Bush voters crave safety: would this affect their opinions?

[DebJ]

NO MONEY AND NOT ENOUGH MONEY FOR YOUR SAFETY HERE AT HOME

All information herein is from Senator Byrd¡¦s (W.Va.) book : Losing America, published in late 2004. Senator Byrd has served 50 loyal years in our Congress, and worked with 10 different presidents. Fifty years of politics, and he has never so feared for our country.

Senator Byrd (and many other Senators) have been trying to get money approved for the following areas of Homeland Security:
- bioterrorism and food safety
- emergency first responders (like York City Police and Firemen)
- transportation security for ports and airports
- border security
- nuclear power, water, and other facilities and mail screening
- chemical plants

-On November 14, 2001, the White House opposed inclusion of homeland security money saying that such spending ¡¥will only expand the size of the government¡¦
-On December 4, 2001, a bill unanimously approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee had homeland security funding dropped from the approved $13.1 billion down to $8.5 billion after the White House threatened a veto.
-On June 6, 2002, the Senate passed by a vote of 71 to 22 a supplemental money bill with $8.3 billion for homeland security. On June 17, the president¡¦s senior advisor recommended a veto of that bill because it contained ¡¥excessive¡¦ homeland security spending. (Ask our first responders, like in NYC, if they see excessive spending!)
-In August 2002, the president failed to make an emergency designation for $2.5 billion for homeland security to specifically address shortcomings identified by the Rudman/Hart Report on terrorism vulnerabilities. Bush said, ¡§I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-spoken¡KI understand Congress¡¦ position, and today, they¡¦re going to learn mine. We¡¦ll spend none of it.¡¨
-In October 2002, the White House, Senate and the House could not come to an agreement on arbitrary spending limits demanded by the president. Congress adjourned for the November elections without additional homeland security funding. The White House celebrated. Ari Fleischer said: ¡§There¡¦s a new sheriff in town, and he¡¦s dedicated to fiscal discipline.¡¨ (see deficit chart¡Kokay for Iraqi¡¦s to get money, but not for our own safety and our own children)
-On December 2, 2002, the Justice Dept announced it was not going to release money to state and local law enforcement agencies for first responders (like York City)
-On January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans voted to defeat an amendment by Byrd adding $5 billion for homeland security, which was simply funding programs that the president had already authorized in earlier legislation. Repeat: the president had authorized these homeland security measures in earlier legislation. The White House opposed the amendment, terming it ¡¥new extraneous spending¡¦. Byrd tried again for $3 billion; this was also defeated.
-On April 2, 2003, Byrd offered five amendments boosting homeland security programs providing a total of $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than Bush requested. All five amendments were defeated.
-On September 7, 2003, Byrd¡¦s amendment for a mere $1.25 billion failed on a party line vote. (meaning Republicans said ¡¥no¡¦.)

Before I read this, I thought the unfunded mandates of NCLB were a nightmare unfolding. But to see unfunded programs for homeland security¡K..
As Byrd said, ¡§ Words and promises need to be backed up with the money to make those words a reality. Empty promises and hollow rhetoric, no matter how stirring and how bedecked in flags and bunting, will not protect our families, our neighbors, our fellow citizens.¡¨


In addition to his general 50 years of Congressional experience, Byrd was served on the Senate Appropriations committee in the past, and was also its¡¦ leader. He knows his stuff. He was part of the successful working in Congress in the 90¡¦s to bring the budget into balance.
But more than that, he understands the importance of Congress holding the power of the purse, and that such power must not be held by one lone executive. When the power of using money is controlled by the hundreds of representatives elected by the people, there is chance for sanity, for balance of power. When one man pulls the strings, we are jeopardized.
By obtaining the power of the purse, Britain¡¦s Parliament was ultimately able to wrest control from the King and his wargames, and from the House of Lords, into the House of Commons. The power of the purse prevents tyranny, and must remain in control of the representatives of the people¡Kand a large group of representatives. This is an extremely important point, and Bush is doing everything he can to usurp control of the purse with almost every bill he pushes for, as Byrd mentions over and over and over again, with specific bills and dates. I believe currently he is pushing for this same type of budget control within the hands of his new Security Czar.

He rejects Congressional oversight, which is in blatant defiance of the intent of the Founding Fathers. Just one of many reasons the original George is, to quote Byrd, ¡¥spinning¡¦ in his grave¡Knot just turning over, spinning!










WHERE ARE THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AT HOME TO DEFEND US???

Defending ourselves from attack takes more than just money. It requires that trained
military personnel, and trained and equipped front-line defenders, like our local police and firefighters, be here, on the spot, next door, down the street, ready to help in case of attack or emergency, like the recent tragedy in the Russian school.

In his speech of February 11, 2003, just before we invaded Iraq, Byrd details the many West Virginia National Guard units called up as of that point, getting ready for our invasion of Iraq. He accurately forecasts what to him was an inevitability of a long involvement, with the Guard overseas for a very long time. The National Guard are the people who are supposed to be here at home to help us out in times of emergency, like the recent hurricanes. Also, many people serving in the National Guard ARE our first responders OUTSIDE of their guard service: many of these dedicated individuals are
our firefighters and police. These dedicated men and women are supposed to be HERE, on our shores, defending our very homes, not overseas and not for extended periods of years and years. That is what the MILITARY is for, and that is why Kerry wants to expand our armed forces base by at least 30,000 more volunteer enlistments. Bush wants to keep taking our Guard away from our homes.
In his speech, Byrd then mentions Tom Ridge¡¦s terror alerts and concerns that threats here in the USA are very real. Our Senators concur with Ridge. There is a very real
threat. That is why there have been so many attempts in Congress, denied by the White House, to increase our security and protection here at home.

