Colin Powell’s Final Salute

by with No Comment FeaturedNewsPolitics

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell passed away on October 18, 2021, at age of 84. Colin Powell was a Republican who served as the United States first African-American Secretary of State. Powell served twice in South Vietnam. He was wounded while patrolling the borders of Vietnamese- Laotian during his first tour, and he was injured in a helicopter crash during his second. He served under former President Ronald Regan as the National Security Adviser meeting with world leaders such as Soviet President Gorbachev. He later served in former President Bill Clinton’s administration as Chairman of Joint Chiefs briefly. It would be Powell who debated Clinton regarding whether or not gays should be admitted in the armed forces, which resulted in a policy known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Powell eventually retired from the Army in 1993. 

In 2000, President George W Bush appointed Collin Powell as the 65th Secretary of State becoming the first African-American to serve in that role. Powell was strongly against the second war in Iraq. George W Bush was asked if he spoke with Powell if he should go into war. Bush responded that he did not ask because he knew Powell was strongly against the war.

There is so much that Democrats & Republicans could disagree with Collin Powell about, but what cannot be questioned was his love for country, his strong voice for the African-American community, and the rights for other communities to be treated fairly. In 2008, he shocked the nation when he decided to endorse President Barack Obama who became the first African-American President of the United States. He was very vocal against former President Donald Trump and his administration as well as standing up for many social justice issues. 

Powell was born in Harlem, New York to Jamaican immigrants, likely one of the many reasons he was very active in fighting for the people in Haiti. He also started the America’s Promise Alliance dedicating his life to the well-being of children and youth of all socioeconomic levels. Powell endorsed President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.

Powell was fully vaccinated, but passed away at Walter Reed Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland (right outside of Washington DC.) COVID complications, in addition to having multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells that suppresses your immune response, proved to be fatal for the 84-year-old American. He will be remembered for many things, but ultimately serving his country and her citizens, regardless of political party or ideology.

The Conservative Argument AGAINST Trump’s Border Wall

by with 5 Comments FeaturedPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019… 

There is no political topic that captures the imagination of today’s voter like Trump’s proposed border wall.  This issue encapsulates national security, humanitarian, economic concerns, and it exploits the hyperpolarization of the rank and file members of both political parties. This issue is THE reason for the longest government shutdown in US history, and at the time of this writing, there is no compromise in sight. In this political stalemate, the only way to move the needle is to look deeper into the issue to see what the actual issue is, and if the taken positions are consistent with the fundamental principles of their ideology and party affiliation. As a lifelong Republican with an engineering background, after crunching the numbers and taking into perspective the number of diversions from bedrock conservative ideals, this border wall and the process it includes is the antithesis of sound conservative policy. The proposed wall is not fiscally responsible, infringes on private property rights through eminent domain, and does not significantly improve national security.

Using my professional background, and my background in engineering costs, I identified these significant expenses: 1. Property value of acquired land… 2. Legal fees for obtaining land through eminent domain… 3. Material costs for a 25 ft steel wall… 4. 2 ft foundation… 5. Labor costs… 6. Permitting fees… 7… Installation of service road for construction, maintenance, and transportation of border patrol vehicles and equipment… 8. Engineering fees, and… 9. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. While there are other expenses like water rights for farmers along the Rio Grande River, and potential litigation issues from a treaty with Mexico regarding these water rights, I am keeping my focus on these items because the process time and costs are significant.

