Parenting: Touching the Hearts of Our Youth

Dennis Prager - Know America!

Holder Admits to Not Reading Arizona's Immigration Law Despite Criticizing It...Incompetent, Dishonest, Administration

Despite repeatedly voicing concerns about Arizona's new immigration enforcement law in recent weeks and threatening to challenge it, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday he has not yet read the law -- which is only 10 pages long.

"I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it," Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Holder told reporters last month that he fears the new law is subject to abuse and that the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are in the midst of conducting a review.

The Arizona law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law has sparked protests across the country, including a City Council-approved boycott of Arizona businesses by Los Angeles.But proponents deny that the law encourages racial profilng, with some saying the local controversy is a symptom of a broken federal immigration system.

Holder said last month that a number of options are under consideration, including the possibility of a court challenge.

On Thursday, Holder said he plans to read the law before reaching a decision on whether he thinks it's constitutional.

When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law."

On Sunday, Holder said he does not think Arizona's law is racially motivated but voiced concern that its enforcement could lead to racial profiling.

Holder said he understands the frustration behind the Arizona law, but he warned during an appearance on ABC's "This Week" that "we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done."

"No More Bail Outs"? Right...except the ones we want!

Fannie and Freddie Failure Forever

Yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) told reporters about his financial regulation bill, "We've ended the 'too big to fail' debate. So no longer do I expect any argument to be made that this bill exposes the American taxpayer." Really. Someone might want to tell Sen. Dodd that in other news yesterday, Freddie Mac announced that it lost another $6.7 billion in the first quarter of 2010 and therefore needed another $10.6 billion in cash from U.S. taxpayers. Since formally nationalizing Freddie in 2008, the federal government has already spent $50.7 billion bringing the Freddie bailout total to $61.3 billion so far. Combined with Fannie Mae's raid on the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the American people will spend $389 billion bailing out the two Government Sponsored Entities by 2019. So much for American taxpayers no longer being exposed to "too big to fail."

In fact, nothing in the Dodd bill does anything to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie were key components in causing the very financial crises Dodd claims his bill will forever prevent. Fannie and Freddie were both created for the specific purpose of making it easier for Americans to buy more expensive housing. Starting in 1993, political forces pushed Fannie and Freddie to loosen their once strict loan purchasing requirements. By 1996, regulations required that 40% of all Fannie and Freddie-bought loans must come from individuals with below median incomes. In 1995, Fannie and Freddie began buying subprime securities originally bought and bundled by private firms. One of these firms was Countrywide Financial who, thanks to their status as Fannie Mae's biggest customer, delivered investors a 23,000% return between 1985 and 2003. By 2004, Fannie and Freddie were purchasing $175 billion worth of subprime securities per year from Countrywide and their brethren... a 44% share of the entire market. There are other factors that helped contribute to the 2008 financial crisis, but Fannie and Freddie's use of their "too big to fail" status to create and grow the subprime security market was essential.

But Sen. Dodd, who received V.I.P. treatment from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, never saw any problem with Fannie and Freddie. On July 13, 2008, Senator Dodd said on national television, "To suggest somehow that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are in trouble is simply not accurate." Less than two months later the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie began. Keep these facts in mind when Dodd says his bill solves the "too big to fail" problem.

The problems with the Dodd bill go beyond its failure to let Fannie and Freddie wither into extinction. While Dodd has agreed to get rid of the $50 billion bailout fund, the underlying bailout authority still remains. Now taxpayers are expected to front the government money while firms are liquidated. But the irresponsible creditors who let those firms borrow money irresponsibly would still be eligible for taxpayer bailouts. According to The Washington Post, "a failing firm would be forced to pay back the government any money they received above what they would have gotten under a bankruptcy proceeding." But how does the government know what creditors would have got if the company went into bankruptcy? Why not just strengthen the existing bankruptcy system and actually allow these too big to fail firms to, ya know, fail?

But Dodd and the Obama administration would never allow that. It would defeat the whole purpose this financial regulation bill, which is to transfer as much power to the federal government as possible. Never mind that these are the same government regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming

Hiding in Plain Sight by Ken Bowers

80% Say Religious Faith is Important To Their Daily Lives

Eight-out-of-10 Americans (80%) say that their religious faith is at least somewhat important in their daily lives, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 18% feel their religious faith is not very or not at all important to their lives.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all adults describe their religious faith as very important to their daily living.

