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".

PELOSI, ROCKEFELLER AND LEFT DENIERS

UPDATE 5/10/09 Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may be playing the "it depends on what your definition of is is" game. If she is claiming she never directly was informed by the CIA, then this article may explain her weasel words - Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding in 2003. Are we really to believe this nuance?

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and others from the left are claiming they knew nothing about Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) being used by the CIA. Both Democrats are High Ranking members of the Left, and held Positions in Congress which entitled them to Special briefings by the CIA on EITs which the Left now claims were "Torture". Even more disingenuously, both are now claiming they had no knowledge and/or there was nothing they could do to stop the "Torture" even if they did. Hogwash!

For the facts, read this article (What Congress Knew

On September 4, 2002, Porter Goss, then the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democratic member, were given a classified briefing by the CIA on what the Agency calls "enhanced interrogation techniques," or, in persistent media parlance, "torture." In particular, the CIA briefed the members on the use of these techniques on Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan the previous March. [Emphasis Mine]

So much for Pelosi's statements. This is Rockefeller's.

... in October 2008, following a Washington Post report on the existence of the OLC memos, Mr. Rockefeller disclaimed any knowledge of the opinions. "If White House documents exist that set the policy for the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding, those documents have been kept from the committee," said Mr. Rockefeller. "That is unacceptable, and represents the latest example of the Bush Administration withholding critical information from Congress and the American people in an attempt to limit our oversight of sensitive intelligence collection activities." [Emphasis Mine]

Rockefeller is pretty clear that he was not briefed, but here is the Truth.

On February 4, 2003, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were given a briefing in which "EITs [were] 'described in considerable detail,' including 'how the water board was used.' The process by which the techniques were approved by DoJ was also raised." The document also adds that Mr. Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, was later given an "individual briefing." [Emphasis Mine]

Not just one or two briefings. The article also presents this evidence of a poor Memory.

Nor was that the only time Mr. Rockefeller, who chaired the Committee from 2007 to 2009, heard from the CIA. The West Virginian was briefed at least 12 times more about interrogation techniques, legal authorities and other aspects of the program. The last, in June 2008, was offered to 10 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and covered "discussion of EITs and the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinions. Specific mentions of waterboarding numerous time." [Emphasis Mine]

Oops. It would appear that the Left has some Serious credibility problems. As far as the claim that the Bush White House withheld information, consider this quote.

Senator Rockefeller's denial is flatly contradicted by his own report on the subject released last month, which notes that "On May 19, 2008, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency provided the Committee with access to all opinions and a number of other documents prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel . . . concerning the legality of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Five of these documents provided addressed the use of waterboarding." [Emphasis Mine]

Note to Left: When you find yourself in a HOLE, STOP DIGGING.

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.

IS THE WORLD READY FOR 2013?

According to this New York Times Article (Panel Fears Use of Unconventional Weapon), the world will face a Nuclear, Biological or other Unconventional Attack by 2013. For those of you who thought the War on Terror was limited to Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, this is your wake-up call.

An independent commission has concluded that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that. [Emphasis mine]

More importantly, are we the USA ready for a possible Terrorist attack using Unconventional Weapons? For that matter, are we ready for an attack like the Mumbai, India attack of last week?

In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.

At the same time, the American people have become complacent. Complacent because President George Bush has done such a good job of preventing attacks.

“America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.

I must admit that so far, to my surprise, President Elect Obama has shown a retreat from his Primary Rhetoric concerning the Terror Threat that exists in the World. Hopefully this will continue to translate into an extension of the Patriot Act and support for the NSA and/or other Intelligence Gathering Activities.

Prepared before last week’s deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai — which American officials say were most likely carried out by Pakistani militant groups based in Kashmir — the report also singled out Pakistan as a top security priority for the coming Obama administration.

Mumbai shows we cannot take Intelligence Information on Terrorist Activities lightly. Apparently India's Government did. Fortunately for India, the Terrorists were overly optimistic about the casualties their attack would inflict.

“Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013,” the report states in the opening sentence of the executive summary.

This opening sentence is a chilling look at the present situation. We need to be pro-active and act now, unless we wish to be re-active later. As this paragraph from this article indicates, we need to shift our focus and attention to a much higher level.

