Category Archives: Uncategorized

Diverse Panel Lacks Diversity in Opinion

Note: This Article originally Appeared in the Seton Hall Law Cross Examiner, a student-run newspaper.

In February, Seton Hall Law’s Black Law Students Association hosted an enlightening and important discussion panel focused on last year’s Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The panel was comprised of influential minds in constitutional law and civil rights. Law students were engaged throughout the event as the panel discussed the case, its ramifications, and the future of voting rights in this country. This was an informative discussion about serious matters from serious people. There was only one thing missing: dissent.

The panel, for the large part, spoke with one voice. Despite the fact that the decision in the case was a narrow 5-4 majority, all four contributors vigorously supported the dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Roberts’ decision was analyzed and criticized, with each panelist expressing her concern over what was next for minority voters, specifically in southern states whose laws were held in the administrative teeth of the Act for five decades. The Voting Rights Act was an “extraordinary measure for extraordinary times.” Minority voting rights had been ravaged in our country at the hands of bad actors in many individual states, and it was time for the federal government to stop them when the act was passed in 1965. The panelists’ concerns, from this standpoint, were not unfounded.

But, is it still necessary to place such power in the hands of the Federal government today? This is the central question of the case which split right-left political lines. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion placed the import on the function of federalism and state equality in our curious Constitutional Republic. The dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg, concentrates on individuals’ voting rights and the Court’s necessary deference to the Congressional assessment of voting conditions in the states. Her ultimate fear is that this holding may unintentionally invite a revival of discriminatory voter laws reminiscent of the Bull Connor South.

Part of the significance of Shelby County is the fact that the opposing justices are separately addressing the different issues of federalism and voting rights, two of the great pillars of the American Experiment. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive though, as James Madison once wrote that the design of federalism was to further enhance protection for individual rights: “The power surrendered by the people is divided between two distinct governments… Here a double security arises to the rights of the people.” The fact that these two functions are distinguished as opposing points in this decision is indicative of the states’ egregious abuse of power in the tumultuous times precipitating the Voting Rights Act.

It is because these two great jurists so strongly ideologically oppose the other in this near balanced opinion that the absence of a single voice in the discussion supporting the majority was so conspicuous. The argument can be rehashed over the wisdom of the Courts’ decision, but there is a deeper concern: in a law school where the primary objective of faculty and student organizations should be the preparation of well-meaning and well-informed attorneys, current Supreme Court issues- particularly 5/4 decisions less than 12 months old- cannot be presented in a one-sided fashion. Our students will graduate law school entering an American system where free markets reign supreme, both economically and politically. The Marketplace of Ideas is where opinions shaped in school will be tested and challenged. When we begin to collectively shield ourselves as an institution from legitimate perspectives dismissed as objectionable or even oppressive, we not only deny ourselves the chance to learn about, confront, and deconstruct those positions, but also the ability to do so in a way to effect change. This balance of aspirations is currently realized in the teaching approach of my Constitutional Law professor, even though he is a former advisor to the current head of the Democratic Party. The pedagogical objective of a discussion panel should be no different.

I cannot affirmatively say (although, as not so subtly written here, I could argue) whether the Shelby decision was constitutionally correct. A case concerning the fundamental values of our republic is one that invokes deep emotions about the past, present, and future of the United States. But a professional discussion about the case, which is now governing law, would better serve inchoate law students with the presence of a panelist advocating as the sole dissenter in the room- especially when that dissenting opinion is shared by five justices of the Supreme Court.

– John P. Burns

Note: This article was originally published in the Seton Hall Law Examiner, a student-run newspaper.

“Scrooge was better than his word…He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew…”– Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

This Christmas, along with reading Dickens or watching George Bailey and Charlie Brown, an unlikely source can help channel the Christmas spirit and, in turn, begin to heal our ailing nation: Alexis de Tocqueville. 

In his tour de force On Democracy in America, de Tocqueville recounted his traversal of the American countryside in the midst of the fervent populism that powered the Jacksonian era.  His opus on American politics defined the young nation’s spirit in an age where public participation in civic and cultural institutions was encouraged and commonplace.  He stated, “Americans of all ages, all stations of life and all types of disposition are forever forming associations.”  This was not only an observation of the American people’s independence from government, but of their mutual dependence on each other.  It was a novel sight to the European, and a strength he considered to be the backbone of our society.    

With each passing day in the early twenty first century, the United States moves farther from that idea.  The American people have rusted in complacency as the events of Washington D.C. spiral out of control.  The histrionics and demagoguery that envelop our 535 legislators and chief executive push the public further away from our “distant capital.”  Little is accomplished to serve the interests of the people, and when something is finally achieved it is bloated and bungled, placed in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucracy.  The bubble our elected representatives occupy forms a collective obtuseness that mutes the voice of the people, and renders the public constrained by collective despair.  But instead of resigning ourselves supine to the capricious actions of egomaniacs and ideological zealots, the citizenry can free itself from such D.C. gridlock by working together to act on their own volition, in their own best interests, and in those of their neighbor.  The charitable Christmas season can be an instrument in this public endeavor, turning the holiday’s central theme of “goodwill toward men” into a national exercise of character to last the full year round.

I frame this in the context of Christmas because the meaning behind the holiday is rooted in the concept of humanity, its struggle toward peace, and how we can achieve such enlightenment- or something close to it- together.  Across the country, churches and associations from the Salvation Army to the Elks Lodge run fundraisers and food drives to support the destitute; neighborhood mothers meet at the town Civics Association to plan Christmas pageants and parades; town fathers run the youth basketball league and the local toy drive.  These are seasonal examples which can be expanded to year round equivalents in support of those in need, and they can build on the collective spirit which binds us as members of national unit.  It is here the citizenry can take up the mission of charity and good will where our national government has fallen short.   

The importance of associations, community fellowship, and a collective disposition toward charity is not only inherently good, but inherently American.  Promulgating this idea can create a stronger bond within the public and provide a mechanism for the people to work together when government is too incompetent to act.  It can inspire our society to break free from the yoke of apathy and help propel our communities to move first for the betterment of our neighbors, and ask questions later.  There are already examples abound, such as the Wounded Warrior Project, of what an empowered citizenry can achieve through the framework of independent organizations.  Placing such organizations at the ground level, beyond the barriers erected by an entrenched bureaucracy, will quicken the pace of efficiency necessary to reach those in need of support.  Such organizations in general are an essential element in a peaceful and prosperous society.