Women are more likely than men to feel their faith is very important to their lives. Sixty-six percent (66%) of African-Americans say their religious faith is very important, compared to 56% of whites. Married adults are more inclined than unmarrieds to rate their faith as very important to daily living.

While the majorities of those of all faiths say their religious beliefs are at least somewhat important to their daily lives, there are sharp differences in terms of those who describe it as very important. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Evangelical Christians say their religious faith is very important every day, a view shared by 65% of other Protestants, 46% of Catholics and 37% of those of other beliefs.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults say they pray at least once a day. Nineteen percent (19%) pray occasionally, while 15% rarely or never pray at all.

Adults who attend church regularly are more inclined to pray daily.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of those who pray every day say their religious faith is very important to their daily lives.

A federal judge in Wisconsin recently struck down as unconstitutional the National Day of Prayer, declared by Congress in 1952. But 60% of Americans favor having the federal government recognize a National Day of Prayer.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of adults who favor a National Day of Prayer say a prayer daily, compared to 17% who rarely or never pray.

But then only 21% of all Americans think that rulings by judges in recent years regarding religion in public life have correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution. Sixty-four percent (64%) of adults believe the judges’ rulings have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers intended.

While the courts in recent years have pushed religion out of most schools, Americans by a nearly two-to-one margin – 61% to 31% - favor prayer in public schools. Americans also remain overwhelmingly in favor of allowing religious symbols to be displayed on public land and feel even more strongly that public schools should celebrate at least some religious holidays.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us onTwitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs and are available to Premium Members.

Jon Voight Letter to America

Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government."

Thomas Jefferson

Obama Humor

The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree - and think 25 to life would be appropriate. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

America needs Obama-Care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. -
Conan O'Brian
--------------------------

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. - Jay Leno
--------------------------

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners. -

David Letterman
--------------------------

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A. America. - Jimmy Fallon
--------------------------

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. - Jimmy Kimmel
--------------------------

Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road. - David Letterman

Zeitgeist - The truth about our world....watch all 5 parts!

CALIFORNIA IS GOING BROKE!!!

Just One State - be sure and read the last part. This is only one State... If this doesn't open eyes, nothing will! 

From the L. A. Times:

40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.  This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.

(There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County .) 

(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times) Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.  29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

We are fools for letting this continue. HOW CAN YOU HELP? Send copies of this letter to at least two other people.100 would be even better. This is only one State...read on....If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will, and you wonder why Nancy Pelosi wants them to become voters! 
  

************************************* 
  LET'S IMPEACH HER NOW BEFORE SHE DOES FURTHER DAMAGE!  WHAT AN IDIOT!  IF YOU DON'T AGREE JUST DELETE -- IF YOU DO PASS IT ON!  WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS?

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you.  That's what the Speaker of the House is saying.  Read below. Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case!  You aren't going to believe this. Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds!  Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities! This woman is frightening. She quotes 'We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income (didn't Marx say something like this?) in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.'  (I am not rich, are you?)  When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied: 
 "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities.  For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities.  Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans."

(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in.) “Lower your retirement; give it to others who have not worked as you have for it.” Send it on to your friends.  I just did! This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the house! 

Social Security Another Tax and Money You May Never See Again.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! 

Our Social Security 

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social 

Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 

No longer Voluntary 

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 

No longer tax deductible 

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social SecurityRetirement Program, and no other Government program, and under Lyndon Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent!

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- 

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the 

independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the 

general fund so that Congress could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically 

controlled House and Senate. 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- 

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax 

deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The Democratic Party. 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- 

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social 

Security annuities? 

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 

'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the 

Senate, while he was Vice President of the  US 

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - 

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? 

AND MY FAVORITE: 

A: That's right! 

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party! 

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, 

began to receive Social Security payments! The 

Democratic Party gave these payments to them, 

even though they never paid a dime into it! 

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- 

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! 

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! 

Are you one of them? 

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will occur. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully  sure of what isn't so. 

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? 

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers. 

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! 