Like the 9/11 Commission, this panel called for overhauling the jurisdiction of the Congressional committee that reviews the proliferation of unconventional weapons. “Congressional oversight is dysfunctional,” the report concluded. [Emphasis mine]

Hopefully since this was a Bi-Partisan Congressional Committee, President Elect Obama and our House and Senate are listening. One last thought - THIS REPORT SAYS BY THE END OF 2013, BUT DOES NOT RULE OUT TOMORROW!!!

Why Go To War In IRAQ?

Should we have gone to War in Iraq is a question for the historians to decide. Despite that fact, almost all of us have strong opinions about whether President George W. Bush was correct in doing so. It is a question on which the next Presidential Election may be decided.

To help separate the emotion from the fact, Today's Edition of "The Wall Street Journal" contains a First person account of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Why We Went to War in Iraq By DOUGLAS J. FEITH opens with this paragraph.

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary. [Italics & Quotation Marks in original; Emphasis mine]

The phraseology of this quote (bold portion) is important and clarifies the President's position. President Bush chose to take an action as President and Commander In Chief which was a necessity.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

This is one of the few articles which includes the first Bush as part of the problem. Considering this statement comes from someone who was a party to the discussions, it is very revealing. Mr. Feith makes it clear that he believes that As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq that if President Bush had had another choice, he would have made it.

Mr. Feith also details the views of the other Presidential advisors who participated in these confidential meetings.

In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.

It is clear from this "behind the scenes" view that many options including the risks and their consequences of the actions were considered. In other words, this was not a reckless quickly made decision. Rather it was a very deliberate, reasoned, responsible action only taken after much input form many sources.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?

This debate started before 9-11. In fact on July 27, 2001, more than a month before the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent the following memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:

"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .

"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."

It was however, the events of 9-11 which solidified the President's decision. Again it is pointed out that more evaluation and review took place before a course of action was undertaken. The President was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

Note to the Left: There is no claim that Saddam or Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks. A point often mis-stated by the left.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. [Emphasis mine]

Again there is no claim of operational activity by Saddam or Iraq concerning 9/11, although Saddam did support terrorism and applauded the 9/11 terrorists.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

The preceding paragraph clearly summarizes what attempts had been made to contain Saddam. After a dozen years, it was clear the attempts were not working.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

The preceding paragraph makes clear that conditions were becoming worse. And more importantly, there was no indication that without intervention, conditions would improve.

5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.

Together these five reasons make clear that President Bush is a leader willing to take a risk for the benefit of the US as well as the rest of the world. Mr. Feith's makes this observation.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea. [Emphasis mine]

There will be those who debate the actions of President Bush, but based on the information available at the time, President Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq and remove a danger to all in the form of Saddam.

Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.

President Bush and his actions will be interpreted by Historians. They will use 20/20 hind site to make judgments and analyze the decisions of our current President Bush. One good place to start this process is Mr. Feith's first hand accounts of events. Don't be surprised if the decisions, judgments and analysis of President Bush's Iraq policy are favorably judged by the future.

Change

Senator Barack Obama has claimed the word "Change" for his Campaign. But that's not the "Change" I had in mind.

Change as in Change of Mind, Change of Attitude or Change of Strategy are more along the lines of my thinking. Change can be a good thing. Change is an indication of maturity and sound judgment. Change shows a willingness to adapt and adjust to the situation. In this sense of change is a positive value.

Whereas lack of the ability to change is inflexibility, rigidity, stubbornness and foolish. Failure to adjust, adapt and overcome (change) is an indication of weakness, lack of vision and therefore a negative value.

But change can also be negative if it is done too often. Too often is just as bad as never for a leader. Changing positions too frequently is called Flip-Flopping. Flip-Flopping is another sign of weakness, vacillation and is not one the characteristics desirable in a leader.

Therefore it is unwise to label any Politician a Flip-Flopper because of a change in position, attitude or strategy. If something isn't working, it makes sense to change to make it work. With any change the analysis must include the answer to the Question "WHY?", before an accurate assessment of the reasonableness for the change is determined.

