impact your life and perspective. Such an experience during your formative years either matures you well beyond your years or it can reduce you to a shell-shocked hull of your former self. My wife came home from Lebanon a mature adult who demonstrated some of the classic traits of a TCK—adversity that does not kill you makes you stronger. I always likened her to being an Army Brat except that her father worked in the oil industry, not the armed services.

I believe there is a lot of merit to the description of the TCK profile and their approach to life. However, every TCK comes to a fork in the road of life and their choices are come home proud of your passport country or come home apologizing to everyone for some perceived shame of your homeland. It seems to me that most Americans who spend any time overseas, especially in third-world countries, come home with a much greater appreciation for America and what it represents to the rest of the world. Returning American ex-patriots often kiss the ground when they get back to the Land of the Free. There is a deeper understanding of the values this country holds dear and the quality of life it provides: freedom to move about the USA, lack of military or police harassment, habeas corpus and a trial by your peers instead of life sentences for trumped up charges and kangaroos courts, free speech, safe drinking water and cleaner air, and a cheeseburger along with all the other benefits of living in the most advanced society on earth where the poorest of the poor are often better off than the middle class of other countries.

I usually feel sorry for those who come home to America ashamed of what we do and who we are. But, now, we have a TCK President who has chosen to go around the world apologizing for America. He apparently took what I believe is the wrong fork in the road of life and at his core he is ashamed to be an American. His wife expressed similar emotions when she said, after Obama secured the Democratic nomination, that it was the first time she was proud to be an American.

I believe that greater understanding of other cultures is a strength. I believe when you grow up in the minority where the majority holds all the power and speaks a different language that you will come away with the kind of negotiation skills that will be of value throughout your life. I believe any American TCK should have, as a result of their foreign experience, recognized and gained greater appreciation for the values America represents and the good that Americans do. They should be proud to be an American. In my opinion, if an American TCK takes the wrong fork in the road and is ashamed of America and what it represents—which is their right as an American citizen, a right many other nations do not confer upon their citizens—then maybe they should not be President of the United States of America and I am fairly certain that they don’t speak for the majority of Americans.

There is an epidemic of murders in this nation. You won’t find them in the FBI statistics and there are no detectives or investigations. These are virtual murders—character assignations. And staying with the metaphor, the New York Times is a serial killer of historic proportions.

There is an MO that can help you identify and maybe even prevent a murder. A reporter or a columnist thinks they have a story—usually a deep, dark, insidious plot that must be revealed to protect the American public—and they are sure it is true. But they do not have facts or proof, they cannot corroborate their theory through confirmed sources, not even through sources who wish to remain anonymous because they fear retribution. The writer could contact the victim directly and get their side of the story, but that would likely dispel the mythical plot and exonerate the villain. Left with no place else to go and a faint twinge of commitment to the journalist’s code of ethics—they go where they can say what they want about anything or anybody without fear of libel suit or being bound by any sense of honor—they go to the Op Ed page. The murder in the form of character assassination is committed in the office, with the pen, by the journalist.

I have witnessed two attempted murders recently by Maureen Dowd. And her intended victim, who she has been trying to kill for years, is Vice President Cheney.

In the first recent attempt, Ms. Dowd claims to have obtained a copy of the Top Secret testimony of Dick Cheney before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then she proceeds to fabricate the most outlandish concoction of the Vice President’s testimony about torture and the war on terrorism. But, it is not enough just to write a fictional piece; Ms. Dowd uses quotation marks to add an air of authenticity to her diatribe of lies.

The second attempt was the omni-present Maureen Dowd listening in on a private conversation between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield at a Georgetown café. Again, she uses quotation marks to suggest that this was a factual report of an actual meeting of the former VP and Secretary of Defense. And, if it was not bad enough that she completely made up the conversation she “listened” in on, consider her moral outrage at the trampling of her Constitutional “rights” if it had been the omni-present NSA listening in of her private conversation at a public place.

Ms. Dowd does such a great job of building these fantasies about Dick Cheney that I even found myself wondering if they could be true. I suspect that 90% of the readers were left wondering the same thing. The difference for this reader is that I know Dick Cheney. I worked for him for four years when he represented Wyoming in the US Congress and I have remained a personal friend through the years. Suddenly, I snapped to full consciousness and realized I had witnessed two attempted virtual murders.

