WAKE-UP CALL ON IMMIGRATION

The latest proof that the United States of America is being invaded by the Mexican Drug Cartels is in this article. Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head. It is time to secure the border. What to do with those who came here illegally is a secondary consideration.

We cannot have foreign Nationals threatening our people. It is time to send in the troops and secure the border.

NON-TRANSPARENT DEMOCRAT SENATE

This is the Senate of Harry Reid.

PRESS RELEASES

Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Thursday, December 17, 2009

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

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.

Janet Napolitano Oh Good Grief

It would appear that the Obama Administration needs someone in HR to actually make sure appointees are somewhat qualified to hold the position for which they are nominated. In particular the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, seems to think the 9-11 Terrorists came into the US through Canada. The border for dummies takes Ms. Napolitano to task for her statements to that effect in a Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) interview.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. [Emphasis Mine]

Certainly the Current Secretary of Homeland Security should know that all the 9-11 Terrorists entered the US directly from overseas.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

So she can't talk about her Knowledge of something which should have been clear and definitive knowledge (and therefore a prerequisite for intelligent interviews) as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Instead Ms. Napolitano says something which makes no sense at all. "The future is we have borders."

In previous statements, Ms. Napolitano has equated the Canadian and Mexican borders to the extant that they should both be given the same treatment. Yet the facts show that last year 5,000+ deaths related to drugs occurred along the Mexican US Border while ...

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?

More drug related deaths along the Mexican Border Last Year than since the 2003 Iraq War Began.

In addition, a week ago the Department of Homeland Security which Ms. Napolitano heads, released a memo concerning the Terroristic Dangers of the conservative right to the American Public. This included all returning Veterans, Catholics and just about anyone else who doesn't agree with the Obama Administration as Terrorist Risks. Napolitano stands by controversial report clearly defines Ms. Napolitano's beliefs.

In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration...

Beliefs which are so confounding that even Democrats are dumbfounded.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and the "dumbfounded" House Democrat. He probably is not the only one.

Oh wait there's more. DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime quotes Ms. Napolitano as not recognizing a crime.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.

A crime which the Secretary of Homeland Security should take seriously. Ms. Napolitano made this statement last week on CNN. Madam Secertary wants to go after employers rather than the illegals who cross the border. Why not go after both the illegals and the employers who hire them?

The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”

As the person responsible for Homeland Security, which includes Border Enforcement, shouldn't she know what the statute really says? Since when are we allowed to pick and choose which laws we wish to enforce?

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!!!

NYT & AP Get Obama Ayres Connection Wrong

Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin has attacked the judgment of Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama because of his connection to a Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is one of the founding members of the Weathermen. The Weathermen were anti-Vietnam War militants who conducted violent attacks on the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Mr. Ayers is unrepentant about being a Domestic Terrorist, and in fact claims that the Weathermen did not do enough.

Both the New York Times [Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths] and the AP [Analysis: Palin's words carry racial tinge] have recently whitewashed and brushed aside the significance of this connection. But in fact, the connection is very important. It is important because it shows the lack of judgment on the part of Senator Obama. And because Senator Obama has not been completely truthful about his relationship with an unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, William Ayers.

NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash by Stanley Kurtz reveals the importance and the extent of the Obama-Ayers connection.

As others have noted, today’s New York Times carries a story on the relationship between Barack Obama and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist, Bill Ayers. The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama’s friends and allies. Obama’s spokesman and supporters’ names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught. [Emphasis mine]

How close a relationship Obama has with Ayers is presented as the result of the work of Mr. Kurtz.

The title of the article when it first appeared on the web last night was, "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close." That was quickly changed to, "Obama and the ‘60's Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths." Perhaps the first headline made the paper’s agenda a bit too obvious. Even so, the new title simply parrots the line of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt that the two first met through an early "education project" and since have simply "encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Or, as New York Times reporter Scott Shane puts it at the head of his article, since an initial lunchtime meeting in 1995, "their paths have crossed sporadically...at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project (i.e. the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors."

So when Senator Obama claims in reference to his relationship with Ayers ... he's just some guy from the neighborhood is Senator Obama being Truthful? No, he is not. Senator Obama is really misleading all of us. Senator Obama and his campaign have the Mainstream Media like the New York Times and the AP to thank for attempting legitimize and mislead the public - US. Here is what Mr. Kurtz has to say about the Senator's and Ayers friendship.

There is nothing "sporadic" about Barack Obama delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of many years to fund Bill Ayers’ radical education projects, not to mention many millions more to benefit Ayers’ radical education allies. We are talking about a substantial and lengthy working relationship here, one that does not depend on the quality of personal friendship or number of hours spent in the same room together (although the article greatly underestimates that as well).

The Obama-Ayers connection, and others of questionable merit, definitely reflect on Senator Obama's Judgment and fitness for the Presidency of the United States.