John Kerry changed his position on almost every issue so often he was correctly tagged with the label of Flip-Flopper. Barack Obama has changed his position on his Church Matters, Presidential negotiations without preconditions and the Iraq situation at present that he is very close to fitting the Flip-Flopper definition.

George Bush (43^rd) has on rare occasions made changes as conditions warranted. The Surge in Iraq, and now he and John McCain have both changed their attitudes toward allowing Oil and Gas Exploration/Production in Coastal US waters. While the Democrats have bellowed "Flip-Flop" loudly, these changes do not a Flip-Flop make.

Cuba is allowing China to drill only 60 miles from our shores. Personally, I would rather have US safeguards and regulations control of the activity this close to our land. After Katrina, Wilma and Rita we lost about 1,000 Gulf Rigs without an oil spill. Will the Chinese Standards be this good?

Leadership is recognizing an opportunity and taking action. The opportunity is to become more petroleum independent. The action is removing the restrictions. The restrictions may have made sense when oil was $35 a barrel, but at over $120 a barrel, the possible negatives are far outweighed by the positive benefits.

In real estate the catch phrase is Location, Location & Location. The World situation catch phrase is Drill, Drill & Drill. Thank you John McCain and George Bush for taking the lead and speaking out in favor of an idea whose time has come.

John Murtha's Apology - AWOL

In November 2005 an incident took place in Haditha, Iraq. 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children allegedly were killed by US Marines as a deliberate act of revenge. Time Magazine reported the incident but it was Representative John Murtha (D-PA) who pronounced them GUILTY OF MURDER while the case was still under investigation. On May 17, 2006 the following story was posted on msnbc: Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’.

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." [Emphasis mine]

There were also 8 "bad guys" and one Marine killed at Haditha. Charges were brought against 8 Marines as a result of the investigation which followed.

Today, according to this article Haditha charges dropped against top Marine officer, a Judge dismissed the charges against the highest ranking officer, who while not present at Haditha, was charged with Violating a Lawful Order and Dereliction of Duty.

Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

This action means that of the 8 Marines charged 6 have had the charges dropped and one was acquitted at his court marshall. None of the Marines has been found guilty of any charges, although One Marine still remains accused of wrong doing as Haditha.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

John Murtha, a former Marine himself, not only violated one of the most sacred Democratic Guarantees, (presumption of innocence), but has failed to apologize for his disgraceful pronouncement.

It is for the bad example of Democratic Principles as shown by John Murtha that he is hereby presented the Scales of Injustice. I am sure that as one of the unindited Abscam defendants he will appreciate the award.

APPEASEMENT

Take a look at this picture.


How do you conduct rational meetings with someone who does not recognize your right to exist? Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack paints a graphic picture (both figuratively and visually) of what the Radical Terrorists want to accomplish. Time is on their side. Time which pointless discussions would give them an advantage. Pointless discussions are those without preconditions.

This is what Terror Groups and Organizations dream. Let's hope it doesn't become our nightmare.

Other Related Items:

• U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
• Chertoff: Hezbollah Makes Al Qaeda Look Minor League - Greatest Risk To National Security
• Report: Iran, al Qaeda in Secret Talks

What Ifs

Dick Morris points out a fatal flaw in the Democratic Iraq strategy. (See "O’Reilly-Clinton Interview Shows Dem Flaw") The question of "What Ifs" is what will enable the Republican Party to retain the White House for at Least another 4 years.

Bill O'Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O'Reilly's question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.

The Democrats have long maintained that the fighting in Iraq cannot be solved Militarily. For anyone who takes the time to think about Military actions in time of Battle or War, realizes no conflict is EVER WON by Military means alone. And the Point Dick Morris is making is the same one I have stated many times before - Diplomatic negations end the conflict, BUT the Military Wins the Battles which make the enemy want to negotiate piece. One cannot exist successfully without the other.

What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.

As the flaw in the Democratic Strategy becomes more obvious after the Nominations are finalized, John McCain's policy win in Iraq becomes the only viable course of action.

