ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

In some respects, the recent attempted Times Square car bombing and the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized citizen, point to a significant success in America’s Global War on Terror.

In the aftermath of 9/11, our government quickly reformed the Intelligence Community and established the Department of Homeland Security, moves which have been successful in making it more difficult for foreign terrorists to enter the country and carry out attacks. U.S. military action has weakened al-Qaeda Central.

But this has also created a new challenge: the battlefront has shifted from overseas to our homeland.

Al-Qaeda has determined that it can achieve its jihadist agenda more easily by recruiting operatives from within the U.S. (citizens, in some cases)—those who have no longstanding previous ties to Islamic jihadism or international terror organizations. Thus, they are often below the radar of intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Consider just a few of the more recent cases. Shahzad is a U.S. citizen. Najibullah Zazi, who has pled guilty to conspiring to blow up the NYC subway system, was a legal permanent resident. U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was a Virginia-born citizen.

Unfortunately, this adaptation by al-Qaeda means that we must adapt as well.

The fact that terrorists are in the U.S. legally is a game-changer that makes it more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to identify, monitor and preempt future attacks. It is more difficult to get advance notice of other pending attacks. It is more difficult to determine where those attacks might originate.

But there are actions that the Obama Administration can take to ease this difficulty.

First, we should treat terror suspects as enemy combatants and not as criminal defendants.  Sadly, the Obama Administration insists on defaulting to the civilian criminal court system as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, we can—and should—change the way we issue Miranda warnings to ensure we treat terrorists as we should treat terrorists and not as we would bank robbers. After Shahzad was arrested trying to flee the country, I said that despite the fact that he was a U.S. citizen, law enforcement and intelligence officers should gather as much intelligence from him as possible. I was roundly criticized by the liberal left.

Within days, we learned that law enforcement officials were, indeed, taking advantage of the public safety, or “ticking time bomb,” exception to the Miranda requirement and interrogating him before informing him of his “right to remain silent.”

Then we learned, via Attorney General Eric Holder, that the Obama Administration is considering “modifying the rules that interrogators have” when terror suspects are brought into custody here on U.S. soil. I welcome the Attorney General’s realization that we have to adapt to al-Qaeda’s new type of terrorist.

Additionally, the next time that law enforcement officials capture a terrorist in our homeland, Holder’s Department of Justice should consult the Director of National Intelligence and others in the Intelligence Community before giving any Miranda warning. This coordination, which has apparently not been taking place, would provide interrogators with the information they need to ask the right questions and save lives.

By now focusing on recruiting Americans and legal U.S. residents, al-Qaeda has shifted in the methods it uses in its effort to destroy our nation. Now, the Obama Administration must make a critical shift, as well, in the methods it uses to ensure that our nation defeats our enemy.

King is the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Chair of the National Security Solutions Group.

The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

McCain also blasts Obama's "failure" to exercise "responsibility." Obama's response was "responsa what?" Politico writes that McCain's floor speech followed a luncheon "clash" with Obama. Looks like a bit of that heat...

Last week, when Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to Washington, President Barack "Please-Adore-Me" Obama said, doing his famous John Lennon "Imagine there's no countries" imitation: "In the 21st century we are...

For just the second time in its history, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case on school choice. The high court decided that it will hear an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Arizona’s scholarship tax credit program is unconstitutional. Nearly 30,000 children benefit from Arizona’s tax credit program, which allows individuals to receive income tax credits for contributing to a scholarship-granting organization. A press release from the American Federation for Children stated:

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case provides school choice supporters with an opportunity to once again demonstrate the constitutionality of school choice programs… Amicus briefs filed by eight states and a multitude of civic organizations have called for the Ninth Circuit’s decision to be overturned.

“The ACLU successfully shopped around for a court that would side with its anti-school-choice position regarding Arizona’s scholarship tax credit program, but now the U.S. Supreme Court will have the opportunity to set the record straight,” said Betsy DeVos, chairman of the American Federation for Children. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court of the United States will side with the 28,000+ children served by this program and, most importantly, the freedoms granted to all of us under the Constitution of the United States of America.”

The Institute for Justice, which has worked to defend the Arizona school choice program, worked to move the case to the Supreme Court:

In Winn v. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a 13-year-old Arizona tuition tax credit program. Arizona’s tax credit is available to individuals who donate to nonprofit organizations known as School Tuition Organizations that issue scholarships to enable low- and middle-income parents to send their children to private schools, including religious schools.

The Institute for Justice recently filed its reply brief in the case, which emphasized that the 9th Circuit decision warrants Supreme Court review because the appeals court ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and because its decision conflicts with an Arizona Supreme Court’s 1999 decision upholding the program from an identical legal challenge.

