June 2016

To most people, the phrase “kill them with kindness” is an idiomatic expression about the importance of trying to win arguments not by bombast and antagonism, but through thoughtfulness and reason. It is not, however a prescription for winning a gunfight. Except, that is, for President Barack Obama. For him, it has become a central policy for defeating radical Islamic terrorists (or whatever euphemism he uses to describe these mass murderers).

To Obama, radical Islamic terrorists are best dealt with through group hugs, building metaphorical bridges, and a refrain of the hippie anthem “Kumbaya.” Where Ronald Reagan was guided in his drive to defeat the Soviet threat by the policy of “Peace Through Strength,” Obama’s guiding philosophy is “Peace At Any Price.”

Sadly, this inane doctrine has taken hold beyond the White House, and now has infected the U. S. Department of Justice, as evidenced recently when Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated publicly that “our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.” Her colleague at the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, added that building bridges to Muslim communities works well, too.

The Obama Administration has always approached complex policy issues with all the seriousness of a hippie drum circle waxing philosophic about fantastical visions while the Beatles’ “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” plays in the background. In such a setting, it is easy to see why this Administration’s plans almost always collapse even as they begin — because they reflect policies rooted not in understanding the world as it is, but rather how they would like it to be. A recipe for disaster repeated over and over.

For example, during the standoff between Russia and Ukraine, then-State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki tweeted a picture of herself holding a piece of paper with “#UnitedForUkraine” scrawled on it. And, similar to Lynch’s comments above spouting love and unity as the essential ingredients to defeat terrorist killers, a State Department official once suggested a “root cause” for the growth of ISIS was a “lack of opportunity for jobs.”

This “hashtag” policy-making would be comical, if not for the disastrous consequences it entails by substituting feel-good, symbolic acts for reality-based substantive action. What, for instance, does our Attorney General think ISIS is doing in the time it takes for the Department of Justice to craft a public statement about showering them with love and compassion? Are ISIS fanatics carefully considering that perhaps they have strayed down the wrong path towards violence, and should repent?

This world-view would be bad enough were it limited to only the Executive Branch of the federal government. But it is not. The childish “Kumbaya” outlook has infected members of Obama’s Democratic Party in the Congress. Just last week, for example, veteran Georgia Rep. John Lewis decided that the best response to not getting his way on gun-control legislation following the Orlando terrorist attack, was to plop himself down on the floor in the well of the House of Representatives and pout. Rather than be shamed by his Democratic colleagues for such an infantile act, he was joined by a number of them.

Obviously, to the Left, these childish antics pass for meaningful action; but in the real world these games are seen not as strength, but as signs of a confused and powerless government.

How is our intelligence community supposed to provide accurate intelligence on terrorism, or to develop effective strategies to defeat it, when Obama’s head of national intelligence is focused — as he was recently at a public conference — on transgender bathrooms? And, how are military leaders supposed to approach the Commander in Chief with battle strategies when they share seats in the Cabinet Room with officials declaring that we can defeat our enemies with “good karma”? Even if Obama’s Kumbaya attitude is purely for show, it sends a powerful message to his subordinates and to our adversaries that he is not serious about how the world works.

Our enemies, too, are listening to this drivel with glee. To hear that America is responding to its biggest terror attack since 9/11 not with military action, but with calls for hugs and kisses, surely makes ISIS shout “Allahu Akbar” in joy; as they can continue operating without fear of reprisal. Meanwhile, our enemies in international diplomacy, such as Russia and China, know that if ISIS can get away with mass murder on U.S. soil, then there is little worry that the United States will hold them accountable for actions that, under a more respected leader like Ronald Reagan, would have never been tolerated.

It is only slightly ironic that these recent missteps by the Administration and its congressional team are taking place just as the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its official report. That report is a scathing indictment of then-Secretary of State and now the de facto Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s decision in 2012 to respond to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi by…doing nothing. Clearly, an Administration headed by Hillary Clinton would be seamless — a seamless transition from one clueless Commander-in-Chief to another.

To the typical liberal, nothing engenders greater panic and crippling fear than the sight of a firearm; especially the Mainstream Media’s self-defined posterchild for gun violence, the AR-15. The Left’s irrational reaction to the popular sporting rifle, enjoyed (safely and legally) by millions of recreational and competition shooters across America, is so potent the New York Daily News’ resident pansy, Gersh Kuntzman, claims to have suffered “temporary PTSD” from merely firing the rifle at a gun range.

Yet, in spite of its obvious and repetitive ignorance on firearm information, the Left considers itself capable of engaging in an adult discussion on the Second Amendment’s application to the problems facing our country in this early 21st Century.