The more power we vest in ourselves to help others, the less we have to rely on a government more captivated by its own capabilities than those of its citizens.  Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge found a way to keep Christmas in his heart the whole year round.  It would serve the interests of the American people to strive toward that end by modernizing the structure of the cohesive and interdependent society described by de Tocqueville, lest our collective conscience wishes to be visited by three ghostly sprits this December 24th.   

Merry Christmas.

The conservative and evolving mainstream narrative regarding the Obama administration’s second term cabinet nominations has concentrated on the rejuvenated and re-elected president’s intention to pick a fight with his political adversaries.  More importantly, Mr. Obama has reinforced the implementation of a progressive agenda through loyalist, and not particularly autonomous, cabinet secretaries.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer argued last Friday in his column that the nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel was a message from President Obama that he will go forward with scaling back America’s role on the world stage through defense cuts and a smaller military. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board last Thursday commented that the selection of Jack Lew is a signal that the administration has no intention of working with Republicans on spending or entitlement reform, as Mr. Lew’s recalcitrance to work with Republicans when serving as the President’s Chief-of-Staff is well known in the capital.  His views on spending, which are in line with the man who has nominated him for Treasury Secretary, serve as even more of a non-starter for negotiation.   

It appears now Senator Hagel- a former Republican- will be more difficult to confirm than it seemed at first glance, and may cause Mr. Obama to spend significant political capital.  Others have stated that the selection of Mr. Lew at Treasury will only sharpen the ideological divide on the federal government’s fiscal state between the President and legislative Republicans.

The new bounce in the President’s re-elected step has geared him into a controlled bellicosity towards his political foes.  Free of the restraints of another election, Mr. Obama seems determined to govern in a continuation of his first two years in office as an ideological progressive. The President’s estimation after re-election is he can achieve his progressive goals without the counsel or consent of his opposing colleagues in the legislative branch.   

With nominations lined up and resistance in the Senate certain, the question begs to be asked: why did he retreat last month from nominating U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State?

The initial reaction to Ms. Rice’s probable nomination was a vociferous one- specifically from republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain.  President Obama took exception to their tone, challenging these two men at his November press conference to refrain from directing their post re-election resentment at Ms. Rice, and “go after me.”

It seemed like the perfect fight for the President emerging from his November victory.  He won his re-election handily, dominating in a wide array of demographics – specifically among women and minorities.  Two old white stalwarts of the Republican Party had just publicly and viciously attacked the President’s probable Secretary of State nomination who is both a woman and a person of color.  If he ever wanted to spike the football after his 2012 touchdown (see: Bin Laden mission political aftermath) and bury his former presidential rival, the president could have done so with the public focus on the lack of diversity in the Republican Party. 

So why not do it?  Benghazi.

Articles were churned out at a rapid pace after the President’s re-election about the landmines of a second term.  Clinton had Monica.  Reagan had Iran-Contra.  Lincoln never even had a chance.  To avoid such problems, Mr. Obama had to first side step a disaster that took place at the end of his first term, which thanks to a compliant American media went largely ignored for a long time.  This would not be the case once Ms. Rice was nominated.

Ms. Rice’s role in the government’s management of the situation after the capture and murder of four American diplomats was minimal, if existent at all.  This was a problem managed by the President’s national security team, mostly involving the State Department, CIA, and some military.  The U.N. ambassador has little influence in these departments.

Unfortunately for Ms. Rice, she was selected by the administration to be its stoic face in front of this tragedy, making her rounds on five Sunday morning talk shows the weekend following the massacre.  Republican senators would no doubt focus on her touring these shows, specifically on her explanation regarding “the video.”

She would be forced to answer questions from Senators as a representative not only of herself, but also the administration.  Inquisitions would be dominated by the inconsistent nature of the Obama administration’s narrative, which centered on the American made anti-Islamic “video” which supposedly caused the riots that led to the storming of the Benghazi annex and the ensuing massacre of four diplomats.  That theory was later dismissed, but only after weeks of back and forth between the staffers, the press and even the President in his appearance on Letterman.  129 days later we still do not know what happened in Benghazi, and we’d now be fast approaching Ambassador Rice’s nomination hearings. 

The President’s initial defense of Ms. Rice against Messrs. McCain and Graham was Sorkinesque, according to the fawning NBC news team of Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell.  Both excitingly compared it to Michael Douglas’ closing speech in The American President, serving as Mr. Obama’s noble protection of his ambassador in distress.  But they forgot about the turning point of the film, when future Sorkin President Martin Sheen indignantly criticized his timid leader, “You fight the fights you can win?  You fight the fights that need fighting!” 

In today’s America, appointing the second African-American woman as Secretary of State qualifies as a fight worth fighting, especially for the progressive party whose power in government was just renewed in a national election.  That is of course unless they couldn’t win without paying a significant political price. 

For President Obama, reliving the September 11 attacks in Benghazi at a Senate confirmation hearing would be too high a price to pay, even if there were no serious revelations produced.  His retreat in this particular fight, juxtaposed with his aggressiveness to fill other posts, may be the most damning indication as to how much actually went wrong that day in Libya- and how little he wants the American people to comprehend that fact.

– John P. Burns

“I know no danger so dreadful and so probable as that of internal conflicts. And I know no remedy so likely to prevent it as the strengthening of the band which connects us.”- Thomas Jefferson, Representative from Virginia to Congress under the Articles of Confederation

If November 7th was a tough morning for conservatives and Republicans, January 2nd was downright cruel. Not only had the coldness of winter set in as a quick and sobering follow up to the close of the Christmas Season, but we awoke yet again to a victorious President Obama – a man one step closer to his ultimate goal of transforming the United States.

The end of the fiscal cliff’s drama only redeeming factor will be the public’s much due reprieve from the media chorus’ seemingly never-ending coverage. That ending, though, reaps new beginnings for the President, his congressional rivals, and the American people.

President Obama scored his first big post-election victory with Congress’ agreement to end the Bush Tax cuts for those families making over $450,000.00 ($400K for single filers). His much repeated campaign promise to raise taxes on the “millionaires and billionaires” who earn four hundred thousand dollars a year was finally fulfilled. Now we will see how Mr. Obama’s central plan for Americans going forward affects the economy.
But there is more.