Shane’s article buys the spin on Ayers’ supposed rehabilitation offered by the Obama campaign and Ayers’ supporters in Chicago. In this view, whatever Ayers did in the 1960's has somehow been redeemed by Ayers’ later turn to education work. As the Times quotes Mayor Daley saying, "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life." The trouble with this is that Ayers doesn’t view his terrorism as a mistake. How can he be forgiven when he’s not repentant? Nor does Ayers see his education work as a repudiation of his early radicalism. On the contrary, Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it. [Emphasis mine]

Nor can it be said that Senator Obama did not know about Mr. Ayers radical views.

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publically endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country. [Emphasis mine]

The fact that there is little evidence that Senator Obama shares these radical views, does not change the reason for questioning Senator Obama's judgment. Since Senator Obama has a tolerance for radical views of the United States and juvenile crime, we have the right to question Senator Obama's judgment and temperament to hold the office of the United States President.

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.

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

Oil Company Profits

A couple of days ago, I posted some Thoughts About Oil Company Profits. Today the On-Line Version of "The Wall Street Journal" published this article - "Windfall Profits for Dummies".

This is one strange debate the candidates are having on energy policy. With gas prices close to $4 a gallon, Hillary Clinton and John McCain say they'll bring relief with a moratorium on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax. Barack Obama opposes that but prefers a 1970s-style windfall profits tax (as does Mrs. Clinton).

Again we have a case of the Democrats pandering for votes. This despite the fact that we have tried to place a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies, and it failed to:

• reduce prices
• increase Domestic production
• reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil

Alas, those who fail to learn from History, are doomed to repeat it.

Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.

Actually there are no "excess profits" being made by the Oil Companies. The raw numbers only look like like an excess because the Oil Companies are so big. By the way the Government already takes 35% of the Oil Companies Profits. That's the Income Tax Rate the Big Oil Companies pay on Profits.

Exxon's profits are soaring with the recent oil price spike, but the energy industry's earnings aren't as outsized as the politicians seem to think. Thomson Financial calculates that profits from the oil and natural gas industry over the past year were 8.3% of investment, while the all-industry average is 7.8%. And this was a boom year for oil. An analysis by the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor finds that between 1970 and 2003 (which includes peak and valley years for earnings) the oil and gas business was "less profitable than the rest of the U.S. economy." These are hardly robber barons.

Let's put these figures into perspective. The 5 Largest Oil Companies (Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC) earned $36.9 Billion in 1st quarter profits. Gross Sales were over $400 Billion, and they paid over $140 Billion in Income Taxes.

Now suppose we apply the same percentages to a family making $40,000 per year. The Government takes $14,000, other expenses are $22,310 and we have $3,690 "EXCESS PROFITS. How would you feel about a tax on your "excess profits" of $3,690? Does taxing your "excess profits" make you want to earn more?

I mentioned we tried an excess profits tax on energy previously. Here is what resulted.

You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.

Right now Gas Prices hurt, but an excess profits tax would hurt a heck of a lot more in the long run.

This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?

As these figures show, we all need to think beyond the emotional political speak coming out of the current Democratic Presidential Candidates.

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.

Should Illegal Aliens Vote in US Elections?

There has been a lot of rhetoric about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to allow Illegal Aliens to obtain Drivers Licenses in New York State. The claim most often made as a justification for this granting of a State Approved Legal Drivers License is to bring the ILLEGALS out of the shadows and allow Governments to know who is in the US. And supporters argued that a legally issued State Drivers License would make our roads safer for all, because the Illegals could get Insurance and would have to pass a test covering "Rules of the Road".

All of these reasons sound good, noble and worthwhile, but there is another consequence which falls into the Fatally Flawed category. 'This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier' aptly identifies this Fatal Flaw.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote. [emphasis mine]

Voting is a privilege which should only be available to the Legal Citizens of the USA. Federal Law dictates that there is no way to reasonably exclude anyone, including Illegals, with an Official State Drivers License from the Voting Booth.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote. [brackets in original, but emphasis mine]

Similar cases have been found in other states too. Texas found over 300 Illegals registered to vote. In Texas, as in many other States, Prospective Jurors are chosen from Voter Registrations. Over 300 were disqualified for Jury Duty when they said they were not US Citizens. They were registered to Vote, however.

New York and Texas are not the only states to pollute the Voter Pool.

Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

There is some hope for the restoration of sanity and responsibility to the US.

While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting. [emphasis mine]

I don't agree with about 99% of Jimmy Carter's ideas, but this is one time he gets it right. In the interest of Full Disclosure, I am an Election Judge in Cook County, Illinois. I know from this experience that my job would be easier if a Photo ID were required to vote.

Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.

Generally the Liberals, most of whom are Democrats, oppose any limit to voter identification. They are wrong, and it's, Presidential Candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton who is at the fore-front, and probably the most visible, of the Democrat leaders pushing for legislation allowing and encouraging Illegal Alien Voter Registration.

Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation. [emphasis mine]

Voting is a privilege, not just a right. It should not be abused by Illegal Aliens, Criminals or other individuals who have no right or have by prior actions lost the right to this privilege.

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.

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.