Not really.

The folly of the Left’s opposition to any fact- or history-based understanding of an individual right to keep and bear arms was on full display following the terror attack in Orlando earlier this month. Rather than blame radical Islam that preaches gays are to be murdered, the Left immediately turned to blaming its usual suspects: gun manufacturers, Republican members of Congress, and anyone who supports the NRA or the Second Amendment.

Adding to their normal “gun control” hysterics following any high profile gun crime, leading Democrats – joined by some constitutionally squeamish Republicans like Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey – have proposed using secret government lists such as the FBI’s terrorist “watch list” and the TSA’s “No-Fly List” to serve as the basis for denying an individual the constitutionally-guaranteed right to purchase or own firearms.

As innocent individuals, from toddlers to U.S. Senators, have discovered since 9-11 after being denied access to commercial airline flights due to their name being on a secret No-Fly List, anyone can mistakenly wind up in such databases. For those hapless individuals, their presence on such a list comes with no notice, explanation, or effective way to correct errors. Moreover, secret government lists that serve as the basis for limiting or denying constitutional rights, also provide the government with an extremely powerful tool for bullying and silencing disfavored groups and individuals.

Ironically, it was not but a few decades ago that the federal government used such lists to surveil, intimidate, and harass leaders of both black and gay civil rights movements. But, let it never be said that the Left permits history or facts to serve as a barrier to their vision of a gun-free country.

It takes but a few keystrokes to add a name to a list; and without any of the due process normally afforded those accused of crimes, there are no effective protections against lists being abused. For example, in what might otherwise be considered a comical example of database overreach, in 2008 the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a “fusion center” that provided intelligence to local and federal law enforcement, issued a report on modern militias suggesting police should be on the lookout for supporters of then-U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and me, because such supporters could possibly be militia-influenced domestic terrorists. We were able to have the nonsense stopped, but the incident illustrated how easy it is for government functionaries to get carried away when it comes to data-basing bad information.

Consider the 15-year old USA PATRIOT Act, the use of which has expanded far beyond the scope of terrorism and is often used for drug-related and other investigations having nothing to do with terrorism. There is little to suggest that expanded government watch lists to target suspected terrorists attempting to obtain firearms would never be employed to target Second Amendment rights of anyone under suspicion by the government for whatever reason.

Consider as well that social media constitutes an even more devastating weapon of terrorists than firearms. Remember that both the San Bernardino and Orlando terrorists appear to have been radicalized online. Following the philosophy underlying the Left’s current drive to create and expand firearms watch lists, would it not be appropriate to use such a database to deprive those on watch lists from communicating by electronic means or accessing the internet?

If the Left is not comfortable with the idea that Donald Trump could just as easily be in charge of such lists beginning next year as Hillary Clinton, then perhaps they should pause to consider that granting such vast power to the government, affecting any number of constitutional rights, is an extremely dangerous proposition that should not be proposed as a safety blanket for an irrational fear of firearms.

Limiting or denying constitutional rights to individuals is a tremendously important decision, which is why our Bill of Rights demands due process be followed before any such steps are allowed. Creating shortcuts around due process does not make us more safe, but rather less secure; even if it prevents firearms-induced PTSD.

Just a few years ago, General David Petraeus was a highly respected military leader; the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, and later serving as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Sorrowfully, human foibles undid the Great Man — shamed and prosecuted for revealing classified national security information during an affair with his biographer.

Now, rather than atoning for his betrayal by standing up for the Constitution he swore to defend and the men and women of the Armed Services he failed by violating his oath, the disgraced general is doubling-down on his poor judgement. Petraeus has joined forces with gun-control Leftists, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Astronaut-turned-activist Michael Kelly, and launched yet another gun control advocacy organization.

The Petraeus-Kelly group calls itself the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” However, as with other gun control groups, it is long on misleading rhetoric and painfully short on common sense. The only apparent difference between this new group and earlier gun control organizations, is the veneer about helping veterans; and this is misleading at best and downright harmful to many veterans at worst.

For example, while the group claims to be interested in reducing the suicide rate for veterans, it quickly pivots into the familiar gun-control mantra about keeping guns out of the hands of “dangerous people” – a non-sequitur it attempts to bridge merely by pointing out the truism that veterans know “first-hand the incredible power of firearms.”

Petraeus’ resume, spanning leadership roles in both military and national security settings, could have provided him with a platform from which to do real good for veterans; on public safety issues as well as those involving health care. After all, who better to take up the cause of reforming the broken Veterans Administration, which arguably is responsible in some measure for suicide rates among veterans?

