What are the odds of another terrorist attack on United States soil?
The CIA Director yesterday predicted that we will potentially see more attacks on our soil as the Islamic State group loses ground in Syria and Iraq. According to the article by the Tribune Washington Bureau’s Brian Bennett in the local newspaper today, intelligence analysts are concerned that the Islamic State may try to send terrorists into Western countries “by hiding them amongst refugees, by using smuggling channels or by finding weaknesses in the security screening of legitimate travelers.”
Against this backdrop, we have the continuing calls for more gun control by our government’s leaders. We could shut down the manufacturing of guns today and not be able to prevent deranged individuals from finding a source so as to pull off whatever it is they want to do to us. Might it not be better to stay where we are on gun control, even though it is not a perfect place to be? Are we so naive as to believe we can avoid terrorist attacks by ridding ourselves of guns?
Our government officials, primarily the President and his supporters, seem to think we are impervious to attack when that could not be further from the truth. They would, in their ideal world, make the possession of guns illegal. Period! They would arbitrarily end the production of bullets except for use by law enforcement officers and those people would have a limited number of cartridges available so as to avoid any rounds getting out into the public’s hands.
There is a distinct pattern of this presidency and it is not a pattern of promoting greater freedoms. It is a pattern of increasing government control over us all, over the flow of news, over what our kids can eat in school lunch programs, and over what medical treatments are made available to older citizens through the control of health care delivery and health insurance coverages (read ObamaCare), where we are beginning to see restrictions, reimbursement changes to make care less affordable to those with coverage, etc.
The government wants more access to encrypted communications. It wants to remove our individual freedoms in the name of only doing so to protect us…obviously from ourselves. As each step to rein in our personal rights takes place, we move a step closer to being totally controlled by our government.
Unfortunately, those who raise this issue risk being branded as crackpots even though we have watched steps unfold which, barring watchful citizens and elected officials, could be used to deny us one freedom after another. The rule of the current administration by Executive Orders issued by the White House and by the restrictions it has placed on certain agencies that might fight such changes only fans the flames.
Our elections, even at the local level, certainly at the state level and very much so at the national level are critical…and they grow more critical with each passing year. We could’ve had an avowed socialist running for President this cycle. At least he was being honest about where he would lead us, and he is a likable sort of man. We cannot always count on such honesty. As it is, the emerging Democrat candidate is not terribly palatable to a conservative, either.
With our freedom comes much responsibility. We need to be very careful about the bewitching songs too often sung to us by those running for national office, and which we too often simply believe without question. We are, thankfully, about to emerge from eight years of attempts to make this country less free than it was. We cannot afford to naively move into another 8 years of such Democratic-driven executive direction uncertainty, of such further rule by Executive Order.
While the choices seem terrible, there are real differences in these two candidates. One is a proven commodity many times over in her public lifetime; at least there is some hope that the other candidate will be the better choice.
Unless this truly is the living definition of a Hobson’s Choice.