From My Desk….

This is an eventful time in world history. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinians have had/will have open elections. Two murderous dictatorships have been toppled, and a murderous terrorist (Arafat) has died. Our soldiers, as well as local residents, are still dying in Iraq as terrorists opposed to people having a choice in their governments filter into that country to try to intimidate possible voters. U.S. citizens sent a message to our leaders, though our election process, that we support the war on terror and President Bush’s manner of conducting it.

The Indian Ocean tsunami killed an estimated 150,000 people. The U.S. responded as we always do to massive emergencies-- with millions of dollars and food and goods and soldiers to deliver them. Many are crying that we’re not giving enough. The question should really be: Should our government send any aid?

Government aid is taxpayer money. There is nothing in our Constitution that empowers the federal government to exhort money from taxpayers for charity, whether it is for domestic welfare programs or foreign aid.

David Holcberg, of the Ayn Rand Institute, recently discussed our government’s propensity to spend billions rebuilding Europe after World War II, fighting Aids in Africa, and helping North Koreans, South Americans, and others around the world after floods, fires, and political upheavals. Holcberg asked: “The question no one asks about our politicians’ ‘generosity’ towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?”

Should we help? Of course. We are Americans, and we’re among the richest and most generous people on earth. We care about others. We care about them whether they’re Muslim or Christians or atheists, or whether they live under dictatorships or democracies. We want to help. But that help should come from willing individuals and businesses. Not from government. Once government took over the role of charity, it displaced churches and organizations which had filled that role. Is that perhaps why ‘charitable’ organizations had the time and energy to become ‘environmental’ organizations?

Bush bashers, including the New York Times, lambasted the President for ‘only’ pledging $15 million initially to the tsunami relief effort. The President did that within a few days of the tragedy, before the full extent of the damage was known and at a time when we are maintaining troops on two fronts and spending untold amounts here at home to keep our own citizens safe. Within another week, of course, that amount of aid skyrocketed, even though, to risk repetition, our Constitution does not allow government to take our tax money by coercion to hand out for charity.

Some Muslim leaders are labeling the tsunami as punishment from Allah. “People must ask themselves why this earthquake occurred in this area and not in others...” said one Muslim leader. “Whoever examines these areas discovers that they are tourism areas. Tourism areas are areas where the forbidden acts are widespread, as well as alcohol consumption, drug use, and acts of abomination... Don’t they deserve punishment from Allah?!” These leaders haven’t explained why tsunamis occurred before people inhabited the earth, or noted that many beaches are tourism areas, and other such areas were ‘spared’.

Environists have proclaimed that the tsunami occurred because Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, thus prolonging the ‘global warming catastrophe’ and contributing to supposed global natural cataclysm. They are delighted that the beach hotels, which disturbed ‘the pristine and natural beauty’, have been destroyed. Others insist that the tsunami was caused by secret underground testing of nuclear weapons -- by the U.S. or Israel, of course.

The fact is, tsunamis happen, just as tornadoes and hurricanes and lighting and monsoons happen. When such disasters happen in third-world countries, they cause a lot of damage, because such places have little in the manner of early-warning systems or buildings built to stand up to the forces of nature. These natural tragedies are often mitigated by democracy and capitalism, which foster thriving economies that create the wealth needed to prepare for better withstanding natural forces. But they are still just natural events.

In Los Alamos (hotbed of liberals; how can people so smart be so dumb?!) a few days ago, most cars still sported Kerry/Edward’s bumper stickers. I was therefore surprised to see one with “Bush/Cheney” on it. On closer examination, however, I noticed that it said “Bush/Cheney 1984 War is Peace”. It took a few minutes for Bruce and I to decipher it, since our first thought was ‘Bush/Cheney didn’t run in 1984!’ Well, 1984 refers to the Orson Wells book by that name, of course, and ‘War is Peace’ refers to Wells’ characterization of ‘doublespeak’. In other words, Bush says that war will bring peace, but the opposite is true, according to the bumper sticker. (If you haven’t read 1984 and Animal Farm in a while, take the time to do so.)

The anti-war faction still seems to believe that all we have to do is lay down our guns and wars will end. Everyone will be happy and peaceful and good. Idealism is great, but only if tempered by reality. If we lay down our guns... we’ll just be conquered. Period. (White Lotus is a good book to read on that subject.)

Such idealism reminds me of an article that I just read in NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre debated Rebecca Peters, who heads the International Action Network on Small Arms, a powerful, internationally-funded United National “non-governmental organization (NGO)” that is pressing for binding global action on civil disarmament. LaPierre gave the example of a woman who saved herself from rape and possible death by shooting her would-be rapist. He noted that Peters would disarm the woman being attacked and asked if she believed that women should be able to protect themselves. Peters’ doesn’t think people other than police and government officials should have guns. Her response was, “Women need to live in societies that protect their human rights.”

Well, it might be nice to live in a such a society (although we believe it is better to count on self-protection instead of government so powerful that it can protect every citizen), but a place where there is not one evil person is a little difficult to find. It is an idealistic utopia. Taking people’s guns away is not going to stop criminals. The rapist mentioned above, for example, didn’t even have a gun. He had a knife. The hijackers on 9/11 used boxcutters. Others use baseball bats, or rat poison, or cars, or fireplace pokers, or shovels, or big sticks. There will always be evil and there will always be something available to use as a weapon, and pretending that people will be good and that governments and police are capable of protecting people from crime or foreign aggression is blind and stupid idealism that can cost us our lives and our freedom.

It’s up to us, all of us, to keep that from happening. Participate in your government and always be prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Angie