Perhaps of even greater relevance in the wake of the mass shooting this week in Orlando — who better understands the threat posed by ISIS and other Islamic terrorists and how to meet that threat, than the man who oversaw the very war against those terrorists in their “homeland?”

Yet, sadly, Petraeus took the easier path of joining the chorus of liberal do-gooders who fear and misunderstand the role firearms play in the natural right to self-preservation. His approach reflects more a philosophy of retreat in the face of danger, rather than of self-reliance and initiative.

Fundamentally, the principle around which the Petraeus group has concocted its mission has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of evil individuals, much less preventing a mass shooting like that in Orlando. Petraeus’ “solution” fails to articulate the deeper, true nature of what we face. The tragedy in Orlando was as much as a clash of ideologies as it is a terrorist attack; actually, two clashes of ideologies.

The more obvious of the two clashes is that of freedom versus religious tyranny (a conflict well-known to true students of American history). The concept of personal liberty at the foundation of the United States is antithetical to the crushing tyranny of radical Islam. What we witnessed in Orlando is a stark reminder of the unbridgeable chasm between these two world views; a reminder seemingly lost on Petraeus.

The other clash is between individual responsibility — the obligation to defend oneself — and reliance on others to protect you — passivity. This clash is something we routinely see in government efforts to limit the ability of individuals to defend themselves with a firearm – a limitation now championed by groups like Petreaus’. We also see this defeatist ideology reflected in companies and businesses that prohibit people from defending themselves when they enter those establishments.

This ideology of passivity invites incidents such as occurred in Orlando; where an individual (or individuals, in the case of the San Bernardino shooting) intent on mayhem, know that such facilities offer a concentration of unarmed victims in an environment in which they – the terrorist(s) – are able to maintain a high degree of control.

Indeed, there is no more protected of environments for such cowards than those that essentially guarantee a disarmed and fearful universe of victims — relying not on self-defense as a response, but on waiting for the authorities to arrive and take action (which, as we saw in Orlando, may take literally hours).

Until our nation’s leaders, and we as a society, recognize the obligation we have at a personal level to ensure our own self-preservation, terrorists and other criminals will use this passivity against us with ruinous consequences. Gen. Petraeus is not helping us, and his timing could not be worse.

Over the past year or so, several major cities across the United States have experienced a violent crime wave not seen since the 1990s. This spike in violent crime, measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, has confounded Leftist sociologists, bleeding-heart politicians, and members of the media, who constantly tend to blame private gun ownership and the police themselves for increased criminal activity.

In fact, one of the prime causes of this problem may very well be the media and Leftist politicians, including the President and his previous and current Attorneys General. And the spark that appears to have ignited it happened two years ago in a then-largely unknown suburb of St. Louis, Missouri.

In August 2014, a black teenager walking on a street in a high-crime neighborhood, was shot by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer during an altercation. His death sparked not just riots in the local community, but launched a social “justice” movement — most commonly known as “Black Lives Matter” — that has hijacked any real discourse on meaningful criminal justice reform. This “movement” has instead foisted its strong-arm agenda on individuals from Capitol Hill, to city halls and campuses across the country. Worse, it has caused a ripple effect on policing and crime that goes beyond the cute games played by Twitter activists and campus bullies; and now is a growing wave of violence and misery.

It need not have been so.

To use an apt cliché, the tragedy in Ferguson was a “teachable moment” for our nation. There has been no comprehensive, multi-faceted plan to address criminal justice reform and policing tactics in America for more than two decades. The vast changes in technology, the prevalence of federal military equipment given to local police agencies, and the focus on terrorism – all of which have developed since the Clinton Administration – especially when coupled with the deterioration of race relations over the course of the Obama Administration’s seven years in office, have caused significant strains in communities generally, and between the citizenry and law enforcement in particular. This, despite a veneer of lowered crime statistics overall.

The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson was merely the spark to a powder keg being filled for years, and represented a bursting of emotions that went far beyond one isolated incident. The response by the Administration, including the President and the Attorney General, not only was inadequate, but counter-productive.

Rather than taking the opportunity to remind citizens of the respect that police and our nation’s laws are due – something essential to help protect individuals, families, schools and businesses in communities where crime has taken hold — our “Community-Organizer-in-Chief” squandered the opportunity to launch a positive dialog on race relations and 21st-Century policing standards; opting instead to press for federal oversight and mouthing platitudes that have fostered fear, anger and more disrespect for the rule of law.

