Obama rightly debased the rationale of the previous administration for many of the actions they took over the last 8 years, but he did so in a way that was not (to me at least) designed to inflame partisan passions. Rather, he presented this information as a way to cause us to reflect on what America is supposed to be, how it was designed by our framers, and how it can be so easily derailed by weak minded officials faced with problems too big for them to handle and hard nosed ideologues whose only goal is to exert unopposable power without regard to moral and legal right and wrong. Obama also spread the blame for the savage departure from American values and ideals of the last 8 years to all politicians left and right-for the truth of the matter is that we, the American people, were let down on all sides by cowardly politicians and even more cowardly bullies. For 8 years, our elected officials threw out their responsibilities of due diligence and oversight in favor of political posturing. The actions, and inactions, of those who held elective office during the Bush administration and helped create the national nightmare or did nothing to prevent the fall into the abyss, has caused this country great harm both domestically and abroad. The blame is shouldered equally, and recent partisan bickering only further cements this as fact, for those who protest to their own defense most loudly are likely also those whose actions may seem most detestable.

“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” (Obama-5-21-09)

Obama has a tough road ahead. Calls from the left scream for investigations and “truth” commissions. Calls from the right demand an “end to persecution.” This balance is hard to manage while retaining the desire to right the wrongs of American governance. But again, Obama takes the right path, for he is the president, not the judge and jury of this nation. While recognizing the wrongs committed in our names, he also understands that to rectify those wrongs requires a return to rationality and legal principals that this country was founded on. It is not for the president to declare guilt or innocence or to demand trials for grevious wrongs done in the name of “freedom.” That is why we have a Justice Department and a court system and a Congress with investigatory powers. By promoting direct legal action, Obama would be unnecessarily politicizing what is in effect a legal matter, albeit one that goes to the heart of what it means to be America.

“That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants – provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.” (Obama 5-21-09)

At the end of the day, it’s not just what he says that marks this president as a class above his predecessor, but the way he says it, and the way he understands his role in American government. Obama embodies the difference between being president and being presidential- a difference as marked as that between being the class leader and the class bully. Perhaps the juxtaposition of these two quotes is the best illustration of all.

“I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” George W. Bush

“In our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.” – Barack Obama

It’s nice to have a real leader back at the helm.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Not a big deal you say? Congratulations! You can now get a job as an LA County Terrorism expert. That agency’s spokesman said they didn’t think there was any real danger since the man had called in to report the incident. And, after all, mercury is not toxic unless ingested into the body.

But according to surveillance video obtained by CNN (which you can view by clicking the link in the referenced post), the actions of the unknown man hardly look accidental. In fact, they appear to show the man deliberately kneeling down to pour the mercury on the platform, then calmly getting up and walking away. And according to a joint FBI and DHS intelligence bulletin released in 2005, calling the authorities could be just the kind of thing a would-be terrorist may do in a dry run to gather information about how authorities will react.

CNN analyst Pat D’Amuro, a former top FBI counterterrorism agent, says it’s premature to rule out terror.
“I’m not saying that in this video these people are terrorists, but there’s some very strange activity that needs to be identified here.”

EIGHT FRICKING HOURS TO RESPOND??? What the hell kind of security response is that? And yet the government and security organizations keep telling us that they are doing all they can to keep us safe? If this was indeed some kind of ‘dry run,’ the response of the authorities couldn’t be worse for us, nor could they be more promising for a terrorist group. We’re spending billions of dollars on homeland security, yet we can’t even count on the ‘experts’ to do their job in a timely manner? Imagine if a real toxic substance had been released…would they just nail boards up over the subway entries and run away? Or would they sit blithely by for hours while the potential chemical or biological agents worked their way through the subway tunnels or up into the streets while the culprits simply faded away?

I tell you folks…it’s bad enough to have a president who enrages our enemies at every turn, who taunts them with bravado and sneers, who practically dares them to ‘bring it on.” It is completely unacceptable for our homeland responders to sit on their asses while a potential toxic disaster sits untended on a subway platform.

Keeping us safe, huh? Not bloody likely.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush again used the events of September 11, 2001 to further politicize America’s security and to drive a wedge between the American people. In the past, this effort has been successful, as so many American’s prefered to believe in the fantasies of their commander in chief. Today, fewer and fewer people are buying the administration’s version of reality. With mounting evidence to refute much of what the president believes, it’s no wonder that Americans of all stripes and political persuasions are turning away from Bush and his neo-con agenda. Much like a Hollywood film purportedly ‘based’ on real events, the difference between the real world and the world according to Bush is stark. Consider a few of the following points…

Bush Reality: “On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.”

