McCaul: We must not play politics with our national security
We must not play politics with our national security
By Michael McCaul
Published March 03, 2015
FoxNews.com
Today, we heard from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who discussed the threats from Iran and ISIS not only to Israel but to the United States. Today, I also voted to protect the American people from these threats. Shutting down the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - a national security agency - in this high threat environment would be irresponsible and dangerous.
Islamist terror groups are spreading like wildfire and want nothing less than destruction of our way of life. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently noted that last year was “the most lethal year for global terrorism” in recorded history. This year is likely to be worse.
In Syria and Iraq, a barbaric terrorist army has taken root in the form of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This is far beyond what we saw with al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11.
From safe havens across the Middle East, these murderous terrorists are plotting against the U.S. and our allies.
Both ISIS and al Qaeda have been urging more of their followers to rise up and attack America and its allies at home. Just last month, al Shabaab, al-Qaeda’s branch in Somalia, called on individuals in the West to carry out attacks against shopping centers like the Mall of America.
In addition to the plots and attacks in the U.S. and Canada, Islamist terrorists have also inspired or executed attacks in Denmark, France, Australia, and Brussels. These fanatics are dead set on bringing more of this type of violence to our streets.
Every day they inch closer to their goal through the radicalization and recruitment of our citizens. More than 180 Americans have tried or succeeded in joining extremists in Syria and Iraq, such as the three Brooklyn men recently arrested by the FBI. Already, around 40 Americans have come back from Syria, and they are being investigated to ensure they do not represent a danger to the United States.
But as we have seen on the streets of New York City and Ottawa, fanatics do not need to go overseas to become a danger to our country. Terrorist groups have successfully leveraged social media to recruit from within our own communities and inspire homegrown extremists.
DHS plays a lead role in combating these threats. Created after 9/11, it is charged with stopping terrorist from coming into the United States by using transportation security screening, border checks, and terrorist watch listing. The department is also essential for uncovering and stopping terror plots hatched both in the United States and overseas through activities like intelligence sharing and collaboration with state and local law enforcement.
Last year, President Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds and ignored Congress to declare a unilateral, sweeping overhaul of our country’s immigration laws. His unlawful executive actions have led to a contentious political showdown over funding for DHS.
I strongly believe the president’s executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional. Senate Democrats refused to come to the table to address the unlawful actions even after seven of them agreed the president had overreached. Fortunately, the Federal courts agreed with me and put his executive orders on hold. And I am optimistic this standard will be upheld on appeal. Ultimately, it is the courts that must resolve this constitutional crisis not Congress.
Shutting down DHS will not shut down the president’s unlawful executive actions because the implementation of his actions is not appropriated by Congress but rather run by applicant fees. As such, the office in DHS tasked with carrying out the president’s executive actions would remain open, even if the department was shut down.
Closing DHS in this high-threat environment would be dangerous and would telegraph weakness of resolve to our enemies. We need DHS to continue to connect the dots to stop terrorist attacks.
I've taken an oath to defend this country and its institutions against all enemies. We can - and must - reverse the president's immigration actions, but we cannot put this country at risk in the process. And with the horrific and tragic incidents in Paris, New York and Ottawa in the last six months I will not have blood on my hands because we chose to play politics instead of protecting our country.
Shutting down DHS will not hold the president accountable and I will not put America in danger.
Michael McCaul is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/03/must-not-play-politics-with-our-national-security
Over a century ago, John Godfrey Saxe, an American poet became famous for his poem, The Blind Men and the Elephant[1]. I’m leading with this example because it is perhaps the best illustration of how well intentioned people who see only a part of the picture can be very wrong, when they fail to see all of it. They are, in effect misled by their “blindness.”
Each of Saxe’s blind men “saw” a different version of an elephant by “feeling” it: one thought the elephant’s side was a wall; other blind men thought a tusk was a spear, the trunk, a snake; the leg, a tree; the ear, a fan; and the tail, a rope. All seemed partially right, on the basis of their perceptions (“by feeling”), but collectively they couldn’t imagine the complete elephant (“due to blindness”).
Some would say that America’s Federal Government, and certainly its Congress often resembles the “blind men” trying to figure out what the “whole elephant” is really like. That’s why civil discourse[2] and respectful group discussions are such a wonderful way to take advantage of our American freedom of speech. Civil discourse is a hallmark of America’s Founding Fathers and led to its premier Constitutional freedom—that of free speech.
A diverse group of adults can gather, and start with premises like “Let’s talk about that,” “Help me understand your perspective,” and “What can we agree upon?” When they do, what follows expands the “vision” of everyone listening, whether they agree, disagree or are neutral on the matter. It is truly how the American government was hoped to operate.
