Common Ground: Honoring Our Fallen Heroes
Many first responders who dedicate their lives to serving others often end up paying severe consequences, with firefighters having a 9% greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14% higher risk of dying from the disease than the general population. When these brave Americans are putting their lives in danger to protect others, they should feel confident their lives and families are valued.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) discuss how they're setting out to do just that through the Honoring Our Fallen Heroes Act, a piece of bipartisan legislation aiming to secure additional federal funding for the families of first responders who have died or suffered permanent disability from service-related cancers.
Follow Bret on X: @BretBaier
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Onion
36 minutes ago
- The Onion
Congress, Now More Than Ever, Our Nation Needs Your Cowardice
Published: Who will stand up for our democracy? This question, fraught in even the most peaceful times, has only grown more pressing as our country approaches its 250th anniversary. Each passing day brings growing assaults on essential liberties like freedom of speech and due process. Meanwhile, our delicately assembled legal system faces a constant barrage of threats. Even as this issue reaches publication, the U.S. military has been deployed against peaceful protestors. We teeter on the brink of collapse into an authoritarian state. That is why, today, The Onion calls upon our lawmakers to sit back and do absolutely nothing. Members of Congress—now, more than ever, our nation desperately needs your cowardice. Our republic is a birthright, an exceedingly rare treasure passed down from generation to generation of Americans. It was gained through hard years of bloody resistance and can too easily be lost. Our Founding Fathers, in their abundant wisdom, understood that all it would take was men and women of little courage sitting in the corridors of power and taking zero action as this precious inheritance was stripped away—and that is where we have finally arrived. Now is not the time for bravery or valor! This is the time for protecting your own hide and lining your pocket. Now is not the time for listening to your idiotic constituents drone on about what's happening to their precious democracy. This is the time for getting down on all fours and groveling. Now is not the time to say, 'Enough is enough,' and have the tough conversations about resisting the ongoing assaults on American liberty. This is the time to let the wave of apathy and indifference roll over you as you think about getting a really nice renovation to your house in Kalorama. But what can I, one coward, do alone? you might ask. It's true. As a solitary person, your fecklessness will make little impact. But if you join together with the most craven senators and representatives in the Capitol, the impact will be immense: The corruption, the disregard for the rule of law, the shipping of residents to foreign gulags, the attacks on judges, the censorship and chilling of speech, the punishment of any and all dissent—it can be made that much worse if you just find it in yourself to clutch your head in your hands, wet the bed, and cower in the hope of being spared from the White House's wrath. It won't be easy, but you must search deep within yourself and muster up every ounce of gutlessness you have. Then, bend over and lick the president's boots. Why? Because ultimately none of this matters. Democracy? Equality? The U.S. Constitution? These are hollow phrases. They mean nothing. But money—delicious money? That is solid. You can hold it in your hands. You know this. We know this, too. Only our infantile citizenry fail to appreciate how much you stand to gain by kissing the ring. In our nation's darkest moments, the public often looks to Congress for profiles in meekness. We search for men and women much like yourselves, emotional weaklings who are afraid to meet their own glance in the mirror, insignificant do-nothings who quake in their boots at the mention of the slightest exertion. Many of you have already distinguished yourselves as such individuals. To them, our country's oligarchs can only offer their boundless thanks. Take solace knowing you are not alone in this endeavor. Over the grand expanse of American history, there have been countless lawmakers who managed to summon up their complete lack of backbone and do the easy thing. Think of the members of Congress who turned a blind eye to Japanese American internment, McCarthyism, or the horrors of the Holocaust, all because doing something seemed a little too hard, a little too inconvenient. These men should be your inspiration. Never forget: You stand on the shoulders of spineless giants. But we have not descended entirely from a nation of fearful men, have we? Let this be the moment to make amends for any missteps of American bravery and valor. Congress, we are asking, nay, demanding: This coming Independence Day, don't wave the Stars and Stripes, that enduring symbol of liberty and rebellion. Instead, wave the white flag of surrender. Tu Stultus Es, The Onion Editorial Board
