Homeland Security

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard sits down with Pundits bloggers John Feehery and Peter Fenn to discuss what impact the Boston Marathon bombing will have on the gun control and immigration debates. 

The language of the daily newspaper, at least the doorway to what is behind in mind and soul, and initial-response headlines this morning suggest we are not yet fully ready to defend ourselves.

A Drudge Report headline, for example, tells that Fox (correctly) pulls an episode of the (loathsome) "Family Guy" show with a joke about people being killed during a Boston Marathon.

Glad I can clear that up for you Mr. President, David Axelrod and Chris Matthews.

President Obama's consistent reluctance to call violent acts of terrorism "terrorism" is becoming increasingly more disturbing, with him taking a full day to refer to the Boston bombing as an "act of terror."

Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, the only prominent loyalists are the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol and his neocon posse. Interestingly, all the prominent papers and media like The Washington Post and "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer," which followed like a flock of pigeons, have 10 years later demurred. They should clear the decks now and retreat in infamy.

Peggy Noonan asks today in The Wall Street Journal if the Republican Party can recover from Iraq. Partially. We start again with the Pauls. The better question is can America recover. Yes, but a new America – Rand Paul’s, Judge Andrew Napolitano’s and even Sarah Palin’s has already emerged. And at CPAC 2013 this month it established dominance.

Read more...

While I often agree with Juan Williams and stand second to none in my opposition to abusive filibusters, I strongly disagree with his criticism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in his column regarding Paul's talking filibuster last week.

I supported Paul's action and urged other progressives to support it so long as the purpose was not to deny John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director but to elevate important issues that should be unacceptable in our country: whether American citizens can be killed on American soil by the American government using drones, and the government justifying this practice with secret legal opinions.

Even two broken clocks agree with each other at some point. I believe Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has performed a service with his talking filibuster against current U.S. drone policy, so long as John Brennan is promptly confirmed now that the point has been made. In my view, if the U.S. can target a known terrorist in a nation such as Yemen, kill him. However, when drones are used obsessively and more civilians are inadvertently killed, this is bad. When the claim is made that drones can be used on American soil against American citizens under secret legal authorization that neither Congress nor the American people know about, this is flat-out wrong.

China and Russia are gnawing at the bit to access our “secured” online universe, and Congress appears content to shut the power off on ourselves, leaving innovation in the dark. While there is no part of the left’s manifesto that encourages collaboration with America’s businesses, it needs to happen. Cooperation between the private and public sectors is essential to beat the opposition. Current measures in this Congress would instead force the U.S. to watch as foreign cyber-platoons advance in front of us.

Have we become complacent to the continuous threat posed by Islamic extremists? I fear that we have been so conditioned not to disparage the practices of other cultures that we continue to ignore this evil microbe among us. We have been so brainwashed about what's politically correct that we forget about what's morally correct. We forget that thousands of Muslim women are being enslaved by archaic religious practices. We forget that Muslim children are being taught to blame all the problems of their lives on Western culture. We even forget about the men who are being told to strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate themselves in public squares and unsuspecting places.

In politics, a damning report is in the eye of the beholder. The Washington Post published an account this week about a report former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge released that warns the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs has put the nation's security at risk and made the United States more vulnerable not only to terrorist attack but to natural disasters as well.

Many of the Navy SEALs involved in the killing of Osama bin Laden are speaking out against President Obama for taking so much credit for an operation in which they placed their lives in danger.

They felt it was a no-brainer in moving forward to end bin Laden's reign of terror. For the president to imply that he's endowed with some special gift for making such a decision is remarkably arrogant and clearly out of touch with reality.

Can our president humble himself and share a little credit with others involved in the successful operation?