Actual Reality: Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and our ally in the GWOT, Pakistan, has made peace with some elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This is hardly a picture of a Taliban on the run. And what was that again about distinguishing between terrorists and states that harbor them? Of course, when you ‘cut and run’ from an unfinished military effort, as Bush did in Afghanistan so he could start a war in Iraq, this is not an altogether unexpected result. If only Afghanistan had a bunch of oil, maybe we’d have finished the job. Then again…

Bush Reality: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice. “

Actual Reality: The U.S. government has closed up the task force whose main goal was to track and capture or kill bin Laden. In fact, they haven’t been actively looking for bin Laden for years. After downplaying bin Laden for years, Bush has only recently begun to reincarnate this boogeyman as we near the mid-term elections, an election that most politicians and pundits believe will result in reversals of the Republican majority in one or both houses of government.

Bush Reality: “I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat…The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.”

Actual Reality: Hussein was an evil, brutal dictator, but he posed no threat to the United States, unless one considers his desire to create his own oil bourse using Euros instead of dollars as the primary exchange currency. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report states as much by noting that Iraq had no WMD’s and no ties to al-Qaeda. Kuwait may be safer today. Maybe even Iran or Israel are safer today. But ordinary Iraqi’s seem to be no safer, and certainly the U.S., Spain, Britain, Indonesia, and scores of other countries are not safer because Hussein was militarily deposed. This assertion by Bush is just another in a long string of false information clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

Bush Reality: “We’ve tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders…”

Actual Reality: Little to no action has been taken to secure American sea ports, strengthen security at our borders, or improve actual security at airports, unless you count banning water bottles and frisking grandmothers. It is almost as if by simply saying the word ‘security’ Bush expects us to believe that it is being done. But several million illegal border crossings do not suggest a secure border. Less than 10% of port cargo being inspected either before shipping or before being off-loaded into ports does not suggest increased port security.

I could go on and on and on deflating the president’s bubble of false assertions, but you clearly get the point. The president and his policies have offered little to America and the world in terms of security or success against global terrorism. In fact, his policy of preemptive war has only helped fuel the fires that create more terrorists. Time and again, the most successful efforts against terrorists and their plots have been won through persistent policing and investigative work. They have not been borne at the end of a gun, with the drop of a bomb, or by waterboarding some captured jihadist.

George W. Bush may not be a 21st century Nazi, but his propaganda tactics sure would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Indeed, by sticking to the Nazi propaganda minister’s primary dictum, that one must only repeat a lie often enough for it to eventually be taken for the truth, Bush has riden a wave of irrational exuberance for the last four years. It took total annihilation for the German people to rid themselves of their insidious propaganda government. Fortunately for America, we only have to wait a few more months. Come November, America will be changing the direction. We’ve had more than enough of the course we’re on now.

Hope is an emotion that fosters progress, and it is evident that American hope has served us well as we rose from a small, agrarian country to become the most powerful in the world. Powerful not just militarily, but also economically, technologically, and culturally. Throughout our history, we have had ample opportunities to let that spirit of hope die. But instead of falling victim to melancholy, America rallied back after the Civil War and the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. We rebuilt our nation time and again and became stronger from our suffering, rising from the ashes of despair because throughout it all, we held on to our national spirit of hope. We were able to hold on to our hope because we had leaders who offered us hope in their words and in their actions. Their words of hope became reality as we worked together to achieve a common goal. We vanquished the enemies of freedom and democracy and carried forth a message of hope for all people. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, those words and deeds transformed the 20th century into the greatest time of prosperity in the history of mankind.

Hope is a powerful motivator. With hope, a person can overcome many obstacles. With hope, a person can foresee a better future. With hope, individual growth benefits the entirety of society.

Sadly, as we begin the 21st century, the predominant emotion in America is no longer hope. It is fear. And fear is a powerful motivator too. Fear makes us give up our freedom. Fear makes us forget our values. Fear makes us lose trust in each other. And fear builds on itself.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks against America, many Americans were surprised to learn about a new enemy who not only hated us, but wanted to destroy our way of life, and had the means to do so, at least incrementally. After years of continued prosperity and peace, combined with a growing attitude of entitlement and cultural isolation, average Americans woke up on that day with a new realization of the world outside our own borders. America was attacked at home, and the terror we had heretofore only read about in the papers was in our backyard. Fear reared its ugly head. But even as ordinary citizens tried to put life back together, to put the fear behind them and rise from the destruction and reclaim a sense of normalcy, the Bush Administration, guided by their neo-con warmongers and evangelical Christian base, found in the attacks an opportunity to pursue their agenda of advancing their prophecies and ideology and exploited our fear.

This is not to say that we do not have a legitimate security concern to pay attention to and deal with. Indeed, America and the entire western world are now firmly locked again in the centuries old conflict between religious cultures and ideology. And in a very real sense, the future of our freedom and democracy hang in the balance as this open-ended conflict rages on. Still, in our atmosphere of non-stop fear, we have lost focus of the real battle being waged, getting sidetracked as the administration seeks to find lateral enemies, expanding the conflict and increasing their fear-based reality. But America has faced fierce enemies before, and our success over them did not come from an endless fear of destruction, but instead from our enduring fount of hope.

