IS GM REALLY ALIVE?

The Democrats, and espceially VP Joe Biden, made the claim that "...and GM is Alive". Is that true?

Well it depends on what alive means. Consider this article, The Democrats' GM Fiction, as published in the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. George W Bush started the TARP bailout, but...

President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

This amounts to Corporate Welfare. It creates a dependency on our Government by using taxpayers money.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney proposed this.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

President Obama's bailout of GM has had other consequences.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

In fact many analysts are prediction that GM will probably go bankrupt shortly after the November Election.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

MORE PROOF WE NEED NATIONAL VOTERS IDS?

One of the most sacred values of the United States of America is the concept of "One Man, One Vote". Voter fraud in any form is not tolerable, but when anyone votes 2 or more times, it disenfranchises all the legitimate voters.

We have seen instances of dead voters, felon voters, non-citizen and non-existant voters still on the voters rolls. In some cases these illegal non-legimate voters have actually voted. Every time this happens it diminishes all the legimate voters.

Consider the latest instance of  voter fraud from the State of Maryland, as reported by the The Baltimore Sun newspaper.

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

The article claims:

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Not only is she accused of voting twice, once in each state, but she admitted this fact.

Rosen, 57, a Cockeysville businesswoman and Maryland voter, told The Baltimore Sun that she registered to vote in Florida several years ago in order to support a "very close friend" running for the St. Petersburg City Council and to vote on local issues there.

Is this the reason Democrats are so opposed to Voter Photo ID laws?

DRILL BABY DRILL

There are many reasons we should be drilling for Oil and Gas domestically. In the Atlantic, Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico we should be drilling. In Alaska and also in the Oil Shale of the Rockies we should be drilling. In Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and all the other places where we can produce Oil and Gas we should be drilling.

While it is true that drilling for Domestic Oil and Gas would not keep us from being dependent on additional Imported Oil and Gas, Domestic production would decrease the amount we have to Import and IT WOULD CREATE JOBS.

Why aren't we? Ask the Environmentalists, the Liberals and President Obama? They are the one's to blame. This group have prevented Domestic drilling for Oil and Gas. While it is true we could have another disaster as happened in the Gulf of Mexico when the BP well ruptured, or when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, the benefits of Domestic Exploration, Drilling and Production of Oil and Gas far outway the negatives.

The is even more evident in light of the recent debunking, according to a NASA study, that Global Warming is a serious threat. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism The computer models are wrong! Global Temperatures over the last decade are not rising, although the CO₂ (carbon dioxide) levels have significantly increased. So forget Global Warming due to Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.

Now there is an additional reason for Immediate Domestic Oil and Gas Drilling. Cuba has Licensed several Drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Drill, Bebé, Drill

Sometime over the next three months, if all goes according to plan, Cuban workers on a Chinese-built, Spanish-owned rig will start drilling for oil in the mile-deep waters just off the north coast of Cuba, 70 miles from the Florida Keys.

If you think the BP spill was bad, what do you think about the Chinese having a blow-out? We must ask ourselves - Would I rather have US controled, inspected and regulated Domestic Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Or would I trust the Chinese to do that same drilling knowing they do not have the same controls, inspection and regualtion?

An oil blowout in Cuban waters could reprise the nightmare that was last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and send crude spewing to the beaches of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

.A blowout is more likely in part because the componets are inferior to US parts. In other words, the Chinese will be using second-rate parts and equipment.

They (the Cuban Licensed rigs) will have to buy copycat or second-tier parts,” Lee Hunter, president of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, told National Journal. Hunter and other experts say that, to date, it appears that the Cuban government, fearful of the devastation an oil spill could wreak on its economy, wants to use the lessons learned from the BP oil disaster to develop a rigorous safety and oversight program. But it will be nearly impossible for drillers in Cuba’s waters to legally use the safest equipment. “The Cubans want to use good technology; they want to drill safely,” Hunter said. “But … their ability to drill safely is extremely compromised.”

In light of this development and the loss of an extimated 200,000 US jobs because of the US (Presidential Executive Order and Congressional actions), do we really want Cuba, China, Russia, Brazil, etc to be responsible for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production?

We should take immediate actions to Domestically "Drill Baby Drill".

POVERTY IN AMERICA

In America when we hear the word poverty we form a mental picture. A picture of a dismal, bleak existence. But says the Census Bureau that's not the real picture of Poverty in America.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE lays-out what Poverty In America really looks   like.

"When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor"

That is a lot of people. But are most of them really poor by the standards we think of a Poverty Level? Here is what the Cencus Bureau says is typical of a Poverty Level household.

"Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless."

Well-Housed and Adquately Fed. From other Government Agencies these items are found in the Poverty Level Home.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Makes one wonder.

