Last Friday, after a seven year battle, the Senate finally caved in to the NRA and the gun industry and passed a bill that shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits when their weapons are used in crimes.
The bill, S.397 passed the Senate on a vote of 65-31 with 14 Democrats voting ‘yes’ and 2 Republicans voting ‘no’. The bill’s language is very clearly written and leaves no ambiguity at all;
S.397
Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Listed below are four different cases where guns were used in various crimes. Before the passage of S.397 the victims of these crimes would have been able to sue these ‘manufactures, distributors, dealers or importers’ for their negligence but now with it's passage, ‘civil liability is prohibited’. The bill also applies to current cases that haven't been settled yet when it states it prohibits 'actions' from being 'continued'.
Read the various crime summaries below and decide for yourself if the Senate, the NRA and the gun industry didn’t put the shaft to the American public by passing Senate bill S.397. Do the dealers and manufacturers in these cases now deserve to be shielded from liability for their negligence?
1. Bushmaster, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Pay $2.5 Million To D.C. Sniper Victims -
In September 2004, the families of victims of the D.C. sniper shootings won a $2.5 million settlement from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the dealer who "lost" the snipers' assault rifle, along with at least 238 other guns, and Bushmaster, the assault weapon maker who negligently supplied Bull's Eye despite its disgraceful record of missing guns and regulatory violations. Further, as part of the settlement Bushmaster agreed to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns - something Bushmaster had never done before. Sharing in the settlement were the families of Conrad Johnson, James "Sonny" Buchanan, Hong Im Ballenger, Premkumar Walekar, Sarah Ramos and Linda Franklin, as well as two victims who survived the shootings, Rupinder "Benny" Oberoi and 13-year-old Iran Brown.
2. Gun Dealer Changes Practices, Compensates Wounded Police Officers – In June 2004, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, former New Jersey police officers shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer, won a $1 million settlement. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker.
3. Mother Of Slain Seven Year Old Ends Long Fight to Hold Reckless Dealer Accountable - In August 2004, Tennille Jefferson, whose seven-year-old son, Nafis, was unintentionally killed by another child with a trafficked gun, won a settlement from gun dealer Sauers Trading. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the settlement amounted to $850,000. The handgun was one of many the dealer had sold to the trafficker, despite clear signs that the guns were headed straight to the underground market.
4. Kahr Arms - Another case that remains before the courts, is a lawsuit brought by the family of a young man named Danny Guzman, an innocent bystander who was shot on the street in Worcester, Massachusetts on Christmas Eve in 1999. After the shooting, the loaded gun used in the shooting was found behind an apartment building by a four-year-old child. The gun had no serial number.
Police investigators determined that the gun was one of several stolen from Kahr Arms, a Worcester gun manufacturer, by Kahr's own employees who were hired despite their long criminal records. One of the thieves, Mark Cronin, had been hired by Kahr to work in its plant despite his history of crack addiction, theft to support that addiction, alcohol abuse and violence, including several assault and battery charges. Cronin had been able to walk out of the factory with stolen guns, even before they had been stamped with serial numbers. Cronin told an associate that he takes guns from Kahr "all the time" and that he "can just walk out with them." Cronin later pled guilty to the thefts. The investigation also led to the arrest of another Kahr employee, Scott Anderson, who also had a criminal history and who pled guilty to stealing guns from Kahr. At least fifty Kahr firearms disappeared from its manufacturing plant in a five-year period. Worcester Police Captain Paul Campbell classified the record keeping at the Kahr facility as so "shoddy" that it was possible to remove weapons without detection.
Brady Center attorneys represent Danny Guzman's family in a wrongful death suit against Kahr arms, charging Kahr with negligence in completely failing to screen its employees for criminal history and in maintaining a security system so inadequate that employees repeatedly were able to walk out of the plant with unserialized guns.
In April, 2003, a Massachusetts trial judge denied Kahr's motion to dismiss the suit, finding it supported by general principles of Massachusetts law. It is now in pretrial discovery. Had immunity legislation been passed, the ruling of the Massachusetts court would have been nullified and Danny Guzman's family would be denied the right to justice against a gun maker that allowed drug criminals to "help themselves" to free lethal weaponry.
The gun industry has contributed $17 million to Congress since 1990, with two-thirds going to Republicans and, as everyone knows, the NRA is a very powerful and persuasive group.
