Over the course of the past week I’ve written several entries that have infuriated the would-be tyrants among us. A Nation on the Edge of Revolt warned that “either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead.” Closer to Midnight attempted to answer a veteran’s question about why patriotic Americans that value our First Principles should prepare for a possible conflict if the corruption of our government cannot be tamed at the ballot box. We Get Letters! and We Get (More) Letters! chronicle the typical threats issued by followers when they cannot intellectually defend their unconstitutional actions with a reasoned justification for their behavior. The Edict-Makers notes the continued destructive path of the would-be ruling class, and the abuses they would heap upon the Constitution and citizens in their desperate quest to grab more power for themselves. Pre-Revolutionary , last but not least in this series of posts, highlights the revelations of experienced democratic operative Pat Caddell as he notes the fracturing of his party and the attempt of the elites in the party to rule instead of serve the American people. It will come as no surprise at all that those institutions and individuals that serve as adjuncts to the would-be ruling class have attacked this series of posts. Media Matters attacked them twice. Conservative media figures openly discussing revolution…again places me among the company of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh as some of the conservatives in the media that note well and understand this point in history… though they obviously offer their own spin to evoke a response from their readers

Continued here:
Big Government

Our latest guest is Ambassador Charles Hill, former advisor to Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz.  Mr. Hill claims that US Presidents over the past two decades have been completely inept in foreign policy.  Bush 41 and Clinton tried to get international issues off their back in order to regain control of the news cycle and stake their claim as domestic policy presidents.  As a result, we lost our focus and understanding of our position in the world, completely missing the rise of Islam and now, failing to strategically face it. Islamists are just like Communists, Hill argues, hoping to spread their way of thinking to the world, overtake the present world order, and set in place their values and structures. Many will agree with Hill’s accusation that President Obama has no appreciation for American exceptionalism, meaning Mr. Obama must not actually understand America.  Everything about the history of the United States, its promotion of individual freedoms and democracy, is exceptional. Hence Hill suggests a reading list for the President.  He insists the President read Virgil’s Aeneid , saying “Obama is like Aeneas – things happen to him, he doesn’t make things happen.” Watch the full video below. Follow @UncKnowledge on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook .

Continued here:
Big Government

Angelo M. Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, has written an extraordinary essay for the July/August issue of The American Spectator . It’s called “America’s Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution,” but it deals much more extensively with the anatomy and functioning of the class system in the United States today than with the prospect of revolution. Codevilla cuts immediately to the core: the United States today is divided into (a) a ruling class, which dominates the government at every level, the schools and universities, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and a great deal else, and (b) all of the rest of us, a heterogeneous agglomeration that Codevilla dubs the country class. The ruling class holds the lion’s share of the institutional power, but the country class encompasses perhaps two-thirds of the people. Members of the two classes do not like one another. In particular, the ruling class views the rest of the population as composed of ignoramuses who are vicious, violent, racist, religious, irrational, unscientific, backward, generally ill-behaved, and incapable of living well without constant, detailed direction by our betters; and it views itself as perfectly qualified and entitled to pound us into better shape by the generous application of laws, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and unceasing declarations of its dedication to bringing the country—and indeed the entire world—out of its present darkness and into the light of the Brave New World it is busily engineering . This class divide has little to do with rich versus poor or socialist versus Republican. At its core, it has to do with the division between, on the one hand, those whose attitudes are attuned to the views endorsed by the ruling class (especially “political correctness”) and whose fortunes are linked directly or indirectly with government programs and, on the other hand, those whose outlooks and interests derive from and focus on private affairs, especially the traditional family, religion, and genuine private enterprise. Above all, as Codevilla makes plain, “for our ruling class, identity always trumps.” These people know they are superior in every way, and they are not shy about letting us know that they are. Arrogance might as well be their middle name. The ruling class, not surprisingly, is also the statist party: Our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government – meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Despite the rulers’ chronic complaints about people’s exercising “discrimination” of one kind or another, they have no intention of treating everybody equally. Hence, “laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally.” As the recent health-care and financial-reform statutes illustrate perfectly, however, much of the inequality is achieved not directly, but by the statutes’ delegation of authority to countless regulatory and administrative bodies, which will use their ample discretion to do the desired dirty work. Codevilla’s description of the ruling class and its modus operandi is longer and more detailed than his account of the country class, which is probably inevitable in view of the latter’s extreme heterogeneity. And the force of his argument wanes a bit toward the end of the essay, when he muses about how a country party might turn the tide against the domination and contempt it presently suffers at the hands of its officious rulers. Nevertheless, I heartily recommend this magnificent essay, which is one of the most intelligent, forthright discussions of America’s current socio-political condition I have ever read. If we serfs are ever to escape the grip of our overbearing, self-appointed nobility , the first requirements will be to recognize correctly our current condition, to denounce openly its injustice and idiocy, and to deride every claim of legitimacy or entitlement our rulers have the temerity to make or presume.