HISTORY LESSON - CUT TAXES - INCREASE REVENUE

To many cutting Taxes sounds like Revenue would also be cut. But History says otherwise. Who says tax cuts kill jobs? Our history sure doesn’t

"When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top tax rate in America was 70 percent. Reagan cut that to 50 percent in 1982, then to 38.5 percent in 1987, and finally to 28 percent in 1998. What happened? Unemployment dropped from 9.2 percent (exactly what it is today) to 5.3 percent and inflation plummeted from 13.5 percent to 4 percent. At the same time, real income for Americans grew by an average $4,000."

That's one example. Here is another.

"John F. Kennedy — a Democrat! — had the right idea. He slashed the capital gains tax in 1962 and dropped the top tax rate to 70 percent. Federal tax revenues went up 50 percent, from less than $100 billion in 1961 to more than $150 billion in by 1968"

And yet another example.

"Reducing taxes, historically, has driven up federal revenue. In the 1920s, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 25 percent; revenue rose from just more than $700 million in 1921 to $1.1 billion by the end of the 1920s."

One other lesson from history.

"One of the real problems is the tax-paying base. A whopping 43 percent (some say nearly 50 percent) of Americans — 66 million “lucky duckies” out of 151 million taxpayers — don’t pay a cent, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a far cry from the past: From 1950 to 1990, that number averaged 21 percent, dropping to 18 percent in 1986, according to the Tax Foundation."

So when President Obama says "Fair Share" he means the Richest among us, but he should be talking about the bottom of the Heap. 43-50% pay nothing. Does this sound like paying a "Fair Share"?

OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE

On July 7th of this year, President Obama made several recess appointments. One of those was Dr. Donald Berwick who will head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Recess appointments usually cause grumblings from the opposite political party. In this case Republicans. But also in this case the complaints came for some Democrats. Obama Uses Recess Appointment To Install Berwick As Head Of Medicare, Medicaid from Kaiser Health has a summary of comments from the media.

One of the Democrats is Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As such Senator Baucus is the one who would schedule the hearings for Dr. Berwick's nomination. Senator Baucus had not scheduled any hearings as yet, so this is one nomination which cannot be blamed on the Republicans.

[Sen. Max Baucus] "said he was 'troubled' that Obama chose to install Berwick without a formal confirmation process. 'Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered"

There is a very real possibility that Dr. Berwick's confirmation both in committee and before the full Senate, might not happen because of his Health Care Views.

Dr. Berwick does not believe waste in Medicine. But waste to him appears to mean something different than what most Americans call waste. It means Health Care rationing to Dr. Berwick.

Dr. Berwick has championed the interests of patients and consumers. At the same time, he has spoken of the need to ration health care and cap spending, has supported efforts to 'reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care' and has expressed great admiration for the British health care system. [Emphasis Mine]

In a interview with Katherine T. Adams, senior editor of Biotechnology Healthcare, published in June 2009, Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research, Dr. Berwick states ...

The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. [Emphasis Mine]

That's what Dr. Berwick means by waste. He wants to measure the care of each patient, each procedure as to whether it is COST EFFECTIVE.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Berwick "...has expressed great admiration for the British health care system". Here is a look at the present state of British Health Care. Axe falls on NHS services is an Investigative Report form the UK's "Sunday Telegraph".

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

How brutal. Here is what the investigation found.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

Many laughed when Sarah Palin talked about Death Panels. In light of the above, can anyone seriously say these cuts will not cut short the quality of care and possibly result in premature death for some of the patients covered under British Health Care? The same kind of Health Care System favored by Dr. Berwick? The same kind of Health Care System which is the result of ObamaCare? And now ObamaCare under Dr. Berwick?

NAT'L HEALTH INS A TAX!

Another campaign promise President Obama has broken. Details in this "New York Times" article Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax. The reason the Obama Justice Department has decided to admit National Health Care is a Tax is simple. Twenty states have challenged the right of the Government to require National Health Insurance under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, and they were going to loose. But calling it a Tax (which we all knew it was all along) makes for a stronger argument.

[I]n court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

So much for keeping Campaign promises. Here is the crux of the matter.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

Now this presents a real problem for the Democrats and especially for President Obama. Remember this statement by President Obama?

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress took a large step with the language of the Health Care Bill to insure we would be convinced that this was not a tax. Look at the following language in the provisions of the legislation.

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy.

Congress discounted the possibility and knew the public would not like a tax on anyone except the rich - those making over $250,000.00 per year. Now that the Obama Administration through the Justice Department have decided to defend National Health Care as a TAX (something Obama did not want to do), we all have confirmed what we knew in our hearts. National Health Care is a Tax on everyone, just like Cap and Trade will be if passed.

The Democrats, including President Obama, have been dishonest about what National Health Insurance is.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama "has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax." [Emphasis Mine]

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

THE MOST ETHICAL GOVERNMENT EVER??

According to the claims during the past by many Democrats now in office, transparency, ethical government, and an end to the corruption was to occur with the past election of officials. The cry of "the most ethical Congress ever", along with "Hope and Change" was ever present. How is that working out?