The President has begun the second leg of his progressive agenda with the implementation of these tax hikes. He now hopes to extend that agenda’s reach. In his weekly address, the President stated he intends to urge Congress to close tax loopholes for wealthy filers and corporations as well- enacting Mr. Romney’s campaign plan to close tax loopholes in order to raise revenue, but in conjunction with higher tax rates.

In a departure from his formerly exhaustive pleas for a “balanced” approach to reduce the deficit through tax increases and spending restraint, the President and his party are now eager to tip the scales toward more taxes. This approach in the face of our yearly deficits and overall debt will prove woefully ineffective, save for the damage it can inflict on American families.

The Tax Payers Relief Act of 2012 was the highest tax rate increase on Americans in two decades. Seeking out new revenue would effectively raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans even further, from the new rate of 39.6% to somewhere around 41% or higher according to the Wall Street Journal- not including state and local taxes. What we are now seeing is the return of the far left agenda of high tax rates on the wealthy that were the status quo in the pre-Reagan era. And we can all remember the booming American economy of the 1970s.

And so we are at an impasse. The cliff circus divided the Republican Party- as always between moderates and conservatives- which was partially President Obama’s intention from the start. It was an uphill battle for Speaker Boehner after the election, facing a defiant President who had no intention of negotiating with such broad tax increases looming. It was an accurate calculation on the part of Mr. Obama, as the cliff deal came down to a decision between a tax increases on all filers or just the wealthiest Americans. Which way do you think public opinion would lean? The fact that the failure to renew the payroll tax holiday in the deal actually raised taxes on over 70% of Americans is mere noise in our current political culture. And whether or not the Republicans should have made the deal is a waste of time- the problem now is what can they do going forward to stop what seems to be a re-invigorated and determined President Barack Obama.

As I see it, the Republicans have three options in the coming debt ceiling drama:

1. The Repeat Scenario: Much like the “fiscal cliff” deal, the Republicans fracture even further over the debt ceiling increase moving toward the March deadline. Moderate Republicans ultimately side with Democrats and the President, handing the federal government a new lease on borrowing with no exchange in spending cuts for the future. This again will prevent substantive progress in relieving the nation of its burdensome debt, as well as increase the public’s disillusionment with the entire Washington establishment.

2. The Doomsday Scenario: Republicans band together and demand future cuts and restraint on spending in exchange for the debt ceiling hike. President Obama refuses to cave based on his and the national media’s intent to place all public blame on the Republican Party, and the government shuts down. A week of protest and phony press conferences ensue, featuring a condescending President Obama who blames the shut down on the ideologically uncompromising Republicans. These supposed ideologues then give into the hike without an exchange for cuts. Such a fiasco would render the party useless in congress as well as leave them to be demonized by the American public. The 2014 midterms are a slaughter, granting the President and his party full control of the executive and legislative branch.

3. The Best-case Scenario: I phrase this timidly as the current state of the Republican Party and its bargaining position is still a bad one. Undercut in the “fiscal cliff” deal by minority leader Senator McConnell, Vice-President Biden and the Senate Democrats, Speaker Boehner had no real chance at amending the bill, nor was there a reasonable scenario that would allow him to scrap the bill for a more “balanced approach” before January 1st.

But there is a silver lining. The debt ceiling deal can bring new hope to a party that has just been shellacked if it chooses to grab the bull by the horns. President Obama has vowed he would not cut a deal with congressional Republicans to increase the debt ceiling in exchange for a legislative structure to enact spending cuts. Let’s call his bluff. Take the case to the American people in full force before he does. Discuss the need for spending cuts in our bloated Federal budget. Discuss how there were no such cuts in the Tax Payer Relief Act. Discuss how this last-minute legislation has left our nation worse off in the new year; burdened by higher taxes with no reference point for spending cut progress going forward. Americans love a fair fight, so where is the Republican’s piece of the legislative pie? The President and his party finally got their vaunted tax increases. Now it’s the Republican’s turn: we need spending cuts. President Obama and Democrats went cliff diving without a scratch; don’t let them break the debt ceiling without hitting their heads.

Realistically, you can’t have scenario number 3 without risking scenario number 2. But these are serious times. Gumption and verve are needed to attain the level of success necessary to put our country on a better economic path. Republicans didn’t show much backbone in the 2012 election, nor did they band together in unity in the most recent negotiating debacle. They should surprise the President, and the people, by displaying both in the debt ceiling debate. Doing so will re-unite them and strengthen the one institution (the House) remaining that can halt the President’s dominant and ambitious progressive agenda. If they fail to do so, then the President’s second four years will feel much longer than his first.

– John P. Burns

I’ve missed this space, and am happy to be back. Even two months later, I’m still stuck on the election. Everyone gets their chance at a sour grapes election post mortem: I’m smart enough to see what the loser did wrong, but not smart enough to realize it when it would have mattered. I present to you my grapes…

While killing time between meals on Christmas, I flipped through a new book found under the tree that morning aptly named The Presidents Club. The book, by Michal Duffy and Nancy Gibbs, is an examination of the relationship between modern presidents and their living predecessors. The first chapter introduces the reader to the establishment of the club: the partnership formed between President Harry Truman and former President Herbert Hoover.

I was surprised by their initial description of President Hoover as an accomplished, once beloved public figure and President, in place of the traditional narrative of the man who presided over the infancy of the Great Depression. The authors quickly juxtapose this depiction with that of Mr. Hoover being demonized by Franklin Roosevelt and the citizenry, as if he was the sole cause of American strife in that era of hardship. Hoover became Roosevelt and the Democratic Party’s whipping boy for close to two decades. As economics or common sense would dictate, to place the blame at Hoover’s feet is simplistic at best and duplicitous at worst.

There were certainly steps taken by Mr. Hoover which did worsen the situation, but the same could be said for FDR, who won re-election during the Depression twice. It did not help matters for President Hoover that Republicans obliged the new President and his party banishing Hoover from the public view. His own party refused to defend his record in hopes the public would forget he ever existed, leaving Republicans with a clean slate in subsequent elections. They ignored the former president as much as the Democrats celebrated his supposed failures.

This stuck out to me while reading as I played over in my head the 2012 Election. First kudos go to President Obama and his campaign team. They had a strategy from which they did not waiver, suppressing general voter turnout while generating massive support amongst their base through technological and statistical advantages that the Romney team can only dream about.