Religion and it’s promise of a glorious afterlife is supposed to alleviate the fear of dying, and theoretically, the evangelical base of the administration’s supporters look forward to the apocalypse so that they can be with their god. Actions, though, speak louder than words, and many of the most vocal among the evangelicals make every attempt to avoid the possibility of death for their cause. They would rather someone else did the dying for them as they continue to spread their message of doom. Religion uses fear to increase membership, increase their political power, and create a strict Christian society. And though they don’t submit to violent terrorist acts to advance their goals, they have no problem rolling back the individual protections guaranteed in the Constitution if it helps their cause. Because even though the Christian religion is based on the concept of individual choice (i.e. you can choose whether or not to walk a righteous path), the practice of its followers is to condemn those who choose a path other than Christianity. Our president claims to be an evangelical Christian himself, and the use of fear is familiar to his line of reasoning.

Government is also exploiting our legitimate fear of enemy attacks into an excuse to abridge freedom and bypass the rule of law. If the enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and democracy, and this administration, under the guise of protecting us from our fears, takes away our freedoms and ignores the rule of law, then the enemy wins a small victory without even having to fight. Indeed, the actions of this administration have given the enemy a victory without even realizing it. As it now stands, we have an actual enemy who wants to kill us, and an enemy in our own government that wants to limit our hard fought freedoms in the name of security.

The politics of fear have not made us any safer in our fight against radical terrorism. The politics of fear have not increased the prosperity of this country. If anything, the increased attention paid to fear has caused this country to regress and divide. Fear did not defeat the Nazi’s or the Japanese. Fear did not fix a shattered economy. Fear did not end slavery.

Under the blanket of perpetual fear, we don’t see what we are losing and what is being taken from us. We only hear the voice of the wise leaders telling us not to worry because they are doing what needs to be done to protect us. But they aren’t really doing anything to make us safer from attacks, especially from rogue nuclear attacks. They aren’t protecting the economic well being of this generation or the next. They aren’t protecting our environment or making any efforts to sustain resources for future Americans. They aren’t protecting us from murderers or child molesters or illegal immigration. The only protection this government is offering is to their corporate donors, their political hacks, and their terrorist allies in the world. As much as I recognize and fear the terrorists who would destroy America, I also fear that the politicians of today will do nothing to make things whole again. But I refuse to be paralyzed by those fears. And I operate from a place of hope. Hope that Americans will wake up and discard the politics of fear. Hope that America will face our troubles head on, with honesty and a rational plan to conquer them.

America can’t discard freedom to defeat our fear. America must defeat fear with hope.

On the face of it, Zero Tolerance policies seem to make sense, especially in a society that is portrayed as increasingly dangerous and hostile. It is, in a sense, a natural backlash from a society that feels battered by crime and hatred. Kids going into schools and shooting up the place; little league coaches molesting children; gang bangers causing all kinds of havoc; we see these things and hear about them every day on the TV or in the papers and we want to protect ourselves. Zero Tolerance policies provide tough consequences for those who go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior, hoping to reduce or eliminate those who would do so. Whether our communities are actually dangerous places or we want to prevent them from becoming so, Zero Tolerance policies look great on paper but actually provide a false sense of security while destroying the freedoms of ordinary people. The truth of the matter is not so much that Zero Tolerance policies can’t be effectively used, but rather we are using them against the wrong people.

Zero Tolerance policies are as much a part of our education system now as pencils and paper. But are they really making our schools safer for our children? Does expelling a kindergarten student for throwing a temper tantrum and throwing a crayon at the teacher make the rest of the kids safer? Was the child really a monster or just having a bad day? With Zero Tolerance we may not have a chance to find out since the first infraction results in expulsion. What about expelling a junior high school girl who brought a butter knife to school for the Home Economics class she was in, but instead of taking it right to the classroom like she was instructed, got sidetracked with some friends and discovered her mistake during the lunch break. Someone sees the knife in her backpack and next thing she knows, she’s being sent home indefinitely for carrying a concealed weapon. No matter the reason for the knife’s presence. With Zero Tolerance, no excuse is good enough. What about the high school sophomore who chooses to wear his “I Love Jesus” t-shirt to school? Do the children of atheist parents faint in his presence or go into convulsions? Does sending him home to change or face suspension really make the rest of the school safer? The problem with Zero Tolerance in our schools is that they lack any effort to use Common Sense and employ every effort to maintain a façade of impartiality and fairness, all the while destroying the academic careers of otherwise trouble-free kids for expressing an opinion that isn’t hate filled or inciting violence or for making an innocent mistake, which, by the way, is what growing up is all about. Rather than promoting a safe learning environment, these policies have only succeeded in making our schools more like the prisons we hope our children never visit as adults. Is this how we foster freedom and democracy in our children today?