an hour ago
After Trump attacks Iran, what experts and officials fear for the American homeland
In the wake of President Donald Trump's "massive precision strikes" on Iran, concerns have been raised both for Americans in the region and at home. A principal area of worry is cyberattacks by Iranian state actors, including targeting the banking system or energy grid. A recent Department of Homeland Security bulletin warned: "Iranian government-affiliated cyber actors will probably prioritize retaliatory attacks against Israeli targets in the short term but may target U.S. networks due to their perception of U.S. support for Israeli strikes." The bulletin urged domestic critical infrastructure entities to "immediately" assess and shore up their security. Such attacks have already infiltrated U.S. water and wastewater systems, according to the non-profit think tank Center for Internet Security, which briefed law enforcement on Friday. The Center was also concerned that Iran, in the wake of Israeli military strikes, might use "crude or escalatory tactics" or informal networks if its capabilities were degraded. "The likelihood of such attacks will increase if the U.S. strikes Iran or overtly provides military support to the Israeli air campaign," the group said. And the Center assessed that Iran's considerable network of proxy groups might be able to strike U.S. interests in the Middle East, though their capacity to strike the U.S. homeland was more limited. The groups, they assessed, while less sophisticated, could still disrupt public infrastructure and the private sector. On top of that was the fear of attacks by foreign nationals or American citizens inspired to strike the U.S. In 2018, the National Counterterrorism Center issued a report saying Iran-sponsored or Shia-inspired -- referring to one of the two major branches of Islam which is dominant in Iran -- terror on the U.S. homeland is unlikely, except if the U.S. were to attack Iran. "Given sustained bilateral U.S.-Iran tensions, the occurrence of such a catalyst could prompt Shia HVE [homegrown violent extremist] activity relatively quickly, underscoring the benefits of early engagement with Shia communities about indicators of HVE radicalization. Potential triggering events for such Shia HVE violence include U.S. military action against Iran." Iranian forces themselves have previously targeted American interests, hitting U.S. bases in the Middle East, for instance, after top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in an American airstrike in Iraq in 2020. Iranian nationals have also carried out major cyberattacks. An Iranian national pleaded guilty last month to helping orchestrate the 2019 Baltimore, Maryland, ransomware attack that caused tens of millions of dollars in damage and disrupted critical city services. While prosecutors did not allege Sina Gholinejad was directed in his activities by the Iranian government, in announcing the case they warned more broadly of Iranian government-backed hacking groups targeting U.S. critical infrastructure. And in the summer of last year, the Justice Department also separately charged a Pakistani man with ties to the Iranian government for allegedly seeking to carry out political assassinations. Authorities told ABC News that among Asif Merchant's targets were Trump and other current and former U.S. officials.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Only Iran Hawk Is Trump
By carrying out air-strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last night, Donald Trump showed the fundamental error of American political ornithology: There have never been Iran hawks and Iran doves. There have been only doves. Every prior U.S. president, including Trump himself, has refrained from attacking Iranian territory, even in response to killings and attempted killings of Americans, not only abroad but also on American soil. Whether this dovish approach was wise is debatable; that it was anomalous among American policies toward hostile countries is not. Imagine if Venezuela relentlessly plotted to kill Americans, in locations around the world—and tried to acquire a weapon that would safeguard its campaign of violence for generations to come. Other countries have not been so bold as Iran, and if they had been, the response might have looked like what Iran saw last night in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At a press conference, Trump said the nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated.' Also beyond debate are the results of that dovish policy, up to yesterday. Some of those results were positive. The United States and Iran were not at war, and American forces in the Middle East were not all at high alert for reprisals. But Iran had gone metastatic. It had, with impunity, set up armed proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq, and less overt forces around the world. What other country does this? What other country does this without rebuke? The best argument against attacking Iran's nuclear program has always been that the attack will not work—that it would at best set the program back, rather than end it, and that Tehran would respond by building back better, in a