The truth is that the Democrats are cashing in on a mindless impatience with Iraq and an unwillingness to think through the consequences of pulling out. They are capitalizing on an emotional “no” in reaction to the war. But when the alternatives are carefully explained and examined, as they will be in a presidential debate, they are not going to embrace the answers Obama or Hillary will have to the “what ifs.” They will see the Democratic position as extremist and unworkable and will come to see the Democratic candidate who is pushing them as unprepared and unrealistic. If the candidate is Obama, their concerns will resonate with their perception that he is inexperienced and doesn't know his way around foreign policy. This will raise more and more doubts about his ability to lead us in a time of crisis.

The same can be said for candidate Hillary. The course of action does not involve making a bad situation worse by withdrawing the Military before the Diplomatic process is complete. The Democrats have played only to the emotion of the people. They are not talking about the reality of the world situation.

The question of how or why we became involved in Iraq is irrelevant in today's world. This is a question for the Historians to answer. For us the question which we need to consider is What do we do now? and What happens after that. To pull out before the Diplomatic win is achieved will be a much bigger disaster than anything you think has happened up to now.

Thoughts for November

There is much talk about what to do in Iraq from all sides of the Political Spectrum. The question of what to do about Iraq is important, and cause for genuine differences of opinion. But what to do next is sometimes clouded with issues and charges which have no place in any decision for future actions.

The biggest charge which should be given no consideration in deciding what to do now is WHY DID WE GO THERE? This is a question for the Historians to decide. It is not an issue on which to make your voting decisions in November.

The only issues which deserve our consideration now all must be based on WHAT DO WE DO NOW? We are there. We do not get a do-over. And because we are there, the important question is What do we do now?.

To put this into context, think about this situation. You have suffered a broken leg. You need attention. To argue at this point about the actions which caused the break is pointless and dangerous. The actions which caused the break are for the reflective period after the necessary treatment for the injury.

Now is the time to debate the consequences of future actions to heal the break. Is treatment to begin at the accident scene, or should immediate transportation to a Medical Facility be the first action? ETC.

Now apply this analogy to Iraq. Do not begin by arguing about why we got involved. Begin by asking what's the best course of action right now? Do we have the necessary commanders, tactics, supplies, and other resources to successfully complete the present mission? What will happen if we continue? What will happen if we pull-out. How can we accomplish either task? And most important, which actions give us the greatest chance for success?

Remember this in November. History will decide the question of Why? We, the Voters must decide What to do NOW!

There will be more on this in the coming months.

Strange Event

FedEx Truck Hijacked In New York City - Strange Event details a "What were they thinking?" event in the news. Read the article and then let me know what it means.

Many aspects of this story just don’t make sense to me. Maybe I’ve just been doing this too long and I over analyze things.

In this on "edge world" events like this are worthy of questioning.

On one hand it appears to be a planned crime and not a crime of opportunity (guns, handcuffs, badge). However, if that was the case why didn’t the hijackers bring along some type of tools to break open the seals on the containers?

As the author points out, the hijackers had this truck for 9 hours. Surely this is enough time to acquire the tools and means to open the containers, if that was their purpose. But apparently they did not distrube the cargo. Why???

This is where I begin to over-analyze. What if the truck was hijacked for some other purpose and the hijackers hadn’t planned on it being full of merchandise? What if they were actually hoping to take control of an empty truck just before Christmas and use it for some other purpose?

Another event that may mean nothing, but might mean something. The question is Which.

What Does Islamic Sharia Law Look Like?

Teacher Hidden As Sudan Mob Urges Death says it plainly.

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad [emphasis mine].

This is Radical Islam. This is al Qaeda. This is the Muslim Brotherhood. This is what we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The application of Sharia Law is not limited to the Sudan. Saudi Rape Ruling Puts Govt on Defensive articulates the application of Sharia Law to a RAPE VICTIM.

Saudi Arabia is bristling at international criticism over the sentencing of a rape victim to prison and 200 lashes, insisting the West should stay out of its legal system. But the case could empower voices for change in the kingdom's Islamic courts.

And what was the Rape Victim's crime?

