Congress Makes $25 Billion Auto Industry Loan

In case you missed it, in addition to the Wall Street/Mortgage/Credit guarantees, Congress has also made the US Auto Makers a $25 Billion Loan Guarantee. But after all it's only money - Your Money. More of our Tax Dollars spent. US Congress passes 25 bln loan guarantees to automakers has the details of this expendutare.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These Loan Guarantees includes Foreign Auto Makers with Manufacturing Plants in the US.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.

Our National Debt is Over $9Trillion. It is time to Rein in our Spending and fill-in the Debt Hole!!

Can we really aford to elect a President who wants to expand the National Debt? In case you aren't aware of it - Senator Obama wants to increase Taxes and Spend, Spend Spend. His programs will require spending many times what his Tax Increases Realize If you though President Bush was a spender, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!!

FISA IS A Perversion Of Privacy Rights

Al Qaeda and other Terrorist groups have sworn to destroy us and our way of life. This is not meant to be a "scare you" statement, or an over exaggeration of fact. These facts come from the Terrorist leaders written and spoken words. As a result we, The American Public, need to revise our legal tools, and our attitudes if we really don't want to loose the Global War on Terror.

Two recent articles have highlighted this need for a revision in our thinking about National Security and Privacy. One of the most important considerations is this fact. Without Security, Privacy doesn't matter. We, as Americans, have a right to expect a certain amount of Privacy in our daily lives. However, some of the current laws REQUIRE us to give up both in a flawed attempt to protect privacy.

The first article for your consideration comes from the AP. OK to Spy on Kidnappers Took 9 Hours describes the ridiculous lengths to which our Government must go to protect our basic freedoms. In the name of privacy, we have failed to permanently revise the laws relating to the FISA Court to reflect technology advances.

Last spring, with insurgents apparently holding three American soldiers in Iraq, it took the U.S. government more than nine hours to begin emergency surveillance of some of the kidnappers' electronic communications.

Why did surveillance of the kidnappers' electronic communications take over 9 hours? The answer is Technology, and specifically the American Communications Networks. These Networks are the most efficient in the world, and as a result the kidnappers communications passed though them on US Soil. This prevented our Government from intercepting them without a warrant.

To be Clear, we could not listen to FOREIGN KIDNAPPERS, ON FOREIGN SOIL, because the Electronic Communications passed through DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS ON AMERICAN SOIL. This is lunacy, and extremely dangerous. We were prevented from monitoring the Electronic Communications of foreign kidnappers who held 3 Americans Hostage.

The delay was a centerpiece of the Bush administration's argument to Congress in late July that the law requiring court orders to conduct electronic surveillance inside the United States was dangerously restrictive.

Congress subsequently approved an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that removed the requirement for a court order to intercept foreign communications on U.S. soil. The original law was written to protect Americans from inappropriate government surveillance.

But this amendment expires after 6 months and Democrats have vowed to prevent this essential tool from being made permanent. What are they thinking? Shouldn't it be the First Priority of our Government to protect our security and thereby insure our Privacy? Makes Sense to me.

The Second article is Today's Featured Article at the OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal. (Surveillance Showdown) The opening paragraph of this article asks the question we should all be required to answer.

Would any sane country purposefully limit its ability to spy on enemy communications in time of war?

Congress will soon take up this question again, and the answer seems clear to all but the Democrats. The permanent reform of the FISA Court Legislation must be brought up to current technology capabilities.

Privacy activists, civil libertarians and congressional Democrats argue that both foreign and domestic eavesdropping must be subject to judicial scrutiny and oversight, even if this means drastically reducing the amount of foreign intelligence information available to the government, without ever acknowledging the costs involved. [emphasis mine]

What kind of insanity is this? Foreign Intelligence is specifically granted by Constitution to the Executive Branch of Our Government. For this Foreign Intelligence Gathering process no warrant should be necessary.

Warrantless surveillance is also constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Although today's privacy advocates routinely claim that warrantless searches are inherently unreasonable, that position is insupportable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly approved numerous warrantless searches, balancing the government's interests against the relevant privacy expectations. Thus drivers can be subjected to sobriety checkpoints and international travelers are liable to search at the border.

Fear of "Big Brother" Government listening to our communications is warrantless (pun intended).

For several years I Prepared Income Tax Returns for a living. Certainly the returns I completed contained very sensitive and confidential Personal information. Obviously, this was a reasonable warrantless search I conducted to lawfully complete the Return. Many of those individuals whose returns I completed fully expected that I remembered their most intimate Tax Details. The truth was I did not specifically remember many details because it was a job, not a thrill seeking adventure.