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

-Thomas Jefferson

No April Fool's Joke...Don't Fall For Obama's Energy Shell Game

Can the Obama administration's desperate attempts to cover their true far left nature with centrist rhetoric and promises become any more transparent? Yesterday, the President announced "an expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration" in selected areas off the coasts of the United States. The President claims this announcement was made "in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs," but nobody believes him. Just take a quick look at today's newspaper reporting:

• The Los Angeles Times: "President Obama ... unveiled a controversial offshore drilling plan Wednesday that was driven largely by the politics of his agenda on energy and climate change -- not by hopes of changing the nation's energy supply."
• The Washington Post: "President Obama's decision ... reflects a high-stakes calculation by the White House: Splitting the difference on the most contentious energy issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year."
• Politico: "Obama’s decision is closely tied politically to the fate of the climate change bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)."
• The New York Times: "The proposal is also intended to ... help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
• Bloomberg: "President Barack Obama’s pledge to expand offshore oil and natural-gas drilling may help Democrats deliver legislation that regulates carbon dioxide emissions before any fuel is produced."

In fact, if anything, the policies announced by President Obama yesterday will actually decrease and delay future U.S. oil production. The President actually canceled four lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned to begin producing oil within the next two years, delayed a planned lease off Virginia until at least 2012, and placed some areas off limits for at least seven years. Go back and look at President Obama's actual announcement again: he only promised new exploration off the Atlantic coast. There is absolutely no guarantee that any new drilling will ever occur. Secretary Ken Salazar's Interior Department still has full discretion to never allow a single drop of oil to be harvested from these waters. And that doesn't even begin to address the court challenges the enviro-left will employ to attack and delay the entire process.

So if developing new energy sources that can create private sector jobs for Americans and new revenues for financially strapped states and the federal government is not the Obama administration's real goal, then what is? Well, President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who was at yesterday's announcement, has said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." For reference purposes, when Secretary Chu said that, Europeans were paying $8 a gallon for gas at the pump.

Canceling current offshore oil leases and delaying future ones are not the only policy means the Obama administration is using to pursue the high energy price policy ends. The Obama administration has also declared war on energy production in the Mountain West, rescinding oil-shale development leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. His administration has completely failed to take on the real regulatory reforms necessary to allow a private sector nuclear industry to thrive. And just this week, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency began its regulation of carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act.

And let's not forget the grand daddy of them all: a cap and trade energy tax bill. But don't call it that. Secretary Salazar toldCNBC yesterday, "I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore." Whatever you call it, placing an arbitrary penalty on carbon emissions would mean disaster for the American economy. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family of four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035.

So don't be fooled by President Barack Obama's energy rhetoric. High energy prices are not a side effect of climate legislation - they are the whole point. According to the latest Pew poll, 63% of Americans support allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters. Americans deserve an energy policy that reduces prices, creates private sector jobs, and reduces our national debt. Right now they have the opposite.

Obama Labor Pick's Support for Gay Rights Worries Conservatives

President Obama's recess appointment of an outspoken supporter of gay rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is causing alarm among social conservatives, who worry that she'll strip religious rights from schools and businesses and "revolutionize" social norms in the workplace.

The appointment of Georgetown University Law Center Professor Chai Feldblum to be one of the EEOC's five commissioners went largely unnoticed on Saturday, as Republicans zeroed in on Obama's naming of pro-union labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

But Feldblum has garnered harsh criticism from conservative religious organizations, who are disturbed by her work to promote gay, lesbian, and transgender rights, including past comments in which she said "gay sex is morally good."

"She is way beyond what most Americans would consider mainstream," Shari Rendall, director of Legislation and Public Policy at Concerned Women for America, said in a statement.

A host of conservative groups say Feldblum, who was nominated in September, will use her powerful post to enforce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The legislation clearly states that the act does not apply to corporations, associations or educational institutions with religious affiliations. But Feldblum's critics worry that other employers could be forced to make decisions that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs. 

While Feldblum's work to end prejudice against gays and lesbians has been lauded by many in the legal community, conservative groups say her appointment to the EEOC will have detrimental and far-reaching consequences.

"She wants to change the moral bearing of this country," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition. Lafferty said the hiring of a transgender teacher in a school, for example, would be "traumatizing" for students who are "still growing and learning about sexuality."

"We send children to school to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. Having a transgender or 'she-male' teacher in the classroom should not be part of that equation," she said.

Feldblum's public comments and causes have raised alarm among social conservatives. In a 2004 speech at UCLA, she said "gay sex is morally good" and boasted about a project she launched, known as Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she said aimed to "change the face of the American workplace" and "revolutionize social norms."

The Obama administration is standing by its decision to appoint the Harvard-educated attorney to the EEOC, an independent federal agency that enforces laws against workplace discrimination.

In a posting on the White House Web site, the administration listed Feldblum's formidable credentials, including her work as legislative counsel to the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and her help in drafting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Obama made 15 recess appointments on Saturday, including Becker and Feldblum. White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki wrote, "Many of these fifteen individuals have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but have found their confirmation votes delayed for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications. It has more to do with an obstruction-at-all-costs mentality that we’ve been faced with since the President came into office."

In an interview with FoxNews.com on Wednesday, Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center of American Progress, said claims that Feldblum will promote an agenda that seeks to discriminate against religious businesses and schools are unfounded.

"She understands better than most the need for religious liberty and free speech and protections of civil rights," said Stachelberg. "The work that she has done to tackle thorny issues between business and labor and civil rights groups puts her in a uniquely qualified spot to serve on the EEOC. She has the support of Republicans and Democrats, religious conservatives and religious liberals and a lot of people in between."

Also supporting Feldblum's appointment to the EEOC is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which lauded her credentials in a Dec. 9, 2009, letter to Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who serve on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Randy Johnson, the chamber’s senior vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits, wrote that Feldblum and fellow nominee Victoria A. Lipnic are "tremendously bright and capable professionals who will bring a wealth of diverse experience to the EEOC."

"While it is true that the chamber will not always agree with either Ms. Lipnic or Ms. Feldblum on every issue," wrote Johnson, "we have no doubt that each will be open to hear and consider the concerns of the business community and all interested stakeholders in matters under the EEOC’s jurisdiction."

This Letter Says Speaks For Many Americans.

http://www.patriotfreedom.org/files/file_4a9ee094e801d594635.pdf

CBO: US Deficit To Hit 90% of GDP In 10 Years!!! Way To Go Congress.

WASHINGTON -- A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.

The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House.

The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

Still, the Feb. 1 White House budget plan was a largely stand-pat document that avoided difficult decisions on curbing the unsustainable growth of federal benefit programs like the Medicare health care program for the elderly and Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor and disabled.

Instead, Obama has created an 18-member fiscal reform commission that's charged with coming up with a plan to shrink the deficit to 3 percent of the economy within five years. But the Republicans to be named to the panel by congressional GOP leaders are unlikely to go along with any tax increases that might be proposed, which could ensure election-year gridlock.

"While the president is intent on ramming through Congress a new trillion-dollar health-care entitlement, he appears far less concerned with addressing the looming crisis of entitlement spending already on the books," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the Budget Committee. "Instead, he delegates this task to a 'Fiscal Commission' -- which would not even report until after the next election."

The report says that extending tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under GOP President George W. Bush and continuing to update the alternative minimum tax so that it won't hit millions of middle-class taxpayers would cost $3 trillion over 2011-2020. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year and Obama wants to extend them -- except for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

For the ongoing budget year, CBO predicts a record $1.5 trillion deficit. That's actually a little better than predicted by the White House, but at 10 percent of gross domestic product, it's bigger than any deficit in history other than those experienced during World War II.

The new report predicts that debt held by investors, including China, would spike from $7.5 trillion at the end of last year to $20.3 trillion in 2020. That means interest payments would more than quadruple -- from $209 billion this year, to $916 billion by the end of the decade.

Academic Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S.- Bring Down Power Grid

It came as a surprise this month to Wang Jianwei, a graduate engineering student in Liaoning, China, that he had been described as a potential cyberwarrior before the United States Congress.

Ken Cedeno for The New York Times

Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist, recently drew attention to the paper.

Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10 that it should be concerned because “Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of Dalian University of Technology published a paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the entire U.S.”

When reached by telephone, Mr. Wang said he and his professor had indeed published “Cascade-Based Attack Vulnerability on the U.S. Power Grid” in an international journal called Safety Science last spring. But Mr. Wang said he had simply been trying to find ways to enhance the stability of power grids by exploring potential vulnerabilities.

