As surely as the future holds another catastrophic earthquake for California, so might it promise a Mushroom Cloud for one or more of our major cities.  This alarming reality makes the outcome of every future national election infinitely more momentous than that of its precursor.  For, if there's any hope of forestalling this unimaginable prospect, it certainly lies in our imperative to replenish our government with only those preeminently qualified to do so

 

Granted, whether a Reagan Republican, a focused government Federalist, or a leave—me—alone Libertarian, whatever Congress hasn't done lately to disappoint you, surely the White House has.  There's talk that many of you understandably dispirited Conservatives will stay home to watch Dancing With The Stars this coming election evening.  If you do, you may just wake up Wednesday morning to the revelation that your inaction will one day cause a cataclysmic reaction.

 

It's likely not a matter of if

 

In June of 2002, bin Laden spokesman Abu Gheith brazenly claimed al—Qaeda's right to kill 4 million Americans — half of them children. Having raised the bar dramatically just 9 months prior, the murderous group's words were interpreted by many experts as a warning of an impending 'American Hiroshima.'  The term had previously been intercepted amid al—Qaeda 'chatter,' especially pertaining to the false alarm of a 10 kiloton bomb having been smuggled into NYC exactly a month after the 9/11 attacks.

 

No one doubts that their will to annihilate countless Americans is categorical.  But —— what of their way?  Is there a genuine danger of al—Qaeda actually possessing the means to a nuclear detonation, or is this all psychological gamesmanship?

 

Consider this —— as a rule, technology will expand and miniaturize —— not contract and bloat. A fine example is the world's 1^st digital computer —— the U.S War Department's ENIAC — which was a half million dollar behemoth spanning well over 100 feet.  When launched in 1946, it mustered but a fraction of the processing power of a 10 dollar digital wristwatch produced just 40 years later.   Such is the daunting way of all technology — including weapons: The initial prohibitive expense, size, and sophistication to all but advanced governments inexorably gives way to widespread proliferation to one and all.   

 

Consequently —— the machinery of a terrorist nuclear bomb is readily available and, quite frankly, inescapable.  This means that our last hope of averting unprecedented disaster lies in keeping fissile material out of their bloodthirsty hands. After all, absent sufficient quantities of the proper isotopes, an A—bomb is but a harmless, empty hi—tech shell.

 

The Object of their Convection

 

So a would—be nuclear terrorist must either acquire a fully armed weapon, or, at the very least, its deadly fuel.  Such fuel must be purchased, stolen, or produced by extremely expensive, arduous, and time consuming means. Unfortunately, there currently exist rich opportunities for each of these methods of procurement.

 

Pakistan's 'rogue' nuclear scientist, Dr. A.Q.Kahn's centrifuge design for uranium enrichment has already found its way to both North Korea and Iran.  The former has recently showcased the destructive results of that acquisition while the latter promises that a similar exhibition is soon forthcoming. Either of these rogue nations might be willing to marshal materials or weapons to al—Qaeda or Hezb'allah in order to deliver a bomb to the U.S with no discernible return address.

 

An easier acquirement may be available from the black market supply of both weapons and weapons—grade materials unleashed by the rapid dissolution of the former Soviet Union:

 

• It is suspected that at least some of the 22,000 tactical nukes Moscow reclaimed from former S.S.Rs at the end of the Cold War have been stolen, lost, or are otherwise unaccounted for.

 

• In 1997, Russian General Alexander Lebed told 60 Minutes that 84 one—kiloton 'suitcase' devices had vanished.  This is a highly contested issue.  There are claims that such apparatus are available on the Chechnya black market and are already in the hands of terror cells within our borders.  There are also those who thoroughly dismiss these assertions and, furthermore, dispute the efficacy of such weapons after years of neglect.

 

• Parcels of both Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and its precursor, 'yellowcake,' have been intercepted in Czechoslovakia, Germany and Georgia.  It is widely believed that the materials were misappropriated in Russia.

 

• Thousands of weapons and soft—ball sized lumps of HEU and Plutonium are stored in outlandishly ill—secured locations in Russia.  And, while the US D.O.D has implemented measures to help bolster security at these sites, they can only do so at those specifically allowed by Moscow.

And, if a little bloodshed doesn't present an obstacle, there are minimally secured active materials available in HEU—fueled nuclear research reactors in the U.S and across the globe.   Also, recent intelligence suggests that Pakistan's hard—line Islamist parties are becoming more entrenched in the country's all—powerful Army.  Even more distressing are ongoing threats of the overthrow or assassination of President Pervez Musharraf. Such a move may instantly put a radical, terror friendly, Islamist government in charge of a formidable nuclear arsenal.