Tim Keller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter, noted:

Private choice, not government action, controls Arizona’s tax credit program,” Keller said. “The entire program is religiously neutral. Taxpayers and parents have no financial incentive to donate to either a religiously affiliated scholarship organization over a nonreligious scholarship organization or to select a religious over a nonreligious school.

As the Obama administration works to phase-out a successful school choice program in the nation’s capital and to limit existing school choice provisions in federal law, a verdict from the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of tax credit programs would be a welcome step toward ensuring equal opportunity for a quality education.

Speaking to a group of seniors in Linden, N.J., on May 19, Gov. Chris Christie addressed the media's characterization of his "confrontational" style. Love this guy: In related news, Gov. Christie dished out some more...

...and our debt to GDP ratio has reached an astonishing 90%. Read it and (literally) weep.

We've got an in-depth report on the Obama Administration's plan to target and eliminate the dissenters.Order today to make sure you get your copy of this powerful issue.

H/T: Breitbart

Before the Democratic health bill was passed in March, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to reassure the public that Congress would have to pass the bill before the public could “find out what is in it.” And now they intend to use the same tactics to repeal the misnamed “don’t ask, don’t tell” military eligibility policy passed by Congress in 1993.

Democrats are moving swiftly to add the repeal to the must-pass defense authorization bill, leaving it to another day for the public – and most especially the U.S. military – to “find out what is in it.” It’s about time Congress slow down and read some bills before passing them.

This crass political maneuver is an affront to the men and women in the military whose opinions matter, because they will be most affected by any change in the law. Regardless of what one thinks of full repeal—whatever it might mean in practice—lawmakers should wait until the ongoing survey of service personnel is completed and analyzed. Any legislative action now is premature, and a thumbing of the nose at the military.

The sleight-of-hand at work is the notion that since everyone already understands what repeal of the current law means, Congress might as well just repeal the law now. However, since the issues at stake involve not just neutral characteristics like race or national origin, but rather responses to a whole set of behaviors that may affect everything from military family policy to religious liberty, repeal of the military service eligibility law could take any number of forms. The range of implications is profound, from core issues of national security and military readiness, to recruitment and retention, to conduct standards and unit cohesion.

The new liberal power grab leapfrogs the process that has been underway for several months, under which the Department of Defense (DoD) has begun to assess the views of service members and identify the impacts of proposed changes. Providing an example of incremental adjustment, DoD adopted changes in March that raised the rank of officers authorized to initiate investigations under current law and diminished the likelihood of investigations based on third-party reports. The actions illustrated the degree to which policy changes could vary, falling well short of sweeping measures that would threaten the religious freedom of chaplains, undermine the Congressionally approved Defense of Marriage Act, or severely impact personnel levels.

The power grab also leapfrogs Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen’s letter to Congress just three weeks ago “strongly opposing” legislative action in advance of completion of the Pentagon’s review. Repealing the current law now, they wrote, would send “a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families,” a view Secretary Gates apparently continues to hold.

Congress and the Administration should serve our nation and put the armed forces first by declining a politically expedient and hasty vote, allowing the Pentagon to finish the now-in-progress assessment scheduled for delivery this December, and giving members of Congress and the American people time to examine the results of that assessment in an open and exhaustive public debate. That debate can and should address at least the following questions:

1. What does full repeal mean, and how does it improve the national security of our nation?
2. What do officers and service members actually think about the current policy and proposals to repeal it? Can an accurate assessment be obtained and how? Will service members feel free to state their actual views without threat of reprisal?
3. What would be the impact of repeal on retention policies and results and recruitment policies and results?
4. What would be the impact of a full repeal on particular operational issues (e.g., fraternization, submarine service, field deployment, special forces, etc.)?
5. Some jurisdictions now license homosexual unions either as marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions. If Congress’s policy on homosexuals serving openly in the military is changed, and military personnel enter into officially licensed same-sex unions under state law, what would be the impact on military family policy with respect to benefits related to housing, insurance, and other compensation contingent on spousal or family status?
6. How would changing Congress’s military eligibility law affect other federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of husband and wife? Would a change to the current law make the U.S. military exempt from the application of DOMA? If Congress fails to make its intentions clear, could a later court interpret a change to the current ban on open homosexuality as an implicit repeal of DOMA? How would repealing the statutory ban on open homosexuality in the military affect constitutional litigation challenging the traditional definition of marriage at the state and federal levels?
7. What would be the impact on the personal moral beliefs and religious expression of other service members? Will the utterance of a belief that homosexual conduct is morally wrong be punishable in any manner as an expression of discrimination or intent to discriminate?
8. What would be the impact on service chaplains and counselors who may have specific denominational or personal views on the illicitness of same-sex conduct and same-sex relationships? Could they face punitive, administrative or remedial measures (e.g., sensitivity training) that impact their ability to perform their professional roles or infringe on their right to hold and express certain moral or religious views?
9. If military personnel express disagreement with changes to policy approving of homosexuality, how will that affect their careers?
10. Will homosexuality be considered a protected class for promotion or advancement purposes? Will the new law require that promotion boards include precept language requiring the promotion of homosexuals?

