In April of 2009, Secretary Napolitano issued a apology of sorts for offending veterans after a DHS assessment labeled troops returning from Irag and Afghanistan as ‘right-wing extremist.’  Her apology was framed as “To the extent that veterans read it as an accusation… an apology is owed.”  Not much of an apology to me. It was more a case she felt they shouldn’t have been offended by their inclusion in the assessment, not that she was sorry she said it.

I am not the only one who felt that way. Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom said, “It wasn’t an apology in my view. It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it.”

Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, said the report represents a “gross misunderstanding and oversimplification” of the country’s service members. Although, he did not call for Napolitano’s ouster,  he said he would accept her resignation.

In October 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made statements to the effect that our borders are secure and safe when she said, “The Obama administration has met many of the border security benchmarks Congress set in 2007 as a prerequisite to immigration reform and now it’s time to change the law.” Again I have to ask, what planet is she living on?

Now as to the present and the aftermath of Detroit-bound Northwest flight 253.  Once again we find the Secretary has a “gross misunderstanding” of the threats posed by Al-Qaeda. When asked what about the attempted underwear  bombing of the flight shocked her, she said, “the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multiperson conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11,” was a revelation for her.

Hello, what planet has she been living on since the founding of Al-Qaeda in1988? Or for that matter, just since September 11, 2001.  The use of suicide bombers is part of their normal operations. It makes you wonder what the vetting process consisted of on her being selected and appointed to the position of head of the agency charged with protecting our nation from such attacks.  Perhaps her answer on whether she was qualified for the position was, “no but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.”

To me it is incomprehensible someone in her position would demonstrate such a “gross lack of understanding” of the very organization that is the key threat to our nations safety. If this is the attitude of the leadership of DHS, it doesn’t give me a warm fussy feeling about their ability to protect our nation.

It is obvious she cannot handle the position she currently holds.  With her at the helm , I can’t say I think DHS has a clear understanding of the threat terrorism poses against America.

In light of her most recent and past comments, I think she should be forced to resign immediately. This is the only logical solution to the problem. If she does, we can hope  her replacement will be screened and grilled a little harder during the conformation process.

Secretary Napolitano, this is Earth calling. Come in please.

Thanks to Major Nidal Hasan, the Pentagon is considering widening the scope of the regulations regarding the rights of soldiers to participate in “dissident and protest activities”. This is grim news considering the liberal democrat who is Commander-in-Chief.

The DoD Directive 1325.6, which governs such activities, was revised in 2003 and outlines acceptable conduct for military members in this area.

Section 3 provides the basic guidelines to follow:

3. POLICY
It is DoD policy that:

3.1. The Department of Defense shall safeguard the security of the United States.
3.2. The Service members’ right of expression should be preserved to the
maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national
security.
3.3. No commander should be indifferent to conduct that, if allowed to proceed
unchecked, would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit.
3.4. The proper balancing of these interests will depend largely upon the calm and
prudent judgment of the responsible commander.

It seems like if the Department of Defense had followed the rules that were already in place, the murder of fourteen people at Fort Hood by Hasan – a terrorist – never would have occurred in the first place. If the the commanders at Fort Hood had applied 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3, Hasan would have been subject to a court martial. However, 3.4 presupposes that the commander would exercise “prudent judgment” as a “responsible commander” and, according to 3.3, not be “indifferent to conduct that…would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit.”

That being said, the part of section three that should be of concern is Section 3.5, specifically 3.5.8.

3.5. The following guidelines be applied to principal activities that the Armed
Forces have encountered:

3.5.8. Prohibited Activities. Military personnel must reject participation in
organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination
based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or
violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.
Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting
and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in
activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such
organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order,
discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military
Service, and is, therefore, prohibited.

Janet Napolitano, according to her own DHS report, wants to monitor “right wing extremists” who oppose restrictions on firearms, lax immigration enforcement, continuing free trade agreements, same-sex marriage, one-world government, Communist regimes, policies of Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs, etc. The list continues, ad nauseum and includes the bulk of the United States military. Don’t forget that she singled out returning war veterans as being of particular concern.

This brings to mind groups like “Oathkeepers” who, according a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival…a newly formed group of law enforcement officers, military men and veterans…[who] vow to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore while in the military or law enforcement.”

The news of the Pentagon’s consideration of rewriting the regulations on “dissident and protest activities” is not good, especially in light of the willingness of this administration to favor “political correctness” over the obvious truth. When you take into account Obama’s response to things that concern our men and women in uniform, i.e. Fort Hood, I don’t hold out any hope that the outcome is going to favor our soldiers.

I expect that the rules that should have been applied to Hasan will soon be re-written and applied with force and vigor to our dedicated and decorated soldiers, sailors and airmen. And when these heroes are court-martialed as domestic terrorists, don’t expect the lame stream media or the Obama administration to conjure up any pre-PTSD symptoms out of thin air.