  1. Property Values: Most land along the border is private property. I will assume 75% of the land is private property, a cost of $3,000 per acre (value is likely higher, but once land is condemned for seizure, the value drops significantly), and a 150 ft-wide right-of-way to hold the wall, service road, and any other facilities. Roadway right-of-way varies on size of the road. Typically, it is in the 60-80’ range (300+ for interstates and major highways), but since there will be utility and drainage installations in this right-of-way in lieu of additional easements, I am combining it into one. Total Cost = $75 billion. Total Time to Acquire = 12-18 months to notify property owner & 3-10 years to resolve through federal courts.
  2. Legal fees: This is roughly a third of the total property value based on other federal eminent domain cases. Total Cost = $25 billion. Time to Resolve = 3-10 years.
  3. Material Costs for 25 ft steel wall: Trump has signaled he is willing to compromise from concrete to steel. Assuming the wall height is 25 feet and a unit cost of $7/SF, the Total Cost = $2 billion. Time to Build = 125 miles/year or 14 years.
  4. Foundation Costs for a 2 ft foundation: Assuming a foundation height of 2 ft (typical for a structure of this height) and a unit cost of $10/SF, the Total Cost = $170 million. 
  5. Labor Costs: Labor costs tend to be 40-60% of total expense when combined with materials. Total Cost = $2 billion. 
  6. Permitting Fees: Permitting expenses tend to be 2-3% of total construction costs, depending on location. Permit fees within city limits could be significantly higher because fees are likely based on the total value of the property’s or structure’s value, but for this exercise, we will keep it to materials and labor costs. Total Cost = $100 million. 
  7. Service Road Installation: Service roadways will need to be installed to transport contractors and materials to install the wall. These roadways will be used by maintenance crews as well as transportation means for border patrol agents on duty. Typical costs for 2 lane roads is $3 million per mile. Total cost = $5 billion.
  8. Engineering Fees: typical 2.5-3% of total costs, including property acquisitions. Total cost = $3 billion. 
  9. Miscellaneous fees: On most engineering cost estimates, there is a 10% contingency item that covers additional engineering fees, change order requests, and any other expenses that are anticipated, but the final cost is not known. Total Cost = $10 billion.

When you include a 10% contingency fee to account for miscellaneous or unforeseen expenses, which is custom in most engineering cost estimates, the total cost for this wall, assuming a best-case scenario, is in the $120-125 billion range with a likely completion date in 2029. Trump’s request for $5.7 billion is a small down payment on a costly construction project.

The most expensive part of this endeavor will be the seizure of privately-owned lands through eminent domain. Will Hurd, a former CIA security officer and Congressman of the district with the longest stretch of border in the country, stated there are approximately 1,000 private property owners with land along the border in Texas alone. These properties have been owned by families for multiple generations that will be forcibly taken from them by the federal government at a rate the government arbitrarily sets against their wishes. Historically, eminent domain, particularly the excessive use of it, has been a galvanizing issue for Conservatives. Taking one’s property against their will, particularly after the 2005 Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court Case, prompted state legislatures in red states to pass legislation to reign in or outright prohibit the use of eminent domain in all or rare cases. The number of potential court cases that will occur could effectively shut down federal courts in District 5 (Texas), 9 (Arizona and California) and 10 (New Mexico).

The central argument made for the wall is the impact it will have on national security. This structure is supposed to make significant reductions in the number of illegal immigrants in our country. This week, the Center for Migration Studies released a study analyzing the numbers reported by the federal government and found that 62% of illegal immigrants are people who came here legally and overstayed their temporary or student visas. This has been the trend for the past seven years. Most illegal crossings occur at busy checkpoints or ports, not in isolated locations because there are not means of transportation available. Cartels have perfected the art of smuggling through these checkpoints and have made them a focus of their operations. They have also built numerous tunnels under the border that a wall would not impede. This means the people our national security departments are most concerned about will not be impacted by this wall. Creating the illusion of security is not the same as actual security.

This wall requires supporters to embrace a fiscally irresponsible purchase and revoke their bedrock defense of private property rights for a physical structure that has negligible benefit for national security. Wall supporters might have other, some might say sinister, reasons for supporting this issue, but it is not a conservative one.