S.397 is a disgrace in that it's not a bill to protect the constitutional ‘right to bear arms’ but a bill specifically put into law to shield the gun industry from being held responsible for blatant negligence.
As you can plainly see these lawsuits against the gun industry are not always frivilous and the fact that Congress can shield this industry is just one more example of the corruption that runs rampant through it, and the lack of principle that's coming out of it.
Source-1-4
Friday, August 05, 2005
Thursday, August 04, 2005
ONLY IN AMERICA
Convicted Killer Buried at Arlington National Cemetery
NEW YORK A convicted murderer found his final. resting place at Arlington National Cemetery, with full military honors, last week but may not remain there long, thanks to a Maryland newspaper.
The cremated remains of Russell Wagner, 52, were placed at the Virginia cemetery at the request of his sister. At the time of his death, Wagner was in prison serving two life sentences for killing an elderly Maryland couple in 1994.
NEW YORK A convicted murderer found his final. resting place at Arlington National Cemetery, with full military honors, last week but may not remain there long, thanks to a Maryland newspaper.
The cremated remains of Russell Wagner, 52, were placed at the Virginia cemetery at the request of his sister. At the time of his death, Wagner was in prison serving two life sentences for killing an elderly Maryland couple in 1994.
IRAQ FATIGUE?
It's Not 'Iraq Fatigue', It's Iraq Embarrassment.
Have you noticed Hannity & Colmes, Bill O'Reilly and most all rightwing TV and radio talk show hosts spend the majority of their time now talking about missing blondes in Aruba, newly wed grooms disappearing from cruise ships and whether Jennifer Anniston will get through her marriage breakup?
Bob Herbert has a column in the NY Times today that points out that "viewers, readers and editors are tiring of stories about the war and the number of deaths".
'Tiring, fatique'? No, it's a simple case of embarrassment. When Dubya and his co-conspirators diverted our country's real 'war on terror' in Afghanistan to Iraq, 80% of the country fell for the deception and now that number is down to 39%. Over 50% of the country now acknowledges that Dubya and Co. lied about the threat from Iraq.
People aren't fatigued about all the war deaths, they're embarrassed that the 20% of us who warned them are not going to let them bury the news and forget their ignorance. I've got some of these stooges now trying to pin me down on when and if we should withdraw, or 'surrender', when the answer is simply; no dumbass, if you would have listened there would be no need to 'surrender' because there was no need to go into Iraq because they didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and weren't a threat, just like I said back in March 2003.
Originally Bush and his minions lied and convinced the sheep that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger and that if we didn't act soon there could be a 'mushroom cloud' over New York and unfortunately, the vast majority (80%) fell for it. Soon, when it was proven those were lies (George Tenet and others admitted publicly that Bush should NOT have used those infamous 16 words in the 2003 SOTU)and not a single 'WMD' was ever found in Iraq, all of sudden the reason for going to war was to 'spread democracy in the middle east". Now the simple-minded try to use the 'we're drawing the terrorists into Iraq' excuse-which couldn't get much lamer.
This all kind of reminds me of the reverse of the Henry Aaron hitting number 715 scenario. You know, where there's now 250,000 people who swear they were there when he broke Babe Ruth's homerun record? The 80% is dwindling rapidly and soon you won't be able to find 10 people who will admit they fell for Dubya's lies. Sixty million people voted for Bush and soon you'll be lucky to find many who will admit to it. It's already happening where I live. I have a neighbor across the street from me who had 4 Bush/Cheney lawn signs in his yard just 8 months ago and he says he didn't vote for Bush? Ducking, running and hiding.
It's not 'fatigue'-it's simply embarrassment and it's certainly understandable. You WILL continue to get updated on the war casualties-the results of Bush's lies at this blog, because I'm not 'fatigued' at all about reminding you-I told you so.
Have you noticed Hannity & Colmes, Bill O'Reilly and most all rightwing TV and radio talk show hosts spend the majority of their time now talking about missing blondes in Aruba, newly wed grooms disappearing from cruise ships and whether Jennifer Anniston will get through her marriage breakup?
Bob Herbert has a column in the NY Times today that points out that "viewers, readers and editors are tiring of stories about the war and the number of deaths".
