RE: Yes, 'Cuz I sez so, that's why :)

A Speaker Pelosi and committees headed by Rangel, Conyers, Frank, and Waxman gives me chills.

Chills aren't what I had in mind when I said evidence. Other than some rather tiresome posturing, those people would be utterly powerless against a Republican Senate (assuming there were any actual Republicans there) and a Republican President (assuming he grows a spine and finds his veto pen). But maybe that's what really gives you the chills. Maybe the idea of the utterly useless Republicans who are currently in office having to face an actual opposition scares you. I fail to see how you plan to cure the problem of useless Republicans governing us by electing more of them, though.

How can you say that?

Oh, I don't know. How about porous borders? Or maybe it's a stretched-thin military occupying a country we invaded despite the fact that it posed no threat to us whatsoever. GOP jingoism notwithstanding, there is no objective evidence whatsoever that the Republicans are any better at minding our security than the Democrats are.

It's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who appear more concerned about the feelings of terrorists than with the safety of Americans.

I fail to see what that has to do with anything. If the safety of Americans includes their future freedom, the Republicans represent a far more imminent threat than any Democrat or terrorist. That's nothing but an RNC approved, Rush Limbaugh talking point.

If the Democrats had their way, we would be under the control of the United Nations.

That's hilarious. First, because I don't see any difference between putting us under the control of the UN and the establishment of a North American mega-state. Either way, our sovereignty and our freedom goes out the window. Second, if sliding under the control of the UN is our destiny, you can't provide a shred of evidence to show that the GOP is any more likely to deter that than the Democrats are.