Read the original post:
Big Government

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Democratic Party officials on Thursday upheld a surprising U.S. Senate primary win by an unemployed military veteran, nixing a protest lodged by their favored candidate that could have required a new vote. The party’s executive committee decided there was not enough evidence of impropriety to nullify the June 8 election victory by Alvin Greene, a 32-year-old who lives with his father and waged no visible campaign against a former lawmaker. Greene did not attend the meeting and nobody spoke on his behalf. Reached afterward by phone, he reiterated one of his few, common public statements about his candidacy. “I am the best candidate in the U.S. Senate race in South Carolina. Let’s stop my opponent from reversing forward progress in the United States and South Carolina,” he said. The move upholds the improbable win by Greene, who raised no money and didn’t even have a campaign website. Democratic Party leaders had intensified their scrutiny after The Associated Press reported Greene faces a felony obscenity charge and the candidate stammered through a series of awkward, terse news interviews. Some accused Republicans of having a hand in the election. Greene will face Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is considered a heavy favorite. The party’s 92-member executive committee made its decision after experts and voters testified for election loser Vic Rawl that questionable balloting statistics and problems with touch-screen voting machines indicated a corrupted final tally. However, members of the committee said they hadn’t been presented with enough concrete evidence and could not overturn an election, no matter how much they wanted Rawl, a former lawmaker and judge, to win. “We do the right thing even when it hurts us,” state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter said before the vote that overwhelmingly went in Greene’s favor. “We do the right thing even when by doing the right thing it conflicts with eveything that we feel in our hearts.” Rawl said he would not appeal the decision but did not answer other questions. Among the questions that have raised suspicions about Greene is that he has failed to fully answer is how he paid the $10,440 filing fee to run for office in March. He has said he saved up his military pay for two years but has refused to show party officials or news outlets bank statements to substantiate that.

View post:
FOXNews.com

The 17th Amendment is stupid: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof , for six years…. But let me start at the beginning.  Article I § 3 cl. 1 of the Constitution originally established the election of Senators through the state legislatures.  The Federalist #62 laid out numerous arguments for the Constitutional framework of the Senate and its method of selection. The senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages…. Years later, Alexis de Tocqueville made some observations about the Senate in “ Democracy in America .” The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe. We went from great statesmen like Henry Clay , Daniel Webster and John Calhoun prior to the 17th Amendment, to that of Al Franken. This man would never have been elected to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment.  A number of issues in the Missouri Senate race highlight the problems with the 17th Amendment, which leads me to US Senate candidate Robin Carnahan (D-MO). As a Missouri blogger pointed out, she has no clue what a “ banking executive ” does or which side of the podium the state and national flags should be placed , let alone what her role would be as a Senator from Missouri.  Evidence of this can be found in her recent smears of US Senate candidate Roy Blunt (R-Missouri).  She accuses Blunt of being a proponent for a “Big Oil Bailout” in light of the recent BP oil spill.  Her accusations were quickly debunked by left-leaning factcheck.org .  Of course, the bigger issue here is what the hell that has to do with Missouri.  What should concern Missourians is socialist support for Cap & Trade that has been influenced by BP and would harm Missouri taxpayers.  Robin Carnahan should have to explain why she would not support a job-killing bill proposed by her party, and supported by “Big Oil.”  I say “should” because she is nowhere to be found .  Roy Blunt can be seen all over the state campaigning. Carnahan is relying on her name recognition in Missouri, and her ability to avoid commenting on any substantive policy concerning the state of Missouri.  Her life in public office as Missouri Secretary of State consists of playing patron to various progressive organizations in their quest to ruin the elective process in Missouri. The “Carnahan” name does have some pull.  Her father infamously defeated John Ashcroft in a 2000 Senate race, despite the fact that he died prior to the election.  Her brother, “Rubberstamp” Russ Carnahan , similarly won with name recognition a seat in the US House of Representatives.  He tows the line for Nancy Pelosi and the national democratic Party, just like Robin will do if she wins.  If the 17th Amendment did not exist, her campaign for Senate would be laughable. Another issue is the Republican primary.  The favorite is heavyweight US Representative Roy Blunt , while the underdog, State Senator Chuck Purgason , has been garnering support from the grassroots. Blunt has the resources to defeat Carnahan, while Purgason has the outsider credentials favored in the national anti-incumbent atmosphere.  This is where the fight for Missouri’s Senate seat should be fought.  Without the 17th Amendment, Carnahan would not stand a chance with the conservative state legislature (which allowed the first state referendum on Obamacare ).  She relies on the media in St. Louis and Kansas City to push her candidacy, while Blunt and Purgason fight it out among voters to their own detriment.  In the end, Missouri may not get the representative it deserves in the Senate. I have often said that when it comes to American government we should ask ourselves WWJMD (What would James Madison do?), and so I end with the thoughts of James Madison (who, I might add, authored the Constitution), in Federalist # 62, which exemplifies the need for contrast between the two houses of Congress: It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government. It appears that “sinister combinations” have increased proportionately with the decrease in “dissimilarity” between the houses of Congress.  As a result, the administrators of our national government have forgotten their constituents, and proved “unfaithful to their important trust.” Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Read the original here:
Big Government