Kids may be the most affected by the Zero Tolerance society, but adults encounter their fair share too. A classic example is our new and improved airport security policies. Aimed at giving the appearance of safety in aviation, the actual practices and enforcement of security policies are widely viewed as nonsensical, in large part because they seem to take every chance to avoid actually increasing security. At the security checkpoint, people are prohibited from carrying nail clippers, cigarette lighters, small letter openers, or other ordinary items beyond the metal detectors and x-ray machines. You can, however, have matchbooks or pilfer a butter knife from the lounge near your gate. Your shoes must be examined thoroughly, to ensure that they aren’t really bombs. But what if someone just started hitting someone else with his or her shoe really hard? Zero Tolerance would soon prohibit all shoes on flights. More extensive searches are made of old ladies walkers or infant carriers, especially those of Caucasian women despite the fact that the last people to hijack and use planes as weapons fit an entirely different profile.

And that is where the government applies it’s own version of Zero Tolerance. From a political perspective, Zero Tolerance policies are aimed not at reducing harmful behaviors, but at getting and keeping votes and power. Such policies include a ban on racial profiling in the case of suspected terrorism, a policy that completely disregards everything we know about the Islamic militant radicals who wish for an end of western civilization. This is not to say that all Middle Easterners are terrorists or that all terrorists are Middle Easterners, but at this point the preponderance of the evidence shows that focusing on these kinds of folks will likely yield higher safety quotients than harassing Granny at the subway station will. Politicians have also created an all-encompassing Zero Tolerance attitude with respect to opposing political parties and ideologies, following the example set for them by their religious or special interest or corporate benefactors. In this case, there can be little or no dissent within the ranks. Any disconnect between the party line results in censorship at best, marginalization or expulsion at worst. That’s hardly an inspiring atmosphere for national political discourse that affects all our lives. Nothing says freedom like stifling opposition opinions.

Strangely enough, that segment of society truly deserving of a Zero Tolerance policy is the one we seem to give Unlimited Tolerance to, namely the heinous criminals who murder our friends, rape our children, destroy our financial lives, and erode the public trust. To these people, society (through the politicians and PC idiots) has a seemingly unending supply of tolerance. It shows in the way we release them from prison early (or at all) despite their horrific crimes. It shows in the way juries defy all Common Sense and free obviously guilty people. It shows in the way that the courts toss out evidence that proves guilt or innocence because of insignificant technicalities. If ever a portion of society earned a reputation for needing a Zero Tolerance policy, it is the people who commit the worst acts on other people. Yet somehow, their behavior gets excused.

Zero Tolerance fails because it assumes that all people think the same, act the same, and are equally dangerous. It focuses only on the perceived infraction, establishing that an infraction actually occurred, and then proceeds directly to the harsh punishment attached to that act. It cares nothing for rational explanations or opportunities for learning and growth; it cares only about punishing and setting an example. It slowly drives away individuality and replaces it with a wariness of each other and an expectation of privacy invasion. Zero Tolerance is a forced trade off between the public and the government. We give up some autonomy and you give us security. Instead, we give up our ability to teach our kids and identify real problems for the mere appearance of security.

Perhaps most troubling of all though, is the fact that Zero Tolerance naturally embraces conformity and punishes individuality. This is a great benefit to the power brokers in the capitols across the country, but it spells doom for the average person. As we continue to indoctrinate our children and ourselves with the notion that Zero Tolerance is the only sure way to security, and as we perpetuate an environment of distrust, we will eventually become a parody of ourselves, screaming for freedom as we build walls around ourselves.

America, as everyone should know, was founded by immigrants, fueled by immigrants, and culturally formed by immigrants from all over the world. Without immigration, America would not be the country that it is today. Americans recognize these facts, even if they aren’t eager to embrace them. But talk to anyone about their family heritage, and one of the first things you’ll probably hear is some kind of statement regarding familial ancestry that originated in another part of the world. Since its origins, the United States has acted as a beacon to immigrants who sought out a new life for themselves and their families, and this beacon is still shining brightly today. Yet regardless of the individual reasons for immigrating, the American government’s immigration policies through the years have not been based on the ideas of enlarging personal prosperity for the down trodden of the world, but have instead been based on the needs of American business prosperity and expansion. We may pay lip service to the notion that America welcomes all comers with open arms, but the realities of immigration policy increasingly stem from an unhealthy disregard for the security of ordinary Americans in favor of corporate profit.