This article was originally published on 22 January 2019.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

 

My Fellow Republicans, We Need to (Finally) Have This Talk

by with 4 Comments CultureFeatured

Dear Fellow Republicans,

This is not something I want to do. I’ve hinted about this for years, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. This is not something pleasant to discuss, but it is long overdue. I am not doing this because I feel pressure to please ‘the other side’, it is because my faith has convicted me to speak out, and when you feel the Holy Spirit leading you, this message will reach the people it needs to reach.

For too long, we have allowed a darkness to linger in our party. During the early Bush (43) years, we ignored it. In fact, most of our party leaders tacitly confronted it. Fueled by a growing evangelical movement that was less partisan and more racially diverse, there was a movement in the Republican Party to build upon the gains made in previous elections with minority communities, especially the Latino community. George W Bush rode this momentum to two terms by capturing Hispanic-heavy states like Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. Then something changed, and it opened the door to something that spread like wildfire and has a chokehold on us at this hour. 

It started with several protests that lead to the defeat of Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. Anxiety about border security was stoked daily by national talk radio hosts and personalities like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. A so-called conservative uprising, fueled by resentment to millions of people who were here illegally, seized control of the party and set the table for something far, far worse. Opportunistic political candidates leaped at the chance to further stoke this anger for electoral success.

Dan Patrick was a provocative state Senator from the Houston area. He owned a talk radio station, and he had a talk show on the channel. Perhaps the most infamous event his show is remembered for is getting a vasectomy on his live show. In 2014, he challenged the sitting Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst, and two other statewide elected officials in the GOP primary. His candidacy, fueled by Tea Party-affiliated groups like Empower Texas, was built upon one slogan, “Stop the Invasion!” He ran ads of people with darker skin climbing over a fence to further stoke the smoldering embers, and by the time the TXGOP convention came around, he was received like a rock star, completely overshadowing every other speaker. 

One year later, another media personality with his own show used the same template and rode it to the GOP nomination and the White House. He took the foundation that Dan Patrick and others had laid and built a national campaign that convinced rural people in midwestern states that illegal immigrants were crossing the border to rape and destroy our country. Now, most Americans believe we need competent border security. In the post-9/11 world, our national security is not negotiable. This does not mean we need to scapegoat groups of people. 

Originally, the consensus argument was, “We support legal immigration, not illegal immigration.” Never mind the intermixing of the terms ‘illegal immigration’ with ‘immigration’, this was the party line used to deflect claims of xenophobia or racism. Then over time, there was a backlash against legal immigration as well. When deciding on what kinds of immigrants we should prioritize (skilled, unskilled, college-educated, etc.), the same people oppose any changes or increases because immigrants would drive down wages. Basically, we are ok with people coming here legally, but we are going to put up every roadblock to prevent you from coming here. Last October, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released a survey that measured American attitudes towards immigration. Some of their findings are startling, though not surprising.  They found that “74 percent of Republicans think immigrants are a burden, while only 35 percent of Democrats do.” The generational divide on this point is also significant, with 62 percent of seniors believing immigrants are a burden, but only 32 percent of young Americans. As the Republican party sheds young professionals and college-educated voters to market to older White working-class voters, these attitudes are solidified in the party’s structure. 

In the last 15 years, I’ve had a front-row seat watching the progression (or regression) of the party from a suburban, middle-class party with an interest in Hispanic voters to an older rural, working-class party who openly questions if the person speaking Spanish at the booth in the coffee shop in town is here legally. The reality is the racial and xenophobic anxieties were always there. Party leaders like the Bush family, John McCain, and many others did a good job at diffusing these impulses, or at worse, muzzling them. With the rising influence of social media, these anxieties have been fed by talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Lou Dobbs. When you combine it with daily Twitter diatribes from the President, you have a nearly unbreakable support system.

Now I realize that many of you have stopped reading out of anger, and some have created new profanities, and most believe I am a gutless RINO sellout. I also owe you an apology. When I saw these cancerous symptoms a decade ago, I did not actively confront it. I would mention it bothered me on a Facebook post, but at political events, I normally walked away instead of pushing back. I let my political ambitions trump what I knew was wrong. I would defend the party against outsider attacks because while my team has its faults, it is still MY TEAM. I knew one day this intervention would have to happen, and the tragedy that took place at the Walmart in El Paso was the final straw.