'Tiring, fatique'? No, it's a simple case of embarrassment. When Dubya and his co-conspirators diverted our country's real 'war on terror' in Afghanistan to Iraq, 80% of the country fell for the deception and now that number is down to 39%. Over 50% of the country now acknowledges that Dubya and Co. lied about the threat from Iraq.
People aren't fatigued about all the war deaths, they're embarrassed that the 20% of us who warned them are not going to let them bury the news and forget their ignorance. I've got some of these stooges now trying to pin me down on when and if we should withdraw, or 'surrender', when the answer is simply; no dumbass, if you would have listened there would be no need to 'surrender' because there was no need to go into Iraq because they didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and weren't a threat, just like I said back in March 2003.
Originally Bush and his minions lied and convinced the sheep that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger and that if we didn't act soon there could be a 'mushroom cloud' over New York and unfortunately, the vast majority (80%) fell for it. Soon, when it was proven those were lies (George Tenet and others admitted publicly that Bush should NOT have used those infamous 16 words in the 2003 SOTU)and not a single 'WMD' was ever found in Iraq, all of sudden the reason for going to war was to 'spread democracy in the middle east". Now the simple-minded try to use the 'we're drawing the terrorists into Iraq' excuse-which couldn't get much lamer.
This all kind of reminds me of the reverse of the Henry Aaron hitting number 715 scenario. You know, where there's now 250,000 people who swear they were there when he broke Babe Ruth's homerun record? The 80% is dwindling rapidly and soon you won't be able to find 10 people who will admit they fell for Dubya's lies. Sixty million people voted for Bush and soon you'll be lucky to find many who will admit to it. It's already happening where I live. I have a neighbor across the street from me who had 4 Bush/Cheney lawn signs in his yard just 8 months ago and he says he didn't vote for Bush? Ducking, running and hiding.
It's not 'fatigue'-it's simply embarrassment and it's certainly understandable. You WILL continue to get updated on the war casualties-the results of Bush's lies at this blog, because I'm not 'fatigued' at all about reminding you-I told you so.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
"HONOR OURS BY TRAINING THEIRS"?
Our Totally Discombobulated and Clueless President
Bush mourns Marine deaths, sees no early pullout
GRAPEVINE, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush, following the deadliest roadside bomb attack on U.S. forces in Iraq, said on Wednesday the best way to honor those killed was to fight the insurgents and train Iraqi troops, and he rejected any early U.S. pullout.
"We're at war. We're facing an enemy that is ruthless. If we put out a (pullout) timetable the enemy would adjust their tactics," he said in a speech.
I wonder if he thinks one of his daughters' lives would be worth 'training Iraqi troops"?
Those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, "have died in a noble cause and a selfless cause."
'Iraq and Afghanistan'-two entirely different and totally unrelated situations. One, Afghanistan, he, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks completely screwed up and Iraq, he led the country into needlessly at the cost of 1,820 lives and $300 billion.
He also did a little boasting on the U.S. economy, crediting his tax cuts for the growth and citing a recent forecast that the U.S. budget deficit this year will be $94 billion lower than expected.
"Some have questioned in Washington whether or not you can cut taxes and increase revenues from the Treasury," he said.
Some one needs to clue Dubya in to the fact that the country is STILL collecting over $100 BILLION a year LESS than when he took office. And, his budget deficit? It will still be the 3rd largest budget deficit in history-third only to his 2 previous record shattering deficits in 2003 and 2004 and after 4 years of him and total republican control of Congress an additional 1.5 TRILLION in additional debt. Yeah, Dumbya has a lot to 'boast' about, doesn't he?
Bush mourns Marine deaths, sees no early pullout
GRAPEVINE, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush, following the deadliest roadside bomb attack on U.S. forces in Iraq, said on Wednesday the best way to honor those killed was to fight the insurgents and train Iraqi troops, and he rejected any early U.S. pullout.
"We're at war. We're facing an enemy that is ruthless. If we put out a (pullout) timetable the enemy would adjust their tactics," he said in a speech.
I wonder if he thinks one of his daughters' lives would be worth 'training Iraqi troops"?
Those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, "have died in a noble cause and a selfless cause."
'Iraq and Afghanistan'-two entirely different and totally unrelated situations. One, Afghanistan, he, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks completely screwed up and Iraq, he led the country into needlessly at the cost of 1,820 lives and $300 billion.
