2016

The “October Surprise” this election cycle may come not from one of the presidential candidates, but from an unlikely source – the Internal Revenue Service. The ramifications of such a move are all bad, especially for conservative-oriented groups, and will reverberate far beyond any one candidate or political party. Whether the Congress has the backbone to head off this IRS attack on free speech is very much an open question; a spending restriction placed earlier on IRS funding is set to expire at the end of this Fiscal Year – September 30th – just in time for an October Surprise.

It is well-known that the IRS has long sought to silence or intimidate conservative-oriented organizations. Its effort in this regard is institutional and goes back several years, and was not shut down with the forced 2013 resignation of disgraced IRS director Lois Lerner. In fact, the powerful tax- and information-collecting agency now has its gunsights set not on a particular individual or organization, such as Citizens United, but rather on free speech as a whole.

According to the Tax Revolution Institute, a government watchdog organization that has been keeping a close eye on these First Amendment-violating efforts by the IRS, a proposed rule change to how certain non-profit organizations are classified, may very well be in the works for implementation this October.

The problematic rule, REG–134417–13, was first presented in 2013 and set parameters on how and when 501(c)(4) and other non-profit organizations could lawfully engage in election-related, informational and educational communications. The publication of the regulation came on the heels of the highly-publicized IRS scandal targeting conservative organizations, and faced strong and immediate pushback, including by the Congress. Now, three years later, and perhaps concluding that such focus on the IRS has diminished or will be overshadowed by presidential politics, the Service appears ready to strike again.

Should the new rule look anything like what has been proposed previously, with one stroke of the pen the IRS would be able to reclassify heretofore clearly protected political speech as prohibited “electioneering.” A communication doing nothing more than mentioning the name of or position sought by a candidate – or simply showing their picture — before a primary or general election, would be sufficient to bring the power of the IRS down on that offending organization. Also at stake is the donor privacy of those organizations.

In typical government Double Speak, the IRS justifies the rule change as necessary to help protect the “sanctity of elections.” In reality, and based on the past history of not just the IRS but other federal agencies as well, including the Federal Election Commission, it is easy to discern the true motive of such a proposal: silencing conservative critics of incumbent office holders and candidates.

Furthermore, it is no coincidence that the possible rule-change comes while Democrats on the Federal Election Commission attempt to silence conservative websites like the Drudge Report; and as Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders continue to campaign vocally on overturning Citizens United. It is all a part of the Left’s proxy war on conservative speech, which has flourished with the rise of New Media. The Left cheers when liberal non-profit and for-profit entities pillory Republicans on issues such as gay rights and gun control. However, when it comes to conservative organizations doing the same to individuals supported by the Left, it becomes an issue about the “corrupting influence” of money in politics; which makes the motivations for the IRS rule changes so transparent.

In recent years, the Right has dominated when it comes to establishing effective 501(c)(4) organizations, and the Left will stop at nothing to see such conservative audacity silenced. But, rather than having to admit their true intentions during debate in Congress, Democrats hope to sidestep this nuisance by employing the same regulatory schemes long-favored by President Obama to undermine gun rights, which in their view do not require congressional approval.

Make no mistake – this constitutes a battle for the soul of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress has it within its power to once again stymie this move by the IRS, through an appropriations “rider” as it did previously, or by defining “political advocacy” in a common-sense way so that the IRS is no longer able to undercut this most cherished and constitutionally protected right. We can only hope congressional Republican leaders will find the backbone to head off this devastating October Surprise.

Listening to Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week, one could hear ghostly voices of America’s political past – from the turgid populism of Louisiana’s “Kingfish” Huey Long, to the law and order steeliness of Richard Nixon; and, even, ironically, to the cadent droning of Bill Clinton, the master of the “laundry list” State of the Union speech. And, the quality of the Trump rhetoric aside, one could even glimpse some of the aura of “royalty” that so enamored John F. Kennedy to voters nearly six decades ago.

Depressingly absent, however, from this collage of former presidential aspirants and American political figures, was any hint of the inspirational rhetoric and the philosophical coherence of conservative icons of old – Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and Barry Goldwater, to name just a few. Yet, such is the current state of the GOP.