Moreover, I have had personal experience with the media’s new penchant for character assassinations, fabrications, slander, and manipulation of their readers through the unethical perversion of the Opinion Editorial. At least three lead editorials in the NY Times have impugned my character, my professional qualifications, and outright lied about an action I had taken as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The NY Times never consulted with Interior or me about the veracity of their fabrication. In fact, they twice refused to even print a 150-word letter to the editor correcting the record. And if it is not enough to be the subject of lies and even likened to the devil himself in a major national newspaper, the story gets reprinted in thousands of smaller papers across the country.

You see the real danger here is that once it has made it to newspaper print, then in the eyes of every journalist out there, the fabrication is now incontrovertible fact. This happens even though the original piece is printed on the Op Ed page, where journalistic license allows the authors a certain degree of factual latitude when expressing their “opinion.” But, the follow up stories are not printed on the Op Ed page; they are now news and that is how they get reported.

I feel sorry for the “Maureen Dowds” of the journalistic world. She just can’t get over the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were elected twice. She can’t get over the fact that Dick Cheney is still making news about issues for which his qualifications are undisputed. To my knowledge, no journalist has suggested Al Gore “shut up” about global warming even though several reputable scientists have caught him in his own fabrications on the issue. I haven’t heard anyone suggest Jimmy Carter go away and stop his interloping, dare I say, cowboy brand of diplomacy.

Two things will continue to frustrate Maureen Dowd. The first is that Chaney is right and polls show that the American people know he is right. Second, she is frustrated that her multiple murder attempts, each more deadly than the previous, have failed to kill Dick Cheney’s credibility. By now she should know that, if you want to kill a cowboy, you can’t just cut off his head; you have to hide it from him.

Remember the rhetoric of the 2008 Presidential campaign? Barack Obama was all about “Hope” and “Change,” something or someone you can “Believe” in. And Obama’s opposition was not so much John McCain as it was about no more George W. Bush. But Barack Obama will forget the past; he is all about the future. He would bring a fresh perspective to Washington, no more bitter partisan wrangling.

My how soon we forget our campaign promises and rhetoric. Even before Obama took the Oath of Office, he was telling Congressional Republicans that he had “won” the election and wasn’t going to take “no” for an answer. And he has taken this same approach several times since taking office. His Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was even more direct telling Republicans they could go you-know-what themselves. Yes, we were warned, and now it has come true; we do indeed have Chicago-style politicians running the country. So much for the promise of “Hope” and “Change.”

Our first serving of Obama “Hope” was an endless diatribe about the economic catastrophe this country would face if Congress did not pass the stimulus bill, the contents of which no one knew. A bill that in fact today is still full of discoveries.

Another promise in the 2008 campaign of “Hope” was that our government would be more transparent. Obama said the American people would be given 48 hours to review the content of every piece of enacted legislation before President Obama would sign it into law. We are left still hoping for any opportunity to review any enacted legislation!

Throughout the campaign and after his election was secured, Obama talked about moving the country forward and not dwelling on the past. At least, until he decided to selectively release memorandums with the express purpose of impugning the Bush/Cheney Administration. What about the “high road” you ask? Well I guess they missed that fork in the road that would lead to “Change” and took the path more easily traveled.

Despite all the rhetoric of “Hope” and “Change,” what Obama knows all too well is that “Hope” doesn’t sell and “Change” is hard. But, “Fear” is a commodity that enables extraordinary things to happen and provides the opportunity to foist a tired old socialist agenda on an unsuspecting population. Jamie Whitten, long time Democrat Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was known for having said (and I paraphrase), Every disaster presents an opportunity. In essence, if you want to make sweeping change or spend inordinate amounts of money on things nobody would normally support, then you need a disaster, preferably a natural disaster, and an emergency aid bill.