Clearly, the answers to these questions have broad import for present and future members of the armed forces.

UPDATE: Each of the four Service Chiefs (General Conway (USMC), General Conway (USMC), Admiral Roughead (USN), and General Schwartz (USAF)) have submitted letters stressing that any action by Congress should only be taken after the Pentagon finishes its review.

“Let’s be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies,” Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) said Monday. “We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast,” he continued. Specifically, Jindal is frustrated by the failure of the federal government to produce the 8 million feet of oil-blocking booms it asked for back on May 2nd and 3rd. So far Louisiana has only received 815,000 feet of boom, and even then the federal government has failed to place it in the correct locations.

Worse, Obama administration regulators continue to deny Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast’s marshes and the gulf. Federal regulators have so far refused to permit the state to act, fearing the unintended long-term damage to local wildlife. So instead of action, the oil continues to float on shore threatening the livelihoods of millions of Louisianans.

Meanwhile the Environmental Protection Agency again demonstrated its uselessness when it informed BP it had 24 hours to find a less toxic alternative to the chemical it had been using to break up the oil. BP informed the EPA that no alternatives were available in sufficient quantity to deal with the spill, and when the EPA’s deadline came and went with no change in BP’s practices, the EPA meekly said they would study the issue, which was an acknowledgment that it has no answer either.

The federal government’s failure to know how to handle the Deepwater Horizon oil spill does not end with the EPA. It goes all the way to the top. Frustrated by his government’s inability to master the problem, President Barack Obama reportedly cut aides short recently, ordering them to “plug the damn hole.” As if no one had thought of that already. But instead of focusing on the problem at hand, President Obama moved to appoint an unaccountable commission to study the problem substituting process for action at a time when leadership was needed. The commission shifts the responsibility from the persons we elect to oversee these issues to unelected bureaucrats.

The Pew Research Center has released a poll showing a majority of Americans give President Obama and his administration bad marks for its handling of a massive oil spill.  To combat this rising discontent, the Obama administration flew Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen up to Washington to provide some clear answers as to who was in charge of the operation. Just this past Sunday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had said of BP: “If we find that they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately.” But when asked about Salazar’s comments Monday, Allen responded: “Well, I would — I would — I would say that that’s more of a metaphor. … You need equipment and expertise that’s not generally within the government — federal government, in terms of competency, capability or capacity. There may be some other way to get it, but I’m a national incident commander. And right now, the relationship with BP is the way I think we should move forward.”

BP, rather than taxpayers, should be held responsible for the costs of the clean-up and liability, and under current federal law that is the case. BP is currently responsible for every penny it costs to clean the mess up. Furthermore, they are responsible for up to $75 million in liability costs (i.e. the secondary costs incurred by businesses and communities) directly, and up to $1 billion additionally comes from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And the $75 million cap is waived if the responsible party is found to be grossly negligent. Calls to increase these caps retroactively are not needed and are more political expediency then either stopping the leak or mitigating its consequences. Equally frustrating are calls to raise the gas tax, and transfer the costs of this spill onto American consumers.

And that right there, in a nutshell, is the problem not only with the Obama administration’s handling of this crisis, but with the entire regulatory state. The Obama administration is set to announce new and stricter regulations on the oil industry tomorrow. But as the NEPA waivers and MMS failures of this accident show, the existing regulatory framework is already not being enforced. So how will new regulations piled on top of the old ones fix the problem? When government micromanages how private enterprises are run, those entities are not incentivized to prepare for the worst outcomes. Now no one has developed a plan or the expertise to deal with this spill.

The Obama administration’s leftist narrative is that after eight years of deregulation under the Bush administration, American businesses are dangerously under regulated. But this simply is not true. By every objective measure, regulation increased – not decreased – during the Bush years. Instead of adding on new regulations, the old ones should be reformed to restore incentives through profit and loss. Instead of retroactively raising the cap on BP’s economic liability, thus undermining the rule of law, Congress should look to raising or eliminating the cap in the future. But most importantly, President Obama needs to accept the responsibility that the federal government is the ultimate owner of the land BP is drilling on, and as the primary responsible party he must show more leadership in solving this crisis.