It is also the challenge now facing the Grand Old Party’s 2016 presidential nominee.

For conservatives, there is no question that between Trump and Hillary Clinton, he is the superior candidate. But, neither candidate is running in a vacuum, and for Trump to win the general election, he must run against Hillary as much as he must run for the votes of Republicans not yet sold on the fear-based foundation of his campaign. As Ross Perot — another ghost of campaigns past — proved to the GOP in 1992, it is not enough for the Republican nominee to simply court rank-and-file Republicans to carry the general election.

The reason Trump is preferable to Hillary is simple, even to those Republicans still on the fence. Despite his populist rhetoric and spotted past, Trump at least shows some degree of promise that he can be the conservative leader America needs. His turn-around on the Second Amendment – moving from pro-gun control to vocal advocate of the right to keep and bear arms – illustrates what is possible when he turns off his mouth for a few minutes, and reflects on why the GOP traditionally has been the party of individual liberty and the Constitution.

This is how Trump can win — by combining the voices that gave him the nomination with the philosophy that can give him the election.

For better or worse, Trump’s strongman populism will remain an unshakable centerpiece of his campaign; it reflects who he is and how he wishes to be perceived. Rather than attempt to change this, he should learn to use it to his advantage. For example, instead of repetitive ranting about America losing jobs overseas and suggesting the fix is using federal power to punish CEOs, Trump should argue the best way to save American jobs is to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that drive jobs out of the country. Or, rather than boasting about being a head-cracking “law and order” candidate reminiscent of Nixon’s fear-mongering persona, Trump could take up the torch of criminal justice reform that would free up resources to focus on serious violent crime, with the added bonus of potentially winning minority votes as well.

On many issues where Trump has let his populism overtake traditional conservative principles, there exists an alternative narrative that satisfies both the needs of his base, and the demands of a conservative electorate still unsure about the new GOP standard bearer; but it will take at least a little finesse to get to those voters. On the positive side, it is not as if Trump has ever let a reverse-course on an issue bother him, especially if it could put him a step closer to winning.

Trump stands at a crossroads in his campaign; and hoping Hillary and the Democrats continue to collapse is not a reliable or winning strategy for victory in November. Taking the mantel of a conservative standard bearer for the party, is.

Huey Long once bragged that he could “frighten or buy ninety-nine out of every one hundred men.” Earlier, as a contender for the Republican nomination, Trump might have made a similar claim to rally his boisterous supporters. But, if he wants to win the general election, Trump must dispel the ghosts of the past, and attempt instead to “sway or inspire ninety-nine out of every one hundred conservatives.” He has his work cut out for him.

Amidst Convention Hooplah, A Key Legislative Victory

With the attention of virtually all media and political pundits centered on the major political conventions, it is important we not lose sight of the fact that many lawmakers from both parties are continuing their relentless drive to increase the power of the federal government to snoop. Thankfully, a group of pro-freedom members of the House of Representatives are looking out for our interests. For example, just prior to the Congress adjourning for the summer recess earlier this month, an important but little-noticed vote occurred that stopped a move to give the Feds even more power to gather private information on individuals’ financial transactions.

The offending proposal was H.R. 5606, authored by Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger and Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters. Their bill would have amended Section 314 of the USA PATRIOT Act ostensibly to “facilitate better information sharing to assist in the fight against the funding of terrorist activities, and for other purposes.”

In fact, the bill’s real purpose had nothing at all to do with actual terrorism, but everything to do with Uncle Sam’s insatiable appetite for access to financial information of whatever sort on everyone.

By way of background, and as originally drafted, Section 314 of the USA PATRIOT Act was designed to help prevent money laundering and other financial backing of terror plots, by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to investigate truly “suspicious” financial activity reported to them. Yet, like most USA PATRIOT Act powers that have been used overwhelming in non-terror related cases, the government saw a window of opportunity to expand these financial powers to encompass other “unlawful activity.”

It is axiomatic that, freed from what the government considers the unnecessary “red tape” normally required by the 4th Amendment before its agents can access private records, government snoops find their job of investigating alleged criminal activity far easier. Hence, the constant effort to expand the universe of “exceptions” to the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. Thankfully, a sufficient number of House members who understand the importance of maintaining the robust protections embodied in the Fourth Amendment, were able to derail the latest effort to weaken its protections.