Despite all the fearful rhetoric and doom and gloom, the current “Recession” does not even begin to compare to the Great Depression. In fact, it doesn’t even measure up to several recessions experienced by the US since the seventies. And when the banking industry is on the verge of recovering and wants to pay back the US Treasury, then the Administration whips up a Stress Test, tells Americans their banks are still too weak to survive on their own, and quickly tries to convert the non-voting government stock to common stock. I can hardly wait to hear the dower view from on high when the White House reacts to the fact that many experts believe the housing market may have bottomed out and could be on the upswing. But, if you want to hood wink the American people and Congress into passing a record breaking deficit spending packages of unknown content and make policy changes under the cover of darkness, “Fear” wins over “Hope” and “Change” every time.

And when you can’t whip up enough economic frenzy, then shift the attention back on the evil Bush/Cheney Administration. Or throw in a pandemic influenza virus, or hope for some spring flooding, or a really extreme tornado season. And don’t forget, hurricane season is right around the bend.

In matters not that we never have seen the “Annual” Katrina event the global warmists predicted disturbingly after the 2005 hurricane season. And, even though most Americans don’t believe in global warming, or if it exists that humans are the cause of climate change, the Obama Administration is working overtime to build up the “Fear” of global warming, or climate change which conveniently gives the alarmists an opportunity to blame any weather anomaly or disaster on mankind.

All of these man-made crises, whether the economy, the climate, or global conflict, present ripe opportunities for mischievous, even devastatingly bad policy and law. But, when one has an agenda to dramatically expand the roll of government and move the country closer to socialism, “Hope” and “Change” won’t get the job done. So I guess FDR was right, maybe even prophetic, when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Be afraid, very afraid. And “Hope” the young people who voted for “Change” in 2008 will see through the charade and have an equal appetite for real “Hope” and “Change” in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

The release of the torture memos has raised many issues and a lot of speculation. It appears that, at a minimum, that President Obama is taking steps to appease the far left of the Democratic Party, and at the extreme, he may be laying the ground work for criminal prosecution of career Federal employees and former Bush Administration officials.

The debate to date has focused mainly on two issues: what constitutes torture and was gathering intelligence that saved American lives justification for the actions taken. On the latter, I say absolutely, but the question of what is torture is much too subjective. For me, it is torture to watch the evening news; others clearly have the stomach for it and even enjoy it.

The real debate here is who sets policy and what is the difference between policy making, the Code of Federal Regulations, legislation, and case law.

I am a recovering policy wonk. When I served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and comply with all laws and rules thereunder and I swore to fulfill the duties of the office. One of the principal duties was to help formulate and set policy. In other words, President Bush was elected President and accordingly he was to govern and my job was to help the Administration achieve its policy goals with respect to the Department of the Interior.

Here is how it works under the three branches of government established in the Constitution. Congress, the Legislative Branch, drafts ands passes legislation which becomes the law of the land. In so doing, Congress sets the direction and establishes the overarching policy direction of the United States. However, in nearly all circumstances, Congress does not provide enough detail for the law to be implemented, complied with, or enforced. Because the Executive Branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the law, the appropriate agency promulgates regulations or rules for the implementation and enforcement of the law thus providing additional detail deemed necessary for the proper implementation and enforcement of the law enacted by Congress. Even though reading the detailed rules and regulations in the Federal Register is a guaranteed cure for any form of insomnia, these rules quite often leave a lot of discretion to Federal employees to interpret the rule under certain circumstances or facts and apply it differently. This wiggle room, if you will—this latitude left to the Executive Branch employee—is intentional. This is the realm of policy making. All rule making must be within the legal framework established by Congress, and subsequently, policy making must be consistent and the finer filter of the regulatory framework. If there are questions about whether a rule or regulation is consistent with the law, or whether a policy goes outside the legal or regulatory framework, then the Judicial Branch weighs in to make that judgment. Often times in the course of determining if a regulation or policy is legal, a Federal Judge will in their decision clarify or interpret what Congress intended when they passed the law. This results in what is called case law and it is yet another filter the Federal employee of the Executive Branch must apply when implementing or enforcing the law.

So applying all that to the question of torture, what we have here is a case of Federal employees acting under the appropriate direction of the elected President and his appointed policy makers. The experts in the field and the lawyers reviewed the law, the regulations, the case law, past practices (policies) during four previous wars, and they developed a policy that was in the end determined to be consistent with all the available frameworks. Then that policy was briefed the Chairs of the Congressional Committees of jurisdiction and received their approval.