Quick Hits:

• According to the latest CBS News poll, seven in ten Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Washington; including 22 percent who say they are “angry” about the situation.
• According to Rasmussen Reports, confidence in America’s efforts in the War on Terror has fallen again this month with 52% saying the country is not safer today than it was before 9/11.
• The Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index showed prices of single-family homes dropped for the sixth straight month.
• Moody’s Investors Service Inc. again warned that the U.S. government’s Aaa bond rating will come under pressure in the future unless additional measures are taken to reduce projected record budget deficits.
• Senators will have less background to help make their decision on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan due to her lack of a judicial record.

.

For a variety of reasons, I was not able to bike to work the other day.  I took the bus. Now, my bus route, which basically gives me door to door service, isn’t by any means the dodgiest route in town.  But every once in a while, let’s just say I wish parking were cheaper. I was [...]

On paper, I think the Left is blowing way out of proportion the New AZ immigration law. No where int he law do we have Gestapoesque 'Papers Please' permissions, the law is clear that race can NOT be used is 'reasonable suspicion'. It really is a law that give Local law enforcement the same authority the Federal Agencies already have, and that is why they are getting together. The locals now fear the same or similar concern the Feds have had:Washington (CNN) -- Police chiefs from about a dozen cities are scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday to talk about concerns they have with Arizona's new immigration law.

The group includes police chiefs from Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona; Los Angeles, California; and Houston, Texas.

The chiefs will tell Holder that they worry the new law will "drive a wedge" between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build "over many years," according to a statement by the group.Just like Politics is local, so is law enforcement. Politicians trying to create base based incendiary laws struggle with looking beyond the laws implementation, and the consequences that can take place. We are seeing similar reaction to Health Care Reform in a sense.

Others attending the meeting today:The group attending Wednesday's meeting also comprises of chiefs of police from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Jose, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; Sahuarita, Arizona; Montgomery County, Maryland; and the president of Arizona's Association of Chiefs of Police.Yeap, Minneapolis and others from agencies all across the country. IT is clear that similar laws like Arizona's are in the works, and local law enforcement is already proactively educating themselves for when the Feds hand over the keys. Is that the next step, de-federalizing immigration enforcement? I'll be reviewing the recent Immigration proposal by the Administration for clues. On the surface, it looks like more of the same that the prior administration tried.

Flashhttp://centrisity.com Being right, even tho you lean Left

Last year, Minneapolis switched to “Instant Runoff” voting.   Under “IRV”, voters list their choices for an office in ranked order. In exchange for getting slower elections decided by an arcane method that required the last mayoral election to be resolved by a slow, error-prone hand count, the cash-strapped city also got a huge bill. Minneapolis’ first [...]

Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner makes a very good point: Republicans shouldn't be the ones that are worried about the principle of "divided we fail." The Democratic Party is home to far more conflicting voter...

British Dr. Andrew Wakefield was responsible for the main study that linked autism to vaccinations in 1998. Since then, vaccination rates have plummeted in Britain from 95% to 50%, and Britain has banned him from...

The creation of the eurozone was presented as an unambiguous economic benefit to all the countries willing to give up their own currencies. Studies promised that the euro would help accelerate economic growth and reduce inflation and stressed, in particular, the expectation that the member states of the eurozone would be protected against all kinds of unfavorable economic disruptions or exogenous shocks. It is clear that nothing of that sort has happened. In a new paper, Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, examines the eurozone's contribution to slowed economic growth in European countries and predicts the costs of maintaining the European monetary union.

• "When Will the Eurozone Collapse?," by Václav Klaus

Reader comments in response to "Obama Skips Memorial Day Services At Arlington Nat'l Cemetery To Spend Weekend In Chicago."paddy o'furniture:It occurs to me that the ceremony at Arlington may be improved by his absence....

featuring Christopher A. Preble

The President took a walk on the wild side yesterday and got an interesting pharmaceutical sugggestion along the way:

"The more he talked, the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”
Do you remember how we were assured, back in 2008, that one of the best features of Barack Obama, especially when compared to his hot-headed opponent John McCain, was his "first-class temperament?" Somehow I don't think this is what the bien pensants had in mind. It's no surprise that Tom Friedman wants some sort of China For a Day policy.

After nine straight quarterly losses, online retailer Bluefly is on the mend.