For some answers, read this article (Obama Justice Department Shut Down Federal ACORN Investigation According to Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch)

GLOBAL WARMING? AN UPDATE

Here are some more links of interest to anyone interested in Global Warming.

Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years

Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

All-time record snowfall in Burlington [Vermont]

In South Burlington, 33 inches fell -- an all-time record for one storm.

Feeling cold? We're at 30 below normal

[In Iowa] Spencer and Sheldon recorded the coldest temperatures in the state with minus-33 degrees. Estherville came in at 28 below zero, Fort Dodge at negative 26. Sioux City and Orange City both reported minus-22 degrees. At least 16 more cities across the state reported lows in the negative double digits.

Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years

SEOUL, South Korea – Seoul residents slogged through the heaviest snowfall in modern Korean history after a winter storm dumped more than 11 inches (28 centimeters) Monday, forcing airports to cancel flights and paralyzing traffic in South Korea's bustling capital.

Ice Slows Operation At N.J. Nuclear Power Plant

Plant officials told Eyewitness News that it is the first time that they had to take this unusual step because of ice.

Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing

A FREEZING cold front swept over much of northern China on Sunday with snowstorms snarling traffic and air travel, while some of the coldest temperatures in decades were forecast for coming days.

Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade

Residents of Miami donned heavy coats and wool mufflers Monday to face down the coldest weather to hit the usually balmy city nearly in a decade.

OBAMA PRESIDENCY = SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

According to Dick Morris in this article, The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism, we have started down the slippery slope of no return towards becoming more European.

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes. [Emphasis Mine]

So why is that such a bad thing? Will not the World like us better if we become more like the World? That's one possibility, but by becoming more like everybody else, we also give up all that makes us unique as a Nation. One reason the European countries "hate" us is because we are that shining beacon which reminds them of their failures.

America stood as the one World Power that everybody loved to ridicule and hold in contempt publicly. But privately, they envied us because of our uniqueness. The rest of the world saw in the US, what they failed to achieve. So they attacked our unique principles because they emphasized their own failures.

Dick Morris was the "Karl Rove" of the Clinton Presidency. He has credibility when it comes to Presidential Politics. Therefore when Dick Morris expresses his opinion, it is worth listening.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

FDR, like Obama, was a very Charismatic Personality. President Obama has inspired Hope in the people by his word. But his words are very light on substance. They are feel good platitudes, without specifics. Unfortunately the electorate (voters) have allowed "his words" to pass for the specifics. And on this, John McCain got it right - "Hope is not a plan." While his words are still short of specifics, the specifics of the Obama Plan have become evident.

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

Of course these programs will be hailed as "Change We Can Believe In". But what will be the result of the Emperor's New Clothes? It will be change, that's true, but not what we need to believe in. Consider carefully what Dick Morris writes.

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population. [Emphasis Mine]

"A Permanent Electoral Majority" is going to be relying on the Government for their income, their Welfare Check. Thus insuring the Liberals continued success in the voting booth, because these voters are unlikely to "bite the hand that feeds them". This "Tax Cut" will also keep the Left happy. It is part of the Obama Campaign Promise. Another Campaign Promise, (to raise Taxes on the Rich), will be used to appease the Conservatives temporarily. He will claim that "Now is not the time to raise Taxes due to the Economy". But make no mistake, a Tax Hike is coming.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

If all this is not bad enough, there is more to come. More Social Democracy. More Europeanization of America. This time in the Nationalism of the Banking System. Government ownership of the Banks.

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).

Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.

And there is still more to come from the leadership of the Obama Presidency. HEALTH CARE AND RATIONING OF HEALTH SERVICES.

But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

Despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, The healthcare system of the World's Social Democracies, like England, Canada, Cuba and France, is not nearly as good as what we now have. When National HealthCare is instituted, the law of supply and demand will insure rationing of services. It will be the Government who will decide who get the care and who is denied. Those denied first will be those who need it most - the old, and the terminally ill. This is one of the "Benefits" of the Social Democracy Model of National HealthCare. It is one of the Cruelest forms of punishment for "feel good" platitudes. The campaign promise of Universal HealthCare is a myth. It cannot happen with the Obama's and the Left's ideas.

But there is still more to come. Immigration Reform is on the agenda too. Not for the right reason, though. For Political Gain is the motivation behind this promise.

And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans). [Emphasis Mine]

The additional result of this weakened immigration policy will be two-fold. It will increase the Left's Voter Base, but it will also make us much more subject to Terrorist Attacks. The Terrorists who hate the West, have not gone away, and many are already here. More are coming because of this idea.

As further evidence of our rapid movement to Social Democracy, consider the next two paragraphs. The Secret Ballot and Free Speech are going to be fettered with these ideas.

And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.

Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

Dick Morris paints a bleak picture of an Obama Presidency. One which we should be very cautious about accepting.

In the end, we must all ask ourselves - "Will this help solve our Economic and Political problems?" Dick Morris ends his article thusly.

But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.

Hope is not a plan, and this is not change we can believe in.

MUMBAI COULD HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE ...

WE HAVE BECOME COMPLACENT - THAT'S DANGEROUS. Complacent about the real threat of another Terrorist Attack aka 9/11 in the USA. Ray Kelly is the Police Commissioner in New York City. Mr. Kelly is in a position to know what is possible, but are the authorities listening? Ray Kelly's Wiretap Alarm says not nearly enough to prevent an attack similar to Mumbai, India.

India's three days of carnage stand as another warning about how easily terrorists can perpetrate a major attack. So when top New York City counterterrorism officials declare that U.S. intelligence laws are shackling their powers to prevent the next Mumbai, it ought to raise more than eyebrows.

After reading this article please ask yourself if total privacy is worth the loss of life this privacy allows? Or should we give up some reasonable amount of personal privacy to save lives by preventing the Terrorists from using American Legal Procedures to Handcuff the authorities? So when Mr. Kelly speaks are the right people listening? NO!

Instead, almost nobody seems to care. Seven years without an attack on the U.S. mainland has created a growing public complacency. And the anti-antiterror lobby has exploited that complacency to assail and constrain critical Bush Administration intelligence programs, making it harder to intercept terrorists before they strike. As a consequence innocent Americans may be killed.

We need to open our collective eyes to how much the success of the Bush Administration has wrought. President Bush, despite the Democrat Liberals, have been able to prevent further attacks similar to 9/11 and Mumbai. But the success has come at the price of reducing the perceived danger.

What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command. As Mr. Kelly notes, this is producing a "lack of accountability" and "the lack of transparency into the inner workings of the FISA process." If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one. Under current FISA rules, we won't even know who that judge is. Meanwhile, the very Members of Congress who insisted on FISA's limitations will blame the executive branch that they put under the supervision of those anonymous judges.

There is no supportable justification for the current restrictions on warrant-less wiretaps for communications which originate or end outside the USA. Those afraid of losing their privacy due to Government Warrant-Less Wiretaps in these cases are generally the same people who gladly use services like "On-Star" and "Lojack". Both these services allow 24-7 monitoring of our driving. We surrender our privacy for this Intrusion, but not to prevent Lives From Being Lost. Remember this "Big Blue Button" privacy mentality when NSA, FISA and Warrant-Less Wiretaps are attacked.

Personally I trust Ray Kelly a Hell-of-a-lot more than the Liberal Congress.

Will Obama, Pelosi and Reid Agree?

The "Chicken Little" group that Al Gore and his ilk lead have set the stage for this. Lawyers call for international court for the environment which would set punishments for Nations and Companies who violate wildlife and environmental policy.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment". [Emphasis mine]

The Scientists cannot agree (despite what the Goracle says) that Global Warming is man made. Yet some International Judge is going to decide the fate of those who don't abide by the "Chicken Little's" of the world? What kind of justice is this?

The evidence is proving that man is not responsible for any Global Warming due to an increase in Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) levels. It is a fact that CO₂ levels have continued to increase, but the temperature since 2001 has not. Therefore the Computer Models are WRONG!!! So these lawyers want to punish the innocent for something which cannot be proven.World Cools On Man-Made Global Warming

Is it any wonder Lawyers have such a bad reputation?

Al Sharpton's Tax Troubles

In December of last year, we didn't take much note of this item, "Subpoenas for Al Sharpton's aides", By GREG B. SMITH and LARRY McSHANE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS (NY Daily News).

The FBI and IRS are investigating whether Sharpton improperly misstated the amount of money he raised during his 2004 White House run to illegally obtain federal matching funds, a source familiar with the probe said.

Note that the IRS participated in the investigation. The Federal Agents issued subpoenas to 10 of the reverend Sharpton's present and former aides.

As many as 10 people were subpoenaed, [Carl] Redding* said. The court papers also sought a wide range of financial records, from invoices of expenses paid by cash to cash receipts to bad debt records from the years 2001 to 2007. [*Carl Redding was head of Sharpton's Staff for eight years]

The subpoenas summoned reverend Sharpton's associates to testify before a Grand Jury on December 26^th, and

The subpoenas additionally called for them to provide the IRS with all financial records from the campaign and a half-dozen Sharpton-related businesses. [Emphasis mine]

Now let's fast-froward 6 months to this article, "Al Sharpton Under Fire", from CBS News.

Government records obtained by The Associated Press indicate that Sharpton and his business entities owe nearly $1.5 million in overdue taxes and associated penalties.