Two of our greatest Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson differed mightily on the approach to governing and on many specific issues (including slavery!) However, they shared a mutual respect for each other and a love for their country that fueled a burning desire in both of them to find constructive consensus. That they did find that consensus is a legacy of all Americans who have followed them.
Point-Counterpoint, the discussion group started by Wade Keller five years ago, embodies that spirit. 2015 Dates are: Feb. 2, Feb. 16, Mar. 9 and Mar. 23. The program starts at 1:30PM sharp, and adjourns at 3PM at the Marco Island Lutheran Church, 525 North Collier Blvd.
Attendees can opine and speak out on whatever topic they choose, and then the group can agree, disagree, question or challenge their opinions, perspectives and views—but respectfully. It is an energizing experience to feel this at work. Sometimes there is simply an agreement to disagree. At other times one or more parties changes their position, much to their surprise. Why? They gain new insights, and see the “elephant” (figuratively) from a whole different, and larger perspective.
There is a parable that illustrates this; it is called the Synergy of Ideas:
If I give you a dollar, and you give me a dollar, we each still have only one dollar. But if I give you an idea, and you give me an idea, we each now have two ideas.
Whatever the outcome, anyone who attends and/or speaks at a Point-Counterpoint comes away with more than they brought the meeting thanks to the synergy of ideas. They enjoy gaining new ideas, different perspectives, and perhaps even new conclusions. They also often gain a respect for the power of constructively voiced differences. I first went to see what Point-Counterpoint was all about I was hooked. It’s all about ideas, freedom and fun. Come see for yourself.
[2] Civil discourse: engagement in discourse (conversation) intended to enhance understanding.
The Incredible Power Of Collective Wisdom
Have you ever heard of the Desert Survival Game? It is a team building exercise that has been around for decades. The purpose of it is to help management and professional teams learn to work together and see how much more powerful collective wisdom can be compared to a single individual. The principle of the game is fairly simple: the team must choose, in priority order, which of an assortment of “things” salvaged from a plane crash, that if selected would give them the best chance of “desert survival”…or “escape” from the desert.
Of course it is possible for one person who has “played the game” several times to outperform a team who has never played it, assuming that person learned well and can remember the most effective choices to accomplish “desert survival.” Otherwise, the collective wisdom of a group always comes up with a better set of choices. Note that I said, “comes up with” and not actually “uses” a better set of choices. The second aspect of the game is the team dynamics about whose/which ideas to use.
When a diverse group of people gets together for dialogue and discussion to solve—or at least analyze—any given problem or topic, the entire group can usually come up with a better solution than any one member of the group. Whether they agree on the choices, depends on the dynamics of the group, its leadership, makeup and how well they want to work together.
One surprising illustration of collective wisdom often occurs at an event held here on Marco Island. Even though the group’s purpose is not to “solve a problem,” solutions are often forthcoming. What is this group, you might wonder? The name is Point-Counterpoint, and it kicks off its fifth year.
2015 Dates are: Feb. 2, Feb. 16, Mar. 9 and Mar. 23. The program starts at 1:30PM sharp, and adjourns at 3PM at the Marco Island Lutheran Church, 525 North Collier Blvd.
Wade Keller, local Marco publisher founded Point-Counterpoint over four years ago. His concept was to bring a diverse group of Marco residents and visitors together and simply “discuss topics of interest.” Here’s how Point-Counterpoint works: there is a moderator (this year it will be John Mariotti, a former executive, consultant and author—a seasonal Marco Islander).
One person raises their hand and volunteers to speak about their “Point.” This can be any kind of issue or topic: personal, professional, political, philosophical, and on and on. However, that speaker has just five minutes to make his/her point; not a second more.
After the five minutes are up, the speaker remains at the front of the audience, while members of the audience have ten minutes to raise “counterpoints” in the form of brief questions for the speaker to answer, disagreement and a different point of view, or agreement and reinforcement of the speaker’s “point.”
The timer goes off, and it’s on to the next speaker’s topic “point” and five minutes on whatever comes up next. The only rules are that the presentations 1) not be a “sales pitch/political campaign,” 2) that all interaction must be respectful and 3) that the time limits of five and ten minutes are rigidly enforced—with no repeat presenters in a given session.
If it sounds unpredictable, it is. If it sounds stimulating, it is that too. If it sounds like fun—it is—so come and participate in one or all of the four sessions being held this year: Feb. 2, 16, Mar. 9 and 23. Attend as many or as few as you like. Most people keep coming back.
Comments