More importantly, my reputation was at stake. My reputation developed through trust, was my source of continued business and therefore my means of support. I earned trust and therefore grew my business.

Reputation and Trust is the business of the Government too. Many of us remember the disgrace of Richard Nixon and more recently Congressman Duke Cunningham. No politician wants this to be his legacy. Even more important, many of the people involved are not political appointees. They are Honest, trustworthy citizens and members of the Military. For the most part, these are individuals who try to do the best job they can, because they believe in what they do.

The government does utilize a series of "minimization" procedures governing how foreign intelligence information is handled to prevent its inappropriate use or disclosure. As explained by CIA Director Michael Hayden in 2006, referring to the post-Sept. 11 terrorist surveillance program before it was subjected to FISA: "if the U.S. person information isn't relevant [without foreign intelligence value], the data is suppressed." The fact that senior U.S. government officials (unlike their counterparts in other countries) do not routinely have access to the unredacted surveillance-generated information about American citizens, and that the system is operated largely by career civil servants, provides an additional layer of privacy protection. [brackets and ellipsis in original]

In a nutshell, if we prevent electronic monitoring of foreign communications for National Intelligence purposes because they pass through US soil based Networks, we will limit the Intelligence to low level operatives. This is because the higher levels are not stupid. They know the best way to prevent interception is to insure US legal protection by using US Based Networks.

National Security and Privacy, in this case, are 2 ends of the same sliding scale. There is a balance point which can insure both, but if the slider is moved too far towards one end, we will loose both.

"I will not surrender/I will not submit."

“I will not surrender/I will not submit.” Courtesy of Michelle Malkin.

Fly the Flag. Always Remember.

Pres. Bush Speech to VFW Aug. 2007

Possibly in preparation for next months report to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, President Bush gave a strong speech in favor of completing the job in Iraq, at the VFW in Kansas City. The speech received a warm reception particularly because he was addressing Military Veterans during a time of War. (President Bush Attends Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Discusses War on Terror)

As members of this proud organization, you are advocates for the rights of our military veterans, a model of community service, and a strong and important voice for a strong national defense. I thank you for your service. I thank you for what you've done for the United States of America.

Because of the events since 9-11, President Bush has been, in his own words and in reality, a "Wartime President". The enemy declared war on Western Civilization long before 9-11. But what the enemy did on 9-11 not only resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 civilians, it awakened our nation.

The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale. [emphasis mine]

A struggle for civilization because if radical Islam succeeds, their Holy War will continue until the World is governed by Sharia Law. Under Sharia Law, only Muslim's are first class citizens. All other non-believers, and women for that matter, are subjugated, second class persons. This War is not just about Iraq, it is about World Civilization and Iraq is only one small part of the Global War.

Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful.

Iraq could provide an Oasis of Muslim Democracy in the middle of oppressive Radical Islamic Governments and Societies. Repressive groups like the Taliban, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Fatah al-Islam and Hamas produce much of the Middle Eastern Instability and Violence. Retreat from Iraq would result in a destabilization of the Region and provide a base for World Wide Terror operations.

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

The question which haunts many of the West, is can a country with beliefs so different from the beliefs of the West become a democracy? History may very well give us the answer.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."

There are an amazing number of parallel paths over the course of history. This is absolutely true when applied to the History of the United States of America. At the start of the Korean War, Democrat President Harry Truman, faced a Congress and Public similar to Today.

Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.

After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."

Change the Dates, Places and reverse the parties in control of the White House and Congress, it could be the History we are making today.

Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."

Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."

Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.

And then there is Vietnam. Many of the Left continue to maintain that an Iraq pull-out would have very little consequence. Just as they said at the time about Vietnam, they are wrong. If History is any teacher, Vietnam should have taught us an important lesson about leaving before a victory, can be a disaster for the people who remain behind. But unlike Vietnam, this enemy will follow us home.

Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

[...]

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

Have we not learned anything from History? Whether you believe we invaded Iraq for the right or the wrong reason, we are there right now. It is for History to judge the morality of the Iraq invasion. In Iraq, our course of action now, will enable us to face the future consequences. Prematurely leaving yields one set of consequences; finishing the task another set. History favors the latter choice.

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

The killing and torture of the "left behinds" is not the only lesson to take away form Vietnam. We are not fighting another Vietnam, and the comparison to Vietnam is only valid in referencing what would happen if we institute a pre-mature withdraw from Iraq. But the current enemy took notice and uses or Vietnam retreat as a recruiting tool.

