Relating to Torture, Executive Orders and the Second Amendment.

Executive Order 13491 -- Ensuring Lawful Interrogations

Executive Order 13491 -- Ensuring Lawful Interrogations

 EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Revocation.  Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked.  All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.  Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order.  Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

Sec. 2.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  "Army Field Manual 2 22.3" means FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.

(b)  "Army Field Manual 34-52" means FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, issued by the Department of the Army on May 8, 1987.

(c)  "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

(d)  "Convention Against Torture" means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100 20 (1988).

(e)  "Geneva Conventions" means:

 (i)    the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

 (ii)   the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

 (iii)  the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

 (iv)   the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(f)  "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3.

(g)  The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

Sec. 3.  Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.

(a)  Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline.  Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

(b)  Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment.  Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual).  Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes.  Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense.  Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.

(c)  Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual.  From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52    issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

Sec. 4.  Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

(a)  CIA Detention.  The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

(b)  International Committee of the Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.  All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.

Sec. 5.  Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies.

(a)  Establishment of Special Interagency Task Force.  There shall be established a Special Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies (Special Task Force) to review interrogation and transfer policies.

(b)  Membership.  The Special Task Force shall consist of the following members, or their designees:

 (i)     the Attorney General, who shall serve as Chair;

 (ii)    the Director of National Intelligence, who shall serve as Co-Vice-Chair;

 (iii)   the Secretary of Defense, who shall serve as Co-Vice-Chair;

 (iv)    the Secretary of State;

 (v)     the Secretary of Homeland Security;

 (vi)    the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

 (vii)   the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

 (viii)  other officers or full-time or permanent part time employees of the United States, as determined by the Chair, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.

(c)  Staff.  The Chair may designate officers and employees within the Department of Justice to serve as staff to support the Special Task Force.  At the request of the Chair, officers and employees from other departments or agencies may serve on the Special Task Force with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency that employ such individuals.  Such staff must be officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States.  The Chair shall designate an officer or employee of the Department of Justice to serve as the Executive Secretary of the Special Task Force.

(d)  Operation.  The Chair shall convene meetings of the Special Task Force, determine its agenda, and direct its work.  The Chair may establish and direct subgroups of the Special Task Force, consisting exclusively of members of the Special Task Force, to deal with particular subjects.

(e)  Mission.  The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

 (i)   to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2 22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies; and

 (ii)  to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.

(f)  Administration.  The Special Task Force shall be established for administrative purposes within the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice shall, to
the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide administrative support and funding for the Special Task Force.

(g)  Recommendations.  The Special Task Force shall provide a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Counsel to the President, on the matters set forth in subsection (d) within 180 days of the date of this order, unless the Chair determines that an extension is necessary.

(h)  Termination.  The Chair shall terminate the Special Task Force upon the completion of its duties.

Sec. 6.  Construction with Other Laws.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to:  the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

  

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009

The following are my personal opinion and are not necessarily representative of the opinions of our President.

There is no gray area on this one, torture is illegal.  The supreme court has ruled that any enhanced interrogations that willfully inflict psychological and physical pain and cause prolonged psychological and physical damages qualify as such. 

Furthermore, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment and the various executive orders surrounding gun control.

The Constitution clearly and unequivocally declares the President of the United States of America is the Commander and Chief of all the militias.  The Second Amendment provides for well-regulated Militias; therefore, any American Citizen who owns or is in possession of a gun and claims to lawfully own a gun under the Second Amendment, must also then subordinate to the Command of the lawfully elected and active President, Barack Obama, unless, if and/or until he is not only impeached by Congress, but convicted and removed from office by the Senate or has completed his elected second term as POTUS.  It is clearly constitutional for the Commander and Chief to issue executive orders in an effort to meet his obligation to uphold the Second Amendment and its requirement to regulate the militias under his command, of which, according to the constitution include all militias within the territorial United States of America and/or operating under the command of the US military.