But one simple tactic may have done the most damage of all. From the day he stepped into office in 2009, President Obama’s campaign for re-election began. For four long years the ills of all Americans were blamed on the “policies of the past” and the “previous administration” by Mr. Obama. Conservative pundits repeatedly criticized the President for this recurrence as a lack of leadership- passing the buck on a man who was no longer in office. Yet on Election Day, although some polled voters blamed the President for the stagnant economy (which ranked at those voters’ highest concern), the majority blamed a man named George W. Bush.

While conservatives saw this blame game as a weakness in Mr. Obama, none of us were smart enough to realize the damage he was inflicting on the party years before Mr. Romney was even the republican presidential frontrunner. The biggest failure of Republicans in this election was their inability to make an argument in favor of President Bush’s record (or more likely a conscious choice to avoid such an argument) .

Though President Obama constantly referenced Mr. Bush’s 2003 “tax cuts for the rich”, he failed to mention that President Bush cut taxes for all Americans- which President Obama has now agreed to permanently extend for 98% of those Americans. During President Bush’s eight years in office, where taxes were as low as they had been in decades, unemployment averaged 5.3% in the United States.

In the 2005-2007 fiscal years following his broad 2003 tax cut, the annual deficit decreased each year, creating even more revenue for the federal government. This progress was then stymied by the 2008 financial collapse, since which the federal government has run a deficit over a trillion dollars each of the last five years- one for President Bush, four for President Obama. President Bush’s deficit in 2007 was a $167 billion.

In a rare public moment since his leaving office, President Bush speaks on Republican’s approach to immigration reform shortly after the 2012 election.(Dallas Morning News)

Certainly these facts do not portend economic success under a Romney administration that lowered taxes, nor do they absolve President Bush of his own fiscal mismanagement as President (while lowering taxes helped the economy, he failed to control spending which ballooned the deficit in his first term). But the argument was there to be made that the similarities between Mr. Romney’s plan and President Bush’s were not problems for the Republican candidate, as President Bush’s policies were not proven failures, especially in the context of the financial collapse.

Yes, President Bush contributed to the housing collapse by signing The American Dream Down Payment Act in 2003 to ease housing loan standards. But President Bill Clinton exacerbated the problem as well in the Community Re-Investment Act a decade before. Recalcitrant democrats stalled on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was promulgated by President Bush. Big banks bet big on the Housing market and ultimately lost. Main Street received loans they could not afford. Wall Street sold packaged securities around these faulty loans for a profit.

And on it goes. The magnitude and complexity of the 2008 financial crisis cannot be blamed on one man. But somehow the perception created by Mr. Obama is that the problems that still linger since that crisis are the fault of Mr. Bush, and the majority of the American people ate it up.

In our own fear of referencing the “bad ol days” of President Bush, much like Republicans did with Hoover in the 1930s, we never really attempted to defend the distortions of his record made by the president. Lower taxes advocated by Mr. Romney would not bring us “back to the policies that got us here in the first place”, as they were not actually the policies that caused the collapse. But no one seemed to take the time make that distinction- whether it was Mr. Romney, the hundreds of Republicans trotted out on the campaign trail, or the advertisements costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lack of conviction in defending our former President and party standard bearer is a sobering thought in the context of 2012. In an election that was constantly referenced by politicians and pundits as one of the most important in our collective lives, Republicans approached this momentous debate timidly, ultimately scared of their shadow – a shadow that stood in the form of a two term Texas governor and two term United States President. Mr. Obama had no reservations about distorting the Bush record and connecting it to Mr. Romney’s plans to fit his campaign narrative for the American people. Why couldn’t Mr. Romney be forward with the public and address the American people as adults, highlighting the fact the very policies he intended to enact that were similar to that of President Bush- essentially lower taxes- actually worked for Americans for the better part of the President Bush’s two terms in office.

The Romney campaign bet the farm that the economic problems of the United States would be the most important factor in the election. They were. They bet the farm President Obama would shoulder the blame for those problems. He didn’t. Perhaps it’s time for Republicans to let President Bush out of the dog house, and in turn we may actually get our own house in order.

– John P. Burns

With special thanks for his sacrifice and service as a public official, I respectfully vote against President Barack Obama.

The last decade of the twentieth century had very little in common with the nine that came before it.  In the previous ninety years the human race had been ravaged by the Great Depression, two world wars, the rise of communism and the threat of nuclear holocaust.  Very few could have predicted that this tumultuous 100 years would come to a close as quietly as it did in 1999.  Countries had become connected through an economic globalization that intertwined their interests and mutual prosperity.  America thrived in its position as the lone global superpower; a dominant culture that had emerged from this century of war and hardship in better shape than any other.  The last country to challenge this superiority, the former Soviet Union, had collapsed a decade prior.  America as we all saw it was primed to stand atop the mountain for generations to come.

But like so many good things in life, this peace and prosperity were too short-lived.  Despite the good feelings in America, the 2000 Presidential election was the closest in four decades.  George W. Bush, a two term Texas governor and son of a former President, challenged the incumbent Vice-President Al Gore for the Presidency.  Though President Clinton left office with high approval numbers, the public did not warm up to his heir apparent, the stiff Democratic nominee from Tennessee.  Mr. Bush was able to use this indecisiveness in his appeal for a new “compassionate conservatism.”   Mr. Bush barely defeated Vice-President Gore, who won the popular vote, with a 271-264 victory in the Electoral College.  A recount was demanded in the state of Florida, which resulted in a Supreme Court decision depriving America of a President-elect until December.  The recount in Florida was soon declared over by a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, and Governor Bush became the new president.

But the election took a total on the American psyche.  For the first time since 1888, a president was elected without the majority of popular votes cast.  As the media conducted its study of the election, the country was soon divided into the colloquial Red States and Blue States.  Glib republicans declared victory and vengeful democrats sought to take their frustration out on the man they did not consider their true President.  Partisan battles would rage for the first nine months of Mr. Bush’s first term, only to come to a halt on the horrible day now infamously known as 9/11.  In the worst attack on United States’ soil since Pearl Harbor, over three thousand Americans were killed by Islamist extremists armed with box cutters and commercial airliners.  A decade of war would ensue, claiming another 4,000 American lives, and an even deeper loss of trust in government that would plague the American people throughout President Bush’s beleaguered two terms in office.