Since the records were obtained by the AP as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, it is possible that the December 2007 subpoenas had nothing to do with this IRS claimed deficiency. It is also possible that the Grand Jury testimony and documents turned over to the IRS could have bolstered the Government's claim, or the Tax Levies could have been assesed as a result of the December 2007 investigation. In either case reverend Sharpton has TAX troubles with the IRS and New York City.

Sharpton's own debts include $365,558 owed in New York City income tax and $931,397 in unpaid federal income tax, according to a lien filed by the Internal Revenue Service last spring. His for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owes the state another $175,962 in delinquent taxes.

From the article we learn that reverend

... Sharpton has started paying it off but contends that faulty record-keeping by the National Action Network led the government to overestimate his tax liability [Emphasis mine].

The phrasing of the last quote is interesting. The quote implies that reverend Sharpton agrees he is delinquent - it is only the amount of his tax liability that's in question.

From the article it would also appear that the December 2007 Grand Jury and IRS investigation is still in progress.

In December, Sharpton revealed that as many as 10 of his associates had received grand jury subpoenas. A person familiar with the investigation told the AP that the FBI and IRS are probing whether Sharpton or his organization committed tax crimes or violations related to his 2004 presidential campaign, during which he was forced to return public matching funds for breaking fundraising rules.

This is not the first time the reverend Sharpton has been investigated. But none of his past investigations have resulted in serious penalties.

In 1990, he was acquitted of tax fraud and charges that he stole from one of his charities. He followed that up with what was essentially another victory in a tax case by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to file a state return

.We shall await further developments.

Rev. Al Sharpton's Race Baiting

The reverend Al Sharpton is apparently a man who believes in an "eye for an eye". He has agitated followers to by inflammatory remarks to attempt in the near future to shut-down New York City.

Why? Because the justice system didn't work to his favor. Associated Press VERENA DOBNIK's, with the help of writer Tom Hays have written an article describing the unfortunate confrontation between undercover police officers and

...an unarmed man shot to death by police on his wedding day...

Three police officers fired 50 times, killing Sean Bell last year. Two of the New York City Undercover Detectives are Black as was Sean Bell. This has reverend Sharpton playing the race card to make his threats.

While 50 shots may sound excessive to anyone who has not been involved in a shooting where you believe your life is in danger, it is not automatically out of line when all the facts are considered.

Bell was killed outside the strip club as he was leaving his bachelor party. The officers - undercover detectives who were investigating reports of prostitution at the club - said they thought one of the men had a gun.

While no weapon was found at the scene, the officers testified they heard one of the men with Sean Bell say Yo, go get my gun. Bell's companions deny the statement was ever made.

Who is right? Most of us will never know, but this much is clear. The reverend Sharpton's comments do not help.

Sharpton lambasted the judge who acquitted the detectives, saying a jury should been seated to decide guilt or innocence. Sharpton has threatened to "shut the city down" with organized civil disobedience. [emphasis mine]

Since when does anyone but the defendants have the right to request a jury trial? Sounds like the reverend Sharpton is only throwing gasoline on the fire to me.

This situation is tragic, but the solution is not agitation, race baiting and more violence. As a preacher of the Gospel, the reverend Sharpton should be working as a calming influence, not the match to ignite a city.

Oklahoma Leads, California Fails

In Immigration Wars, Cal Thomas states:

Like the war on terrorism, progress in the immigration war is also mixed.

Immigration has become one of the main Political Issues. On one side are States like California, Some Federal Courts, the AFL-CIO, immigrants' rights groups and the US Chamber of Commerce.

A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily prevented the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration from using mismatched Social Security data to penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. The decision came as welcome news to the AFL-CIO, various "immigrants' rights" groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who are behind a lawsuit that claims the federal government's actions are a violation of the law.

It is believed by some that Illegal Aliens are a necessary ingredient to fill jobs Americans do not want. On the other hand, Illegal Aliens are doing harm to our society as a burden to our Welfare Programs, Medical Care, School Systems, etc.

In addition, Federal and State Laws allow Illegals to Obtain Drivers Licenses and Vote. Current Lack of Immigration Enforcement is a recipe for disaster. But there is one bright spot in Oklahoma, which is leading the Nation by implementing New Immigration Law.

In Oklahoma, the toughest immigration law in the country was allowed to take effect when U.S. District Judge James H. Payne refused to accept arguments from Hispanic and immigrants rights groups who tried to block it. According to the Washington Times, the measure, House Bill 1804, "prevents illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses, denies them every possible public service or benefit not required by federal law, gives state and local police the ability to enforce immigration laws and beginning next year, requires employers to check new employees' identities through a federal database. ... The judge allowed the law to take effect while the case proceeds."

Much of our problem with Illegal Immigrants is the fault of the Federal Government. Congress has not appropriated enough money for Border Security, while Presidents have not enforced the Immigration Laws already on the books.