He also did a little boasting on the U.S. economy, crediting his tax cuts for the growth and citing a recent forecast that the U.S. budget deficit this year will be $94 billion lower than expected.
"Some have questioned in Washington whether or not you can cut taxes and increase revenues from the Treasury," he said.
Some one needs to clue Dubya in to the fact that the country is STILL collecting over $100 BILLION a year LESS than when he took office. And, his budget deficit? It will still be the 3rd largest budget deficit in history-third only to his 2 previous record shattering deficits in 2003 and 2004 and after 4 years of him and total republican control of Congress an additional 1.5 TRILLION in additional debt. Yeah, Dumbya has a lot to 'boast' about, doesn't he?
THE GRIM REALITY
I don't know if any of you caught it last night but there was a news segment on TV that showed surviving members of this Marine unit, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, from the Cleveland area back at their barracks mourning the loss of 7 of their buddies that were killed earlier yesterday. A couple of them admitted they were scared and concerned about their safety in going out the next day to face the Iraqi insurgents. And today? Fourteen more were killed and I'm sure a few of them were the ones who appeared on that news segment.
We should have never went to Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to us but unfortunately way too many people in this country are just ignorant and a nothing but followers. Just sheep.
Bring them home now!
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; 10:47 AM
Ohio-Based Battalion Loses 14 More Marines
BROOK PARK, Ohio -- The 14 Marines killed in Iraq on Wednesday by a roadside bomb were members of the same Ohio-based battalion that lost six Marines two days earlier, a Marine Corps spokesman said.
The Marines were members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines based in this Cleveland suburb, according to Gunnery Sgt. Brad R. Lauer, public affairs chief with the unit.
The local unit to which the 14 Marines were assigned wasn't disclosed.
The battalion has units in Brook Park, where the six Marines lost Monday were assigned, and in Columbus and Akron, Ohio; Moundsville, W.Va.; and Buffalo, N.Y.
The 14 died when a Marine armored vehicle on patrol during combat operations near the Syrian border hit a roadside bomb. It was one of the deadliest single attacks in Iraq against American forces. A civilian interpreter also was killed.
The first six died northwest of Baghdad while on sniper duty on Monday.
We should have never went to Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to us but unfortunately way too many people in this country are just ignorant and a nothing but followers. Just sheep.
Bring them home now!
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; 10:47 AM
Ohio-Based Battalion Loses 14 More Marines
BROOK PARK, Ohio -- The 14 Marines killed in Iraq on Wednesday by a roadside bomb were members of the same Ohio-based battalion that lost six Marines two days earlier, a Marine Corps spokesman said.
The Marines were members of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines based in this Cleveland suburb, according to Gunnery Sgt. Brad R. Lauer, public affairs chief with the unit.
The local unit to which the 14 Marines were assigned wasn't disclosed.
The battalion has units in Brook Park, where the six Marines lost Monday were assigned, and in Columbus and Akron, Ohio; Moundsville, W.Va.; and Buffalo, N.Y.
The 14 died when a Marine armored vehicle on patrol during combat operations near the Syrian border hit a roadside bomb. It was one of the deadliest single attacks in Iraq against American forces. A civilian interpreter also was killed.
The first six died northwest of Baghdad while on sniper duty on Monday.
BUSH VACATIONS WHILE OUR MARINES DIE
When I read my morning newspaper this morning I was stunned that there was not one single word mentioning the death of our 7 Marines yesterday in Iraq. Not one word!
Well, I'm not going to ignore the deaths of our military just so the conservative (sic) rightwing sheep that fell for Bush's lie can run and hide from the reality of what they have produced. No, you're going to read about it here whether you like it or not.
But today, sadly, is twice as bad as yesterday. 14 more Marines were killed today and I suspect Dubya will be out chopping wood and clearing brush and giving the country the photoop for tonight's 6 PM news.
All the Bush-ass kissing losers need to scrape all those "Support the Troops' decals off your bumpers because you're not supporting the troops-you're killing them.
Well, I'm not going to ignore the deaths of our military just so the conservative (sic) rightwing sheep that fell for Bush's lie can run and hide from the reality of what they have produced. No, you're going to read about it here whether you like it or not.
But today, sadly, is twice as bad as yesterday. 14 more Marines were killed today and I suspect Dubya will be out chopping wood and clearing brush and giving the country the photoop for tonight's 6 PM news.