“We usually say ‘attack’ so you can see what would happen,” he said. “My emphasis is on how you can protect this. My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected.” And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.

The difference between Mr. Wang’s explanation and Mr. Wortzel’s conclusion is of more than academic interest. It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction.

“Already people are interpreting this as demonstrating some kind of interest that China would have in disrupting the U.S. power grid,” said Nart Villeneuve, a researcher with the SecDev Group, an Ottawa-based cybersecurity research and consulting group. “Once you start interpreting every move that a country makes as hostile, it builds paranoia into the system.”

Mr. Wortzel’s presentation at the House hearing got a particularly strong reaction from Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California, who called the flagging of the Wang paper “one thing I think jumps out to all of these Californians here today, or should.”

He was alluding to concerns that arose in 2001 when The Los Angeles Times reported that intrusions into the network that controlled the electrical grid were traced to someone in Guangdong Province, China. Later reports of other attacks often included allegations that the break-ins were orchestrated by the Chinese, although no proof has been produced.

In an interview last week about the Wang paper and his testimony, Mr. Wortzel said that the intention of these particular researchers almost did not matter.

“My point is that now that vulnerability is out there all over China for anybody to take advantage of,” he said.

But specialists in the field of network science, which explores the stability of networks like power grids and the Internet, said that was not the case.

“Neither the authors of this article, nor any other prior article, has had information on the identity of the power grid components represented as nodes of the network,” Reka Albert, a University of Pennsylvania physicist who has conducted similar studies, said in an e-mail interview. “Thus no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.”

The issue of Mr. Wang’s paper aside, experts in computer security say there are genuine reasons for American officials to be wary of China, and they generally tend to dismiss disclaimers by China that it has neither the expertise nor the intention to carry out the kind of attacks that bombard American government and computer systems by the thousands every week.

The trouble is that it is so easy to mask the true source of a computer network attack that any retaliation is fraught with uncertainty. This is why a war of words, like the high-pitched one going on these past months between the United States and China, holds special peril, said John Arquilla, director of the Information Operations Center at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

“What we know from network science is that dense communications across many different links and many different kinds of links can have effects that are highly unpredictable,” Mr. Arquilla said. Cyberwarfare is in some ways “analogous to the way people think about biological weapons — that once you set loose such a weapon it may be very hard to control where it goes,” he added.

Tension between China and the United States intensified earlier this year after Google threatened to withdraw from doing business in China, saying that it had evidence of Chinese involvement in a sophisticated Internet intrusion. A number of reports, including one last October by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, of which Mr. Wortzel is vice chairman, have used strong language about the worsening threat of computer attacks, particularly from China.

“A large body of both circumstantial and forensic evidence strongly indicates Chinese state involvement in such activities, whether through the direct actions of state entities or through the actions of third-party groups sponsored by the state,” that report stated.

Mr. Wang’s research subject was particularly unfortunate because of the widespread perception, particularly among American military contractors and high-technology firms, that adversaries are likely to attack critical infrastructure like the United States electric grid.

Mr. Wang said in the interview that he chose the United States grid for his study basically because it was the easiest way to go. China does not publish data on power grids, he said. The United States does and had had several major blackouts; and, as he reads English, it was the only country he could find with accessible, useful data. He said that he was an “emergency events management” expert and that he was “mainly studying when a point in a network becomes ineffective.”

“I chose the electricity system because the grid can best represent how power currents flow through a network,” he said. “I just wanted to do theoretical research.”

The paper notes the vulnerability of different types of computer networks to “intentional” attacks. The authors suggest that certain types of attacks may generate a domino-style cascading collapse of an entire network. “It is expected that our findings will be helpful for real-life networks to protect the key nodes selected effectively and avoid cascading-failure-induced disasters,” the authors wrote.

Mr. Wang’s paper cites the network science research of Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, a physicist at Northeastern University. Dr. Barabasi has written widely on the potential vulnerability of networks to so-called engineered attacks.
“I am not well vested in conspiracy theories,” Dr. Barabasi said in an interview, “but this is a rather mainstream topic that is done for a wide range of networks, and, even in the area of power transmission, is not limited to the U.S. system — there are similar studies for power grids all over the world.”