Most citizens know that if they break laws, they will pay a penalty. They know their driver's license is a privilege and that the state that issues them can take them away when certain laws are broken. They see New York Governor Eliot Spitzer ordering special classes of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and regard it as a double standard. Countries to which Americans travel prohibit us from working in those countries, but we are told we must accept law-breaking foreign workers.

Why is there little money and little enforcement? Because the Politicians want the Hispanic Vote!

The war over immigration is essentially a battle for the Hispanic vote. Politicians will do anything to get it, including disregarding the laws they are sworn to uphold. The politician who gets on the wrong side of this issue -- like Hillary Clinton did in the most recent Democratic presidential debate -- is likely to pay a heavy price from the majority who obey laws. For the moment, we still outnumber the illegals.

However in their rush to court the Hispanic Vote, they overlook the backlash from the Majority. They would do well to consider that the Majority of voters is most likely to support those candidates, regardless of party, who are perceived as Fair and Just. No candidate will ever agree with all voters, but respect is given to those who are perceived as Fair and Just. Respect more often than not equals electability.

John Doolittle - Poster Child For What's Wrong With Congress

John Doolittle (R-CA) is currently an elected member of the US House of Representatives. He is also under investigation by the FBI for corruption. Doolittle Inc. is the title of an article about the clouded dealings and arrangements of the Doolittles by Debra Saunders.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington placed Doolittle on its "22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" roster. The Placer County, Calif., Republican also is in the small club of elected officials under federal investigation for corruption. His name has come up in connection with convicted uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and with convicted (as of Monday, on bribery charges) defense contractor Brent Wilkes. In April, the FBI searched Doolittle's Virginia home.

Congressman Doolittle was forced to resign from the House Appropriations Committee as a result of the federal investigations, but as Ms. Saunders points out, Mr. Doolittle is running for re-election to his Congressional Seat. In all fairness, he has not been convicted of a crime, and as such, is presumed to be innocent.

John Doolittle is a Poster Child for "Whats Wrong With Congress" because of the loopholes which allow certain questionable practices to continue.

Doolittle, you may recall, made news for letting a campaign fund pick up the tab for babysitting his daughter -- $4,581 since 2001, The Washington Post reported in 2006. He brought new meaning to the phrase "family values."

This practice is legal, but why should it be? And there's more in the same vein.

Doolittle's annual salary has been more than $150,000 since 2002. Not enough. So he and his wife gave themselves a raise. Wife Julie set up a political fund-raising firm that allowed her to earn 15 percent off of every dime raised for Doolittle's Superior California Fund. She also received a cut for donations she raised for his re-election campaign -- to the tune of $140,000 over three years.

Again Legal, but Ethical or Responsible?

Savvy donors knew that if they wrote a check to a Doolittle campaign through Julie Doolittle, the congressman's household income would be richer by 15 percent of the check. This arrangement was a recipe for conflict of interest.

These and other questionable arrangements, are a big part of the reason the Republicans rightfully lost control of both Houses of Congress. But in the Spirit of Convicted Republican California Congressman Duke Cunningham, Democrat Nancy Pelosi and the Current Democrat House leaders continue to allow these practices to continue. The Majority changed from Republican to Democrats, but for practical purposes, IT IS BUSINESS AS USUAL, and Abuse of Power.

The only way to stop the abuse of power, is for us the Voters, to demand a higher standard from our elected officials. This is one area of Political Issues where no party affiliation has a monopoly. Political Ethics has become an Oxymoron.

Birds of a Feather

We are known by the company we keep. Since on of Hillary's Closest advisers is a person Convicted of Stealing Classified Documents. This makes a very clear statement about Hillary Clinton's Character. In an article at RealClearPolitics.com, Ronald A. Cass makes this point, and we should all consider the implications. (Sandy Berger and the Real Hillary Clinton)

Sandy Berger isn't just a former National Security Advisor - he's also the only National Security Advisor in U.S. history to be convicted after stealing and destroying classified documents.

Many will judge Hillary other issues. There are many issues on which she is out of touch with the Average American. For me this one issue is enough to reject her at the polls.

Illegals Issued IDs

Illegal immigrants issued ID cards reminds us of some of the problems caused by the "Bleeding Heart Liberals" and the "Amnesty" for illegal aliens policy. Let's start with the following paragraph from the article and consider through to the conclusion(s) of these actions.

Illegal immigrants are getting driver's licenses and identification cards in cities and states that are bucking the national trend to take official documents and public benefits away from them.

We are a wealthy nation who should take care of the less fortunate. Sounds good, but think about what that involves for a minute. Do we really want to encourage all who have less, which is most of the World, to illegally enter our country so they can get on the benefit rolls? Then ask who do you think will pay for all these benefits?