Credible Nuclear Deterrence

Credible Nuclear Deterrence

       During the Bush Administration, America pursued a policy of prevention, which dragged us into two expensive wars that were detrimental to substantial treasury funds and life. While I am critical of aspects of the execution of these two wars, I cannot be sure that either war was a mistake because I live in world where those two wars occurred and I still am alive. While the Iraq and Afghanistan wars tested relations with allies, they also served to assert the United States of America's justified leadership position and the delegation of the United Nations to a secondary forum for diplomatic dialogue and policy formation. The truth is, Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq was brought to an end, and the transfer of power to his sons Uday and Qusay Hussein was prevented. While the CIA has suggested that Saddam's weapons programs were not nearly as far along as the Bush Administration's thought, and that instead misread Saddam's bluff to deter Iran, the fact remains that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Israeli's had already destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactors in a previous air strike. Saddam had a history of belligerent aggressive military action, including his invasion of Kuwait, that understandably marked him as a rogue leader with weapons of mass destruction and contacts with terrorist organizations. The attack convinced Iran to halt its nuclear program and Libya to give up its nuclear warheads. Our efforts in Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power and facilitated the decapitation of core Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all now Democracies and have all the opportunities to build prosperous and free countries. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to be a serious problem as Iran has renewed its Uranium program, making concerted efforts to negotiate for a peaceful nuclear energy program. Syria spiraled into a bloody, violent and chaotic civil war where within Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons and campaigns of intense violence to combat rebels varying from secular democratic reformers to Al-Qaeda affiliates. Russia has been aggressive in blocking UN security measures to respond to crisis in Syria, simply because Syria is a high paying client for Russian made weapons and because Assad's regime shelters Russia's only Naval base in the Mediterranean.

    The Obama Administration has consistently supported democratic transition within Russian Satellite states. America has sought to support moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army to help facilitate the collapse of the mutual enemy, Bashar Assad, and to help be sure that in his fall, moderate elements will come to power as opposed to Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists. America has transitioned from preventive policy to a deterrent policy in its dealings with Iran that it needs to bolster by providing Barack Obama congressional “authorization to use force as necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other chemicals and biological weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist organizations or nations likely to use them against America or our Allies.”

     When Barack Obama made the decision to use Naval Destroyers to launch tomahawk missiles to devastate Bashar Assad's chemical weapons and the units that had mobilized the chemical weapons usage he made the correct decision. He had drawn a line not to be crossed, and when it was crossed he sought to enforce the credibility of his previous threat. While the credibility of Barack Obama's decision brought the Syrians and Russians to the negotiating table, Congresses' decision to rebuff Barack Obama's request, showed Russia the indecisiveness of Congress which was perceived by our enemies as weakness. The fact that there were some Al-Qaeda aligned fighters among the rebels allowed for critics of military action to present the rebels as terrorists and our actions against them to be assistance for terrorists or the provision of aid to an enemy. This cannot be farther from the truth, of the well over 100,000 soldiers fighting on the side of rebels in Syria, only around 7,000 are active members of either Al-Nursa or ISIS, that have had strategic ties to Al-Qaeda. Expediting the collapse of Bashar Assad will also help expedite the defeat of Al-Nursa and Al-Qaeda as Assad's command of the military is transferred to an acceptable person to both the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army and the Baathist regime. Tomahawk missile strikes are necessary because the Chemical weapons pose a threat in either the hands of Bashar Assad or in the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels. The diplomatic agreements to remove the weapons have been somewhat effective, however every shipment puts those weapons in risk of falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda while Bashar Assad's regime has continued to use chemical weapons against civilians since the agreement was made and Bashar has been defiant in showing any willingness to demolish the capacity to create future chemical weapons.

