The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:   The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can’t have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation.  America can’t afford it.     

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this:  If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?      Would you?  This Isn’t About Politics.  It  About National Security. 

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn’t political — she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.     But this isn’t about politics.  It  about national security.      At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques — specifically waterboarding — on captured al Qaeda terrorists.    

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality     Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used.  At last week  press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."     In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that  our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’"    

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory:  Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?       If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA , Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself.  She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it.  Not good, but not disqualifying.       

Pelosi on the CIA:   "They Mislead Us All The Time"     But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory.  Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her — misled Congress — and not just once, but routinely.       "They mislead us all the time," she said.    

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.     And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.      Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?     And the question that remains is why?  Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?     Perhaps it  because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is:  The Left  attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.    

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.     America was terrified.  As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn’t know where and we didn’t know when.     If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated     If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 — just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet — then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks — in other words, the Bush Administration policy — is vindicated.       But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance.  She didn’t know, so she claims. That  why she didn’t do anything about it.     But President Bush did know.  It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.     

It was Nancy Pelosi  job to know too.  But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she  now telling us she didn’t know.  And she  calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.       Shame on her.      Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe     Speaker Pelosi has damaged America  safety.     She  made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can’t count on their leaders to defend them.     And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.     America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi  contempt for those who defend her.       

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn’t political — she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.      But this isn’t about politics.  It  about national security.      At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques — specifically waterboarding — on captured al Qaeda terrorists.    

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality     Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used.  At last week  press conference she went beyond this position to assert that  the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."      In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that  "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.’ "   

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory:  Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?       If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA , Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself.  She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it.  Not good, but not disqualifying.        Pelosi on the CIA:   "They Mislead Us All The Time"      But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory.  Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her — misled Congress — and not just once, but routinely.        "They mislead us all the time," she said.    

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.      And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.       Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?     And the question that remains is why?  Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?      Perhaps it  because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is:  The Left  attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.      Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.     America was terrified.  As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn’t know where and we didn’t know when.      If Pelosi consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is vindicated .     

If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 — just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet — then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks — in other words, the Bush Administration policy — is vindicated .       But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance.  She didn’t know, so she claims. That  why she didn’t do anything about it.     But President Bush did know.  It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.     It was Nancy Pelosi  job to know too.  But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she  now telling us she didn’t know.  And she  calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.      Shame on her.        

Speaker Pelosi has damaged America  safety.         She  made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can’t count on their leaders to defend them.         And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.         America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi  contempt for those who defend her.          

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

About the author:  Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works" and "Winning the Future".    

Both U.S. Senators Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, M.D. from Oklahoma voted against the conference report on the fiscal year 2010 budget after the House of Representatives approved it by a vote of 233-193 with no Republican support.  Calling the budget "reckless," Senator Inhofe cited the trillions of dollars in new spending and taxes as his primary reasons for opposing the legislation. 

The Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 53-43.    Senator Coburn said,  "This budget will make our economy worse by spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.  In these tough economic times, national leaders should be leading by example, which means making tough choices and eliminating programs that don’t work.  President Obama continues to call for a line-by-line review of the federal budget, yet Congress continues to ignore its duty to make tough choices about spending.    In fact, Congress had the audacity to gut from this conference report a simple amendment the Senate previously accepted that would have expressed Congress’ full support for the President  effort to go through the budget line-by-line in order to eliminate wasteful spending," Dr. Coburn said. 

"The budget approved by the Democrats takes this country in the wrong the direction, and I was happy to vote against it," Senator Inhofe said.    It is irresponsible; it is reckless; and it is a troubling sign that a Majority party with no checks and balances is going on a spending spree that will be paid for by the next generation.  

On President Obama  100’th day in office, it is suiting that Congress passed the largest budget to date, further highlighting this administration  priority of massively increasing spending and the size of government.      The conference report on the Fiscal Year 2010 budget includes deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year; a total of $9.3 trillion in federal borrowing over the next decade; doubles the national debt in 5 years to $12.6 trillion and triples it in 10 years to $17.2 trillion; and contemplates $1.4 trillion in new tax increases.  On top of the $4 trillion we are spending this year, the budget increases spending by $2.5 trillion over ten years and increases the debt by $6.5 trillion over the same period to pay for it.     

