Hassan Attack Could Have Easily Been Avoided

The primary responsibility of government is to protect its citizens from internal and external threats.  Last week, that basic trust was shattered with the attack by Major Hassan on his comrades in arms at Fort Hood.  Many ask the question, “How could this tragedy happen?”  Easy, government, especially big ones, are inefficient, incompetent, and essentially answerable to no one.  Look at the record.  Washington has let us down on everything it has ever promised:  affordable healthcare for the elderly and poor, eradication of poverty, excellence in education, a money supply that guarantees stable prices, care for our veterans.  The list of federal government failures goes on and on.  Now, we have the Fort Hood tragedy.  Of course, they will spend millions on the investigation and no one will be held accountable because government works very differently than the real world.

What Americans should really be questioning is not how the federal government could allow a “terrorist” to infiltrate the ranks of our military and commit such a heinous act, instead Americans should ask the question of themselves:  how could we allow our government to put us in this position in the first place?  We need to question the actions of our government like never before and hopefully come to the reasonable conclusion that our government in Washington is more responsible for our vulnerability to terrorism than the terrorists.  Put another away, if we have any hope of living in relative safety Washington must change.

Let’s begin by setting the record straight: terrorists hate the United States not because we are free or capitalist, like the pundits and politicians would have us believe, but because the United States has done the Arab world wrong.  Qatar, my country of current residence, is an incredibly wealthy country because of its primarily free market economy which allows Qatari citizens to reap the benefits of oil, natural gas, and private ownership of the means of production.  Under the above logic, terrorists should be blowing up this place into small pieces.  They are not.  On the other hand, Qatar is also not involved in occupying any other country’s territory in the Middle East.  It is not responsible for propping up corrupt dictators because it serves its own interests.  Qatar is not trying to force its way of life and its system of government on anyone.  The Emir is fulfilling his solemn responsibility as leader of the country to keep his citizens safe from external attack.

On the other hand, Americans are “free” but their government in the last twenty years has occupied Middle East territory by invasion and the enforcement of a no-fly zone.  The U.S. government has propped up with financial and military aid corrupt dictators in Iraq (let’s not forget Saddam Hussein), Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.  For God’s sakes Saudi Arabia still cuts off hands for stealing and stones women for adultery.  Washington is currently in the process of attempting to force our system of republicanism on two countries that have as much chance of success with it as we would have with monarchy.  In the process of our meddling, literally millions of Middle Easterners have been killed, tortured, imprisoned, and maimed.  All of this was done in the cause of our national interests.

And absent from all of the meddling mentioned above is our unflinching support of Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians.  We supported Israeli atrocities in Gaza directly with financial aid and indirectly with our no vote on the resolution condemning Israel at the United Nations.

These actions of our government are what make us less safe and more vulnerable to terrorist attack.  Now, I know that Qataris are fellow Muslims and therefore somewhat shielded from the wrath of their brethren.  But, what about free and capitalist countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland?  They are closer to the Middle East but significantly less vulnerable to attack.  No, the difference is that these countries mind their own business and consequently have not made the same enemies that we have.

We would not like it if NATO sent troops onto Texas soil to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States.  We would balk at the idea of moving Iowans off their farmland and offering it to any Israelis who would be interested in relocating.  We would not stand by idly while a coalition of Middle Eastern countries invaded the U.S. because they perceived our country as being a part of some “axis” of evil” antithetical to their national interests – set up a Green Zone in D.C. and force upon us a structure of government – say monarchy, that is so foreign to us it isn’t even funny.

The point is that we would respond to a call to arms if any of these scenarios had any possibility of happening.  So why are we surprised when others respond to a call to arms against the U.S. when we do these things to them?  Look in the mirror America.  We will not be truly safe until you do.

For good or bad, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.  The Irish Republican Army fought for years to free Northern Ireland from British control.  The minutemen fought a guerilla war for our independence.  Don’t we wish the Zimbabweans or Cubans or Venezuelans would rise up and overthrow their respective dictators?  There are two sides to every issue.  Our country is facing an onslaught of violence because of its government’s actions.

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson indicated to Rufus King his foreign policy goal, “We wish to cultivate peace and friendship with all nations, believing that course most conducive to the welfare of our own. It is natural that these friendships should bear some proportion to the common interests of the parties.”  We have strayed far from the wisdom of Jefferson.  Yes, Major Hassan’s act was despicable.  He should be brought to justice.  He should be executed if found guilty.  But, instead of strengthening our resolve to continue the fight against terrorism because of this incident like our politicians and military leaders are apt to do we must reconsider our countries actions toward others and hopefully prevent the next barbarous attack on our countrymen.