By 2008, the feeling of unrest in the country was palpable.  Citizens remained divided in the electorate following another close election in favor of President Bush in 2004.  Wars continued in the Middle East, the Federal government underperformed in a hurricane-torn New Orleans, a recession had settled in the economy as of late 2007, and a devastating financial collapse lurked in the tall grass to devour American families’ net worth to the tune of 40%.  In the midst of this turmoil emerged a slender Senator from Illinois, the first African-American nominee for president from a major political party, Barack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Obama’s story and his untraditional background (exemplified by his foreign sounding name) injected new life into American politics.  The young man from Illinois’ message of hope and change served as initiative to restore the American dream for those who had become disenchanted with the politics of their country.  His cool demeanor, sense of optimism and cross-generational ties seemed overpowering when juxtaposed with the aging Clinton Machine in the democratic primaries.  He defeated the favored Senator Hilary Clinton for the nomination in stunning fashion.  This juxtaposition of youth and energy against tired beltway veterans was reinforced in the national election against Mr. Obama’s seventy-two year old Republican adversary, Arizona Senator John McCain

The white haired, Vietnam War POW from Arizona was tasked with fighting the uphill battle of defending President Bush’s stewardship of the country, while simultaneously trying to advocate his own vision for America’s future.  Though Senator Obama struggled to break away from Mr. McCain in the polls throughout the summer, his lead became insurmountable upon the financial collapse of 2008- a final, but not necessarily fair, indictment of the Republican establishment. Their decade of power had now come to a close, book marked by runaway spending, insider Washington politics and a finally a stale message for the voting public in the face of mounting adversity.  It was now a time for Hope and Change, and Mr. Obama would ride that sentiment like a tidal wave sweeping across America, and into the White House.

President Obama entered Washington with far more good will than his predecessor eight years before.  With a Gallup approval rating of 68% after his inauguration, America was ready to put its faith in the hands of the first African-American president, and his message of change.  Alas, all that glitters is not gold, nor are promises for change on the campaign stump nothing more than empty rhetoric designed by ambition.

His first initiative as President was to tackle the failing American economy with a stimulus bill.  While many Republicans, particularly conservatives, reject this method of government intervention, they realized elections have consequences.  The decision for such a bill was the President’s and that of the newly minted Democratic supermajority in the legislature.  But much like the previous Republican House, the President and his democratic cronies saw to spending money on pet projects fit with their ideological agenda.  This was done at the expense of targeted expenditures that could help, in theory, spur the economy.  Republican suggestions of a smaller bill, or at least a targeted middle class tax cut were quickly dismissed by the President.

The President’s central failure when drafting this bill was the choice to delegate responsibility of the bill’s particulars to the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, stalwart beltway partisans.  These were not the actions of a man looking to change the tone of Washington, or even that of his own party.  No less than a month in office, the Hope and Change in which the President seemed so determined to make real quickly descended into the same old political game of one-upsmanship between parties we had witnessed for decades prior.

In the end, a bill of over 800 billion dollars was drafted, approved, and signed by the President with guarantees to bring down unemployment and save the American economy.  In his last week before the 2012 election, unemployment is higher than the day President Obama entered office.

Moving forward, instead of expanding his efforts to combat the job crisis and help spur growth in the economy, Mr. Obama and his democratic supermajority concentrated their intensity on a universal healthcare bill: The Patient Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as “Obamacare.”  Another Democratic dream bill, the President chose to tackle an issue that was not pertinent to the prosperity of the country like the issue of the workforce crisis.  In fact, the length, complexity and vagueness of the bill caused problems in the private sector, leaving businesses big and small reluctant to hire more employees or expand their practice as they did not yet know the ramifications of the omnibus bill- which read at over 2,000 pages in length.  This process took up the central efforts of the federal government for over a year, close to the halfway point of the President’s first term.  Mr. Obama’s window to enact real change in government and the country was quickly closed.  The Democratic majority had rammed through a healthcare bill that vested power in the hands of the federal government over seventeen percent of the American economy.  This vast expansion of government control was passed by the slimmest of margins through partisan bias and backroom dealing.  The public’s good will that the president carried with him to the capital on Inauguration Day had now quickly manifested itself into frustration.

From there the house of cards that was the Obama Myth crumbled.  His progressive agenda was quickly repudiated by the American public in a midterm election landslide.  Republicans gained 63 seats and a sizable majority in the House and picked up four seats in the Democratic controlled Senate.  President Obama and his surrogates blamed this landslide on the electorate’s mood swing, born out of their angst toward incumbent public officials, not the President and his agenda.  While trying to deflect the blame for its party’s historic losses, the administration missed the big point.  Not only had President Obama failed to change Washington, which was undeniable based on their false spin blaming incumbent members of his party, but the American people were clearly unconvinced that the President’s two biggest legislative achievements would actually help their situation, or the country’s.

Today we see little difference in America from what we saw in 2010. The Republican congress has done its utmost to halt President Obama’s progressive agenda, but the President has turned a deaf ear to American people’s outcry in the midterm election.  The President, with little accomplished domestically in the last two years, is now running a campaign based on too few ideas for the future, and too many stale ideas from progressivism’s checkered American past.

President Obama’s lack of a plan for the future has been substituted for an all out attack on Governor Romney.  Mr. Obama’s disdain for the governor that was far from subtle in his three debate performances embody the petulant trajectory his re-election campaign has taken.  From blaming a woman’s death on the governor to an assault on Big Bird, a false war on women and now “Romnesia”, we have seen an incumbent president’s campaign for re-election take the low road in every inflection point of the debate.  Sadly, the President and his party do not realize that such political parlor tricks do little to help the 23 million Americans out of work; the record high 46 million Americans on food stamps;  our crumbling and soon to be debt consuming entitlement state; the nation’s 16 trillion dollar debt; record trillion dollar deficits in each of the President’s four fiscal terms; and our armed forces stationed around the world whose security only grows weaker as our domestic situation continues to deteriorate.

But, as then Senator Obama said in his 2008 acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for President, “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.” 

There are only two choices that can be made in a presidential election in which the incumbent runs for another term: 1) to affirm the county’s choice made four years prior by continuing the county’s current trajectory or, 2) to repudiate the choice made four years ago and move the country in a different, and hopefully better direction.  I respectfully choose the latter.  President Obama’s dedication to the progressive ideology has only weakened our country since his ascendancy in fall 2008.    He had his chance to lead the United States to brighter days, and has failed to do so.  It is time to elect a President who can.

