Near the turn of the 20^th Century, the steam power revolution which had gripped the globe opened vast vistas of territory never before available to Western travelers. Wide sections of the earth previously accessible only by foot or horse could now be reached through locomotives and steam-powered ships. New visitors to these unspoiled areas of natural beauty were overcome with a yearning for conservation – and so what we now recognize as a spirit of environmental protection was born. That conservationist principle was most especially demonstrated in the May 1900 passage of the Lacey Act, named after Iowa US Congressman John Lacey and enthusiastically pushed by then-presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt. 

The Act’s relatively mild purpose was to prevent the poaching of American wildlife and the trafficking of non-native animal species. It was later re-interpreted so as to prevent American hunters from trampling over the conservationist laws of African countries, and to prevent American businesses from profiting from it. In the decades since, the law has been expanded even further to include rare plant species (orchids, e.g.), fish and oceanic life, and pretty much all other nature-based products such as wood, leather or silk. The result is an enormous legal burden on American businesses importing natural goods internationally, as they are now required to not only maintain awareness of American commercial laws but also those of all other countries with which they do business, including regulations. It is a burden so egregious that, in essence, any American business importing international goods can face prosecution from any federal attorney at any time for violating the most obscure foreign regulations imaginable.

So begins the saga of Gibson Guitars.

In August of this year, federal agents raided the legendary Tennessee instrument manufacturer and seized 24 pallets of rosewood and ebony imported from India, as well as related guitars and computer files. The Obama administration’s Justice Department contends that the “unfinished” product violated Indian export regulations – while a “finished” product would have passed the same regulations and been legal. Note that the wood itself is not in question. Its harvesting – perhaps by some of the least environmentally-conscious methods in the industry – goes on cheerfully unabated. The charges relate only to the wood’s processing, a “finished” condition being ostensibly worthless to Gibson for producing musical instruments. Gibson is now embroiled in what promises to be a lengthy – and fiscally stunting – criminal battle. While the outcome of that remains in doubt, it is useful to note that the same prosecution could be applied against furniture manufacturers, boat builders, or even golf club designers. Also, that same rationale does not distinguish between the large corporate consumer and the solitary bluegrass fiddler carrying his violin case through an airport. Both could be equally targeted by an overly-zealous federal agency, for whom “ignorance-of-the-law” is never an acceptable excuse.

Gibson Guitars’ plight did not escape the notice of the US Congress. This week, two of Tennessee’s delegation, Republican Marsha Blackburn and Democrat Jim Cooper introduced legislation to amend the Lacey Act and “grandfather” in natural products imported before 2008 – the date of the Act’s last major expansion. If enacted, the amendment will provide greater protections to importers and manufacturers from unnecessary legal challenges, and afford some measure of financial stability in these economically violent times.

Still, it is a telling marker of our generation that special laws must be written to shield American businesses from the obsessive attacks of our own government. This week also marked the release of the World Bank’s annual Doing Business report, in which the United States finished out of the money – thirteenth place - among countries for ease of creating new businesses. We were topped by that industrial juggernaut, New Zealand. One can only wonder - if the federal bureaucracy did not drape American businesses’ necks with millstones, and then prosecute them for not jumping through the hoops of India – how prosperous this nation could be.

Our story begins in the early 1970s when an agricultural economist from Yemen named Nasser Al-Aulaqi received a Fulbright Scholarship and a guest visa to come to the United States with his wife and earn a Master’s degree from New Mexico State University. He would later earn a doctorate at Nebraska and perform research at the University of Minnesota. In 1971, his wife delivered a child whom they named Anwar. In 1978, seven-year-old Anwar and his family returned to Yemen.

In 1991, a now-twenty-year-old Anwar Al-Awlaki received a foreign student visa to return to the United States and study at Colorado State University. He listed his birth country as Yemen, and had received a Yemeni government scholarship. Over the next ten years, Anwar Al-Awlaki received his Master’s and Doctoral degrees in education leadership, all under American foreign student visas and scholarships from Yemen. At no point did Al-Awlaki pursue or claim American citizenship. During this time, Al-Awlaki also received training during the summer months with the Afghani mujahedeen and began preaching in a number of Al Qaeda-affiliated mosques. Because of his Yemeni heritage, post-graduate education, and his familiarity with English, Al-Awlaki was afforded significant respect among the Muslim faithful, although the more experienced imams privately became dismayed at his ignorance of authentic Islamic doctrines.

