Barack Obama just slapped me in the face. Figuratively. It’s not like he wound up and threw an Amy Winehouse-style haymaker, but he did manage to catch me square on the proverbial chin. After finally deciding who to support in this race, I elected to put my money where my mouth is and make a donation to the campaign. Amazingly, it turns out that Obama wants ‘change’ from everyone but me! What makes my money so dirty that it’s not worthy of being counted in Barack’s treasure trove? My donation was refused because, as part of my work duties as a homeland security consultant, I registered as a lobbyist.

Say what you like, the right to free speech not only protects speech, it also prohibits the more excessive and arbitrary lawmaking currently being witnessed in Sydney, Australia, prior to the World Youth Day. For those of you who are not up to speed on World Youth Day, it is an event where the World’s Catholic Youth assemble in one city and is scheduled to take place in Sydney later this month.

It’s alarming that the Department of Defense, which invented the Internet (along with Al Gore, of course), seems to understand so little about how it is used for propaganda — terrorist or otherwise. Recent congressional hearings on terrorism and the Internet indicate a Cold War-era mentality among federal policymakers. They seem to view terrorist propaganda efforts as a monolithic “organized framework” orchestrated by a few Goebbels-like masterminds within Al Qaeda.

At last week’s hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security & Infrastructure Protection, several witnesses either directly or indirectly emphasized the point that it is impossible to prevent all disaster, whether natural, terrorist, or accidental. This point highlights that managing risk must be coupled with the idea of resiliency – the “bounce back” after a disaster. The hearing was a positive step with regards to shifting the mindset of disaster preparedness in the U.S.; however, it seems that it will be difficult for Congress to wrap its head around the idea of resiliency with regards to risk-management.

The most glaring problem with the “100 percent” model is that it goes against the globally accepted consensus that a risk-analysis and layered approach is a far more comprehensive and effective security model than the concept of “100 percent scanning.”

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by environmental groups in a case brought to slow the progress on the construction of the border fence, a giant step forward in the effort to secure America’s borders. This was not only good for border security, but it also respected the legislative authority of Congress.

Today’s Lame Snark award goes to Al Kamen of the Washington Post. He righteously seized on an email sent out by DHS highlighting an Associated Press story in which citizens praised FEMA for its effective response to the floods in the Midwest.

Fellow Security Debrief blogger David Olive wrote recently about the conflicting messages and mandates that flow from the 86 conflicting and contending homeland security committees in Congress. The latest example of this Hamlet-like system of self-contradiction comes from the House Appropriations Committee, which complains that US Immigration and Enforcement spends too much time on … well, immigration enforcement.

Security Debrief Contributor Dr. James Carafano will testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on the topic of ensuring a national risk management framework for homeland security.

The DHS announcement today awarding REAL ID grants seems to be a positive step in meeting the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission to make identification documents more secure. With the adoption of a “verification hub” approach, where states work with other states to verify identities, DHS is letting the folks who issue driver licenses control their own processes – previously a source of irritation for many Governors.

Responsible and effective public order activities will be evidenced by the proactive policing of order, rather than the reactive policing of disorder. What is increasingly looking like the inability on the part of Denver to engage with the protesters and include them in the planning process rather than alienating them does not bode well for proactive policing of order.

Let’s be clear - TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. They are not certified inspectors. They do not require access to crime scenes and they are not equipped or trained to respond to law enforcement incidents. They only special access they require is to certain areas of airports - for which their TSA badge and credential provides them access.

No, I’m not talking about the absurd emails that are circulating suggesting that Obama is a Muslim. (So what if he were?) Instead, I’m talking about Obama’s own negative politicking on something too sensitive to be treated as standard campaign demagoguery.

Proper oversight for homeland security is necessary to ensure both accountability and the public trust. What currently exists, however, is not oversight — it is overkill. This overkill affects more than the overworked staff at DHS, who find themselves scrambling to meet the conflicting demands of 86 different masters. It affects an entire industry that is still trying to get its sea legs under it — and an American public that must navigate the attendant confusion.

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings this month on the application and definition of federal money laundering statutes are problematic for federal investigators and prosecutors. The Cuellar v. United States case, a 9-0 decision, was a “no brainer” and addressed the act of concealment to avoid detection. The second case, Santos v. United States, a 5-4 decision, is more complicated and will prove to be even more frustrating in government efforts to crack down on criminal activity.

By L. Vance Taylor

I’m finding myself a little miffed with whoever coined the term ‘Inherently Safer Technology’ (IST). Sure it sounds good -who doesn’t want to replace hazardous substances with something that works just as well AND is ‘inherently’ safer? But, is IST all it’s cracked up to be or is it just another example of a Washington snow job?

The decision to equip police sergeants in New York with Tasers is a sound one. The squeals of alarm in some quarters will be deafening, but these protests will demonstrate both misunderstanding and the power of emotive words. The deploymenty of Taser offers the opportunity for the NYPD to respond swiftly and effectively in a manner less lethal than the use of firearms alone. It must be remembered that Taser weapons reduce - if not completely eliminate - the risk of fatality.

The ongoing bipolar inconsistency of the U.S. Congress — that institution responsible for drafting our laws on immigration, among other things — was once again on display this past week. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey kicked it off with a harangue in which he accused federal immigration agents of everything from racism to general rudeness. Why? For enforcing the laws that Congress passed.

Much has been written and discussed in the past few weeks regarding the medical care of detainees held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. I don’t know how to avoid coming off as an insensitive, cold and heartless human being in coming to the defense of ICE and the management of its detainee health care program but I’ll give it a try.

The rulings of the Supreme Court last week on two money laundering cases will directly impact the federal government’s ability to utilize a very powerful prosecutorial tool, with conviction carrying a prison sentence of up to 20 years. The first case, Cuellar v. United States, seemed like a “no-brainer” as the Court ruled 9-0 that simple concealment of cash is not money laundering.