– John P. Burns

In last week’s “60 Minutes” appearance by our respective presidential contenders, both interviewers framed a question around historian David McCullough and his thoughts on the Presidency:

“The historian, David McCullough, says that great presidents learn from the history of the office. What have you learned from the history of presidents in the White House?”

The point of this inquiry was more than just the delivery of a softball question (one of many for the president, one of few for the governor) to wrap up the interview.  It was asked to reemphasize what McCullough and so many historians, politicians and actual presidents have pointed out in the four centuries spanning the nation’s existence: the Office is bigger than the man.

Though this has been the prevailing sentiment since Washington first swore to uphold the Constitution in Manhattan in 1789, President Obama currently, and for most of his presidency, has not felt beholden to this standard.  On the contrary, he has clearly showed his disdain for it.

This attitude was apparent early in Mr. Obama’s first term, but to be fair, this is a trait every new president possesses.  The President-elect rides into Washington on a high few people have ever felt.  Voted into office as the leader of the free world, every president who has entered the White House since Truman has felt unstoppable upon his arrival, and often considered himself simply smarter, and more able, than those who came before.  This rarely holds true, and the cruel reality soon sets in that the position is unlike any other in the world.  The challenge to lead weighs heavier than any personal ambition possessed by the man.  Thus far, President Obama has refused to accept this reality; it has severely affected his ability to govern, and may destroy his second term if re-elected.

This piece of Mr. Obama’s character first came to light in his opening meeting with congressional Republicans mere days into his first term.  The minority leaders hoped to bring ideas to the table for the drafting of the January 2009 stimulus bill, which the President had designated priority one as the country reaped the whirlwind of the previous September’s financial collapse.  Upon suggestions made by Republicans that the bill promote more tax cuts for the middle class, less spending on democratic pet projects and simply make it smaller, the President after a polite nod or two abruptly dismissed their requests with the response “I won.”

The president, on that electoral high from November, quickly forgot the soaring speeches he gave on the campaign trail about hope and change he had delivered only months before.  He quickly forgot the 2004 speech about one America that propelled him to the national stage.  He quickly forgot that our divided government was instituted to protect the minority so it could not be steamrolled by those in the seat of power.  Mr. Obama forgot all of this and quickly exercised this power, asserting the dominance of a Democratic party which controlled the House, the Senate, and now the Presidency.  It officially marked the end of the all too short lived Era of Hope and Change.

With the release of Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics this month detailing the Obama presidency thus far, we see a man who naively believes he is above the fray of American politics- as if descending to the depths of compromise, or even forming a congenial relationship with the opposition, would render him a mere mortal.  This was on display during the healthcare reform negations where he chose to hastily dismiss criticism made by now Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan.  Adulation for the President’s once vaunted “cool” by the liberal media has transformed into allegations of disinterest and even rudeness.  Fast forward to today.

President Obama addresses the U.N. this week in New York City. (Photo credit: http://www.Washingtonpost.com)

Over the last two weeks, one can easily think of the chances the President has had to lead, especially at the U.N., inresponse to the various crises in the Middle East.  Doing so could have possibly guaranteed his re-election, as an incumbent president never looks more presidential than deftly handling matters of foreign policy.  Yet, the president’s disinterestedness in his relationships with world leaders is just another example of his choice to act as if he is above the duties imposed upon the office of the President.  Such blatant acts of disregard rarely go unnoticed:

1) His decision last week to decline a meeting with Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu of Israel, of whom his relationship is already strained, for the bright lights of Letterman and the glitter of a Jay-Z/Beyonce fundraiser.

2) This week his refusal to meet with any world leaders during the U.N. summit, while simultaneously appearing on the T.V. show “The View” in New York City.

3)  His insistence at the U.N. in harping on the dreaded “video” that triggered the atrocities in Benghazi and protests around the world- a now all too common exhibition of Mr. Obama in which his rejection of reality is asserted to forward his administration’s preferred narrative.

This past week was a small window into the mind of a President who does not feel the obligation to deal with the encumbrances of the office.  Voting for another four years of a leader who seems only to be impressed by his own resume could have dire consequences for the Republic.  The American people deserve better.  The Office of the President deserves better.

– John P. Burns

“I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of Egypt.  I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.”­- President Barack Obama, opening greeting in prepared remarks to the Muslim world.  Delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009.

As violent Islamist protests rage around the world outside of American foreign consulates and embassies, the American media has been asking the big question all week: how will Mitt Romney respond?  This inquiry has already been answered, about as swiftly as Mr. Romney delivered a response the night of the events.  As a result from his own propensity to shoot without aiming, the American media has now ruled Mr. Romney’s premature comments as clearly deaf to reality, and almost certainly lost him the election last week.

For those of you who might be asking considering the concentration on Mr. Romney, the answer is No, today is not January 23, 2013.  Mitt Romney is not the President of the United States.  When Mr. Romney made his remarks eight days ago, he correctly challenged the apologetic statement issued by the United States Embassy in Cairo preceding the protest.  His position as the Republican nominee for President though, holds absolutely zero authority in the United States government.  Despite this fact, his reaction last week has been subjected to the mainstream media microscope as if he is already the presiding executive directing our foreign policy.  Mr. Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, does in fact have such command.  But, because of the manipulation of coverage engineered by the country’s media establishment, our citizenry is grossly uninformed of the President’s role in the matter.

The duress which a sitting president running for re-election would experience in these present circumstances should be palpable to the American people.  On the eleven year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, four agents of our State Department, notably Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were brutally murdered in Benghazi.  Their consulate was ransacked as they were bound captive, and later killed, in a gruesome display of bloodlust by barbaric Islamist militants.  In Cairo the same day, radical Islamists marched under the guise of protest in response to a degrading American made movie trailer about the prophet Mohammed.  These protesters did not get inside, but were determined enough to tear down the embassy’s American flag, burn it, and subsequently raise a black flag representing Al Qaeda which read, “The only god is God, and Mohammed is his Prophet.”  Paging Mr. Obama, we have a bit of a situation on our hands.

