As we all know, the Patriot Act is set to expire at the end of 2005. This week, the House Judiciary Committee will meet to mark-up a bill to renew the Patriot Act. The recent terror attacks in London should remind all of us just how vulnerable we are to terrorism. We live in a new and immensely dangerous world - where the homeland is the battlefield - and our laws must appropriately address these 21st century threats. If we are to have any chance of countering a London-like attack in the United States, we need to renew these provisions that allow - most importantly - for the coordination of vital information between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. We need to give our domestic law enforcement officials every possible tool to track, monitor and dismantle terrorist operations while at the same time preserving our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms - the Patriot Act does just that. The Patriot Act extends powers that the government already has in fighting domestic crime to the critical arena of the war on terror. In this regard, the Patriot Act protects our freedoms. As a conservative, I believe that national security is the one instance where the government is constitutionally permitted to take on more expansive powers. This is why I support increased defense and homeland security spending, and it is why I support the Patriot Act.
Since its inception in 2001, the Patriot Act has disrupted 5 terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Northern Virginia ; 401 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism-related investigations; 212 individuals have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in the United States, and 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States (see more here).

The London tragedy should also remind us that homeland security is only a small piece of our strategy in the war on terror. As we saw, the terrorists only need to be successful once to bring about great tragedy and chaos. That is why we have to go on the offensive in the war on terror, and act preemptively if necessary. Quite simply, we have to hit them before they hit us.

Call your representatives and make sure they renew the Patriot Act.

Yes, you heard me right. The recent wave of BRAC closures has unleashed the usual shallow criticisms from demagogic politicians on the Left and even some well-intentioned politicians on the Right (like PA’s Rick Santorum and TX’s Tom Delay) about the supposed adverse economic effects of base closures. We’ve all heard the cries… “you can’t close down that base, it will destroy the economy!” First of all, these politicians should care more about national security than the state of their local economies and getting reelected. Yet, their concerns about BRAC’s economic effects are just as irrational. Heritage Foundation released this study today demonstrating the following: “Most affected communities have recovered nicely from past BRAC rounds, with approximately 90 percent of all jobs being replaced. Indeed, approximately 115,000 jobs have been created through past recovery efforts, and many communities have actually prospered. ” Their statistical data shows that in every round of base closures since 1988 (there have been 4 total), and in every region of the country where they have occured, the per capita income in the local economy has risen steadily, and in some cases it is actually higher than it was before (ex: Southern California navy base closures and Alabama army base closures in the mid-1990’s have led to higher income levels - see study).
So what’s the secret to avoiding the economic hardships associated with BRAC closures?

Heritage argues that early, innovative economic planning will save any community from such economic woes: “They can avoid much of the eco­nomic hardship predicted by BRAC critics by learning from past BRAC successes and proactively developing economic response plans.” And there are plenty of “past BRAC successes” to choose from. The study cites Glenview Naval Air Station (which is 15 minutes from my house in Chicago) which was transformed into a trendy, vibrant and affluent shopping center on Chicago’s North Shore after it closed in 1993. Myriad American communities have adopted similar plans, and their economy has been the better for it. The final point is this: we aren’t closing these bases for the fun of it, we are doing it because American national security depends on it. The affected communities and their shortsighted politicians need to stop complaining and look to the private sector - and not the DOD - for economic support. And as Heritage’s report shows, the private sector is ALWAYS up to the challenge.

Canadian oil giant EnCana is considering bringing in Chinese companies to construct and operate drilling rigs in the Colorado Rockies, and China’s biggest offshore oil and gas producer has opened a bidding war for Unocal, the ninth-biggest US oil firm.

Two great articles from the American Spectator, the first by Jed Babbin:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda chief in Iraq, sent a thank you note to the Dick Durbins and Ted Kennedys of Congress in a message to his followers and sympathizers on July 5. According to an unreleased translation read to me by a Defense Department source, Zarqawi’s message exhorted his terrorists to greater effort, because, Zarqawi said, it is very clear that America was being defeated in Iraq. Zarqawi’s proof? His message said that the proof that America is losing is that some American congressmen are saying just that.

Damn the enemies of America, both foreign and domestic.

Now the second story by Christopher Orlet:

The popular version in the mainstream media of suspected terrorists being tortured and humiliated by sadistic U.S. military guards was disputed the other week in a 278-page internal investigative report excerpts of which were published by the Associated Press. If the news accounts of the report purported to show U.S. brutishness and misconduct, it had the opposite effect. Rather, the report reveals that it is the Muslim detainees that are the sadistic thugs and that the military’s kid gloves approach is creating dangerous and chaotic conditions for U.S. military personnel.

Hat-tip: Rush Limbaugh

Not true, but that will be repeated until by the Democrats until the end of time and then some more, just to make sure that everyone knows. The fact is, the Democrats are the party of the rich, by far. Jerry Bowyer writing for Buzz Charts at NRO has the story.

So what does this mean, that the GOP is the party of the poor? Not quite.

As this chart shows, the GOP is the party of the aspirational:

This pattern also shows up in more finely honed geographic measures. Ninety-seven of the 100 fastest-growing counties in America went GOP last year. These counties tend to be highly aspirational ex-urbs — areas that lie outside central cities and outside inner-ring suburbs. Your BuzzCharts author lives in such a community: Lots of land, lots of growth, lots of small business owners. Ex-urbians generally don’t come from wealth. In fact, they’re immune to class guilt because they didn’t inherit their wealth. More than the “aspiring class,” this is the “perspiring class.” After all, these people sweat to get where they’re going.

In fact if you look at exit polls Democratic voters can be broken down into two groups, the extremely rich and well educated and the extremely poor and ignorant. What do these two groups have in common? They are both divorced from reality. How do a guy with a Harvard PhD and a street hustler without a high school education both vote for John Kerry? Because neither of them know anything about the real world. The middle class, common sense voter is where the GOP has always found its strength and it will continue to do so in the future.

I have already mentioned this and it has been re-hashed again and again, but for you thick-skulled leftists out there this article by John Podhoretz in the New York Post should be the final nail in the coffin:

But Plame’s undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case. How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the time as part of Joseph Wilson’s own biography online (see here)?

This should end it, forever. But it won’t will it? The fact that the guy himself published his wife’s name online is irrelevant to the left who hates George Bush and the country so much that they can no longer even rationally approach an issue.