Beyond the staggering expenses, this bloated budget includes extremely harmful policy provisions.  The legislation recognizes the Administration  effort to enact a costly cap-and-trade energy tax, which would cost trillions of dollars and increase the cost of energy for households across the country.  It provides instructions to fast-track legislation to enact government-run universal health care.  Furthermore, as President Obama intends to cut vital defense programs, this budget is on track to grow this country’s obligations to 22% of our GDP, while shrinking defense spending in relation to GDP from 4% to 3.01% by 2019, putting us on a path that leads to a weaker military that is poorly equipped.     The budget also includes instructions to implement President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program making the government the originator of all federally backed student loans."  The FFEL program is a 40-year-old public-private partnership that allows private lenders to provide federally guaranteed funds, and this measure would have a direct impact on millions across the country as well as in Oklahoma.  Since 1965, this program has assisted over 60 million students in paying for college, and is widely used in post-secondary institutions nationwide.   In Oklahoma, all but two colleges and universities participate in the FFEL program.  Furthermore, 213 individuals would lose their jobs in Oklahoma alone.      

"I am, however, pleased that the budget addresses issues I have long worked to accomplish, such as accelerating the phase-in of concurrent receipt and eliminating the offset between benefits provided for our veterans under the Survivor Benefits Plan and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation," Senator Inhofe said.  The legislation includes Senator Inhofe  amendment to provide advanced appropriations for Veterans Administration (VA) programs, which allows multi-year planning for VA funding priorities.  That amendment was strongly supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and Disabled American Veterans (DAV).    

"This Congress continues to be in denial about our unsustainable fiscal course.  Total spending under this budget is $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of our GDP   the highest level since World War II.   This budget will also increase the national debt to $17 trillion in five years, up from our current debt of $11.1 trillion.  Our nation simply cannot continue on this course without suffering severe, and perhaps irreversible, consequences.     Sadly, this budget shows that politicians are more committed to the politics of instant gratification, and their own re-election campaigns, than the serious challenge of preserving economic freedom and opportunity for future generations," Dr. Coburn said. 

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country  banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.    This seemingly insignificant change is momentous.  It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism .   

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.   When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government.

The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers  get something back" for the money they were lending to the banks.  House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration  proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash.  Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock.  But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party  conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.   

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock.  Preferred" means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.   

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That  called socialism.     Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.   

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.    Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial  stress test.  Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.   The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.    

This story also published on TheHill.com April 21, 2009    About the author:  Dick Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris  and Eileen McGann  columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to "dickmorris.com". 

On April 1  of this year, Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, Bayh and Nelson introduced bills S. 773 and S.778, collectively called the Cybersecurity Act, which would give President Obama dictatorial power over the Internet during a time of national crisis or emergency.  According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may  "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network".

He may also "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."  What constitutes  cybersecurity emergency" or  "critical infrastructure information system or network" is left completely up to the President to define.

"We know that the Administration," according to Rahm Emanuel, "never wants  a serious crisis to go to waste".  We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.Obama campaign fundraiser and FCC Chair nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of  "Net neutrality", the first step in applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.    "Net neutrality" proponents like Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide. Incredibly, they claim this is to keep the Internet free and open to all, when in reality, their goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent.   

The Cybersecurity Act is also includes a provision where  "The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecuirty threat and vulnerability information to the Federal Government and   private sector owned   (emphasis mine) critical infrastructure information systems and networks."  "Shelving all privacy laws including the requirement for warrants, the Secretary of Commerce  shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."     

Senator Rockefeller made it clear in his statement what  relevant data" this act could include when he stated  We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs   from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records "the list goes on."   While we have worried about cyber attacks from Russia and China, who would have thought the greatest threat would come from members of our own Congress.  

U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday joined Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to send a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing serious concerns about the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled   "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment ."     

"I was shocked to learn that this report classifies the brave men and women returning home from combat and operational deployments around the globe, who have been honorably defending our country, as potential terrorists," Senator Inhofe said.  "As a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am especially proud of our soldiers returning home and I find it extremely regretful that they have been subjected to such an insult by this report. Furthermore, I find it reprehensible that within this report Americans who hold certain beliefs regarding issues such as immigration, the Second Amendment, and abortion fall under the report  broad generalization of rightwing extremists, and are therefore considered a potential threat. I believe this report to be very offensive to many Americans."

Full Text of the Letter:      

Dear Secretary Napolitano, 
We write today regarding the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled   "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling   Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment " and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.       While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.       

First, your report states that  rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalized returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."  Using that rationale, a wide-range of local, state and federal law enforcement personnel would also be attractive to rightwing extremists with their weapons familiarity and tactical law enforcement skills.  To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting are freedom.     

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS  independent data.       

Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats.  We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.      

Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.      

In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are  proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We also ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. Once again, we ask that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.