For long time Obama watchers this comes as no surprise. Bill Kristol is reporting  that the United States plans to abandon Israel at the UN Security Councel next week.  According to the Weekly Standard Editor, the Obama administration has been informing  foreign governments that it will support a resolution to set up an independent UN Commission to investigate Israeli actions in the guerrilla flotilla incident. Apparently the President does not care a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations. b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas. c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror. The most recent  ’independent” investigation of Israel conducted by the UN, the Goldstone Report, threw any standards of investigation out the window. The report violated international standards for inquries , including UN rules on fact- finding. The Commission systematically favored witnesses and evidence put forward by anti-Israel advocates, and dismissed evidence and testimony that would undermine its case. The commission relied extensively on mediating agencies , especially UN and NGOs, which have a documented hostility to Israel; and reproduces earlier reports and claims from these agencies. And that’s just for a start. It is clear that Barack Obama is looking for the UN to create another anti-Israel Kangaroo court. While UN Ambassador Susan Rice is reported to have played an important role in pushing for U.S. support of a UN investigation, the decision is, one official stressed, of course the president’s. The government of Israel has been consulting with the U.S. government on its own Israeli investigative panel, to be led by a retired supreme court justice, that would include respected international participants, including one from the U.S. But the Obama administration is reportedly saying that such a “kosher panel” is not good enough to satisfy the international community, or the Obama White House. Remember, earlier this week Obama spoke about his desire for an international of inquiry. Also,  Ambassador Rice’s recommendation was foreshadowed when she remained mute during the UN’s Human Rights Council condemnation of Israel over the indecent. There is the chance that this might all be a trail balloon leaked to Kristol. The White House may just want to check to seek if they can get away with this action without arousing the pro-Israel democratic Party supporters in Congress. This group has been lacking the guts to confront the President since he began distance himself from Israel last year. Its not an unusual move, in April the White House leaked a trial balloon about the US imposing a solution on Israel: Reports in The Washington Post and The New York Times this week said former U.S. national security advisers Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sandy Berger met with Jones in the White House last month and recommended that the U.S. advance stalled peace talks by proposing its own peace proposal. President Barack Obama attended part of the meeting and listened to the proposal, the reports said. When that report was leaked there was very little objection from the democratic Party, while the GOP stood up to protect Israel from the will of the administration. Beginning with his Cairo Speech , Barack Obama has been slowly distancing the  United States from Israel, while at the same time ingratiating  himself to the Muslim nations. If this action does indeed happen, it may be that Obama  is looking to accelerate the pace of that distancing.

Originally posted here:
Big Government

CLEVELAND — A U.S. immigration court granted asylum to President Barack Obama’s African aunt, allowing her to stay in the country, her attorneys said Monday. The decision was mailed Friday and comes three months after Kenya native Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s late father, testified at a closed hearing in Boston, where she arrived in a wheelchair and two doctors testified in support of her case. The basis for her asylum request hadn’t been made public. People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group. Her lawyer, Margaret Wong, said last year that Onyango first applied for asylum “due to violence in Kenya.” The East African nation is fractured by cycles of electoral violence every five years. In a November interview with The Associated Press, Onyango said she was disabled and was learning to walk again after being paralyzed from Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder. Onyango moved to the United States in 2000. Her first asylum request was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she didn’t leave the country and continued to live in public housing in Boston. Onyango’s status as an illegal immigrant was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November 2008. Obama said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the situation should be followed. A judge later agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case. Wong has said that Obama wasn’t involved in the Boston hearing. The White House also said it was not helping Onyango with legal fees. In his memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama affectionately referred to Onyango as “Auntie Zeituni” and described meeting her during his 1988 trip to Kenya. Onyango helped care for the president’s half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya.