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

Vietnam is an important part of our History. But it cannot now be changed. The present is all we have to work with, but by remembering and learning the lessons that History has taught us, the future becomes something better, for all. On the other hand, the President clearly stated what's likely to happen if we don't follow through. The view is from two men of the Vietnam era. One pro, one con.

Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

Our President is aware that History cannot fully predict all possibilities, but it can give us very good, although somewhat vague, indications of what the future will bring based on what we do today.

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

This is one lesson we don't have to learn again.

OBL Claimed To Be Alive

There have been no US confirmed sightings of Osama bin Laden (OBL) since December 2001. That's when he escaped Coalition and Afghan Forces in the Tora Bora Region of Eastern Afghanistan. The fact that he is Alive and Well comes from Mansour Dadullah, whose brother, Mullah, was a top Taliban Commander. Mullah was killed last year, and Mansour's statement is found in an article printed in West Australian Newspapers Limited (Bin Laden is alive).

“He is extremely healthy and active,” Mansour Dadullah said, according to the video’s English-language subtitles. The clip was dated June 15, according to reports.

Mansour claims that bin Laden contacted him directly. Osama bin Laden, if he really is still alive, is in the rugged, mountainous area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border. Bin Laden has released several audio and video tapes since he was last seen, and there is at least a $25 Million bounty for his capture.

There remains speculation from others that Osama bin Laden is dead.

“There’s a very high percentage chance” that bin Laden is dead, Will Geddes, managing director of the London-based International Corporate Protection security company, said in a telephone interview today.

Even if bin Laden is alive, it may not be a “massive blow” to the US, Geddes said.

As a tactical target in the Global War on Terror, OBL is not that important. But for Strategic reasons, OBL is a very important target.

“Al-Qaeda is no longer one man leading an international army. The organization has become a “generic umbrella name,” he [Geddes] said.

For the time being, we still have no reliable report about the health of Osama bin Laden. There are now, and have been for some time, conflicting opinions about his condition.

According to reports in September, Saudi Arabian intelligence officials believe Saudi-born bin Laden died from a fever in a remote region of Pakistan.

The French newspaper cited a report from France’s DGSE external intelligence agency. Saudi Arabia and Western governments, including France and the US, cast doubt on the report.

Things haven't changed much since December 2001. We Still Don't know for sure.

Playing Politics

Business as usual. Politicians practice the oldest political profession. Most of the time no serious harm comes from each party maligning the other. On the subject of monitoring electronic Terrorist communications however, we are dangerously allowing Political Considerations to outweigh common sense. Common Sense dictates that, should a cell phone call be made from Afghanistan to Syria, no Warrant is needed to legally allow the US to listen in. But in practice, A WARRANT may be necessary. This is Politics Gone Wild.

We are not talking about Domestic calls of US Citizens here. It could be Usama bin Laden talking to a known al-Qaeda operative in Syria or Iraq that we are prevented from monitoring without a warrant, and both ends of the call are OUTSIDE the US.

This is possible because the US leads the world in technology. Our Cell Phone networks are so efficient, that many calls are routed through the USA, EVEN when none of the parties is in the US. Under Current US Law, to monitor these calls requires a warrant. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot. This is clearly not the best way to fight Terrorists. But because the Democrats in Congress want to score Political points, they are willing to place all of us at greater risk by opposing changes and making mountains out of molehills.

An editorial piece (Wiretap Debacle) published on-line today at the Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal makes the argument that we are less secure because Congress has pushed, and the President has caved on the Wiretap issue.

President Bush approved this terrorist surveillance not long after 9/11, allowing intelligence officials to track terrorist calls overseas, as well as overseas communications with al Qaeda sympathizers operating in the U.S. The New York Times exposed the program in late 2005, and Democrats and antiwar activists immediately denounced it as an "illegal" attempt to spy on Americans, à la J. Edgar Hoover.

Of course there is always the opportunity to use unlimited power to wiretap for illegal reasons. But proper co-operation between Congressional Oversight Committees and regular Presidential Briefings, abuse was not a problem prior to the New York Times disclosure. That's where the Politicians began to play the most dangerous game of Politics.

Democratic leaders were briefed on the program from the first and never once tried to shut it down. But once it was exposed, these same Democrats accused Mr. Bush of breaking the law by not getting warrants from the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Mr. Bush has rightly defended the program's legality, but as a gesture of compromise in January he agreed to seek warrants under the FISA process.