In the case of the Girl of Qatif, the woman - a member of the kingdom's Shiite minority - was attacked in 2006 when she met a high school friend in his car to retrieve a picture of herself from him, since she had recently married. Two men got into the vehicle and drove them to a secluded area where five others waited, and then the woman - 19 at the time - and her companion were both raped, she has said. [emphasis mine]

Did you understand the crime the Rape Victim committed?

In October last year, she was sentenced to prison and 90 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her - a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. The seven rapists were also convicted. [emphasis mine]

Of course this criminal conviction was reversed on appeal. Wrong!!!

When her lawyer, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, appealed the sentence and made public comments about it, he was removed from the case, his license suspended, and the court increased the woman's penalty to six months in prison and 200 lashes. [emphasis mine]

This is the application of Sharia Law as practiced by Radical Muslims. The Appeals Court claimed justification for the increase in the Rape Victim's penalty.

It also defended the doubling of the sentence against her, insisting she was an "adulteress."

Sharia Law is Government and Religion as one. It is not Freedom of Religion. It is not separation of Church and State. It is Governmental Law based solely on Religion. It is Church IS State.

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.

Secure The Border(s) - It's Worth the Wait

W. Ralph Basham, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, says it's worth the wait to secure the border. In his article, Secure Border is Worth the Wait, Mr. Basham makes the following claim.

But any way you look at it, a safer, more secure border is well worth the investment and the wait.

That line is the final line from Mr. Basham's article. The beginning of states the following key points.

• All vehicles are now being scanned for radiation and;
• In fiscal 2007, 270 people with known terrorists ties were identified attempting to enter the country.

If 270 people with Known Terrorist Ties were prevented from entering the country at the border, how many more crossed without being detected? The potential damage inflicted by 19 Terrorists on September 11, 2001 indicates what can be done by those with an evil purpose.

In many instances, increased border enforcement will inconvenience some legal entrants, but it is obviously preferable to the alternative.

To keep bad people and bad things from entering America, at a minimum we scan all vehicles for radiation and check all individuals for proper documents. This process is not a bureaucratic game, but a security imperative. At our 99 land ports of entry, we processed just under 300 million people last year. We spend approximately 45-60 seconds with each person at the primary inspection booth, where we check for terror watchlist matches, outstanding criminal warrants, public health and narcotics lookouts and other indications of risk. Those who present some concern and require additional scrutiny are then referred for secondary inspection.

From this article we learn that 300 million people were screened, and now the results that Mr. Basham says make it worth the wait.

This process has yielded approximately 25,000 arrests during the 2007 fiscal year that just ended, a 10 percent increase over the previous year and a two-thirds increase from the launch of DHS in 2003. Keep in mind that these arrests are more than just a number; they represent the capture of murders, drug dealers, child molesters and potential terrorists. We’ve kept 300 tons of marijuana from entering the U.S. through the ports, as well as 93,000 pounds of cocaine. Last year we encountered 270 people suspected of having terrorist ties.

I believe we need to be aggressive in enforcing our border security for many reasons. This is one of them and is reason enough for Congress to Fund, Build and Staff the Border, Both of them.

Nuclear Syria?

In early September this year, Israel attacked and destroyed something in Syria. Of course Syria complained about the attack, but oddly, so did North Korea. Even more surprising was the lack of information from all, especially Israel. Normally Syria and Israel would be leaking information about this incident like a sieve. But after this Israeli Military Air Strike, a virtual black hole developed. Normally this would call for Banner Headline News and Government chest thumping from all sides. In this case after initial one line Government Statements, almost nothing.

It is therefore not surprising that speculation runs high that what little information and rumor about this raid is known, the information supports the idea that something very big happened. North Korea, silence from Israel and Syria, could indicate a Syrian Nuclear facility and aid from North Korea. North Koreans are thought to have been killed by this attack in Syria. It seems likely that the attack involved Nuclear Expansion.

Analysts Find Israel Struck a Nuclear Project Inside Syria from the online New York Times is the latest to make this link.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

In 1981, a similar Israeli attack set back the Iraq Nuclear Capability many years. But some, including American Analysts, believe the attack was premature. The Reagan Administration officially condemned the 1981 attack, while the Israeli government considered it one of their finest military victories.

Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.

The Bush Administration has remained concerned about the effect of this attack. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have expressed this concern for the implications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

The silence from the principals, and everybody else concerning this attack is very unusual.

In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.

The Bush Administration also refuses to discuss this matter.

The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment.

There are 2 different paths to enriched nuclear material used nuclear weaponry.

Nuclear reactors can be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. A reactor’s spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, one of two paths to building a nuclear weapon. The other path — enriching uranium in centrifuges — is the method that Iran is accused of pursuing with an intent to build a weapon of its own.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria’s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.

Whatever was located at the attack site appears to have been discovered by Israeli satellite photography. It is believed Israel was the first to detect the possible nuclear activity, and then brought it to the attention of the Bush Administration. North Korean involvement is interesting, and very likely significant.

North Korea has long provided assistance to Syria on a ballistic missile program, but any assistance toward the construction of the reactor would have been the first clear evidence of ties between the two countries on a nuclear program. North Korea has successfully used its five-megawatt reactor at the Yongbyon nuclear complex to reprocess nuclear fuel into bomb-grade material, a model that some American and Israeli officials believe Syria may have been trying to replicate.

The North conducted a partly successful test of a nuclear device a year ago, prompting renewed fears that the desperately poor country might seek to sell its nuclear technology. President Bush issued a specific warning to the North on Oct. 9, 2006, just hours after the test, noting that it was “leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.” He went on to warn that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”

President Bush has not repeated his warnings about North Korea. This silence is likely because of the delicate balance and sensitive negotiations while the 6 party talks between North Korea, the US and 4 other nations, continue in an attempt to convince North Korea to end their Nuclear Weaponry ambitions.

While the partly constructed Syrian reactor appears to be based on North Korea’s design, the American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave the plans to the Syrians, or whether the North’s own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.

According to two senior administration officials, the subject was raised when the United States, North Korea and four other nations met in Beijing earlier this month.

Whatever happened on September 6^th remains a mystery and therefore subject to speculation. But there is an excellent chance that the speculation about Syrian Nuclear Facilities and North Korean aid are correct.

One important detail is left out of the New York Times article, however. That is the fact that Syrian Air Defenses were unable to prevent Israeli Air Attacks. This is siginificant because the Syrian Air Defense System was an advanced Russian System similar to, but more advanced than the Russian System in Iran.

We continue to watch for further developments.

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."

More Evidence the Surge IS Working

Besides the Leading Democrats sudden position switch, there have been a series of reports of al Qaeda Leaders being eliminated in Iraq due to Military Operations. One of the latest comes from the World Tribune online. Last letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: 'We are so desperate for your help' is the latest report from Baghdad about the success of the Surge.

Officials said several leading aides to Al Qaida network chief Abu Ayoub Al Masri have been killed by the U.S.-led coalition. They said two out of the four foreign aides of Al Masri remain alive.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the previous Democratic Position exemplified by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "This war is lost." April 19, 2007. The article makes clear that it is the Terrorists in Iraq who are losing. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Senator Reid really does want The US to Win in Iraq.

On Sept. 25, the U.S. military killed an Al Qaida chief deemed responsible for transporting foreign operatives to Iraq. The Al Qaida commander, identified as Abu Osama Al Tunisi, was killed in a U.S. air strike as he met his colleagues in Musayib, about 60 kilometers south of Baghdad.

Besides the elimination of an important member of the al Qeada in Iraq's Chain of Command, the letter which Abu Osama Al Tunisi wrote shortly before he was killed is a good indicator of the Surge's Success.

Shortly before he died, Al Tunisi wrote a letter that warned of a threat to Al Qaida operations in Karkh. The lettter, found by the U.S. military, sought guidance from Al Qaida leaders amid coalition operations that hampered Al Tunisi's network.

"We are so desperate for your help," the letter read. [emphasis mine]

Further indication of the Surge's Success comes from the declining casualty figures for the last few months and especially for the month of September. Despite the fact that about 30,000 additional troops are in Iraq, September's death toll of American Forces was the lowest since July 2006. It is hard to deny there is improvement, and this is causing the Front Runners of the Democratic Party to retreat from previous anti-war and anti-surge comments.

