Post Election Frenzy!

Brian Tincher
Freelance Writer

The election of 2016 has seen a lot of crazy reactions from the Democratic side who see losing an election as reason enough to riot, loot, and pillage.  I do not like how the masses have reacted and think that more should be said to stop those who are destroying their own neighborhoods!  I plan to weigh in on the carnage over the next few weeks as, hopefully, someone restores sanity,

Illegal Immigration and the 2^nd Amendment

                       

By Brian Tincher

Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

Senior Writer for Seeking Liberty

November 1, 2014

The right of every American to be safe and secure in their homes is part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  Reading this Amendment it speaks more to the need of having a judge to determine the need of the police or other authority to enter a home.  Having this protection then makes entering a home without consent by the home owner or court order an issue of criminal activity.  American citizens have long looked to the 2^nd Amendment for the remedy of protecting themselves, their families and their property against anyone wanting to use violence against them.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees citizens the “Right to Bear Arms” for themselves.  It is estimated that there are 270 million firearms in the United States.  This makes the U.S. the highest armed country in the world at 89 firearms per 100 citizens.  Gun ownership is seen as part of the rights and heritage of the United States since the birth of this nation.  Yet, the argument remains that the 2^nd Amendment is a right that has outlived its necessity, especially in light of gun-related tragedies across the country in the last couple of decades.  Immigration, specifically illegal immigration, might change that perception.

The borders of any nation define its existence but the United States has always been an open society that is welcoming of all those wanting to come to this country.  After all, this nation was built by immigrants and continues to welcome “legal” immigration.  The borders are a metaphor for society in which those who enter must respect and obey the laws of the land.  Violence by illegal immigrants, just like citizens, is intolerable and should be meted out equally.  Immigrants who choose to break the law also face the risk of deportation and a denial of re-entry into the United States. 

Deportation to an illegal immigrant might not be as severe in nature as it sounds since the first act of the immigrant was to break the law by entering the U.S. illegally.  This fact makes the need by the average citizen to protect oneself even more important.  Especially when considering the Federal Government has been slow to act and in some cases facilitates the flow of immigrants into the country.  Uncontrolled immigration will eventually overwhelm police if the level of crime begins to rise.  Where, other than the 2^nd Amendment, does a citizen begin to protect his personal property, his life, and his family?

The need to be armed as a deterrent to violence is much different than the need to regulate a militia and have trained men and woman who are able to meet a need for engaged military action.  Illegal immigration is a matter of Homeland Security and the possibility of violence directed toward the private citizen on any street in any town in the United States creates a scenario in which citizens can become the direct targets of foreign aggression.  Yes this type of violence is also possible at anytime by violent Americans, but the rise of illegal (and undocumented) individuals is no different than having agents of a foreign country who are here to do nothing but terrorize.

Millions of US Dollars Pledged to Gaza

October 14, 2014

By Brian Tincher
Special Contributor to In Homeland Security

Senior Writer Seeking Liberty

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged $212 million in American aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip after the summer-long war with Israel. According to Secretary Kerry, the importance of rebuilding Gaza is that the people of Gaza need help “now.” The aid was announced during a press conference in Cairo, Egypt after a larger conference to help organize aid for the Gaza Strip. The pledge of cash comes on the heels of more attacks in Iraq and Syria by ISIS. The city of Kobani, Syria is under attack while coalition airpower bombs ISIS positions around the city in an effort to stave off the attack. Meanwhile, the nation of Turkey is standing idle as the ISIS forces try to take the city and install their political ideology—particularly the slaughter of anyone who opposes their form of Islam.

The $212 million that the Obama Administration is now promising to the Gaza Strip is close to the amount of money spent to fight ISIS from the air: is it all worth it in the long haul? ISIS will not stop until they control large swaths of land throughout Iraq and Syria and perhaps elsewhere. The Gaza Strip is more than just a spot on the map it is also representative of an ideology. Whereas ISIS means to convert and control at all costs, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority wish to bend Israel to the will of the ideology they espouse, and no amount of American money equates to peace at any point in the future. Money is great to spread around in the name of peace and humanity but who is getting the money and how many peaceful uses will it be put toward?