A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste

April 6, 2009

Stanford economist Paul Romer has coined the term, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”  Unfortunately, the statist Obama Administration has adopted this mantra in implementing its radical positions on the rest of us.  No, I am not talking about how the President is about to sell us out to the New World Order in the name of ensuring that our economy never again faces a crisis of this magnitude.  That rant is for another day.  Instead, I am talking about the concern that the Administration will and is using crises to violate our 2^nd Amendment rights.

Crisis number one is the horrendous drug war violence in Mexico.  Even though Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, it has become one of the most crime ridden, bloodiest societies on earth.  First of all, there is only one gun store in the whole country and that is run by the army.  It takes months to get a permit to own a gun and if you are one of the lucky to endure the process to the end restrictions are placed on the number of guns you can own and the amount of ammunition you can possess.  It is no wonder that Mexico was at one time a one-party dictatorship.  It is also no wonder that drug cartels can operate freely within the country without much fear of backlash from an armed citizenry.  Mexico is the poster child for the slogan, “When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.”

This past week the Administration dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to Mexico City to meet with Mexican president Felipe Calderon to discuss ways to prevent the smuggling of arms from the U.S. into Mexico.  As if he hasn’t made conditions in his own country horrific through his intensified War on Drugs campaign of the last 16 months, Calderon has indicated recently that “it is necessary to reduce the sale of weapons, particularly of high-power weapons, in the United States.”  Jumping on Calderon’s lead, Illinois Senator Richard Durbin believes, “Americans should feel guilty about, if not responsible for, drug gangs in Mexico shooting each other and corrupt government officials in perverse numbers-because some of the guns may have been purchased in the U.S.”

I mean wow!  There is so much to analyze here.  First of all, what right does Felipe Calderon have to tell us how to run our country?  Isn’t it his reignited War on Drugs that has caused the violence upswing in his own?  Before he decided to go after the drug cartels with full force brutality levels in Mexico were normal for an undeveloped country.  Secondly, Senator Durbin’s statement that Americans should feel responsible for drug violence and corruption in Mexico because “some of the guns may have been purchased in the U.S.” is a ridiculous statement.  As an attorney Durbin should know that “may have been purchased” doesn’t pass the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for conviction.  Besides, where is law enforcement along the border?  Aren’t there laws against transporting firearms across the border anyway?  If Washington would just get serious about enforcing our border protection laws we would have less illegals here and Mexico may have less illegal weapons there.  In any event, Mexico’s violence should not be used as a pretense to violate the 2^nd Amendment rights of Americans under any circumstances.

Crisis number two is the War on Terror.  Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to enforce a little known law which prohibits American citizens, who reside outside the United States, from purchasing firearms while they are in America on visits.  According to law 18 USC 922(a) (9), “a person who is a resident of no state can only buy firearms for lawful sporting purposes.”  The language of the statute apparently excludes purchases for self-defense and other purposes.  The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Maxwell Hodgkins and Stephen Dearth.  Hodgkins and Dearth are natural-born American citizens who currently live overseas and have been denied the opportunity to buy firearms in the U.S. because of their residency status.  The SAF is seeking an injunction against the law.

18 USC 922(a) (9) does not pass constitutional muster under either the 2^nd Amendment’s right to bear arms or the 14^th Amendment’s equal protection clauses.  Attorney General Holder knows this.  So what could be the rationale behind the statute anyway?  My best guess is it has something to do with the international crisis Washington calls the War on Terror.  Are the Feds concerned that Americans living overseas are more susceptible to being or becoming terrorists.  Perhaps the fear is that we might befriend terrorists in our travels who subsequently will visit us in the U.S. and have the means available to do harm to Americans when they step foot on our soil?  If you survey Americans who live overseas you will find that many work for the U.S. government anyway –the military, U.S. State Department, CIA, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Peace Corp volunteers.  The rest of us are business professionals, teachers, doctors, and missionaries.  None of these groups are usually inclined to join al-Qaeda.  No, the fear of terrorism is not a justifiable reason to infringe upon Americans’ 2^nd Amendment rights, but the Obama Administration is willing to use it anyway.

There is no question the violence in Mexico and the threat of worldwide terrorism is real.  However, instead of taking advantage of these crises to take away our constitutional rights the Obama Administration should reevaluate the causes of the conflicts and act accordingly.  By decriminalizing drugs and ending the government’s war on people who use them the violence in Mexico and the threat it causes to our national security will go away overnight.  Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said our foreign policy should be focused on, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”  Adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy will lower resentments towards the United States and make our people safer.  With our national security protected and our people safer there will be no pretense to violate the constitutional liberties of any Americans.