New Haven, Conn., began issuing municipal ID cards in July to all residents, including illegal immigrants. New York will join eight other states in giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, starting in December.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer "believes it's important to bring a significant population in New York state out of the shadows … (and) allow them to participate in the economy," Motor Vehicles Commissioner David Swarts says. [ellipsis in original; emphasis mine]

Notice the use of the word "participate" above. There are 2 ways to participate. Participators can put into or take out of the economy. They can be either contributors or beneficiaries.

It would be wise to look at the potential for each type of participant. How likely is it that these would be highly skilled or highly educated individuals? The evidence indicates it is more likely that they will be poorly skilled and uneducated immigrants. Therefore, it also seems likely that the great preponderance of the illegal immigrants will be "participants in the economy" as beneficiaries. Like most immigrants, they come to America because of the opportunity to improve their socio-economic situation. After all, if they had opportunity in their native land, they have no need, and little desire, to illegally enter the USA.

We are the most generous country in the world, but there is a limit to our generosity. We simply cannot support the entire world. By allowing illegal immigrants access to the wealth of our country, we will taxing (pun intended) our legal population beyond their capacity to pay. To this mix, we must add the criminal element that is assimilated into our society as illegal immigrants. (Do some research on MS13)

As the article points out, there are some illegal aliens who are hard working and will contribute positively to our economy, but the cost/benefit analysis shows that the cost exceeds the benefits of granting "official documents" to illegal immigrants. The fact remains, they came to a country which became great because we are a country of Laws, equally applied to all. The illegal immigrants broke the law and continue to break the Law by staying in America.

Tom Fitton, president of the conservative Judicial Watch, says the cards "raise the specter of local governments conspiring with illegals to help them stay here."

"In the least, they undermine federal law," he says, "and at worst, they violate the law."

Rathergate - Dan's Waterloo

Byron York writes about the surprise move on Dan Rather's part to sue CBS News. Return to Rathergate exposes several interesting claims by Dan.

First, he claims that, after the report stirred controversy, top CBS management conducted a sham investigation of the story for the purpose of making sure that damaging information about George W. Bush be kept secret.

“CBS announced that it was conducting a thorough independent investigation into the underlying story of the broadcast and its production,” the lawsuit says, “when in fact its intention was to conduct a biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service from being uncovered.”

This fake investigation, Rather charges, was done so that CBS could “pacify the White House” by making Rather the “scapegoat” of what would become known as Rathergate.

Mr. York is as surprised as I was to learn that CBS was interested in pacifying the Bush White House. It will certainly be entertaining to see Dan Accuse CBS of being a friend of George Bush, while CBS makes the case for being non-biased.

---

Meanwhile at the Huffington Post, Mary Mapes Congratulates Dan because Rather still has more reportorial testosterone than the entire employee roster at FOX News in her post Courage for Dan Rather

Mary was Dan's associate who, as I recall, obtained the documents for the Story. She makes a big deal about the Right Wing Bloggers who attacked the authenticity of the documents concerning George Bush's National Guard Service.

Whether President Bush was ducking Vietnam Service or not was not any more of a story than President Clinton's Draft Dodging. Unlike John Kerry, George Bush did not try to use his Military Service as a stepping stone to the Presidency. Actually Senator Kerry's Senate Testimony which criminalized the US Military was his downfall.

But Mary's most revealing statement is this paragraph.

We reported that since these documents were copies, not originals, they could not be fully authenticated, at least not in the legal sense. They could not be subjected to tests to determine the age of the paper or the ink. We did get corroboration on the content and support from a couple of longtime document analysts saying they saw nothing indicating that the memos were not real.

On the one hand she says the originals could not be produced, therefore, they could not be authenticated. On the other hand Mary claims a couple of document analysts saw nothing indicating the memos were not real, but neither did or could they say they were real. She fails to mention that many more document analysts strongly felt they could not be authentic.

One expert was able to reproduce the document letter for letter with Microsoft Word default settings. Strange coincidence since Microsoft Word was not available when the memos were claimed to have been written.

Wiretapping Is A NECESSARY Good

Monitoring of Electronic messages is normally thought of as wiretapping. Most people think of this in terms of attaching wires to phone lines to listen to a conversation. But in actuality it can be much more complex. Today's Electronic Message may be carried by many different methods while traveling from point A to point B.

• Wireless (from a Cell Phone to a Tower or Satelite in space)
• Fiber Optic Cable (between 2 land points)
• Phone Wires (between 2 land points)
• Micro Wave (similar to Cell Phones, but different frequencies)
• Cordless Phones (Low Power Radio)

All these various methods are interconnected by networks. These networks are set-up so that any message may enter or move to a different network at many different points. Electronic messages are routed through the various networks automatically to yield the most efficient connections. For example my brother calls me from his

1. cell phone in New York City which connects to
2. a tower in Manhattan which connects to
3. a Fiber Optic network in Albany, which connects to
4. a Satelite up-link in Cleveland which connects to
5. a down-link in Milwaukee which connects to
6. a land line in Rockford which connects to
7. a Micro Wave Tower in Chicago which connects to
8. a Cell Tower at O'Hare Airport which connects to
9. my Cell Phone near Chicago

In some parts of the world, certain types of networks may not exist. In other places a direct route may not be the most efficient. All these interconnections take place invisibly, seamlessly and efficiently for both of us. Because the US Networks are so efficient the route will probably not be the same if we talk 10 minutes later. This time the call may go through Atlanta or even Denver.