 

Burning down the House

 

The stakes are high, indeed.  The highest we've ever encountered — hands down. Our survival lies in the thoroughly dispassionate application of aggressive and not altogether pretty countermeasures.  Sure, politicians and diplomats can institute a 'gold standard' for all nuclear weapons and materials by securing them in Fort Knox's radioactive equivalent.  Meanwhile, vastly impotent liberal enclaves such as the UN can endeavor to check the production of new fissile materials by nations seeking membership into the nuclear club by deploying empty threats and meaningless sanctions.  These may prove to be marginally worthy long—term efforts, but fail miserably to tackle the immediate threat.

 

No —— in order to address the real problem we must interrupt nuclear black markets.  We must prevent jihadists from acquiring weaponry from sympathetic states. We must expand our network of both human and electronic intelligence.  We must maintain the capability to interrogate those with information vital to the cause to whatever extent necessary.  We must enhance our eavesdropping and data—mining efforts beyond the perimeter which has already elicited liberal cries of foul.  Simply stated — we must do whatever needs to be done to whomever needs it done while remaining deaf to the outcries of the misguided children in the room — and in the House.

 

White House political strategist Karl Rove assessed the left's pathetic and perilous counterterrorism stance cogently in his October 17^th comments to the Washington Times:

 

'You had 90 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist—surveillance program, nearly three—quarters of Senate Democrats and 80 percent of House Democrats voting against the terrorist—interrogation act. Something is fundamentally flawed.'

 

Mr. Rove's political position demands diplomacy.  Mine does not: This 1960's mentality in a 2000's world is not just 'fundamentally flawed' —— it is unforgivably negligent. In an age of daily mortal threats to our citizenry, these quixotically misguided hippie leftovers still place civil liberties far ahead of civil defense.

 

Furthermore, should the power dispensed by statute to the majority party be added to this naïve mix come Election Day, such an amalgam might just open the door to an inferno.  These starry—eyed dupes will be handed the power associated with chairing the powerful House committees.  And each of the aspiring committee chairmen was among those voting against the 2 bills cited by Rove.  Each also, along with 173 of their Democratic colleagues, voted against House Resolution 895 which specifically condemns:

 

'the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.'

 

Fortunately, we currently enjoy a Republican majority.  As such, these bills, so crucial to safeguarding our very lives, passed in spite of the efforts of the oblivious minority. Indeed, there's been much anxiety lately over a Democrat—held House's impact on taxes, gun control, welfare reform, global warming, taxpayer funded abortions, and other social issues.  Yet all of these concerns will vaporize along with hundreds of thousands of Americans within seconds of a well placed and well timed A—Bomb.  The frightening truth is that aggressive counterterrorism bills such as these will never make it out of committee if Democrats are handed the majority next month.

 

Four Housemen of the Apocalypse

 

Imagine Rep. John Conyers (D—Mich) holding the gavel of the Judiciary Committee.  The man is so obsessed with impeaching the President that he actually held a mock trial last June in the Capitol basement, complete with cardboard name tags, C—SPAN cameras, and demands he be referred to as 'chairman.'  He truly believes that we 'unfairly elected to discriminate in granting visas to men from Middle Eastern countries' and were 'openly violating our nation's laws by authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.'      

 

How about Rep. Alcee L. Hastings of Florida wearing the crown at the Intelligence Committee? The former federal judge, who was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989, voted against the Patriot Act just weeks after the 9/11 attacks:

 

'The Patriot Act has given the government new powers to bug telephones, monitor e—mails and Internet use, and search public databases. From the over—broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non—citizens without formal charges, civil liberties have been seriously undermined. This is completely unacceptable.'

 

In fact, for the job of protecting this nation against nuclear terrorism, isn't it 'Chairman' Hastings that is completely unacceptable?

 

Congressman Barney Frank (D—Mass) would chair the Financial Services Committee. In his book Why America Slept — The Failure to Prevent 9/11, Gerald Posner explores the impact Frank's misplaced concern for the civil liberties of our enemies had on our vulnerability to the attacks. First, his efforts led to legislation which provided that membership in a terrorist group was insufficient cause to deny an entry visa.  Then:

 

'Between 1981 and 2001, Barney Frank sponsored no less than 13 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which had the effect of opening the nation's floodgates to a well—disciplined, well—organized network of terrorist sleeper cells and support groups that have since become entrenched here in America for up to two decades.'

 

Charles Rangel (D—NY) would take the reins of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, where he has promised to cutoff vital military funding.  The anti—military Congressman actually introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the Pentagon's handling of charges of 'prison abuse' by U.S. soldiers.  Can you imagine giving more power to a man who believes that:

"We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries." 