Link:
FOXNews.com

RightChange.com , Inc. today released “The Attack of the 50-Foot Pelosi” ad in Pennsylvania for the Tim Burns’ special election race.  In a tight race, Tim Burns, the Republican candidate is running against Mark Critz, a former congressional staffer for John Murtha and the democratic candidate.  The election will be held on Tuesday, May 18th to fill John Murtha’s congressional seat.  Murtha died unexpectedly on February 9, 2010. The 30-second ad uses new technology for political ads with humor and cutting-edge animation similar to watching a Pixar movie. In the ad, Speaker Pelosi transforms into an enormous menace as she defies the will of the American people by pushing the costly socialist agenda including higher taxes and bailouts.  The Pennsylvania voters fight back to subdue Speaker Pelosi with Tim Burns campaign buttons and save America. Founded in August 2008,  RightChange.com , Inc. supports policies and candidates dedicated to fiscal responsibility and a strong national security for the United States, while upholding the principles of freedom, competitiveness and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people.   RightChange.com , Inc. will continue to focus on battleground states and races in the 2010 midterm elections and to engage the America people on key policy issues facing the entire country.

Read the original here:
Big Government

In the wake of last week’s attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square, legislation is being proposed to strip the would-be bomber of his American citizenship. Team Obama is opposing this bill, a bill at odds with the president’s blueprint for America. The man who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York City on May 1, Faisal Shahzad, was born in Pakistan and recently became an American citizen. Senator Joe Lieberman is now pushing legislation to strip Shahzad of his citizenship so that he can be treated as a foreigner in the U.S. legal system. The pushback from President Obama’s supporters has been swift. Senator Chuck Schumer immediately declared such a bill unconstitutional. On a Sunday morning talk show, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed reluctance to pursue citizenship stripping. And others on the left are spouting off about this as well. The constitutional law on this question is muddy. In 1958, the Supreme Court upheld a citizenship-stripping law in Perez v. Brownell . But then in 1967, the far-left Warren Court overruled Perez by a 5−4 vote in Afroyim v. Rusk , holding that Congress cannot strip anyone of citizenship unless that person voluntarily renounces it. Then in the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas , the Supreme Court split the difference, moving back in the opposite direction. The Court modified its 1967 holding to clarify that in addition to renouncing American citizenship verbally or in writing, a person can renounce their citizenship by their conduct. The Court also held that whether their conduct amounts to renouncing citizenship can be determined by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that the odds only need to be better than 50−50, instead of a higher standard such as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” So the law is unclear in this case. The United States is at war with Islamic terrorism. You can make a good argument that conferring with Islamic terrorists and pledging your allegiance to them, and then trying to blow up Americans in the middle of New York City, might reasonably be construed as renouncing your U.S. citizenship. In fact, there’s another issue in play here that wasn’t on the table in either 1967 or 1980. In order to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, you must take the Oath of Allegiance. In that oath, you swear that you renounce all foreign allegiances, that you will “support and defend the Constitution” against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear arms in the service of this country against America’s enemies, and that you take this oath “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” Shahzad took that oath in 2009. Shortly thereafter, he went to Pakistan for five months, where reports are surfacing that he may have sought out terrorist training and contacts. The question arises: When he took the oath, did he mean it? If not, then he was lying under oath. This very much strengthens the case that a court could hold that his citizenship can be stripped from him. What should be surprising here is that Team Obama isn’t jumping at this possibility. Although a court might find in Shahzad’s favor, ruling that he cannot be stripped of his citizenship, there’s no precedent that automatically dictates that result. So the government should vigorously press to have such legislation enacted against him, and argue in court as to why the court should uphold it. It should be surprising that they’re willing to throw in the towel instead of fighting. But it’s not surprising, for one sad reason. As I explain in my new book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency , this president seeks to erase the distinctions between citizen and alien in this country. The Constitution draws bright lines between foreign policy versus domestic policy, and between Americans versus foreigners. The Far Left has long tried to erase those bright lines. They speak of “human rights” and employ other global, universal language when referring to rights. They think that any right good enough for Americans is good enough for every human being on the planet. That’s important for the Shahzad case because being a citizen gives Shahzad a massive battery of rights under U.S. law, which he could use to try to escape punishment. Such constitutional lines highlight American exceptionalism. As my coauthor and I show in our book, President Obama’s rejection of American exceptionalism is partially designed to further entangle us with transnational organizations like the United Nations, which are beset with rampant corruption, fraud and mismanagement. It’s part of a global “share the wealth” mentality, whereby American treasure goes to other countries (when we’re drowning in debt ourselves) and foreign values and laws are imported into this country and imposed on American citizens. This makes us more like other countries, where governments have far more power over their citizens and where critical safeguards such as the U.S. Bill of Rights are not in place to protect people against government abuses. If there’s one area of policy where politics should not intrude, it’s national security. But we’re witnessing yet another example of Team Obama advancing its blueprint to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” to quote the president himself. These bright constitutional lines exist for our own protection, and we should oppose every effort to erase them.

Go here to see the original:
Big Government

U.S. officials are considering new tactics — including re-examining the right to remain silent — in the ever-evolving war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates, with some saying the changes are needed to keep up with foreign terror groups in the wake of the failed Times Square bombing.  Officials say the plot proves foreign networks are intent on using American citizens to launch deadly attacks on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Sunday that the investigation has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed attack, and that suspect Faisal Shahzad — a U.S. citizen — likely acted on their direction.  It would mark the first time the militant group has breached America’s defenses to launch an attack and signal a shift in focus, from attacks inside Pakistan to a more global target range — using people like Shahzad as well-placed pawns.  “We certainly have seen with the Shahzad incident that they have not only the aim, but the capability of (infiltrating the United States),” Attorney General Eric Holder said on ABC’s “This Week.”  To combat the changing landscape of the war, both the administration and Congress are considering changes to the law to better address potential plots inside and against the United States.  Holder, whose Justice Department has taken criticism for reading rights to terror suspects like Shahzad and alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, revealed Sunday that the administration plans to work with Congress to propose possible changes to Miranda rights.  “This is in fact big news,” Holder said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a new priority.”  Holder would not reveal many details but acknowledged he may try to change the law so investigators have more time to question terror suspects before reading them their rights and so flexibility is added to allow more evidence to be admissible in court.  “We’re now dealing with international terrorism, and I think we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have, and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face,” Holder said. “We certainly need more flexibility.”  Holder specifically called for changes to the so-called public safety exception which allows interrogators, as in the case of Shahzad, to hold off on reading a suspect his rights if they have reason to fear an imminent threat to public safety and need information fast.  Holder stressed that any modifications would be “constitutional.”  Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said on “Fox News Sunday” that determining how to deal with Miranda rights is essential as the country faces “more and more homegrown terrorists — yes, American citizens.”  On a separate track, Sen. Joe Lieberman has proposed legislation that would revoke U.S. citizenship from anybody arrested overseas for affiliating with a foreign terror organization. The bill would expand a 1940s-era law that requires citizens fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the U.S. to renounce their citizenship to include those who are part of a terrorist organization.  Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., introduced a companion bill in the House.  Holder questioned the bill’s constitutionality on Sunday, but Lieberman stressed its importance in fighting the evolving terror threat.  “Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups are changing their mode of operating. And increasingly, they’re looking for American citizens to carry out these plots, and one of the reasons is the passport that lets them — like Shahzad — come in and out of the country,” Lieberman said. “The passport is part of a tool that the terrorist groups have now. It’s probably the main reason why the terrorists in Pakistan wanted to use Shahzad. He had an American passport. We’ve got to stop that.”  Brennan told “Fox News Sunday” that while he’s not sure what motivated Shahzad to seek U.S. citizenship, America’s enemies are looking to “take advantage” of potential recruits like him.  Brennan said that citizenship allowed Shahzad to travel back and forth to Pakistan “numerous times,” presumably without raising red flags.  The Times Square attempt has raised questions about the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence against a growing and evolving network of threats. Brennan defended the administration Sunday for its success in thwarting a series of terror plots to date and pledged to “refine our system as needed.” But others say the attempted bombing, along with the Christmas Day plot and the Fort Hood shooting last year, shows that America’s defenses are being penetrated.  Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said Sunday that the plot means counterterror officials have even more to worry about — with the Pakistani Taliban being added to a growing list that already includes Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “homegrown” plots.  “This now becomes a very, very complex picture,” he told Fox News. “We need to be in the business of prevention.”

Link:
FOXNews.com