Generally Electronic Communications originating within the US stay Within the US because of the Advanced Technology of US Networks. It is because our Networks are so efficient, that Electronic Communications outside the US are likely to pass through one or more of the networks in the US. As is apparent, Electronic Message Monitoring of Foreign subjects by the Government is complicated by our efficiency, because it no longer can be done strictly outside the US.

Soon Congress will again ask the following Question. Why shouldn't we require a warrant to Monitor Electronic Transmissions in the USA? The answer depends on who and where.

• Who is at the end of the Transmission?
• Where are these ends located?

It should be obvious that not all of these Electronic Transmissions should require a Warrant just because they pass through the US. The fear of the Democrats is that Americans are being monitored without a Warrant. But the Government should not be required to obtain a warrant to monitor al Qaeda or other Terrorist communications. This is Foreign Intelligence Communication and the authority to gather Foreign Intelligence Information, without a warrant, is granted to the President by the Constitution.

We have used Electronic Surveillance to prevented several Terrorist Attacks. Attacks both in and out of the US. Today in the on-line OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal editorial page Listening In, highlights a part the US may have played in the recent German Planned Attacks against US targets in Germany.

When the German government announced arrests this week in a terrorist plot against American and German targets inside Germany, one telling detail got little notice: Two of the suspects were identified, in part, based on telephone conversations intercepted by American intelligence.

The Protect America Act which passed last month allowed the Government to use NSA like programs to intercept, without a warrant, certain communications, and protected Telecommunication Companies Like AT&T and Verizon from civil lawsuit if they co-operate with the US Government. But the protection only lasts for the 6 month period of the present law and does not retroactively protect either of the Telecoms.

This is a serious (intentional?) oversight by the Democrats who don't want any monitoring, without a warrant.

The Protect America Act that passed last month gave the phone companies protection from civil liability for the six-month duration of the law, but it offered no protection for their earlier cooperation in the aftermath of 9/11. The White House requested such retrospective immunity, but it was blocked by Democrats. A cynic might conclude this is one more example of Democrats doing the bidding of their tort lawyer financiers. But let's assume their motives aren't that ugly.

That still leaves Democrats tacitly endorsing a strategy of using lawsuits to gut the wiretapping program. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has said that the potential liabilities are of an order of magnitude sufficient to bankrupt some of our biggest telcos. And even if the suits are ultimately deemed meritless in court, they could well involve sufficient costs to make the companies wary of cooperating in the future. It has already been reported that at least some phone companies are contemplating suing the government to block the enforcement of any wiretapping law that does not immunize them. That's how seriously they take the liability risk.

We know that al Qaeda wants to carry out an attack even bigger than the 9-11 attack which took 3,000 lives. We have a choice to make. Do we allow the Terrorists to use our fears against us? Do we allow al Qaeda to require us to fight them with one hand tied behind our back?

In this context, this week's debate on Capitol Hill was often out of this world. For example, Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz took the mic to pose a hypothetical. Suppose her child was emailing with a child in Iraq. Wouldn't current law allow the NSA to read those emails? Former Congressman Bob Barr, who was a witness, allowed that this possibility "ought to be a very major concern for certainly all of us."

University of Virginia Professor Robert Turner--a rare voice of reason during the House hearing--replied that that "If we say [the NSA] can't look at anything that's got [a] U.S. person involved without a warrant, we're going to give [Osama bin Laden] the easiest way to immunize his whole communication system." In other words, all a terrorist would have to do to mask his communications would be to cc: an American email address, putting it off limits to American surveillance. [emphasis mine]

Frankly, if Osama bin Laden is communicating with me, I want the Government asking why. In fact, I demand of our Government the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed under our Constitution. The Democrats would do well to remember the Words of FDR - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

Which brings us back to those Germans and their cell phones in Pakistan. Critics of the surveillance program will argue that they have no problem with America eavesdropping on Germans making phone calls to terrorists, so the example is irrelevant to the controversy. But suppose those Germans were calling their fellow-travelers in America, to plot an attack not against Ramstein, but against Fort Bragg. Does anyone really think that phone call would be less important to intercept than those in Germany?

If Democrats want to vote against warrantless wiretaps, they should do so openly and accept the political consequences. What they shouldn't be able to do is hide their opposition behind lawsuits or the judiciary in such a way that guts the program without having to take any responsibility for doing so.

The Terrorists may succeed in carrying out another 9-11 like attack, but it shouldn't be because we couldn't monitor the suspects.