All the Bush-ass kissing losers need to scrape all those "Support the Troops' decals off your bumpers because you're not supporting the troops-you're killing them.
DUMB & LAZY = WHAT YOU HAVE
When you're dumb AND lazy it's a recipe for disaster and that's why this country is worse off than it's been since Herbert Hoover.
Dumbya is set to break even Ronnie Reagan's record (and he's only in year 5!) for taking vacation by spending his 49th trip to his ranch in Crawford. Dumbya has been on vacation more than 20% of the time since being (s)elected president.
You get what you pay for.
Dumbya is set to break even Ronnie Reagan's record (and he's only in year 5!) for taking vacation by spending his 49th trip to his ranch in Crawford. Dumbya has been on vacation more than 20% of the time since being (s)elected president.
You get what you pay for.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
THE 'BROWN SHIRT' REGIME
Great and informative article on the 'sheep on prozac' who support the losers in the White House. At least that number is sinking rapidly every week even if it's 8 months too late. 'Sheep on prozac'- the perfect characterization of Republicans.
GOING BACKWARDS WITH REPUBLICANS
'Intelligent Design'?. Don't these idiots know what Sunday school is for?
With Republican views on embryonic stem cell research and the 'intelligent design' theory, we're very fortunate as a country that we've been able to get around this rather stupid and simple-minded party throughout our history. Can you imagine if Bush and those like him were president during, say, the beginning of our space program or the development of some of the many cures we have for certain diseases? Now, that's a scary thought.
With Republican views on embryonic stem cell research and the 'intelligent design' theory, we're very fortunate as a country that we've been able to get around this rather stupid and simple-minded party throughout our history. Can you imagine if Bush and those like him were president during, say, the beginning of our space program or the development of some of the many cures we have for certain diseases? Now, that's a scary thought.
DID WE MENTION?
Oh, by the way, 7 Marines Were Killed, too.
So much for the 'Liberal Media'. Even the 'liberal' New York Times has become insulated from the needless deaths of our soldiers and Marines in Bush's war. The lead part of their story is on the 'transfer' of our military in certain areas of Iraq; Of course, transfer OUT of areas that will be deemed safe enough that all those Iraqis we've trained so well can fend for themselves.
But what did you expect from a period of time when the 'commander-in-chief' (sic) doesn't have the common decency to meet and pay respect to any of the 1,806 fallen when their bodies return and whose mother, the one and only ugly bag of a bitch, Barbara, said she didn't want to 'waste her beautiful mind' with images of body bags of those who sacrificed their lives for her son's lies?
Real nice family, them Bushes.
So much for the 'Liberal Media'. Even the 'liberal' New York Times has become insulated from the needless deaths of our soldiers and Marines in Bush's war. The lead part of their story is on the 'transfer' of our military in certain areas of Iraq; Of course, transfer OUT of areas that will be deemed safe enough that all those Iraqis we've trained so well can fend for themselves.
But what did you expect from a period of time when the 'commander-in-chief' (sic) doesn't have the common decency to meet and pay respect to any of the 1,806 fallen when their bodies return and whose mother, the one and only ugly bag of a bitch, Barbara, said she didn't want to 'waste her beautiful mind' with images of body bags of those who sacrificed their lives for her son's lies?
Real nice family, them Bushes.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
OH... THAT TESTIMONY?
It's 'Hard Work' Getting all these Lies Straight
John Bolton, Dubya's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations didn't 'recall' being interviewed by the State Department inspector general about his role in fabricating the 'Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa' hoax that Dubya lied about in his 2003 SOTU address.
As part of the Senate confirmation process Bolton was asked to fill out a questionnaire and one of the questions was, had he been "interviewed or asked for information in connection with any administrative investigation, including that of an inspector general, during the last five years", and he answered 'no'.
Well, the problem with that is he had been interviewed by the State Department's IG less than 12 months earlier. But you know, you got to give Bolton the benefit of doubt, it's really hard to keep so many lies straight and 12 months after all, is quite a long time.
When Scott McClellan was asked at Friday's White House press briefing about Bolton's brief lapse of memory he replied, "I think the State Department addressed that last night, and it was John Bolton who pointed that out".