Al Tunisi was termed the emir, or commander, of foreign operatives in Iraq. [U.S. Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff of the Multinational Corps Iraq] said Al Tunisi was responsible for the arrival of Al Qaida recruits into Iraq and their placement in operational cells.

Officials said more than 80 percent of suicide bombings have been by foreign operatives. They said most of the Al Qaida recruits arrive in Syria by air and continue overland into Iraq.

In addition to the handling of Foreign al Qaeda recuruts, Al Tunisi was ... responsible for the abduction and killing of two U.S. soldiers in June of that year. [2006]

Must Read

3393 Americans Dead is your must read assignment.

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.

Henry Waxman: Democratic with Political Agenda

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has a Political Agenda. This agenda is detailed in a published article by Oliver North. (Henry Waxman: Witch Hunter in Chief)

Based on Mr. Waxman's actions, the Congressman believes that the real enemy in America is The Republican Party Generally, and President George Bush in particular.

Since becoming committee chairman, Waxman has initiated numerous investigations into the activities of the Bush administration. According to his own news releases, he has probed -- if that's the right word -- the case of Valerie Plame, the celebrity CIA operative; Karl Rove; medical treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; Karl Rove; Defense Department and State Department contracting practices; Vice President Dick Cheney; Karl Rove; construction and hiring practices at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad; and the democratically elected government of Iraq, and he has tried to smear the White House over erroneous reports on the tragic death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch. Other than reducing entire forests to pulp for the paper to print his reports, the American people, in whose name all this is being done, have precious little to show for his tireless work.

Mr. Waxman is, according to some, a person who is very good at writing laws. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact. In fact it shows otherwise.

Notwithstanding Waxman's billing as a legislator who loves to "write laws, and he has been extraordinarily good at it," only three of the 95 bills he has sponsored in the past decade have been enacted. Seventy-seven of them were so good that they didn't even make their way out of committee. [emphasis mine]

According to a Time Magazine article published shortly after the November 2006 National Elections, Congressman Waxman is the Eliot Ness of the Democrats, and Waxman's supporters claim he is a strong supporter and advocate for transparency in Government. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact either.

Waxman's supporters describe him as a crusader for transparency in government. But the Time magazine flattery feature failed to disclose that the Time Warner Political Action Committee was the number one donor -- $13,500 -- to his 2006 re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Perhaps this revelation will prompt him to investigate the Federal Election Commission.

As I recall, the real Elliot Ness didn't ask the Political Affiliation of those who were the targets of his investigations. A look at Congressman Waxman's actions don't show this same Political Indifference.

Apparently Waxman's quest for full accountability in government contracting applies only to Republicans. According to Politico, a Capitol Hill publication, the FBI and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service have been exploring whether Reps. Paul Kanjorski and Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania -- both cronies of Waxman -- improperly earmarked millions of dollars in defense contracts to a firm owned by members of Kanjorski's family. Thus far, Waxman has indicated no interest in the matter.

That same Time article claimed that the Congressman's staff is one of the most highly regarded staffs on Capitol Hill. But the record does not exactly reflect that fact either.

In July, while investigating hiring abuses in the construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, this vaunted staff "invited" -- to use Waxman's word -- Mr. Rory Mayberry to testify about how the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was being built by kidnapped Filipino workers.

At the time, Mayberry was described as a whistle-blower who had courageously come forward to describe how unwilling Filipinos were dragooned into building our diplomatic mission. All the major news networks covered his shocking "revelations." But this week, The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" revealed that the committee's star witness "has a string of convictions going back to the mid-1980s, including two for forgery, one for burglary and a fourth for welfare fraud." So much for good staff work.

Corruption in Government is something over which neither party has a monopoly. Therefore, Congressman Henry Waxman is not to be applauded for attempts to smear the Republican Party in General, and the Bush Administration specifically. There is plenty of real Corruption which Mr. Waxman's Committee could legitimately investigate. If he would do so, Congressman Waxman would be doing the Country a real Service. As it is he is creating more division and Political Point Scoring at a time when we need to come together, united.