deeper bunker and with greater stealth. An enrichment facility capable of producing a nuclear weapon need not be large, perhaps with the size and power needs of a Costco or two. The Obama-era nuclear deal secured unprecedented access for monitoring Iran's known nuclear sites. The demolition of those sites means that any future ones will be unmonitored, remaining a secret from outsiders for years, like China's was. Think of the cavernous chemistry lab built below the laundry-processing plant in Breaking Bad, but churning out uranium-235, not blue meth. If any other country is thinking about going nuclear, it will learn the lesson of last night and start with the Breaking Bad approach, or better yet scrap its plans completely. From the perspective of nonproliferation, Trump's strikes could be good news, in the obvious sense that countries that desire nuclear weapons now have more reason to think their centrifuges will be destroyed before they produce enough material for a bomb. Up to now, most countries that have persevered have eventually succeeded in going nuclear. The most notable counterexamples were Iraq, whose so-called 'nuclear mujahedin' (as Saddam Hussein later called them) had their enrichment plant at Osirak bombed by Israel in 1981; and Syria, which built a secret plutonium-producing nuclear reactor only to have it destroyed, again by Israel, in 2007. If the strikes last night worked (and it is far too early for anyone, including Trump, to say), Iran will join the small club of nations whose nuclear ambitions have been thwarted by force. 'There will be either peace,' Trump said at his press conference last night, 'or far greater tragedy for Iran.' What might peace and its alternatives look like? Trump did not say, as the Iran dove George W. Bush might have, that peace is conditional on the overthrow of Iran's theocracy. Trump has always seemed open to Iran's continued rule by any authoritarian or scumbag or religious nut who is willing to keep to himself and maybe allow the Trump family to open a hotel someday. So peace could conceivably still take many forms, some of which will disappoint Iranian democrats and secularists. The alternative to peace, which Trump promises will draw such a tragic reply, can take both immediate and longer-term forms. The immediate form is continued Iranian strikes against Israel and the expansion of those attacks to include U.S. bases in the region. (The logic of international law, for what little it is worth, would seem to permit retaliation against military targets—but not hospitals, apartment buildings, or other civilian infrastructure—of both Israel and the United States.) It would at this point be foolhardy for Iran to increase such attacks, rather than ending them or tapering them off. But no one familiar with Iran's history would expect it to limit its reply to conventional strikes, or to prefer them to the irregular forms of attack that it has practiced avidly for more than 40 years. A barrage of ballistic missiles, the regime understands, may invite a tragedy for Iran. But what about the mysterious disappearance of an American from the streets of Dubai, Bahrain, or Prague? Or the blowing up of a hostel full of Israelis in Bangkok? Or cutting the brakes of some American or Israeli diplomat's car in Baku? Small acts of harassment, such as these, force Iran's enemies to make hard choices about how to retaliate. The difficulty of those choices are part of the reason for past presidents' consistent reluctance to attack Iran. Do you attack Iran after the death of one U.S. Marine? How about two? How much proof of Iranian involvement in a diplomat's car crash will it take to trigger a renewed state of war? Iran's history suggests that under normal circumstances, it knows the level of provocation that will keep an American president from responding with direct force. Its estimations seem to have failed it for Trump (and Benjamin Netanyahu), but in the past and in the future, one can expect that it will, like a niggling spouse from hell, know the precise limits of its adversaries' patience. The point of the prolonged pressure, staying a smidge under the threshold of renewed hostility, is to drive Iran's adversaries mad, to tire them out, and to convince them to leave the region out of sheer stress and weariness. Ironically Trump's foreign policy is, or was until yesterday, proof that this strategy is effective. Trump came to power as an isolationist in trade and a bring 'em home skeptic of U.S. military action abroad. In his first term he fired John Bolton, a tireless advocate of regime change. In his second he appointed Tulsi Gabbard, high priestess of weary isolationism, as a top adviser. Trump said that he would escalate American attacks 'if peace does not come quickly.' It is possible that peace will come quickly, and Iran's government will survive in humiliated form. It is also possible, under those circumstances, that the peace that comes quickly will again be illusory, and Iran will revert to tactics short of war, so it can wait out Trump's term, and let another dove take his place. In that case, the Middle East and beyond will be a scarier place to be an American than it was a few days ago.