      When America made the deal with Syria, the Obama Administration shortly after made a deal with Iran that is adequate for the needs of American Security, but unacceptable to many Israelis and continues to be tenuous in its enforcement and extension beyond the original 6 months agreement. These deals can suffice, but America needs to heavy its hands to enforce them, something the authorization proposal above will demonstrate in an unequivocal and clear manner. America needs to commit to deterrence, telling our rivals that any breaches of our agreements with either Syria or Iran will bear consequences, specifically, surgical strikes on facilities where wmds and materials for the production of wmds are stored and made. The usage of such a clear, enforceable and firm deterrent policy will make it clear to Russia, that the light is Red in Ukraine. Any Russian movements into Ukraine will prompt retaliatory action to other regimes of value to Russia. America is willing to wage war to protect an acceptable peace but would prefer to deescalate the situation and will support the payment of back debts to Russia and recognition of Crimea as part of Russia by Ukraine, as the situation on the ground stabilizes and Russia pulls its troops back from the Ukrainian border. The European Union should strongly consider obliging Ukraine's request for a peace keeping mission. America's “authorization to use force as necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other chemicals and biological weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorist organizations or nations likely to use them against America or our Allies” should not be viewed as intention to wage an eminent strike; rather, a reminder that the current agreements with Iran and Syria need to be strictly adhered to without excuses or exception.    

Ukraine Developmental Aid and the Defense of Ukraine from Russia

Executive Summary

Use Ukrainian developmental aid to:


1. Close the capabilities gap in anti-aircraft, anti-tank and anti-balistic missile systems along the Russian border.
2. Wean Ukraine off Russian Natural Gas Dependence by providing American and Canadian liquified Natural Gas, ending the ban on American Oil and Gas exports and by making Ukraine the center for clean coal technologies in Europe.
3. Foster conditions where European and American Businesses can benefit from lower labor costs to create hard industry and manufacturing base in Ukraine.
4. Let the service industry thrive by eliminating barriers to open and close businesses.

With 16 billion dollars raised for Ukraine, it is important to begin considering organizational goals and connecting them to the dispersement of the aid. A significant part of this is going to involve listening to the new Ukrainian government and the direction they want to take their economy. To put in my two cents, however, there are two glaring necessities and a third proposal as to where to direct the Ukrainian economy as it integrates into the EU and some domestic structural changes we can make to help serve the mutual interests of the American, European and Ukrainian people.

A. America needs ramp up efforts to close some vital military capability gaps in an effort to adequately deter Russian from moving farther into Crimea. It would be irresponsible to suggest a nuclear deterrent; however, commitments not to create a nuclear a deterrent in Ukraine, and a reiteration of Russia/US/Ukrainian treaty agreements, along with SALT I & II, the ABM Treaty and NEW START Treaty as tensions cool are worthy starting places for future diplomatic discussions with Russia, that can work in negotiations to pull Russia towards the Israeli and American positions on Iran where Russian cooperation can help extend and enforce compliance with Iran's previous 6 month agreement to halt its enrichments capabilities safely below breakout capacity.

B. Bolstering anti-tank, anti-balistic and anti-aircraft defenses on the Ukrainian border with Russia demands immediate attention and making weapons systems available from Germany, France, UK, Sweden and the United States of America is appropriate. On this subject, however, the Pentagon has to question if we have not allowed for a US/Russian capabilities gap in anti-aircraft defenses. Now we may very well have weapons systems that I am not privy too, but I am concerned that the Russian made S400 (and S300 that Syria may have, and Iran had at least ordered) is of higher quality than the American make, Mim-104.

A couple systems to consider coming into play along the Russian/Ukrainian border are:

Anti-Air

Mim-14 (US) Nike

Mim-104 (US) Patriot

S400 (Russian) Triumph

Anti-Tank

Milan (french) F2A

Kornet (Russian) 9M113

As far as Anti Ballistic Missile Systems, India has worked closely with Russia on developing their 5^th generation Sukoi fighter jets, but have recently announced (in part over Crimea) moves to turn away from weapons partnerships with Russia. Their recent Prithvi Air Defense and Advanced Air Defense systems may be appropriate, and endorsing a Ukrainian contract could help bolster Indian loyalty to the interests of NATO, US, the British Commonwealths and collaborating Arab League countries.