Over this time, Al-Awlaki became increasingly fascinated by jihadist ideology and a radical interpretation of the Koran. He was listed as a spiritual advisor to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. In 2004, Anwar Al-Awlaki returned to Yemen with his family and began a career of active recruitment for Al Qaeda and the jihadist cause. His English skills, high education and experience in website development and digital communications made him especially effective at attracting disaffected British and American Muslims to jihadist activism. “Underwear Bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as well as Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan both conducted lengthy and gushing correspondences with Al-Awlaki. In a 2008 message sent to Somalian terrorists, Al-Awlaki tendered his congratulations on their efforts, saying “The ballot has failed us, but the bullet has not.” He was significantly adept at videotaped messages, such as the one released in March 2010 which featured Islamic calls-to-arms like this:

“To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.”

On Friday, September 30^th, Anwar Al-Awlaki and three other Al Qaeda operatives were killed by missile strikes fired by American Predator drones in Yemen.

Praise for the killing of one of the most dangerous terrorist recruiters in the world was nearly universal. However, the exceptions were notable, not least of which is presidential candidate and US Rep. Ron Paul, who decried the killing of “an American citizen” by an American president, and who most recently suggested that impeachment of Barack Obama would be an appropriate remedy. Like his willingness to accept a nuclear Iran, or his reluctance to effect regime change in the terrorist-supporting governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, or even in his misguided flirtations with narcotic legalization and elimination of the Federal Reserve – Paul is not only wrong but dangerously so.

To identify Al-Awlaki as an “American citizen” is a stretch worthy of a Vegas contortionist. Al-Awlaki never considered himself as such and would in fact have been insulted to be so labeled. Al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, a nation listed as an American enemy under Congress’s authorization of military force. Nor was Al-Awlaki some innocent bystander in the global war on terror. He was Al Qaeda’s public face in English-speaking cultures, their supple and formidable bridge between the organization’s deadly higher leadership and the misfit rookies encouraged to do their bidding. Al-Awlaki was the spark for the deaths of hundreds, and would have done even more given enough time or resources. His death could correctly be identified as an act of national self-defense – and to condemn it could correlatively be identified as appeasement.

Paul’s argument, however, hinges on the question of Al-Awlaki’s “American citizenship,” a distinction denied by . . . Paul himself. At our own We the People Town Hall event on Monday, October 3^rd, Congressman Paul told the packed Nashua Community College audience, “I think people who just come across the border and deliver children here should not have automatic citizenship.” The crowd cheered. On Paul’s own official campaign website, he makes the case even stronger, “End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.” Although Al-Awlaki’s parents were not technically illegal, claims of his American citizenship by Paul are nonetheless founded upon the very birthright citizenship policy he rejects. Paul cannot deny Al-Awlaki’s citizenship status by birthright and then magically re-apply it when he’s in the crosshairs of a Predator missile.

The greater issue, of course, is Congressman Paul’s fundamental concept of citizenship. If Al-Awlaki is indeed considered American, then his citizenship is the equivalent of yours. And his residence in an enemy foreign country, his recruitment of psychotic murderers to kill as many other Americans as possible, and his personal animosity to our nation and her institutions is not to be factored in the comparison. Ron Paul may earnestly believe that Anwar Al-Awlaki is an American – like you – however, judgment that spurious should never be provided entrance to the executive leadership of the United States.

1. Around $800 billion in revenue resulting from eradicating the Bush-era tax cuts
2. Another $480 billion or so resulting from limiting or ending itemized deductions from those in the upper income brackets, and finally
3. A special “Millionaire’s Tax” to confiscate the property of citizens unlucky enough to have mistakenly succeeded in America.