Cairo protesterss climb the walls of the American Embassy, contrasting flags in hand. (USA Today)

But why bother the President?  On September 12, after learning of these riots and the tragic deaths that followed, Mr. Obama hopped on his plane to Vegas to attend a campaign event.  If it were another president, the media may have suggested that the Commander-in-Chief stay in the capital to oversee the situation, as opposed to leaving for campaign duties promoting his own brand.  From a campaign standpoint, Air Force One landing in Sin City isn’t exactly the picture Jim Messina wants juxtaposed with Mr. Stevens’ body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi.  Not to worry though: the media is hot on Mitt Romney’s tail, and it is clear this situation has Mr. Romney’s campaign in crisis.

Indeed, what is the sense of making the story about President Obama?  He, like the rest of us, was only forced to watch protests damming the United States throughout countries in the Middle East and northern Africa, where demonstrations were made that included chants such as “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”

Mr. Obama campaigned and entered office promising to ease American tensions with the Muslim world.  His audacity of hope was fueled by the President’s confidence in his oratory, wrapped in the dangerously naive belief that his travels to Muslim nations in his youth solidified his bona fides as a world healer.  Together, these factors would enable the new president to convince radical Islamists to view him more favorably than they had his predecessors, and consequently, the nation as a whole.

This untested self-assurance in his ability to forge a new understanding between the two cultures was on display in the President’s remarks to the Muslim World that were delivered at Cairo University in 2009.  The coup de grace occurred in the speech where Mr. Obama felt it was necessary to include a section condemning actions taken by the United States in its war on terror, as if to show we had officially turned the page:

“And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”

Aside from his failure to close Guantanamo and his choice to brand the enhanced interrogation tactics that would prove essential in acquiring the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden as torture, the media lauded the speech as one that would define his presidency.

Three and a half years later, we are not seeing the dividends.  Islamist extremist riots, seemingly orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, have resulted in the murder of four State Department officials, on the anniversary of September 11^th.  Couple what happened last Tuesday with riots and protests still raging in Northern Africa, the Middle East and disturbingly somehow the Queen’s commonwealth of Australia, and we are witnessing a firm rejection to President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world.

This breakdown serves as evidence of another broken promise by a President up for re-election, with the media running pass block for him on every play.  If fires raged outside U.S. embassies in September 2004, with the death tolling rising in Iraq (like today in Afghanistan) and a close election in the stretch run (ditto today), it is improbable to believe the American media’s main concentration would focus on John Kerry’s criticism of the Bush administration during the crisis.  They would focus any and all criticism on the current administration alone.

As it is being reported, the attention given to Mr. Romney during this crisis is allocated as if he is the President of the United States.  Hopefully come January 23, 2013, this media illusion becomes reality.

– John P. Burns

“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”- William F. Buckley Jr., “Our Mission Statement” National Review

Conservatives probably never thought they would hear these names together, but here is the possible new template: Goldwater.  Reagan.  Romney.  If this lineup was announced during the republican primaries it would have been laughed off the stage.  But Romney, in the vein of a true reformer, has now thrown this still uncertain election for a loop, while simultaneously performing a vital service to his party – and, more importantly, his country.

The current polling data showing such a close election is an indicator of the problems facing the country, and the public’s lack of faith in both parties’ abilities to solve these problems.  In such times of trouble, a leader shows his true commitment and resolve by taking a stance simply saying “no more.”  Both Reagan and Goldwater ran for President and lost, Reagan in his primary challenge against sitting President Gerald Ford, and Goldwater in his loss to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.  Although Goldwater’s loss was on a much larger scale in a gruesome general election blowout, their defeats set the stage for a conservative revolution that changed the country for the better.  With Romney’s selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, that stage is set again, win or lose.

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was nominated as the Republican candidate for President.  Goldwater served as the Conservative standard bearer in elected office during the revival of Burkean Conservatism led by Russell Kirk and William Buckley, Jr. in the late 1950s.  Senator Goldwater’s strong opposition to the welfare state being crafted by President Johnson and a stronger stance against the Soviets gave the media cannon fodder to paint Goldwater as a radical and served up the blue print for President Johnson’s campaign.  His defeat was massive, which in turn lead to huge losses for Republicans in the House and the Senate.  But clearing out these older Republican stalwarts helped pave the way for those who believed in the conservatism Goldwater preached, a mantle soon taken up by Ronald Reagan with his election as governor of California in 1967.

Reagan made it no secret he held presidential aspirations, which soon came to a head in his primary challenge of President Gerald Ford in 1976.  Challenging a sitting president within the same party was not a new idea, but certainly abnormal.  Reagan felt the party had diverted from the conservative ideology emphasizing the importance of the individual, personal responsibility and smaller government.  Republican presidents Nixon and Ford were certainly more in line with these expressions than McGovern or Carter, but Reagan did not see the same commitment that was needed in a world facing an epidemic of socialism.  Reagan of course conceded to President Ford, who then lost to Carter.  But the table was set for 1980, when a grueling primary took place between the establishment candidate George H.W. Bush and the conservative Reagan, who like Goldwater was painted as a radical war monger, not to mention stupid.  Reagan’s victory over Bush and then President Carter led to a first term presidency that ushered in a plan implementing broad tax cuts, a return to self-government, and a defense buildup that yielded a decade of prosperity and global dominance for the United States it has not matched since.

President Reagan and Barry Goldwater at the White House. Perhaps Messrs. Romney and Ryan will stand at the same podium. (Image: Washington Post)

Which brings us to the selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as the #2 on the Romney ticket.  Instead of taking the cautious route that has so far defined the Romney Campaign, Mr. Romney recognized the “vanilla” option of Governor Pawlenty or Senator Portman would do the country no good in such an intense and important election.  To fight fire with gasoline, he chose the ideological leader of his party to help lead the charge against an increasingly progressive Democratic party.  Mr. Ryan’s presence on the ticket instantly brought the campaign back to the important issues that face the country- massive debt, entitlement reform, a loss of individualism- and brought us back from such nonsensical sound bites as “Romney Hood” and “Obamaloney.”  Paul Ryan enters the race as the most serious and mature of the four men on the ticket.  His ability to vocalize the conservative argument for remedies to put the country back on the right track put the Obama campaign on its heels; rightly so, considering Mr. Ryan’s acute argumentative skills.