C. The second pressing issue is weaning Ukraine from Russian energy dependence. American and Canadian Liquified Gas exports is ideal in the short-term because their infrastructure is better equipped for Natural Gas. Removing restrictions on Oil Exports can also help significantly, but raise some caution on the importance of keeping substantial oil reserves in the event of, God forbid, a long and protracted war. Still, easing those restrictions and the economic incentive they produce can better position America to get the oil out of the ground and convert as needed because six months of strategic oil reserves really isn't going to cut it, we are going to need full capacity to rapidly replenish those reserves if push comes to shove.

D. Another solution lives in the extensive amounts of coal in Ukraine. Making Ukraine the center of clean coal in technologies and development in Europe may not be the greenest idea, but based on the realities on the ground, the balance sheets and immediate demands it could work to create a substantial amount of jobs and reduce their spending on Russian Natural Gas exports. Part of the reason coal is traditionally so dirty, is the fact that when coal was burned only about 30% of the latent energy was used within the coal. By incorporating advanced technologies you can get more energy from each unit of coal and then work to develop technologies that capture and dispose of the green house gas emissions without emitting them into the atmosphere. Looking at the American model, if instead of having the EPA go out, ticket and close sights, you have it visit companies with and in collaboration with the banks and clean tech companies to profitably finance the implementation of the cleanest technologies you can create jobs and revenues to help maintain the robust economic base vital to National Security interests. As Ukraine restructures its government, Ukraine can follow our lead in partnership with American clean tech and scientists, by developing environmental organizations that instead of saying no you can't do it because of pollution, teach and fund how to accomplish energy extraction the cleanest way possible. There is going to be a need to revisit some of the EU and US rules surrounding energy to help facilitate these actions.

The other part is going to involve working to make conditions ideal for foreign investment to move significant manufacturing and production bases into Ukraine. Relatively low labor costs and strong bodies, Ukraine presents as a strong prospective location to develop hard industries and manufacturing. Those salaries and wages will then lay an ideal soil for the service and hi-tech industry of tomorrow to take root and thrive.

About the Author

T. Johnson

As I finish a Masters of Science in Homeland Security this May I am interested in employment at a University or College doing scholarly research, writing and teaching, at a Policy Think Tank, magazine or newspaper, or for other similar contracts, including Government Office such as the Foreign Service. 

Please email johnson.theo@gmail.com with your offers for consideration.

Why Americans Should Protect Pemex's Monopoly on Mexico's Oil.

An Appeal to Block the Sale of Mexico's Oil Fields to Outside Oil Companies.

by Theo Johnson

  Americans need to curb their enthusiasm about the proposed end of Pemex's oil monopoly. Currently, Pemex provides the global market 5 billion barrels a day and almost 18.2% of the crude oil the United State's of America consumes. The Crude Oil from Mexico is cleaner to process into energy than the tar sands of Canada, and there are plenty of reasons for us to defend the Pemex monopoly on Mexican Oil. America needs to strengthen its partner, Mexico in order to effectively fight organized crime, educate a vibrant work force and invest in the infrastructure that will bring Mexico into the upper echelon of wealthy democratic countries. The proceeds from Mexican oil are the dominant source of funding for Mexico's government allowing it to offer health services to a far larger portion of the Mexican populace, invest in infrastructure projects and improve the education system to provide a highly trained and optimally skilled for workforce that will drive steady economic growth while maintaining a low tax rate of 12% that is conducive to business investment and healthy household savings. The Greed of Wall Street, the corruption of politicians and short-sighted decision making of the political and business elite on both sides of the border has threatened this equilibrium, potentially causing a harrowing security crisis to worsen along our Southern border.