Any discussion about immigration, both legal and illegal, must first define the purpose for allowing immigration at all. Politically speaking, immigration makes sense for a government seeking to rapidly increase national or regional population growth, usually in response to the acquisition of new territory. But the United States has not expanded her borders in some time now, so this reasoning does not apply. Sociologically speaking, immigration makes sense when a nation is seeking to balance its racial populations, but as the United States has always been a diverse mixture of ethnic and nationalistic people, this has never been a rationale for immigration policy. (True, immigration quotas do reek of racial motivations, but those rules have had ever changing standards and thus can’t be construed as coming from any sort of lasting ideological policies.) From a humanitarian viewpoint, immigration becomes necessary to assist oppressed people achieve freedom, and this is one of the pillars of U.S. immigration policy today. This seems odd though, in light of our newly reinvigorated goal of taking freedom and democracy to the oppressed countries of the world. Given that objective, we should hope that fewer immigrants come to America seeking these qualities when we want them to instill them in their homelands. Surely if all those who ache for freedom abandon their countries to find it, who will be left to spread those ideals when freedom chances to come knocking? That leaves only the economic reasons for encouraging immigration. Unfortunately, money often speaks loudest and always speaks for itself. The economic benefactors of immigration are not those who come from poverty stricken lands in search of prosperity, but instead are the corporations who lure them in with wages that are much greater than they could earn at home but are still poverty wages in this country. As this rationale for immigration is based solely on corporate greed it fails to meet the test for reasoned public policy.

So I have to ask, in today’s world, what does immigration, legal or illegal, have to offer America? And at a time when fanatical enemies are seeking to destroy our way of life, what effect do our immigration policies have on the effectiveness of national security? The answer to both questions, though far from being politically correct, is nothing. Not a thing. And that means that it’s time to revisit our immigration policies and make some adjustments that better reflect realities in America and the world today.

For starters, the U.S. government should announce a temporary moratorium on all immigration. This may seem like a drastic first step, but until the government can establish policy that is cohesive and equitable, and that addresses American needs and goals abroad, America should hang the “Out to Lunch” sign on the door and lock up for a bit. In doing so, our government should make clear that our reason for such an action stems from our own security concerns as well as the necessity to protect the resources of the American taxpayers. In reality, the immigration policies of most nations are very strict in comparison to our own, so any cries of foul play will likely be coming from hypocritical mouths and should be given little attention.

Secondly, our physical borders should be secured much as I wrote about in my essay A Line In The Sand. Such actions would have the effect of reducing the entry of illegal immigrants, which is the most likely path of infiltration for foreign enemies or other people with criminal histories. In addition, any illegal immigrants that do get apprehended should face immediate deportation to their country of origin with the understanding that they will be dealt with by the law in their home country. It is not enough to defend our borders; we must also demand cooperation from any of our allies when repatriating their citizens.

Thirdly, we must work with the poorer nations of the world so that their citizens will not look at immigration to the U.S. as their only chance at freedom and prosperity. We must assist them in developing their infrastructure and upgrading their health and educational systems. We must encourage them to use their countries resources for the benefit of their people and help them to make the right choices. We have to understand that immigration is usually the last best choice for a person to make. Only when the situation at home seems hopeless do people leave all that they know and love behind forever. The best way to curb immigration, especially illegal immigration, is to help establish security abroad.

Finally, we must find all those people who are currently here illegally, ascertain their identities and their purpose for being here, and return them to their home countries or legalize them unless they are enemy agents. We must enforce the laws against companies the employ illegal immigrants and we must strengthen our citizenship identification programs. We must develop an interim plan for foreign tourism and international business travel, and we must create a separate plan to accommodate those seeking political asylum.

Americans generally have no problems with accepting legal immigrants into their communities, because we understand that immigration is a shared cultural phenomenon. Though most of today’s citizens have had the good fortune to be born in America, many millions are just a generation or three from the tales of their grandparents who walked across hostile territory or sailed an angry ocean to reach these shores. But America is also a country based on the rule of law, and when people arrive in this country by circumventing our immigration laws, we become angry, and, I think, rightly so. Unfortunately, our anger is often misplaced as we turn against the people who only want a better life for their families. More appropriately, we should direct our ire at the governmental policies that have created confusing and ideologically bankrupt immigration standards.

As the nations of the world become more and more interdependent, and as governments exchange animosity and deception for the shared principals of human freedom and self-rule, the need or desire for immigration should naturally recede. Reduced immigration has many benefits including decreased social and enforcement costs for inundated nations, the retention of human resources and national dedication for developing nations, and better security for all nations. These should be the goals of immigration policy in America, not cheaper lettuce or bigger corporate profits.