Representative Ryan’s placement on the ticket is the first of a true conservative Republican since Reagan in 1980.  As Joe Scarborough noted, it will truly excite conservatives in a presidential race that looks increasingly more like it will be decided by whose base shows up in larger numbers.  The choice of Ryan has Democrats and the liberal wing of the party salivating over the chance to go after conservatism and its supposed “cruelty”.  But what they call cruelty, I call realism.  This is the very argument conservatives want as well, and everybody in the country is a winner for it.

The distortion of Ryan’s plan specifically regarding Medicare is par for the course given the Obama campaign’s tactics this season.  Despite the indignation and collective outcry from conservatives, whining won’t get you anywhere.  To borrow from Brian De Palma, the party can complain all they want about how they do now approve of the Obama campaign’s methods, and the Obama campaign rightly would reply “Well you’re not from Chicago.”    

The current line, collectively embraced by not only the Obama campaign but the mainstream media, is that the election of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will destroy Medicare “as we know it.”  But that’s the point so many miss- if nothing is done, Medicare – with its $39 trillion (a conservative estimate) in unfunded liabilities over the next two decades – will not exist as “we know it”, because anyone under 40 will never be able to benefit from it unless changes are actually made.  But if they do succeed in their attacks and get President Obama reelected, there will be nowhere for the progressive ideology to hide.  Another four years would continue without serious reform proposed for our exploding entitlement programs- Medicare alone this year ran a deficit of $288 Billion.  This uncertainty, along with the ominously looming implementation of Obamacare and the effect it will have on small businesses, will ensure the continuations of our flat line economy.  The debt will grow, and the people of the United States will be left behind for the whims of an ideologue whose master plan going forward is to raise taxes on two percent of the country.  If this is the case, Ryan will arise as the new leader of the Republican Party, plan in hand for a conservative revival of his country’s founding principles.

The Romney-Ryan ticket will make its appeal to the American people over the next three months.  As opposed to 2008, Republicans are now the reformers.  The days of President Bush are behind the party, never more so represented by the selection of the fiscal conservative Ryan as Vice-President.  They will make an appeal for smaller government and fiscal prudence, and emphasize the importance of personal responsibility for Americans; these tenets have served as the basis for the American idea since its creation.  All of this will be done to prevent in Mr. Ryan’s words “the most predictable crisis in U.S. history.”  If the ticket is elected, Mr. Romney will have his shot at doing so.  If not, Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign will be remembered for their attempt to put forward drastic solutions to solve our monumental problems, only to have these solutions buried in thick mud of divisive campaign politics.  Governor Romney will have done his part putting conservatism back in the mainstream, but Mr. Ryan will march on, like Reagan before him, with plans for the country awaiting the embrace of the American people.  Let’s hope that wait is a short one.

– John P. Burns

“It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.”– Neil Armstrong, First Man to walk on the Moon

The NASA rover Curiosity, currently conducting the exploration of our neighboring Mars, will receive diminishing coverage as we move farther away in time (and space!) from its landing on the planet’s surface.  Though this is understandable considering the troubled times in our country and the length and extensive scope of the mission, the greater good represented by Curiosity far supersedes the effect of the scientific readings it transmits home- barring shocking evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

Aside from the nasty, brutish and repugnant course our current presidential election campaign has taken, there is still the occasional mention of the American people and their capacity to achieve greatness.  While this can be viewed as pandering to the electorate, there is still truth behind such words no matter who makes the claim.  Curiosity and NASA as a whole represent this optimism- so long as the space program exists in an environment that will advance our knowledge of the galaxy.

Currently, we do not live in such a country.  The mismanagement of our federal and local governments’ fiscal state has led our elected officials down a path of chaos, infighting and drastic budget measures that no one can agree on.  NASA budget reductions have been so extensive that the United States has shut down its shuttle program on the order of the president.  Two months ago, a DRUDGEREPORT headline read Outsourced in Space, reporting accurately that a member of the best and brightest in our space program looked to Russia for a boost to the moon, as opposed to racing them to it on our own rockets.

Despite the abundant evidence in which humanity has been aided throughout its existence by the progression of exploration- from the advancements made in ship building and navigation in 15^th century Europe through the Apollo missions of the mid twentieth century- our Federal government has tightened the reins on our chariots of fire.  The Curiosity rover cost $2.5B to build, mere pittance compared to the Federal government budget of $3.8 Trillion.  This sounds like a mighty big bargain for a 1 ton space explorer that will travel a Martian desert never before seen by man, nor occupied by a carbon based life form.  Its main purpose is to send back readings and information to our scientists to uncover if in fact Mars could have ever been populated by a living being.  This is important, as our NASA scientists view Mars as we all should: what’s next. 

NASA scientists celebrate after the successful landing of the Mars rover Curiosity. These men and women acknowledge the endless possibilities of space exploration. (ABC NEWS)

Mars is what’s next on the map, and that map is incredibly large.  Cynics often refer to space as “the endless void”, but it is truly endless in possibility.  Endless in the benefits it can yield for the human race.  Endless in the worlds we can discover, and what that discovery can mean for our safety and happiness.  Endless in what we can accomplish together as a people, giving humanity something to strive for; a common cause that can bring all countries and people alike together.  Our generation will most likely never reach these high minded goals, but the advancement in technology yielded by such research will accelerate humanity’s progression.  And ultimately, our own selfish need for accomplishment cannot be what drives our thirst for knowledge.  The responsibility to lead in this pursuit falls on each succeeding generation, to then ensure its extension for the next.

There are matters our federal government must turn their attention to financially, and with some hard work and a lot of luck we will actually elect officials that will face those issues.  There are changes that can be made that modify our entitlement programs that can make them solvent, defense modifications (not across the board cuts) that can help strengthen our security while simultaneously tightening its belt, and ultimately revamp our government so it is not weighed down by bureaucracy and expose our politicians to a dreaded epidemic of efficiency.  NASA must not be stifled, as this attempt will then suffocate the progression of mankind.  China hopes to be on the moon by 2020.  The United States could be there in a year, if we so choose.

The image of jubilation in the Curiosity control room when it safely landed on Mars was not just an overreaction from underpaid NASA scientists.  It was a signal that humanity’s thinkers still care about what it can achieve in our never ending quest for knowledge.  The United States still leads the world in technology; it is our solemn duty to use that technology for the good of the planet.  The best way to do so would be to reach the next closest one.

– John P. Burns