That last provision was inspired by multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, who – thanks to his ability to claim his nine-figure income as “capital gains” – actually ends up having to pay a lower tax rate than the guy who washes his limo. Buffett was able to convince the administration that America’s wealthy deserved a higher tax rate, and that the revenue from it would significantly lower the country’s crushing federal debt. He is, of course, demonstrably wrong on both assumptions. The great majority of millionaires pay at a tax rate of 35%, while the rate for the majority of middle-income taxpayers is a much-lower 20%. The upper 1% of all tax filers is responsible for paying nearly 40% of all taxes collected, and greater than 50% of tax filers pay nothing at all. For Buffett, who lists a personal annual income of about $100,000 a year, “rich” people getting the taxes they “deserve” is a matter of perspective. As conservatives never tire of pointing out, were the government to confiscate every dime of people who earned $10 million or more in a year, Washington would have enough revenue to run for approximately three and a half weeks. Doubling the tax rate of those earning as low as $1 million might produce as much as $19 billion in revenue – chump change in the world of deficit reduction.

To be fair, the administration has not defined what the new rates would be or the specific income brackets effected. Yet, if even this cursory an analysis displays the idea’s glaring flaws, how is it that the Obama administration cannot see them as well? The answer lies not in the administration’s commitment to fiscal health but in their commitment to politics. Fomenting envy throughout the country is a winning strategy for the unrepentant leftist, even if it requires a stubborn rejection of the truth. From a strictly Constitutional viewpoint, progressive taxation is grossly un-American. The “rich” are not some separate species of citizen that plummeted down from space. They drive on the same roads, are defended by the same military, represented by the same politicians, and appeal to the same courts as the rest of us. However, in the twisted maze of socialist logic, being able to “afford it” is automatic justification for getting mugged.

None of this is new, certainly, but the novelty within this plan is its overwhelming audacity. Obama’s Democrats have tried for decades to drain the capital out of America’s wealthy, but never before have they proposed such mammoth increases in taxes during so widespread and persistent a recession. Grasping the incomes of the “rich” amounts to grasping their capability, the capability to invest, consume goods and services, hire employees, take entrepreneurial risks, and provide the engine which will lift the American workforce out of the Obama abyss. For two and a half years, the administration responded to the economic sinking ship by re-arranging deck chairs and blaming the previous captain. But when they begin to drill holes in the lifeboats, it is time to say enough is enough.

Originally pubished at Nashua Patch

Ten years have passed since the attacks of 9-11 and still we are trying to fully understand the loss.  Here in New Hampshire, that loss hit particularly close to home; a pilot from Portsmouth, neighbors from Wilmot, Plaistow, Hudson, Dover.  How many of us lost a loved one in the towers, or an associate in the Pentagon?  Which one of us can revisit the courage of men and women on a plane flying over a Pennsylvania field without also reliving the horror of that day?

For those of us born after WWII, 9-11 must surely be the most horrific, most devastating day of our lives.  There were moments before that struck at our hearts: the assassination of President Kennedy, the Challenger, Oklahoma City. 

But nothing prepared us for the moment we understood that our great nation was directly under attack by an ugly, hateful enemy; an enemy who despises freedom, hates prosperity and decided that the American people, simply by virtue of being a freedom-loving people, needed to learn a lesson of loss and heartbreak.

As we look back over the past ten years, through the tragedy and the triumphs, the division and disagreements, we have surely learned our lesson.

We have learned that we are stronger than we knew, able to absorb and endure, strong enough to pick ourselves up and move forward even in the face of great uncertainty, able to rebound, rebuild and renew.

In the days following  the attacks, we reached out to one another and held tight, pulling our neighbors and friends off their knees.  We wrapped our arms around strangers until they could cry no more.  We joined hands as we walked forward together, holding each other steady, until every one of us was able to stand strong again.

We have learned that our neighbors are heroes.  We watched as our firefighters and police raced toward danger as we all ran away; in spite of the smoke and flames they kept on running, ever onward, racing up stairs even as 110 stories began to crash down upon them.  We learned that there are some who will rush to our aid no matter the cost to themselves.

We have learned that the American people will not allow freedom’s promise to slip easily away, as thousands of our sons and daughters have answered the call to protect and preserve our nation and thousands more have given their lives in defense of ours.