And yet for a variety of reasons, but primarily for safety and peace of mind, America needs to seriously reform our own border security. It is easy, when talking about border security, to involve the matter of immigration, both legal and illegal. In reality, while the two do have obvious connections with each other, lumping them together as a single issue serves no purpose but to dilute the importance of both. Immigration is really a fiscal and social security matter, so I am not going to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without a precise and practical border policy in place, the issue of immigration becomes a moot point. Border security, as I see it, must focus on creating barriers that it can defend, not on preventing the attacks themselves. It is from this standpoint that I submit this essay.

When we talk about our national border, many of us see an overhead map projection of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. We imagine the lines on the page to be like lines in the sand we used to draw on the beach. In fact, in many cases, a line would be better than what is there now, which is nothing. This begs the question, “What border?” Except for the ports of entry, established along major and minor highways, our land borders to the north and south are mostly non-existent, save for some latitude and longitude readings on some very old treaties. In effect, our borders existence is based mostly on arbitrarily agreed upon lines in the sand. This system has worked over the years because of the mutual trust between our neighboring countries to preserve the social and political sovereignty of each other. Due to the military advantage of America, security was never a real concern, at least not security of the life and death variety.

All that has changed. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers in New York, America has a new enemy to deal with. This is not an enemy who will muster their forces and meet you on the battlefield. This is not an enemy with a single geographical base. This is not a foreign government with expansionist or resource driven policies. This enemy is an idea borne from anger turned into a weapon whose aim is to destroy. And while it is easily arguable that we not only created this weapon, but we helped feed its anger and continue to do so, we must still seek protection from its wrath where we can’t meet it head on. So, America must build its walls for protection.

In a society based on personal freedom such as ours, when does the publics right to safety outweigh the inconvenience to individuals? Because our newest enemy operates outside the boundaries of so-called “civilized warfare,” border security becomes increasingly complex. Defendable land borders still have relevance, but become just a small piece of the pie. You now have to consider coastal port security, airport and airspace security, and possible biological or radiological attacks coming from overseas in packages or suitcases or letters. You have to consider all of these “ports of entry” and devise effective security methods for them all or you are not protected at all. Our current security regime consists mostly of some land border checkpoints (mostly to interdict drug trafficking), airport security screening (yeah, right!), and unenforceable agreements with other nations. How does this protect the public? I’m not sure, but I’ve heard that it costs a whole lot of money. And I’ve heard that people can still pretty much slip in and out undetected at will, if they really have the desire.

Protecting our nation in the age of technology should be easier than we make it out to be. Surely our scientists could be better employed creating practical defense barriers instead of studying things like condom elasticity or pheromone production of the mole rat. We should have as a goal the creation of a land border barrier that utilizes sound frequency technology or a similar non-lethal incapacitating agent that would render all trespassers incapable of crossing. Of course, it would have to affect only humans and not birds or other animals whose natural migration knows no borders, but we’ve got some pretty sharp scientists. They’ve managed to exponentially increase our computing power in such a short time; they ought to be able to handle this too. For our ocean ports, which are vulnerable due to the amount of goods shipped into the country each day, we should utilize our satellite technology and create a system that could scan a ship for radiological material while still at sea and a decontamination/sterilization station just out of harbor. Further x-ray scans could be made as cargo is offloaded and all passengers could funnel through an inspection process to verify luggage, identity, and general health. Airport security should also utilize more non-invasive scanning technology. We have the capability to detect most metals, chemicals, nuclear, and explosive materials. We just don’t use them. We could end the cries of racial profiling and improper screening just by implementing the technology we have and creating better systems.

Some of these ideas might be expensive to get going, but others could probably begin at once. As a matter of national necessity, we should all chip in where we can, with business supplying the material, and education supplying the scientists, and government supplying the flexibility, and the rest of us supplying the support and the taxes. The drawback for most of us would be a decrease in the pace of travel and shipping, but is that really such a terrible thing compared to another terrible attack? Our society is moving so fast now anyway, slowing things down a little might just be good for us.

Border security really has nothing to do with racial attitudes or personal peculiarities. Border security is about protecting the integrity of the border. Period. If the system is to work, it has to be comprehensive, it has to be evenly applied every time, and it must be invisible yet strong. Without real border security, all conversations about immigration, terrorist invasions, and foreign relations become simply academic.

Humanity is still stuck in the stage of development that is illustrated by fierce nationalistic pride, religious-borne conflicts, resource abuse, and tyrannical and/or corrupt governments. A clash of cultures is currently being played out on an ever-growing geopolitical scale, serving to remind us that we may be approaching another turning point in our shared history. At the same time, individuals throughout the world are empowering themselves with thoughts of personal freedoms and a better physical existence. This dichotomy presents societies with a quandary and addresses one of the central tasks assigned to government in today’s world: How does government best protect its citizens, its territory, and its interests in the world? Summed up, these are referred to as National Security.