As Rep. Justin Amash and his colleagues in the Republican Liberty Caucus rightfully pointed out in opposing the Pittenger-Waters bill, this sidestep of due process would “permit the government to demand information on any American from any financial institution merely upon reasonable suspicion.” One need only look at law enforcement’s problematic track record with civil asset forfeiture at all all levels of government, to see where such a shortcut would end for many innocent Americans wrongfully suspected of unlawful activity. Simply trying to make transactions easier on your local bank teller could suddenly have your life savings seized by the IRS, as North Carolina convenience store owner Lyndon McLellan discovered.

Due process provided under the Fourth Amendment is a crucial component of our criminal justice system; it establishes a clearly defined process the government must obey in pursuing and investigating crimes. This vital part of our Bill of Rights makes it intentionally difficult for the government to invade an individual’s privacy, by limiting law enforcement’s ability to engage in investigative fishing expeditions that target innocent individuals like McLellan.

Nearly 100 years ago, political essayist H.L. Mencken commented that “the American has grown so accustomed to the denial of his constitutional rights…by swarms of spies, letter-openers, informers and agents provocateurs that that he no longer makes any serious protest.” One would have hoped that in the years since 9/11, as we’ve watched the new authorities given to the government to prevent terrorism expanded to areas far beyond their intended scope, we would have learned not to so quickly jump to give the Feds more power. Instead, many Republicanand Democrat lawmakers seem determined to prove Mencken right, time and time again.

Fortunately, there still exist elected leaders like Amash and his colleagues in the House Liberty Caucus who remember their oath to uphold the Constitution. And, even small victories such as that last week in defeating H.R. 5606, deserve to be recognized for their importance, if not rarity.

Despite the shock and surprise with which many observers reacted to last month’s “Brexit” vote, the result of which begins the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union, the seeds of the breakup were long in the making – and entirely understandable. Notwithstanding efforts by some pro-EU proponents to paint the “Leave” camp as being filled with anti-immigrant racists, polls in the U.K. show that the primary motivation for “Leave” voters was concern over the loss of political, cultural, and economic identity that continued membership in the European Union was accelerating — in a word, loss of sovereignty.

The document at the heart of the European Union’s structure is a multi-hundred page collection of mandates, regulations, and details that the 20th-Century American cartoonist Rube Goldberg would have loved for the convoluted manner in which it seeks to control virtually every facet of political, cultural and economic activity in every part of every nation that signed it. This is the infamous “Treaty of Lisbon,” adopted as the effective Constitution of the EU in 2009. It is at the heart of the Brexit vote. It is a document that every true student and supporter of the Constitution of the United States knows represents the antithesis of individual liberty.

The U.S. Constitution is a short document that provides a framework for the governance of a people to meet changing circumstance and conditions while preserving fundamental liberty; it is unique and has lasted for two-and-a-quarter centuries for that very reason. The Treaty of Lisbon, just six-and-a-half years young, on the other hand, is a massive compendium of rules and edicts cobbled together by a committee of bureaucrats with the goal of prescribing how the individuals and their governing bodies must behave, and regardless of changing circumstances or individual choice.

Small wonder a majority of the voters in Britain – which nation’s formative charters included the Magna Carta that inspired our own Founding Fathers – never quite took to being told by a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels that British laws, customs and culture were inferior to their collectivist mindset.

Those who drafted and voted on the U.S. Constitution understood that fundamental liberty is based on such universal and timeless principles as “due process” and “equal protection of the law” for all. Those and other fundamental, pre-existing rights were therefore guaranteed in the document as against government limitation. The drafters of the Treaty of Lisbon, clearly failing to understand that the best government is “limited government,” took the opposite approach; crafting a governing document that dictates, among hundreds of other requirements, that:

Citizens must extend regard to the “welfare . . . of animals,” since animals are “sentinent beings”
“Occupational hygiene” is to be fostered
“Equal pay” is to be afforded for “equal work” of “equal value”
It is desirable to make it “easier for the underrepresented sex [not defined] to pursue vocational activity . . . to compensate for disadvantage in professional careers”
A “European Social Fund,” among other things, fosters and “facilitate[s] adaptation to industrial changes and to changes in production systems . . . through vocational training and retraining”
Member states must “contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues . . . by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest sportsmen and sportswomen”
Members must “contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States” and especially “the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples”
“Obviating sources of danger to the physical and mental health” is required
The massive bureaucracies the EU has maintained to implement, monitor, and enforce the thousands of mandates such as those few noted above, keeps tens of thousands of bureaucrats busy and well-paid through levies on the U.K. and the other 27 members of the Union.