We have learned that our children are extraordinary, resilient, examples of strength..  They have grown up in a post 9-11 world and still remain forgiving, compassionate and generous of heart.  When we are in search of faith and understanding in a confusing and complex world, we need only look into the hopeful eyes of our children, where God’s promise shines unspoiled.

We are confronting an enemy that may never be fully defeated.  When we fall to our knees, they watch with glee.  When we crumble before the world, they cheer our pain.  They are searching for our weakness and will use it against us to destroy our democratic republic and to obliterate our liberties.

But it is their attacks and their hatred that have taught us the most important lesson of all: America will not fall. 

America will never fall.  Americans will never allow freedom to die. 

We will never allow hatred, oppression and terror to reign victorious.

 No matter our political divisions, America will be forever united, forever a beacon of hope to freedom seeking people everywhere.

SEPTEMBER 10^th AND SEPTEMBER 12^th

This weekend, America will mark the tenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11^th, when a small band of murderous Islamists seized control of four jet aircraft and suicidally crashed them, killing thousands. Part of the process of remembrance for the American people is to repeatedly ask others, “Where were you when it happened?” We then relate stories of how the news came to us, what we thought, how we acted, where we went – and so the mystic bond of common memory is confirmed. 9/11 is imprinted upon our consciousness like a seal upon a letter, and so long as we live, so lives its effect.

Yet, the question I would prefer to ask is not “Where were you then” but “Where are you today?” – the stubborn insistence of the present. 9/11 may be indelibly seared in our minds however the same could not be said for 9/10. And 9/12 is only marginally more memorable for the average citizen. The two dates – September 10^th and September 12^th – could not possibly be further apart in their meaning for the country. On September 10^th, America was almost universally oblivious to the homicidal designs of Al Qaeda, and equally ignorant of the name Osama Bin Laden. American government, from the White House to the local town hall, focused its interests on petty minutiae of regulations, taxes and procedures. Round-the-clock cable news services reported the soap opera-style details of the death of Chandra Levy, or chose sides in the debate over federal funding for stem cell research. To possess a September 10^th consciousness, then, is to willfully deny the bloody consequences of worldwide terrorism, and correlatively busy oneself with the mundane fluff of ordinary life.

Others, however, adopted a September 12^th consciousness: an overwhelming concern for the well-being of their neighbors; a renewed respect for police, firefighters and paramedics; and above all, a steely resolve to hunt the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to summary justice. In the decade following 9/11, President George W. Bush pursued an enormous slate of counterterrorism policies that included significant growth in defense capability, the consolidation of intelligence services and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan which had supplied material and fiscal support to the now-infamous Al Qaeda were invaded. Their dysfunctional, totalitarian regimes replaced (however imperfectly) by democratic ones. In all, some 41 publicly-known terrorist plots have been thwarted, an untold number of others were abandoned at their start, and in the crowning event of the War on Terror, the despicable Osama Bin Laden himself was shot and killed.

President Obama’s record on prosecuting the War is notable for how often he has been compelled to extend Bush policies while simultaneously railing against them in public speeches. In direct contradiction to his own rhetoric, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay remains open and active, troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan have been frequently delayed, the PATRIOT Act permitting stronger domestic intelligence acquisition has been renewed, and the horrific notion of granting civil trials to captured terrorists has been – for now – suspended. The practical realities of the jihadist threat have forced the President into a September 12^th posture – but when allowed to develop his own security policies, Barack Obama exposes a dramatic September 10^th psychology. The debt ceiling debate of early August produced a bipartisan deal which slashed some $500 billion out of defense spending. Current defense budgets are significantly below their historical averages, and according to a report by the General Marine Corps Office, two-thirds of non-deployed Marines are not at acceptable combat readiness. Conversely, spending on government entitlement programs has exploded, devouring nearly seventy percent of the federal budget.

To correctly remember September 11^th, then, is to re-discover and revitalize our Constitutional obligation for common defense. While lighting candles, singing songs, or saying prayers will warm the collective souls of our citizens, the strongest, richest legacy we can bestow to the future is national security. And as we pray that no September 11^th ever happens again, we would do well to make certain of it.