The terrorist responsible is a 21-year-old man from a middle-class Dallas-Fort Worth suburb that is best known for having the most expensive high school football stadium in the country, and it is the home of Kyler Murray, the 1st pick in the NFL Draft this year. This person drove 600 miles to a majority-Hispanic city because he wanted to ‘Stop the Invasion’. From what has been discovered from his social media activity, he was inspired by the terrorist that executed 9 people at the church in South Carolina, and he was a passionate believer in the anti-immigration rhetoric used by our president. No, I do not believe the President is liable for the shooting, but it needs to be a wakeup call. A mentally disturbed racist using identical language of one of the most powerful political figures in the state, killed fellow Americans because he was blinded by hateful rhetoric that is used interchangeably by many political activists and elected officials. 

In the youth group room at my childhood church, there are walls painted by students as an expression of what it means to be a Christian. On the wall behind where my youth pastor would preach is a school of fish pointing one direction, with one fish facing the other way. Sometimes, you must buck peer pressure because your peers want you to go along with something you know is wrong. Right now, this could be that moment, and I accept that.  

I will leave you with this. Ask yourself this one question. Is an illegal immigrant a human being? I am not asking what you think needs to be done to solve this complex issue. This is a simple yes or no question. If you asked this question on your social media account, will your friends and allies be able to answer this simple, basic question? If your answer is ‘yes, but…’ or anything other than a simple ‘yes’, you have successfully dehumanized a group of people. If you call yourself a person of faith and fail this simple test, you need to ask yourself what idol you are actually worshipping. The world and this country needs a vibrant, healthy Republican Party. We cannot treat or ignore the symptoms any longer. We must treat the disease instead. I am under no illusion that the treatment will be tough, and the immediate side effects will not be pleasant, but we can choose to take our medicine and start the recovery or let the disease kill us. The choice is yours.

 

Your loyal friend,

 

Luke

Shaming Shamima: An Unlikely Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobal

Shamima Begum, to forgive or not to forgive? The request of this 19-year-old British Muslim to return to England after defecting to ISIS has sparked debate on the issues of remorse and culpability of minors for serious criminality. A martyr, a victim, a misguided youth, an accomplice to terrorism, a precedent for case law. Shamima has certainly divided opinion over how her wrongdoings should be viewed. Never in recent memory has a supporter of terrorism generated such controversy and even more surprisingly, sympathy.

Support from the public is undeniably linked to her young age. Shamima made her decision to join ISIS when she was 15 years old. A child beyond 10 years old committing any crime can still be tired and sentenced under British Law. Her decision to stay with ISIS continued past her turning 18 when she was fully capable as an adult to take criminal responsibility. Now at 19, her naivety is coincidental and unfortunate at best.

Let’s consider if this was a British boy who had been radicalized and fathered a child whilst part of ISIS. Would they be given sympathy for their regret? What we have here is a gender bias from both men and women on social media that no one is talking about. ‘She’s a victim’ ‘she was groomed’, ‘she’s traumatized.’ Were the teenage boys who defected to ISIS at the same age ever given victim status? Where was all this uproar for them? Two similar cases of British-Bangladeshi men were repatriated back to England only because of legal reasons, not on the basis of forgiveness. The same should apply to a female member of ISIS.

Having made the case that she is fully culpable for her actions, the question now is does the punishment fit the crime? The legal dilemmas here are more complex than many of us realize. Our (Head of ) Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, states his decision to revoke Shamima’s citizenship was in the interest of national security. Foreign terrorists and accomplices are also banned from entering the U.K. under the same principle. Opponents argue she has not been given a fair trial to be prosecuted and sentenced.