We are arguably standing at the next crossroads of civilization, yet we are about to install leaders better suited for President Merkin Muffley's war room than George Bush's.  Insane?  It only gets more so:

 

The Worst Defense is a Weak Offense

 

In line for the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is every pacifist's favorite soldier — John Murtha (D—Pa).  The one—time warrior has lowered his sword and called for either the immediate withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq or a specific deadline for doing so.  Once anointed with this chair, he has promised to force the issue by cutting off all necessary funding.  But the danger of his leadership extends well beyond Baghdad.

 

Murtha also voted unsuccessfully against extending the Patriot Act.  He did so knowing full well that he was attempting to strip intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the very powers which had permitted them to disrupt over 150 terrorist threats and cells around the world.

 

Murtha didn't even wait for the smoke to clear in the Iraqi city of Haditha before exploiting its opportunity. Last November, he appeared on ABC's This Week to announce that a cover—up going 'right up the chain of command' had taken place.  Without any facts to back up his claims, the angry General proclaimed the act as murder, adding that it was 'worse than Abu Ghraib.'

 

Yet, perhaps his most distressing comments were spoken on the House floor last December. Addressing the use of extreme measures to obtain extreme information in extreme circumstances, Murtha said:

"Torture does not help us win the hearts and minds of the people it's used against'

Earth to Jack —— Neither hearts nor minds will prevent Times Square from suddenly reaching the surface temperature of the Sun.  Forget Murtha — where's Jack Bauer?

 

Behold a Pale Boss

 

Last and certainly least qualified for even the lowliest of civil defense jobs is San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi.  This liberal feminist Minority Leader has never missed an opportunity to criticize the administration or scythe its counterterrorism initiatives.  In keeping with her 'proud' liberal background, she strongly believes that terrorists should be tried in our court system and afforded all of the rights and constitutional protections normally reserved to citizens. 

 

True to that absurdly irresponsible position, she has proudly and consistently voted against most legislation written to maintain the current radiation levels of the country.  For instance:

 

• The formation of the Homeland Security Department

 

• The development of a national missile defense system

 

• Exempting U.S. citizens, particularly our soldiers, from the potential contrivances of a blatantly anti—American  International Criminal Court

 

• Final Passage of the Patriot Act reauthorization

 

• Prohibiting "U.S. Citizens And Companies From Conducting Any Financial Transaction With Countries That Have Been Identified By The State Department As Active Sponsors Of Terrorism'

 

And yet, she has repeatedly voted for cutting Intelligence funding —— even after 9/11.  She voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, which would have strengthened our battle against terrorist entry into and movement about the country.  Even worse —— her call for the acceptance of the easily forged, Mexican—issued 'matricula consular' cards for border crossing and passage into Federal Buildings would have the exact opposite impact on our safety.

 

When a Carter appointed federal judge decreed that the NSA program was 'unconstitutional' and called for its immediate suspension, Pelosi hailed the ruling as a 'repudiation' of the administration's use of NSA surveillance.  Adding utter ignorance of global history to her disregard for national safety, she has called for the immediate closing of camp X—ray at Guantanamo in order to

 

"give us a clean slate in the Muslim world.'

 

Then, we need to unleash those sworn to our destruction in order to make amends — for what, not being stuck in the 9^th century?   The abovementioned Military Commissions Act of 2006 broadened the government's right to detain and question terror suspects about threats against our country. Not surprisingly, when it passed in spite of her nay vote, Pelosi incredulously declared:

"This bill is practically begging to be overturned by the [Supreme Court]."

For our Children's Children's Children

 

So the woman who would be Speaker would intentionally impede both our human and electronic intelligence gathering.  She will rule over a House whose committee chairmen share her preposterous belief that the ends justify the means only when those means are sanctioned by the ACLU.  That breaching the 'liberties' of the few in order to save the millions is an unacceptable exchange.  Yes, the enemy tortures, decapitates and slaughters without mercy —— but we are morally superior.

 

But here's what the Dems just don't get: Every time we show the enemy our moral superiority —— we get weaker.  Every time the enemy brandishes his complete lack of morality —— he gets stronger.  Furthermore, every time he is presented with a new weakness on our part — he grows stronger still. 

 

Surely, the liberal response to terrorism has been and will continue to be a veritable showcase of weakness and cowardice.  And, just as surely —— only through strength and courage might we avoid the day when much of Manhattan resembles the smoldering ruins which were the World Trade Center on September 12, 2001.

 

So forget about Abramoff, Katrina, Iraq, and any other Republican blunder which the MSM has unabashedly over—reported in an effort to deflate your motivation to get out to the polls.  Instead of the mundane fallout over Foley, consider the potential lethal fallout over your city.

 

For the sake of this and future generations —— vote.  Vote as though your life depended on it — for it just might.   Pelosi has said that this election 'shouldn't be about National Security.'  If the Democrats retake the House, she will have been right — dead right.

 

Marc Sheppard is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback