Stop the Unconstitutional, Jobs-Killing, EPA Regulation of Carbon Dioxide

Just in time to bolster President Obama's "green" credentials at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on December 7, 2009: "Today I'm proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act" (view video).

So, even though the cap and trade energy tax bill was stalled in the U.S. Senate, President Obama was able to point to the EPA announcement in Copenhagen to show the commitment of the U.S. government to take measures to reduce greenhouse gases as part of the whole global warming/climate change charade being participated in by our political, academic, and news media elites.

Fortunately, there is a movement in Congress to prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. There are two bills in the House and one proposed amendment in the Senate to do just this. The first bill in the House is H.R. 391 which was introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on January 9, 2009 and which currently has 151 cosponsors. The second bill in the House is H.R. 4396 which was introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) on December 16, 2009. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) has taken a different approach in the Senate with a resolution, which is supported by 35 Republicans and three Democrats so far, that could be used as an amendment and attached to the bill of her choice or introduced as a standalone bill.

Contact your representative and senators and tell them to "stop the unconstitutional, jobs-killing, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide."

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Dear Fellow Citizens and Taxpayers,

I contemplated responding to the President's state of the union address, but then I remembered, I actually understand "We the People" - and, responding to someone who does not - is really a waste of my time.

So now the question becomes - What would I say if addressing the nation?...

My fellow Americans - it has been a challenging first year in this new presidency.

- We have seen failed companies bought with our money and propped up in the name of "too big to fail."
- We have seen hundreds of billions of dollars wasted to "stimulate" the economy without taking into account any fundamental principles of free markets, and therefore having no impact.
- We have seen Cap and Trade legislation passed in the House that seeks to wage a war on freedom and prosperity based on fake science.
- We have seen requests for you to turn your friends and family in to the White House.
- We have seen healthcare legislation introduced that was so hated by the American people that Congressmen were offered bribes and loopholes simply to get their vote. But, the bill still wasn't palatable to special interests, so completely unequal treatment was offered to unions in the hope of gaining more support.

These are not the only things. These are the highlights.

I propose a brave new course of action designed with outcomes in mind, not intentions.

Free Markets
1. This government must stop trying to control the economy through the Federal Reserve by manipulating interest rates outside market conditions in the hopes of steering the economy. The market can't be controlled in this way.

Artificial market conditions always lead to long term failure and clearly this lesson has not been learned under any of the recent administrations. They are perpetuating a boom-bust cycle.

2. This government must stop increasing the money supply in the name of liquidity in credit markets. Making money too easy to obtain is a primary reason why individuals and businesses find themselves in a state of dependency upon disproportionate amounts of credit.

We cannot fix behaviors by feeding the very addiction that created the problem. It only serves to perpetuate long term recession and devaluation of the currency.

3. This government must take an appropriate role in contract law. It is not the proper role of government to intervene in private contracts between businesses and consumers in the name of consumer protection by destroying lawful credit or mortgage contracts simply in the name of "fairness."

Subversion of contract law is effectively a subversion of private property rights. Subversion of these rights is a declaration of war on Liberty itself.

4. This government must stop favoring certain industries and businesses over others. Moral legislation in the form of cap and trade, attempting to save the planet from "global warming" without consideration of the consequences or scientific data that says otherwise is either painfully irresponsible or blatantly malicious.

Equally irresponsible are the excessive subsidies, taxes and regulations given to certain sectors but not others in the hopes of playing economic engineer from Washington.

In short - the government's job is not to build business and create wealth. Tempered regulation of the economy is all that is needed from government in the economy.

Fiscal Responsibility
1. The government must stop spending more than it brings in. Every business and individual understands this course of action always results in destruction.

2. If the government can't balance a budget, then it must cut programs and departments. This is not a difficult concept, and is only complicated by the lack of political fortitude shown by both Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans had their chance and failed miserably - actually expanding government and programs. The Democrats have their chance again and have responded by increasing most government departments in size, scope and influence.

This lack of political fortitude is exacerbated by too many bureaucrats who control departments without accountability, too many lobbyists without transparency and a general elitism from both parties that preservation through their respective political machines is more important than wisdom based in principle.

3. A tax system built on disproportionate numbers of people carrying the highest loads of responsibility while those not contributing receive a disproportionate benefit from the system is in a word - destructive.

Taxation is a matter of morality. It is a forced removal of personal property, only barely acceptable as a means for civil society and commerce to function. Disproportionate taxation is immoral, even laughing in the face of those who espouse the doctrine of equality.

Creating a system whereby the benefactor, without investment, becomes the controller of the contributor is unethical, immoral and an attack on personal liberties.

In simple terms, if those receiving substantial benefit from progressive taxation are in higher numbers than those who are not - we will have a permanent state of dependency on the few (therefore enslavement of those few) with no chance of recourse through a democratic system. We will have created the despotism of administrators or tyranny by rule of law.

4. We can't increase the number of commitments to any program, of any kind, let alone create new ones, without first addressing the crisis at hand. Entitlement programs in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the top three line items on the Federal budget. Number four is payment on our National Debt, followed in fifth by the military.

Something is terribly wrong when payment on our debt is such a burden to Americans, and our yearly budget, that it receives more tax revenue than the military, education or anything else except entitlement programs. Where does the money go? We've found it.

Stop increasing the debt, pay it down - reform departments, programs and don't create new ones - at all. This is not that hard.

The question of increasing or decreasing taxation wouldn't be as big of a problem if the obligations weren't so great. Decrease the obligations and you don't need as much money.

You don't need as much money and you don't have to worry about taxes so much. You don't worry about taxes so much - personal wealth grows, businesses flourish, jobs are plentiful, the market is balanced.

Stop sucking money from the private sector to contribute to destroying the economy.

Limited Government
1. To quote a contribution by the leader of our Indian Hill group - "The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not to provide equal things through the redistribution of wealth. Personal responsibility is an important part of citizenship."

Liberty and equality are not the same. Liberty demands that men begin life equal to every other while character and accomplishment define their stature moving forward. Government should not favor one individual or group over others in an attempt to achieve equality.

Manufacturing equality is not the role of government.

These simple statements speak to the limitations on government's role in our society. Quite simply - it should be very small.

2. The Federal government's power and influence is limited by those things enumerated in the Constitution, and more specifically - the 10th amendment says any powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution come back to the states - CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE.

You see - the founders understood no central body, no matter how well intentioned should have so much power and influence. Because, even Republics (like Rome) built on faith in men's virtue will fail. No man is flawless and immune to temptation; therefore we must not give them opportunity to fail.

We must return to this idea of federalism - the idea of states first. For only by focusing on our states, and our counties and neighbors can we take back the personal responsibility needed to curb this disastrous course of action. We must be local, for without local responsibility- we seek dependence and entitlement. We do not want a nanny state, so lets prevent it.

The only way to do that is cut the strings from the federal government. We must focus on our state first. To fix our state through federalism, we must diminish the power of Washington, defund it and make it once again responsible only for those things the Constitution gives it power to do.

3. Hence the importance of adhering to the law and being mindful to make sure that laws aren't too burdensome or complex. There is a certain absurdity to 2000 page bills and 50,000 page tax codes.

Arbitrary changes to laws and origination of new ones should not be the primary role of government. Government's primary role is to preserve liberty, so laws should be simple and transparent when necessary.

In all of the history of the world, it was not a small or restricted government that oppressed and controlled people, thoughts or actions. The greater the governments' scope of influence, the greater the danger to personal liberty.

Big government makes small people.

These concepts are both conservative and classically liberal, but are not values shared on the left. Its neither Republican nor Democrat - its common sense, something both significantly lack.

In conclusion, you will notice I have not laid out lots of things we should do. I talked about things we shouldn't. A government by definition is a restriction to liberty and only acceptable for the preservation of civil society. We must weaken government's influence across all parts of life.

We must seek to bring back this balance, so legislation must defund and deconstruct the beast we have built in our state and nation. Statesmen are needed, not politicians to do the work of We the People. We'll trust you again when you've earned our trust. Thus far you have not shown this ability.

So, we have taken this task upon ourselves: the great re-engagement of the American Spirit. It wasn't dead - just busy. You have awoken this sleeping giant and you should be aware of the consequences.

The state of union is ALERT and ENGAGED. Elected officials - ignore this new status to your own peril. Last chance.

Yes, in case you were wondering, that's a warning!

God bless our great republic!

Chris Littleton
Cincinnati Tea Party

The Heisman Trophy Winner Who Almost Wasn't

Posted By Bobby Eberle On January 27, 2010

The career of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow is one of legend. Not only did he win the Heisman Trophy, college football's highest honor, as a sophomore, he was in the running for it during his junior and senior years as well. He led the Gators to two national championships and has displayed honor and integrity at every turn.

But all of his accomplishments and all of his success could have been wiped out completely had Tim's mother Pam Tebow not chosen life. During a mission trip, an infection led doctors to recommend that Pam Tebow have an abortion to avoid the risk of her own death during childbirth. She chose life, and now her story will be told in the form of a Super Bowl ad. Rather than celebrating the ad as a "success" story, some so-called women's groups are blasting the ad and urging CBS to ban it.

As noted in a story on FOXNews.com college football great Tim Tebow and his mom Pam "will appear in a pro-life commercial that tells the story of his risky birth 22 years ago -- an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it."
It's a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."

"This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda," said Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, which is coordinating a campaign to force CBS to pull the ad before it airs on Feb. 7.

Extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda? This is how this person describes Pam's decision to give birth rather than ending a human life? Talk about intolerant! According to groups such as this, it's perfectly fine to advocate for funds, literature, and media for ending human life. But when someone actually chooses to SAVE A LIFE that is intolerant and un-American? I see.

According to the web site NotUnderTheBus.com, which is sponsored by the Women's Media Center, "The Women's Media Center, and organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice, are urging the network to immediately cancel this ad."

First of all, I am pro-life. I think a human life should be protected and afforded basic human rights regardless of age. That's where I stand. As the law is currently written, such protections do not completely exist and the "choice" now exists to give birth to a baby or end it's life in the womb. So be it. What really burns me up is the fact that this organization and others like it claim to represent reproductive "rights," but they scream and go into convulsions whenever a woman CHOOSES life over an abortion. What's pathetic is that groups such as this who claim to support "social justice" aren't shouting at the tops of their lungs in SUPPORT of concepts such as adoption. Wouldn't it be better to give the child to a loving family who wants it rather than simply advocating abortion.

I guess that's what sums up my disdain for these groups. They don't advocate choice as much as they advocate abortion. People choose life all the time, yet these groups treat supporters of life as the anti-Christ. They are pro-abortion... not pro-choice.

As noted in the Fox News story, Tim Tebow responded to the controversy while talking with reporters:

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," he said. "[T]hat's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Because Pam Tebow chose life, she has a son who is an inspiration to all.

Another Failed Presidency

The following is an interesting article, and I wonder how long Dr. Hunt can remain at NIH once the powers that be get wind of this article.

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently, Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes of Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Subject: Another Failed Presidency

An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are NOT aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows
nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that his agenda is against everything that made this country successful. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from elaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's disused just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.


Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown Author

What Scott Brown's win means for the Democrats

What Scott Brown's win means for the Democrats

Independence Caucus

would like to call your attention to an I-caucus blog post made today by a relatively new member of I-caucus, Anita Moncrief.

Anita was the "whistle blower" who first went public with her first hand knowledge of ACORN and exposed their corrupt accounting practices and rampant voter fraud, and Anita's first blog post here on our NING site is about ACORN in Massachusetts and how the Scott Brown election fits in. Here's the link:

http://icaucus.ning.com/profiles/blogs/will-acorns-leftist-agenda-be

I-caucus believes that the way that Anita stood up for her personal integrity and principles during her time at ACORN speaks volumes about her character, and we are glad to see her here at I-caucus.

I-caucus further believes that doing what Anita tried to do internally while still at ACORN as a member of their team...i.e. calling on the leaders at ACORN to change their corrupt ways...was even more of a testimony to her charachter than the
"whistle-blowing" that came afterward.

Thanks,
Frank
Visit Independence Caucus at: http://icaucus.ning.com

KRAUTHAMMER: A YEAR AGO HE WAS KING OF THE WORLD…WHAT HAPPENED?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518161
System Takes Its Revenge On 2009’s King
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world.
Now President Obama’s approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46% — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president’s second year.
A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus).
Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.
A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers.
Liberals try to attribute Obama’s political decline to matters of style. He’s too cool, detached, uninvolved. He’s not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He’s contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today’s vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he’s too left.
It’s not about style; it’s about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress.
With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society — health care, education and energy.
Then began the descent — when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.
Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, ObamaCare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators.
The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki) understand, ObamaCare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally “private” insurers.
At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama’s own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and ObamaCare’s profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.
The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46%. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30.
And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.
Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.
It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.
Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.
Perhaps Obama thought he’d been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success — twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress — was a referendum on his predecessor’s governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.
Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

Secret negotiations underway to finalize ObamaCare

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation

They are doing it again... Reid and Pelosi are holding
secret, backroom meetings to put the final touches on
ObamaCare. I'm done with government working in the
shadows, away from public scrutiny. See below. --Steve

Dear Patriots:

We've just received word that congressional leadership will not
hold formal Conference meetings to resolve the difference between
the House and Senate ObamaCare bills.

They hatched the plan yesterday during a meeting with Obama's team
at the White House. As a result, only a select few will work on
the final ObamaCare legislation -- out of public view, free of
traditional governing rules, and without a single Republican!

And efforts to open these meetings up to the public have been rebuffed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to a C-SPAN
request to televise the reconciliation process by saying,
"There has never been a more open process for any
legislation," and hinted that keeping the public at bay
is the best way to push the legislation through.

"We will do whatever is necessary to pass the bill,"
Pelosi concluded.

With public opposition to ObamaCare continuing to build, Reid and
Pelosi are determined to use whatever political shenanigans
they can to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

This is utterly despicable.

As an American who dearly loves my country, I cannot stand for
this kind of arrogant disregard for our rules and regulations.

These hearings must be brought to light -- in full view of the
public and following the normal House-Senate procedures. And
we have to be the ones to demand as much!

+ + Their Goal: Keep Us In The Dark And Rush Passage!

It's no secret that Reid, Pelosi and their ilk
are determined to pass ObamaCare in time for the President's
State of the Union Address. That's just a few weeks away.

That is why we have to diligently use the time that remains to
put the ENTIRE Congress on notice demanding these secret
meetings be brought to light.

+ + Fax and Phone Blast to Bring ObamaCare to the Light

I believe tens of thousands of faxes demanding transparency will
cause many to reconsider their actions.

After scheduling your faxes, pick up your phone and call your
lawmakers every day demanding the ObamaCare merger meetings be
brought into full public view.

Urge them to champion the people by opposing ObamaCare, and finally
put them on notice that support of these backroom meetings and
the ObamaCare bill may cost them their jobs!

Go here to find your Representative's and Senators' phone numbers --

Again, we have just a few weeks to take our best action opposing
ObamaCare and the sweeping changes that would affect EVERY American.

Thanks in advance for taking action with Grassfire Nation.

Steve Elliott
Grassfire Nation

NRA News: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone

Everyone should see this. Then the agenda about firearms will be understood.

Bond: Trying Terrorists in Civilian Courts Cripples National Security

The Obama administration is making a dangerous mistake by trying the Detroit airline bomber in a civilian court, says Sen. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Putting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will not only pose a threat to the city in which he’s prosecuted, Bond says, but it also hampers the ability of intelligence professionals to get valuable information.

“We’ve learned the hard way that trying terrorists in a federal court comes at a high price,” said Bond, R-Mo.

“First, we lose out on potential lifesaving intelligence, which we need right now. It also in the past has compromised our sources and methods.”

The terrorists aren’t American citizens who committed burglary or arson, Bond said. “They are enemy combatants in war.”

Bond also opposes closing the prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, as President Obama has pledged to do. “Based on what we now know, Gitmo is the best place to keep these enemy combatants,” Bond said.

“When you release them, and even worse if you bring them to the United States, that is likely to compromise our national security.”

As more attention is focused on the issue, Bond hopes that enough support will grow on both sides of the Senate aisle to prevent the closing of the Guantanamo Bay facility.

As for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s original contention that the system worked during the attempted terrorism episode, Bond said, “She claims she meant the system worked after they captured the terrorist. But I think that’s just a bad case of hoof-in-mouth disease.”

Bond is confident that Republican and Democrats on the intelligence committee will work well together in pinpointing what went wrong with security measures that allowed a terrorist to come close to blowing up a Detroit-bound airplane.

“There were several screw-ups” in letting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab board a plane on Christmas Day, the Missouri senator told Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella.

“We want to find out … what information was available,” Bond said.

“What did we know from the Brits? What did we know from Abdulmutallab’s father? What did we know about what are alleged to have been intercepts? All of these things were bits and pieces that should have been put together.”

The committee will look at how government agencies interacted, Bond said. “Were the results properly communicated to agencies that should have acted? That’s our major concern.”
The process obviously malfunctioned, Bond said. “Is there somebody who is egregiously at fault, or is the system just not adequate to handle all these points?”

Bond said he is confident in the ability of Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to conduct a fair, nonpartisan investigation. “She has worked on a very bipartisan basis with us,” he said. “I’m pleased with how the Intelligence Committee is working.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.