Because of the state of today’s political and cultural atmosphere, National Security takes on great importance in America. Our government has done a pretty good job the last half-century at raising our standard of living, but often at the expense of other nations. We have secured more privileges and more freedoms for ourselves, but often at the expense of other people. We have created and produced magnificent works, cures, and technologies, but often have kept them from benefiting everyone. We have assisted nations in trouble, and then empowered corrupt regimes to run the show. In short, our government has managed to show the world both the best and the worst of the American culture and creed in the same breath time and time again. We have made plenty of people angry along the way, and lately we have made plenty of threats. America is now being viewed differently both by our “friends” and by our “enemies.” No longer the champion of liberty to all people, our enemies have learned to exploit our duplicity in this area and have gained millions of followers that no longer trust the United States to be the country that fought off the Nazi and Japanese war machines in the name of freedom in World War II. These new enemies are ready to fight us in the streets and to the death. Meanwhile, many of our “friends” have learned that friendship to the United States is a conditional status based on what you have that we want or where your land is located. This kind of friendship naturally gets established as one of convenience, and the sentiment is returned two-fold and with a bitter taste. Feeling exploited, and rightly so, these governments send their problems to us through their refugees and migrants, in effect calling in their chips.

The result is an America that has a greater need to know who and what is coming over our borders; a greater need for international cooperation; a more effective military and intelligence apparatus; and well defined, enforced immigration and weapon laws. A look at the state of our various security measures will show the rational person how irrational our government is when it comes to actually serving the citizenry.

From overlooked reforms to misappropriated funding to politically correct barriers and socially inept policies, our national security is disorganized, irresponsible, and threatened at the same time. The federal government, who is currently wholly responsible for the task of national security, continues to make blunder after blunder when seeking ways to protect Americans. In many cases, Common Sense reasoning has been abandoned in favor of political gamesmanship, corporate profits, political correctness, and irresponsible representation from our elected officials. They spend more and more time protecting and enriching their business benefactors and reinforcing the victim mentality of society than they do protecting their constituents from actual danger. The politicians and our federal government create and implement many programs that have not been thoroughly thought out, wasting billions of tax-payer dollars that could be used to cut deficits or shore up social infrastructure. It is time for citizens to demand policies and actions that will actually solve the problems instead of creating new ones. It is time to stop approaching the world with two faces. It is time to end the confusing regulation and the fraud.

While I recognize that many factors have combined to put us where we are now, we might keep in mind that the goal of government should be to address and satisfy the tasks it has without over-complicating the rest of our lives. Over-complication got us to where we are now and it’s going to take whole new ideas, or a willingness to enforce existing ideas, to get us out of this mess. I also recognize that this mess is so big that to really clean it up will take decades of follow-up work, but the necessity of the task still remains, and so the task should begin. Someday, we might not need to worry about protecting our national borders, but as long as we do, we should have a plan that achieves that goal and fosters mutual trust. So the next several essays will look at the issues facing this country with regards to National Security. I don’t claim to be some kind of expert by any means. I’m just a man with a clear view at Common Sense and a desire to make the world a saner place.

One of the first tasks of government is to provide security to its citizens. A society without security is nothing more than a loose confederation of people, fighting to maintain a sense of purpose in the face of danger. But there are many levels of security that a government must provide in order to achieve a state of freedom. To maintain geographical sovereignty, a country must secure its borders with its neighbors. To assure the physical security of its citizens, government must enact and enforce laws. To create social stability and promote human advancement, security in the form of health and welfare are established. And to prevent attacks from others and advance the creed of human dignity and freedom, government exports security through military might and alliances, economic bribery and favoritism.

This security blanket, which we rightly expect from our government, is actually more like a patch work quilt, except that too many of the pieces are over-lapping, several squares are missing, and nearly all the rest are frayed from abuse and wear. Once we succumbed to the mindlessness that is Political Correctness, we might as well have opened our doors and welcomed our enemies in to come and steal all of our good silver. In our desire to avoid all risks, including the risk of hurting someone’s feelings or the risk of being unfair, we have essentially lost a sense of purpose in maintaining our security, both inside our country and beyond our borders. We have created laws that favor poor public behavior and tolerate lawlessness. We have created other laws that make criminals out of people who really aren’t criminals in the dangerous sense. We have encouraged, through our legal system, the widespread practice of bending the laws. We have abandoned our borders both on land and at sea.

To hear me tell it like this, it would seem that we are but a step away from anarchy, and of course that’s not really the case. There are many laws on the books that are necessary, mutually agreed upon, and somewhat consistently enforced. Our military, whether actively fighting or in an advisory role, is generally considered the best in the world. And our society seems to continue progressing through the days and years just fine. So then it would seem that we are pretty secure after all, despite the inconsistent patchwork quilt of programs and wasted resources. At least, on the surface anyway.

In order to really understand whether or not we have achieved a real form of security, we first need to know what it is we are trying to secure. This may seem like a foregone conclusion, but unless you acknowledge the things you want to protect, you can’t possibly create a plan to protect them. From the Common Sense standpoint, on a personal level, security means you aren’t afraid of being robbed, killed, starved, homeless, beaten, cheated, or abused by your government. It means peace of mind in day-to-day life. It does not mean that nothing bad will ever happen to you, your friends, or your family. It also does not mean that you will be rich or famous or even happy. But this level of security, when properly designed and deployed, assures a level playing field for all citizens to achieve their goals, provides recourse from wrongs done to you, and bestows punishment to those who would seek to do harm.

Again, using Common Sense on a national level, security is the ability of the government to protect its citizens from attacks by other nations or groups. Through the establishment of a military, we are able to defend ourselves from any enemies at home or abroad. National security also is responsible for maintaining our borders and knowing who and what crosses over them. It is with national security in mind, that relations with other countries occur. Whether those relationships are economic, political, or military in nature, they seek to promote more stability in the world, thus increasing our security. This type of national security does not require that America agree with other countries all of the time. This type of security does not require that America open its doors to the rest of the world either. What it does require is a common sense approach to reforming and then enforcing our border laws, a common sense approach to the resolution of conflicts, and a resolute expectation of the same from other countries in the world.

The men who wrote our Constitution endeavored to create a compact that would establish a system of law and justice to provide these levels of security. They sought to construct a protective shield around the citizen so that the government could not intrude but for the most egregious of crimes. And they required the government to provide proof of guilt before a citizen could be punished. The created the Congress to make laws. The created the Executive branch to enforce the laws. They created the Judiciary to make sure the laws conformed to the ideals set forth in the Constitution. They allowed for an electorate that would control the Congress and Executive branch through direct election and accountable representation. They granted the power to create a national military, but funded it only for two years at a time, to prevent its leaders from trying a hostile take-over. They put everything they could think of in that document to both ensure the common man a level of freedom and security never before known and allow the government to protect and defend the citizens from foreign malevolence. But the world in 1776 was a different place than it is now. For while in their time it was probably taken as a given that Common Sense would prevail in matters of public discourse, in our time it is a rare thing indeed. Had they only known the grave need for its inclusion, I’m sure they would have written a section requiring Common Sense in Politics. As it is, they did the next best thing in leaving us with a Constitution that has evolved through the years, flexible enough to allow some new patches here and there, strong enough to hold together at the seams.

Still, our domestic legal system no longer serves the average citizen. It is rife with corruption and waste. Many of our laws are simply bad laws, creating criminals out of otherwise ordinary, albeit non-conformist people. Some of these laws pertain to drugs and sex. Others concern property use, product liability, tax loopholes, family law. Many more of our laws are written in a way so as to obscure their true purpose or favor certain individuals. Our legal code is as complex as our tax code, and just as full of holes, exceptions, and strange consequences. To further complicate matters, our legal system does not fairly enforce the laws, does not consistently punish offenders, is not readily accessible for civil complaints, and is expensive. These barriers virtually prevent non-criminal or non-wealthy individuals from having their day in court in a timely manner. The complexity of the law, as created by lawyers, precludes people from presenting their own cases in a straight forward manner and getting an honest, common sense judgment.

It is well beyond the time for an overhaul of these systems, both domestically and nationally. They are duplicitous, arbitrary, and very expensive. Our tax dollars are being thrown hand over fist into the purses of lawyers, both in the legislatures and in the courtrooms. Domestically, we should demand a streamlining of the legal code, removing redundancy between federal, local, and state governments and dividing jurisdiction by act rather than location. We must remove those laws that do not infringe upon second parties. We must make the laws simple to understand and know the penalties. We must enforce all the laws, all the time, and apply them fairly regardless of race, religion, sex or status. We must demand strict and appropriate penalties for those who break the law, and reduce the revolving door that is our prison system. We must remold our judiciary system in such a way that provides timely mediation of non-criminal matters, and fair but not eternal appeals provisions for all matters. We must seek out and destroy corruption of the system whenever and wherever it appears. Nationally, we must defend our borders, reformulate our military postures, amend our foreign policies, and foster better relations in the world.

How can we do this? It is simple. Elect politicians who are committed to reform and then write letters to your lawmakers and judges demanding reform. Support common sense initiatives and demand better services. Be informed and involved. To advance freedom and security, we must recognize when change is necessary, we must embrace change when it is for the common good. We must be willing to realign the ways of our forefathers in order to better reflect today’s realities. We must be willing to endure the pains of change, knowing that our struggle is no different than that of our ancestors and our goal is just as noble- to leave the world a better place than we got here. Our country is not living in the same world as it was 230 years ago. Our world has changed and with it so have we. We were born with the capacity to change our environment and to influence our destinies for the betterment of mankind. So far, we haven’t done too well. It’s time to do a lot better.