The reason Israel gave for their military engagement into the Gaza Strip was that the government of Hamas was launching missiles into Israel from numerous positions including mosques, schools, and hospitals. This does not sound as though the government for the people of Gaza was giving any thought to the possibility of destruction but perhaps was counting on it. After all, gauging the reaction by one’s enemy is not an unacceptable risk when there is more to be gained by losing. Hamas did lose in its bid to hurt Israel, but will be the winner if the foreign aid that it wants comes to fruition and the Gaza Strip is rebuilt with an eye on withstanding another engagement with Israel. Numerous construction projects in the region are paid for by the taxpayers of the United States and several other nations.

Some might argue that American aid is helping to rebuild terrorist infrastructure. Spending millions to help the people of a destroyed nation seems to be a noble cause and one that Americans are normally excited to undertake, but is this money just a cash advance on the next round of attacks against Israel and more destruction for the people of the Gaza Strip? Secretary Kerry cannot offer guarantees of peace—of course—even when American money is involved. The bigger question is when will the people of the Gaza Strip enjoy peace? Peace without the involvement of the United States and the heavy-handed rule of Hamas.

Ebola: It’s Time For Travel Restrictions

October 7, 2014

By Brian Tincher
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

Senior Writer Seeking Liberty

The outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa raises questions about the level of commitment by the United States Government to protect its citizens from an unseen enemy.

The potential spread of the Ebola virus by travelers to the U.S. is under scrutiny across socio-political boundaries; can the virus be spread by casual contact? If there is no consensus, is it safe to accept the current policy of the government which is to rely on the screening processes carried out by overseas airport personnel? Keep in mind that the first non-citizen to enter into the U.S. with the virus, Mr. Thomas Eric Duncan, is now residing in a Dallas hospital as the number of people he came in contact with—and who may become sick—continues to rise.

White House adviser Lisa Monaco recently stated that there were no plans to implement travel restrictions to or from West Africa. The position of the White House is that these types of restrictions would actually impede the response process. Helping those who are suffering in West Africa is important, but the bigger issue is how to protect the American people. Do we risk a problem in Africa becoming a larger problem here in the United States? We, as citizens, rely on our government to make decisions in our best interests. We have an expectation that the best decisions for us come first—which should include a serious look at travel restrictions.

The reliance on foreign authorities to accurately decide who is allowed to leave their home nation, especially if that person is ill, is too much of a risk to our own national security. The notion that a country would want to keep their sick at home for treatment is to deny that the sick could serve two purposes: one is to eradicate the disease thereby ridding the country of the carriers, and the second is to draw attention to the economic conditions of their nation by making the disease more widespread. Perhaps by making Ebola a worldwide issue the economic aid to West Africa might increase. This, of course, is only speculation but not outside the realm of possibility. Either way, the need to protect American citizens is paramount.

The focus in my mind is singular to the point of isolation, and I assign the label of foreign enemy to the virus known as Ebola. A disease that threatens the daily lives of American citizens is an enemy to American citizens, especially if the disease can be limited or contained outside of America. Homeland Security, or put more simply Security OF the Homeland, should be first and foremost on the minds of President Barack Obama, the Secretary of State and the entire United States Government with respect to foreign policy. The issue of security is shared by all, and the responsibility to enforce security measures belongs solely to our government.

American citizens expect to be completely represented in matters of security by their elected government. Some might call this expectation a social contract because we are governed regardless of the manner in which we became citizens. Citizens elect fellow citizens to represent us in all forms of government and these elected citizens then create laws which are to be obeyed. This process is how we create order and there are expectations among all citizens to respect this process. The meaning of this contract (explicit or implicit) is that citizens are of vital importance.

The argument over what is responsible security is negligible given that American citizens are the focal point of all Homeland Security. Protecting the Homeland, even from a virus that some say is not a major risk, is a massive responsibility and should never be seen as a hindrance—especially by the White House.

Thomas Eric Duncan lied to authorities in Liberia so he could travel to the United States. What other extremes would someone else do that is far worse than lying? One breach in security is all it takes to bring enemies of all sorts to American soil. The enemies should not arrive here in the form of a virus or anything else.

Security OF the Homeland is and always should be the highest priority of the government.