The charge to these bureaucrats is mind-numbing. For example, in order to effectuate the “Social Policy” that is the core of the Treaty’s effort to communalize culture and politics across the Union, its regulators are authorized to: “[promote] employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonization while the improvement is being maintained, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion.” Gobbledygook taken to a new level.

One the most coveted cards available to a player of the classic board game, Monopoly, is the “Get Out of Jail Free” card that entitles the lucky bearer to escape the loss of money that comes from sitting in “jail” for three throws of the dice. In real life, and for the average citizen who violates federal law, the reality is quite different — except, of course, if you happen to be Hillary Clinton and you count the president of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Justice among your cronies.

Yesterday, after what FBI Director James Comey said were many “thousands of hours of effort” by many federal investigators to determine whether to recommend prosecution of Ms. Clinton for violating federal laws relating to the mis-handling of classified, national security information over her unsecured e-mail server(s), Comey punted; or, more accurately, he laid down.

Despite finding that many of the e-mails in question had been destroyed by Team Clinton (including many by Clinton’s private lawyers in the early stages of the government’s investigation), the FBI Director decided the course of passivity was more appropriate than one that would involve the hard, but by no means insurmountable, task of holding Clinton accountable.

While Comey said his agents determined – correctly and obviously — that some of the e-mails had been deleted “intentionally,” the Director strangely then concluded that this was okay since none were determined to have been deleted to “conceal them.” Say what? Would Comey have us believe Clinton’s handlers and lawyers deleted them for the fun of it; or by mistake; or perhaps to save capacity on a computer hard drive as part of an effort to increase the efficiency of their boss’ electronic communications?

Astonishingly, Comey then compounds the problem by noting in passing, almost blithely, that other “work-related e-mails” are “gone because [Clinton’s lawyers] deleted” them and then deliberately “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” If this bothers the Director, he doesn’t let on in his public statement.

Apparently, offenses such as destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and even RICO – which leap readily to mind on first reading the FBI Director’s statement of findings, were deemed by the Department of Justice as perhaps just too difficult, or simply not appropriate for such esteemed potential defendants as Hillary Clinton and those operating in her behalf.

FBI Director Comey asks that we accept his Bureau’s weak-kneed conclusions as affording the American people “reasonable confidence” that no one on Team Hillary engaged in any “intentional misconduct.” We are to simply share the lame conclusions that Hillary and her minions were just “careless.”

“Careless.”

If, as the presidentially-appointed United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990, I had investigated cases of suspected criminal activity and found evidence similar to that set forth by Comey here, and declared such cases were simply evidence of “carelessness,” I suspect my tenure as the U.S. Attorney would have been far shorter than it was.

And speaking of federal prosecutions, one of the cardinal rules of serving in that job, is to maintain control of the cases being investigated by the FBI and other federal investigative agencies; and not allow the investigators to decide whether or not to move forward with a prosecution – a responsibility that must remain firmly in the hands of the prosecutor. Yet here, on Comey’s watch and that of this titular boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the investigator is the one deciding whether to prosecute. Comey gratuitously concludes that since in his view “no reasonable prosecutor would” bring such a case, that’s the end of the matter and Clinton gets her free pass.

While it may be true that many prosecutors with whom Comey spoke would prefer not to aggressively pursue such a case as this, many skilled and well-seasoned federal prosecutors with whom I have worked would be very comfortable prosecuting a case given the evidence that the FBI has noted publicly it had uncovered here. However, it undoubtedly suits Lynch and President Obama to have Comey make that decision for them, so they can wash their hands of it, and get back to the business of greasing the skids for Hillary Clinton to win in November and give us four more years of the same.

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.