President Bush tried, unsuccessfully, to compromise, but the Democrats smelled blood in the water. Besides, all Politicians have found that emotional scare issues persuade voters. An assessment of how dangerous this game is came from recent Congressional Testimony.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell more or less admitted the problem last week, albeit obliquely, when he told the Senate that "we're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting." That's understating things. Our sources say the surveillance program is now at most one-third as effective as it once was.

We have been both smart and lucky so far in that we have not had a serious Terrorist Attack on US soil since 9/11. Now with the smart part dangerously reduced, luck is what makes millions losers in the lottery. Politicians playing Politics with this issue are, with only a few exceptions, Democrats.

Meanwhile, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy is holding any wiretap legislation hostage to his demand for Administration documents related to the program. This is part of the Democrats' political exercise to claim that Mr. Bush has somehow broken the law by allowing the wiretaps. Backed by grandstanding Republican Arlen Specter, in short, Mr. Leahy is more interested in fighting over how the program began than in allowing it to continue today.

We need to win the Global War on Terror Militarily, before a Political Peace can ensue.

UN's al-Qaida/Taliban List Outdated

The UN has allowed its list of al-Qaida and Taliban leaders to become outdated. This list has not been updated since 2003.

Several dozen important al-Qaida and Taliban figures have not been placed on a list of 490 people and businesses subject to a U.N. travel ban, arms embargo and assets freeze put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the monitoring team for the U.N.'s Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee.

This rather distressing information comes from an AP article, UN: al-Qaida, Taliban Sanctions Outdated, dated today. We continue to pay 22% of the UN's expenses. WHY?

Supreme Court will hear Guantanamo Bay Challenge

Today (June 29, 2007) the Supreme Court announced that during its next term starting in October 2007, the Court will consider the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The question of "standing" will determine the legal processes available to detainees and under what terms the prisoners are to be held and/or brought to trial. What legal rights do they have? Are they covered by the Geneva Convention Treaty and if so under which parts? Are they subject to Military or Civilian Justice. Are they Spies, Enemy Combatants, Criminals or ??? Do we need a new or amended "Terrorist" classification of detainees to properly describe a class that was not conceived when some of the legal processes were written?

Why has the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in this matter, effectively rejecting the matter this past April? There currently is an act of Congress that explicitly prohibits review of such cases. I don't know for sure, and I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me as a very interested political spectator that the Court believes the confusion surrounding this subject needs clarification prior to the 2008 Presidential Election. Whether this is the reason or not, I believe it will make for better debate by the Candidates because it will take one of the Emotional factors out of the calculus.

Between now and sometime following the Supreme Courts announcement of it decision this subject will receive much naval gazing contemplation, dissection and analytical thought by both sides. I am sure I will have further comments and references to the many other discussions on this subject. For now I would like to point you to a long (but worth the read) article by Benjamin Wittes titled Terrorism, the Military, and the Courts I found posted today at Real Clear Politics website.

In this article, which I can only inadequately represent, Mr. Wittes begins by presenting us with a story of one military battlefield interrogation. He then asks us to consider the methods and whether they represent a series of necessary and legal military techniques to obtain information.

'What followed was a protracted habeas corpus action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Lawyers representing the high-value detainee decried the coercive interrogation of his wife, the threat to his children, and the savage beating he incurred on his arrest. (The medical officer accompanying the troops who detained him had shouted to the commanding officer to call his men off "unless you want to take back a corpse.") Human rights groups uniformly condemned the interrogation tactic as torture; major newspapers weighed in on their side. The Bush administration, meanwhile, insisted that the courts had no jurisdiction over any such overseas military action, which had in any event been lawful and had yielded essential intelligence and the capture of a very big fish. As of this writing, the lower courts have deemed themselves powerless to hear the case and the Supreme Court -- for now, at least -- has not intervened."

The Irony is that last sentence has now changed. Both the Supreme Court Announcement and the publication of Mr. Wittes article bear the same date - June 29, 2007. The article continues by asking questions.

"Should the courts hear it, notwithstanding an act of Congress that explicitly precludes review? If so, what should they hold? Is such a tactic -- garnering information from a mother by threatening to have her sons beheaded by a totalitarian regime -- ever legitimate? And who, in a society committed both to law and to victory in a global struggle against terrorism, is to be the judge?"

The article continues on to describe current attitudes, conflicting emotions and ideas of what's proper and under what circumstances. I cannot do justice to the complete article, so please read it yourself. The article continues to look at the issues involved along with some suggested remedies, some gaps and some conclusions.

Stay tuned for further developments.