Byrd says ¡§In light of this danger, it is almost bizarre that our military continues to run at full tilt to ready for war in the Persian Gulf. It is as if two ships were passing in the night: one filled with our soldiers, headed for the sands of the Arabian Peninsula, the other carrying terrorists headed for our shores. If the risk to the American people were not so great, the situation would be almost comical.
¡§If an attack strikes a city in the United States, who will respond? Governors might wish to call out the National Guard in order to respond to an attack and restore order, but will any units be left to pick up the phone? The military¡¦s only mobile chemical and biological laboratory has deployed to the Persian Gulf. Chemical decontamination units, like Morgantown¡¦s 300th Chemical Company, have been called up and shipped out. Many of our nation¡¦s policemen, firemen, and other first responders are members of the National Guard and reserves. They have been called up and shipped out, leaving one important national security job for another.
¡§So long as this occupation continues, how is the National Guard supposed to help our states in homeland security missions? Our police forces can hardly pick up the slack-they are already working full tilt performing the myriad tasks that keep our streets...safe 24 hours a day.¡¨
Byrd mentions the combination of increased security concerns at our ports, concerns about bombs and terrorists entering the country, and here we are, sending our Coast Guard across the ocean, just as we need them here so much for our protection.


I think most Americans are unaware of these things. And yet I am even more positive the terrorists are fully educated as to our extreme vulnerabilities.

The terrorists also know that as they slip into our cities and our neighborhoods, Bush will happily let the ban on assault weapons terminate while he is cutting funding to local police. (Even though increased funding to police, such as to NYC, in the nineties corresponded with a significant drop in crime.) More guns on the street, less money for first responders, and terrorists in our midst, while our National Guard is an ocean away from protecting us. Are you children safe?




WHY IS RIDGE RESIGNING AFTER THE ELECTION?

No wonder Mr. Ridge felt it necessary to announce his pending resignation. Ridge claims he must go into private employment, because on his $170,000 a year salary
in government service, he can not afford to finance his daughter¡¦s college education.
What does THAT say for this administrations concerns for educating our people so that we can remain, or rather re-GAIN, our number one position in the world?

Frankly, I can¡¦t believe that his daughter¡¦s college expenses have anything to do with his resignation. Can you? Do you feel empathy for him? Could you put your child through college if you earned $170,000 a year? What has the White House done to put your child through college? What are they doing to put your child through ELEMENTARY school?
They are rebuilding schools in Iraq. The White House corporate buddies made money, OUR tax money they took, OUR earnings, to bomb Iraq, and now they are making money rebuilding the schools they bombed. Does YOUR child¡¦s school need money?
Or should we send our money overseas and help them?

Our nation ranks 49th out of 150 nations in literacy. In 48 other countries, more people can read than in the U.S.A. Perhaps this is why the other large modern nations of the world are against George Bush¡Kthese people CAN AND DO read. How can we remain number one in the world, when we do NOTHING to promote our own people? Talk is cheap; we need money. We CAN afford health care; we CAN afford education. Our current government simply would rather spend money on OTHER countries. Look at the deficit and see just how much our ¡¥conservative¡¦ leaders are spending¡K.they are SPENDING, but choosing not to spend OUR money on you, on me, on our children. Instead they are spending our money, our children¡¦s money, and our grandchildren¡¦s money on enriching their corporate buddies in overseas adventures.





WAR ON TERRORISM IS THE SAME AS A GANG WAR
IN NEW YORK OR L.A.
(with the addition of bombs and nuclear weapons)



When two opposing street gangs are at war with each other in L.A. or New York City,
what is the impact upon that ¡¥war¡¦ when one gang kills several members of another?
Is the ¡§Mission Accomplished¡¨, or is the war fervor constantly re-ignited by a series
of more and more killings? What will resolve gang wars, fire power, or promoting
understanding and giving people in the cities a reason for hope and a way out?

Terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, use the exact same logic as street gangs. Osama has repeatedly, repeatedly said, if you kill our men, women, and children, then we have the right to kill yours. Almost every one of his messages to the United States and to the western world in general repeats this theme, over and over and over again. What they want is merely self-determination, the freedom to live as they choose to live, which is NOT democracy. All they want is for the USA to stop telling them what to do and how to live their lives. They see no freedom in democracy; for them, freedom is choosing to run a country that is NOT democracy. They prefer other guidelines for government.
They have for over 6000 years. Democracy requires active participation. Less than half of US citizens who can vote choose to do so; we do not participate. How can we get them to do as we say, not as we do? By killing them? This will encourage democracy?

We have killed over 20,000 Iraqi¡¦s since the conflict began. How many people will Osama have to kill now to get his revenge? How many more people will we kill to
snuff out this gang war? How many do we have to kill? In gang wars, when you kill a
member of one side, don¡¦t they want to kill two on the other side? How can continuing
to invade countries in Africa resolve this world-wide gang war? The more we kill, the more they want to kill in return.

[The Doctor.]

1. I guess....

It's ok to deficit spend into the hundreds of billions to piss off everyone in the Middle East, but not ok to throw a few billion into programs designed to protect us f they retaliate...

Why do so few see this?