However, the statistics presented in Parliament last year revealed that only one in ten of all jihadists returning to the UK were prosecuted. The Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, Nikita Malik, has expressed concern about British laws not being robust enough to allow for prosecution in these cases. The current legal framework prohibits much of the evidence collected on terrorists abroad being admissible to court. There is the very real possibility of Shamima being free on a technicality despite her openly saying she left to join ISIS. It is therefore unfair to label Sajid Javid’s decision as purely political, xenophobic or washing hands of responsibility. Risking miscarriage of justice really is at the expense of Britain’s security if Shamima (and subsequent cases) cannot be adequately prosecuted.

The debate has since shifted to the issue of her citizenship. The ‘bloodline’ law in Bangladesh means Shamima may be a citizen there by default because of her Bangladeshi mother. Bangladesh are in the process of disputing this with the Home Office, meaning the U.K. could have illegally rendered an individual stateless. Shamima also has the right to appeal the Home Office’s decision by proving the Home Secretary acted disproportionately.

One fact remains: she admits to joining ISIS. This in itself is the definition of proscription and is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If she is accepted back into the U.K, she will be tried and sentenced in accordance with those laws. An indefinite/temporary ban from re-entering the U.K. may ironically be the more lenient punishment, all things considered. Quite simply put by Sajid Navid (Home Secretary), if you back terror, there must be severe consequences. 

Similar Read: God Save the King, the Demise of a Regime 

1947 National Security Won’t Work in 2017

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Our own national security’s structure has been largely the same since the passing of the National Security Act in 1947- the act that created the Department of Defense, CIA and the National Security Counsel  (along with the total reorganization of our military forces).  That act is now 70 years old, and so is the structure.   For a long time, that large siloed system made a lot of sense.  In the 1980s, the main three threats facing the US weren’t all that dissimilar to those in 1947.  Those threats included: 

  • A nuclear arms race with the Soviets.
  • A wall separating Germany.
  • A world largely aligned behind one of the two superpowers that fought, or financed proxy wars for influence around the globe, with the “third world” so named as unaligned countries almost as an afterthought in our overall security interests. 

 

How much different is that than the current environment of porous borders in small, underdeveloped countries around the world.  One could in fact make an argument that the most dangerous countries in the world today aren’t rogue states, but failed states (or failing states).   Successfully limit the maneuverability of the government of Iran and you’ve limited the maneuverability of Iran.  Do the same in the recognized leadership of Somalia, and you have accomplished almost nothing on the ground- and yet those states not in control of their own borders (such as Somalia, Waziri regions of Pakistan, and Yemen) comprise some of the largest threats to global security precisely because they are regions where a little bit of money and a whole lot of interest in training willing participants to go forth and do violence elsewhere can be the greatest single threats to our current security.  And yet we must still at least prepare for a future situation where other rising superpowers (such as China) will continue to exert more and more influence in Asia and eventually the world.  However you feel about what “really” happened in Ghazni, it makes the point that despite nearly 4,000 paratroopers on the ground in Italy- just across the Mediterranean, the siloed distinctions between conventional forces, intelligence and foreign relations, seem no longer structured to efficiently and quickly respond to threats.

Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Mattis were together in Australia a few weeks ago, and they seemed to be working closely together in the current administration.  That’s maybe a good start, but the silos below them still fan out with duplicative efforts and uncoordinated arms that make current operations of relief, local interactions with locals and transmission of information in a timely manner much more difficult as the lines of diplomacy, intelligence gathering become increasingly blurred and fluid, and it seems time for some rethinking of that structure. 

In an executive branch that so far seems light on details, this seems like a tall order for the NSC’s principals in their early years, but a necessary one to re-think.  As technology continues to improve the tools of terror, rather than focusing first on blanket policies that most negatively affect compliant visitors to the US, restructuring ourselves for the new era seems likely to yield greater results than re-instituting this travel ban, but that takes more than an executive order.  I’m still waiting to see how much interest this administration has in the sorts of important details that don’t fit neatly into a Twitter tweet.