So, instead of being inspired by a leader like Martin Luther King, Jr., who could rise above circumstances and still show love and respect while calling for change, we see a President who clearly suggests to those engaging in demonstrations and rioting it was okay to disrespect police officers and march in support of those efforts, so long as it was in the name of social justice as they saw it.

Is it any surprise what has transpired in several major cities across America since then, with significant spikes in violent crime rates?

Beyond simply failing to support police, by indirectly and implicitly feeding the anti-law enforcement sentiment eroding respect for them, this President and Attorney General are making life less safe in communities that they claim to be helping. In Baltimore, Maryland, for example, a case of perceived excessive violence from police last year was responded to not with measured calls for an investigation and ideas for sensible reform, but with riots that lasted many days, and a rush by local politicians to try the police in the court of public opinion before launching questionable prosecutions.

The “teachable moment” Obama has so longed for in to show us all how great a leader he is, has been squandered by his unwillingness and inability to consider anything beyond the narrow worldview crafted from his days as a radical community organizer in Chicago.

Hopefully, the calls by FBI Director James Comey and other experts for an objective and reality-based dialog and search for solutions to this “Ferguson Effect” and the “Obama Syndrome” that has helped fuel it, will prevail in the months ahead, and continue with a new Administration next year; though the chances for that to occur appear neither clearly focused nor very bright at the moment.

“TSA recommends passengers show up at least 48-hours early for flights,” writes Agent Smith of @TSAgov, a parody Twitter account lampooning the beleaguered Transportation Security Administration. However, when taking a look at the state of security checkpoints at airports across the nation — where recently wait times have stretched for hours, causing tens of thousands of passengers to miss flights — it is hard to see where parody ends, and actual security begins.

It is not as if the TSA has not been afforded ample opportunity to become the security clearinghouse for airports it was designed to be when Congress created the agency following the 9/11 terror attacks; but, 15-years and close to $100 billion dollars later, the agency just cannot get it right.

Frustration with the TSA, coming not just from passengers but from airline operators as well, has risen to an angry boil in the last few weeks as wait times for security have increased at some major airports well beyond the “arrive two hours early” recommendation. American Airlines announced last month that 70,000 of its passengers, and 40,000 checked bags, did not make it on to scheduled flights due to the TSA. “We have never seen TSA wait times that affect airlines and passengers throughout the United States like we have seen in recent months,” an executive from the airline told Congress in her testimony focusing on current travel woes.

The TSA’s response? Blame passengers for carrying more bags and, as expected, ask for more money.

It may be true that external factors such as increased airline travel and more passengers turning to carry-on bags to avoid checked bag fees have put additional strains on TSA resources; but the agency tasked with the very specific job of transportation security seems utterly incapable of adapting to even the simplest (and most obvious) security variables it can and should expect in the course of executing its duties. Much of this problem stems from the mismanagement of the agency that has been festering for years; an issue only recently investigated by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In talking to numerous employees and officials, the House committee discovered an environment in which whistleblowers lived in fear of retaliation, and key leadership positions were filled with wholly unqualified individuals.

The House committee also noted the agency’s propensity for wasting taxpayer money on boondoggle projects; highlighting that it took nearly $50,000 to create a “randomizer” app for selecting passengers consisting of nothing more than a left or right arrow. Unfortunately, in TSA-world, this is on the low end of waste and abuse of the taxpayer. For example, the TSA spent more than $30-million on security scanners that were eventually removed from airports due to privacy concerns over the revealing images they produced. Furthermore, as I wrote last year, the TSA has dumped nearly a billion dollars into its Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, which performs risk assessment on passengers using a “scorecard” of warnings signs such as “body odor” and “exaggerated yawning” – in spite of the Government Accountability Office recommending the program be defunded due to its absurdly unreliable methods and dubious results.

Yet, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson tells us, we should be giving the TSA more money if we want them to do what taxpayers have been paying billions for already. Actually, the opposite should happen.

Congress should abolish the agency and mandate that airports and airlines assume responsibility for security. The role of the federal government should be to set the security criteria to be met by commercial aviation airports; then have the airlines implement the standards; and finally ensure through reporting and monitoring that proper security checks are maintained and updated as needed to meet changed circumstances. Privatizing commercial air travel security will give the airlines and airports the flexibility and means to address changes to the security environment not possible when working under federal bureaucrats whose “solution” to every criticism is “give us more money.”

Only in the federal government is more funding and more power the answer to incompetence and mismanagement. Congress should refuse to play any further role in this security theater, and do what they should have done years ago – privatize the TSA.