  As America looks to increase its continental energy independence by increases the output and production of energy on the continent and become an energy exporter to buyers such as China.  This is a praiseworthy goal, that can be achieved by legislative action to end the restriction on American Oil exports.  As Americans, however, we need to seriously consider the potential harm of allowing the proposed fire sale of Pemex oil fields. The 5 billion barrels currently produced is adequate and substantial, and while that output can and should be increased, it should continue to be conducted by Pemex. While the sale of northern Mexican oil fields can yield immense amounts of cash for Pemex, those funds are likely to be squandered by corruption bringing a new group of Mexican millionaires, but little long-term economic growth. There is also expected to be immense push back, possibly even armed resistance, that would inevitably lead to bloodshed at the hands of oil company mercenaries. As these oil fields are purchased, the long-term revenues are going to go into the hands of the American oil companies purchasing the fields. While some jobs would be created, and some wealth would trickle back into the Mexican economy, the Mexican government is going to be robbed of substantial future revenues that are necessary to fund their fight against Organized Crime, the education of their future workforce and investment in vital infrastructure projects to provide for the needs of a growing population. If the federal treasury is deprived of the steady and reliable flow of oil profits then the government will be forced to either take on debts or raise taxes, two actions that will slow economic growth and worsen security conditions as the unemployed join the ranks of strong cartels in desperation.

  Pemex indeed needs help, it needs assistance in management, some technocracy and can do with less corruption and nepotism, but as far state run organizations are concerned, it is a tremendous success and lifeline for a country that needs a well-funded and competent government. I would propose that Pemex instead lease some of its oil fields in exchange for cash and percentage of the proceeds from production, that Pemex then can invest in improved management, technologies and other infrastructure investments designed to increase output. These actions will keep Mexico's oil field's under the people's control, while providing added revenues to diversify and modernize the economy. There is serious need for water in many rural areas that can be provided by large-scale irrigation projects or desalination plants. By improving the education of Mexico's workforce, American companies, especially mid-sized and smaller companies, can benefit from near sourcing to a reliable workforce next door, reducing our dependence on Chinese factories, which provide North America a disadvantage in the event of serious conflict. Mexican's are far more likely than Chinese to buy American products and spend money in the United States, curtailing the damage of the currency bleed that has resulted from purchases by International corporations of Chinese goods and Saudi oil with American Cash spent by American consumers.

  By taking an approach that is designed to strengthen the resources of the Mexican government and its ability to provide security and economic opportunity to its populace, the appeal of cartel life can be reduced and the relatively low tax rates conducive to savings and economic growth can be maintained. The reduction of organized crime, the investment in an educated Mexican workforce and voting public along with a steady output of Mexican oil are vital interests to the United States of America and its people. The proposals of Wall Street and the greed of Mexican politicians, threaten to undo the economic progress that has occurred over the past 20 years, widening the divide between rich and poor, reducing security conditions while strengthening the drug cartels. These are realities that as Americans, we should abhor, and need to work with our amigos in Mexico to prevent. The current proposals to sell Mexican oil fields could in fact, lead to escalated civil strife and violence in Mexico that inevitably injure American security interests. I urge Barack Obama to consider the corruption driving previous proposals and instead publicly take executive action to block the rape of Mexican resources by American oil companies, instead, promoting a technocracy agreement with Pemex where within experts in Security, Management, Oil Extraction and other technological components of modern oil production are provided so that Pemex can increase its output by as much as 2.5 billion barrels with revenues flowing to the Mexican government and into uncorrupted Government initiatives to provide better health, education, security and infrastructure for the Republic of Mexico.   While I am a lover of free markets and laissez fair policy, as a matter of the science of comparative politics, in homogenous populations in countries with energy export capabilities, it is almost always more effective to keep those oil revenues under the control of the state so that the government can provide for advanced health and education services to the populace that result in a reduction of crime, an improved economy and higher standard of living.