It is the prerogative of any Administration to disagree with and change any policy; it is called governing. The spoils go to the victors, and in our case, the victors get to and should govern. The job of career Federal employees is to inform policy makers about the law, regulations, the successes and failures of past practices, and to assist the current Administration achieve their lawful policy goals. I have often said that bureaucracy is the keel that keeps the ship of state moving forward. Policy makers are a small rudder and are considered highly successful if the can alter the course of the ship of state by 10 degrees to the right or the left.

Theodore Roosevelt, before he became President, helped to establish the current system of civil service in order to protect Federal employees from whims of elected or appointed leaders and provide that important keel to the ship of state. It appears that it is the goal of the Obama Administration is to make career Federal employees or elected and appointed officials subject to prosecution because disagrees with the previously established policy. If successful in this endeavor, then the ship of state will become a ship without either a keel or a rudder, the Obama Administration will have consigned the United States to an inevitable ship wreck in the rough and turbulent seas of the world today.

In her Op Ed piece on March 30, 2009, in the San Francisco Examiner, Cheryl K. Chumley asserted that the “UN is taking control of U.S. land in the name of conservation.” She goes on to state so many other factual errors about the World Heritage Convention that I am compelled to respond and set the record straight.

Ms. Chumley is alluding to the announcement by the US Department of the Interior that the United States of America has revised its list of sites that may be nominated by the USA to be considered for inclusion on the List of World Heritage.

I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 2002 to 2008, and in that capacity, I had the distinct privilege of leading the USA Delegation to the meetings of the World Heritage Committee for five years, getting the USA elected to the Committee, and I am well versed in the World Heritage Convention, the Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure. The Convention, which the USA helped author and was the first signatory, is administered through the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) by the 21 State Party Members of the World Heritage Committee. The USA remained active in and on the World Heritage Committee even during its 20 year hiatus from UNESCO. When under President Bush’s leadership the USA rejoined UNESCO, I worked closely with UNESCO Ambassador Louise Oliver on matters related to World Heritage.

I led the effort to have the Committee remove Yellowstone National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger and I paved the way for the eventual removal of the Everglades National Park from the same list. I was involved in the rewrite of the Operating Guidelines where the USA and its allies made a strong case for the sovereignty of State Parties as articulated in the Convention.

Inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage does not in any way, shape, or form transfer ownership or control of the site to the United Nations or UNESCO. It is an acknowledgment of three things. To be inscribed, a site must have 1) Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), 2) it must have an established legal structure to conserve or protect the resources, and 3) the site must have an established management plan. “Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.” (Operational Guidelines, IIA, Paragraph 49)

The only way that the Committee can exert any pressure on a State Party regarding conservation or management of a site is to do one of two things. First, the Committee may vote to put a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger which makes international assistance and money available to the site owner in order to remedy the issues identified by the Committee, or secondly, the Committee may vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage if it has been determined that the site has lost its OUV.

I also initiated and led the multi-year effort to develop the new USA Tentative List to which Ms. Chumley refers. This is the list of sites that the USA considers to have Outstanding Universal Value and that may be nominated by the USA for inscription on the List of World Heritage. A Tentative List is required by the Convention and the previous USA Tentative List had over seventy sites. Our goal was to substantially reduce the number of sites on the list and confine those properties listed to sites that had the support of the owners, the local community, and local leaders. These sites were not put forth by the United Nations or UNESCO. The sites were submitted by the owners, underwent a rigorous review process, required written documentation of local support, and were publicly vetted.

While the World Heritage Committee and certain of its members have from time to time tried to exert excessive influence on the management of sites and have even tried to impose “buffer zones” around sites, the fact remains that all World Heritage Sites remain exclusively under the control of the property owners and the laws of the nation in which the site is located. I am a strong proponent of private property rights and I have worked to ensure that these rights are protected throughout my tenure at Interior. For the USA, most World Heritage Sites are Federally-owned properties, but there are today a few State-owned, Tribal-owned, and privately-owned World Heritage Sites in the USA. The owners of those properties remain in control of the site and there has never been a documented sighting of blue-helmeted soldiers or black-helicopter operations at any World Heritage Site in the USA.