Well Scotty, that's not exactly the way it happened either. You see... it was Joe Biden who wrote Condi Rice a letter pointing out that Mr. Bolton had in fact lied on his questionnaire to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton didn't admit anything until Biden called him on it.
John Bolton is not only an embarrassment, but also a liar. But, I guess when you think about it, he'll fit right in with this administration.
He just has to work a little harder on getting all his lies straight; which should only require a few sit-downs with 'Turd-Blossom'.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050729-5.html
John Bolton, Dubya's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations didn't 'recall' being interviewed by the State Department inspector general about his role in fabricating the 'Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa' hoax that Dubya lied about in his 2003 SOTU address.
As part of the Senate confirmation process Bolton was asked to fill out a questionnaire and one of the questions was, had he been "interviewed or asked for information in connection with any administrative investigation, including that of an inspector general, during the last five years", and he answered 'no'.
Well, the problem with that is he had been interviewed by the State Department's IG less than 12 months earlier. But you know, you got to give Bolton the benefit of doubt, it's really hard to keep so many lies straight and 12 months after all, is quite a long time.
When Scott McClellan was asked at Friday's White House press briefing about Bolton's brief lapse of memory he replied, "I think the State Department addressed that last night, and it was John Bolton who pointed that out".
Well Scotty, that's not exactly the way it happened either. You see... it was Joe Biden who wrote Condi Rice a letter pointing out that Mr. Bolton had in fact lied on his questionnaire to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton didn't admit anything until Biden called him on it.
John Bolton is not only an embarrassment, but also a liar. But, I guess when you think about it, he'll fit right in with this administration.
He just has to work a little harder on getting all his lies straight; which should only require a few sit-downs with 'Turd-Blossom'.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050729-5.html
Friday, July 29, 2005
CAFTA
Melissa Bean D-Illinois
Jim Cooper D-Tennessee
Henry Cuellar D-Texas
Norm Dicks D-Washington
Ruben Hinojosa D-Texas
William Jefferson D-Louisiana
Jim Matheson D-Utah
Gregory Meeks D-New York
Dennis Moore D-Kansas
Jim Moran D-Virginia
Solomon Ortiz D-Texas
Ike Skelton D-Missouri
Vic Snyder D-Arkansas
John Tanner D-Tennessee
Edolphus Towns D-New York
Jim Cooper D-Tennessee
Henry Cuellar D-Texas
Norm Dicks D-Washington
Ruben Hinojosa D-Texas
William Jefferson D-Louisiana
Jim Matheson D-Utah
Gregory Meeks D-New York
Dennis Moore D-Kansas
Jim Moran D-Virginia
Solomon Ortiz D-Texas
Ike Skelton D-Missouri
Vic Snyder D-Arkansas
John Tanner D-Tennessee
Edolphus Towns D-New York
PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT WINNING OUT OVER CONSERVATIVES
Progressive Thought Overtaking Regressive Rightwing Bible-Thumping Luddites
Looks like Dr. Frist, after almost being laughed out of the Senate with his ridiculous diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is changing his tune a little (and pissing off those who think something the size of a . is a 'baby') and going against Dubya and his threat to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Now all that needs to be done is to convince 22 of 55 Republican Senators to override Dubya's threatened veto and go with science and not with ignorance.
It's easy to see what the Republicans contribute to this country when you realize it's not a 'given' that 40% of them will go with modern technology over their shallow-thinking base; the so-called 'religious' right. That's astounding.
Looks like Dr. Frist, after almost being laughed out of the Senate with his ridiculous diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is changing his tune a little (and pissing off those who think something the size of a . is a 'baby') and going against Dubya and his threat to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Now all that needs to be done is to convince 22 of 55 Republican Senators to override Dubya's threatened veto and go with science and not with ignorance.
It's easy to see what the Republicans contribute to this country when you realize it's not a 'given' that 40% of them will go with modern technology over their shallow-thinking base; the so-called 'religious' right. That's astounding.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Guest Post - Political Party Strength
This is guest blogger Fourputtinski coming to you from a blue state.
Check out this link from Wikipedia if you would like a breakdown of political parties holdings across the country.
The results may surprise you.
Check out this link from Wikipedia if you would like a breakdown of political parties holdings across the country.
The results may surprise you.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Guest Post - List of Political Parties In The United States
This is Fourputtinski guest-posting while our host is on vacation.
Ever wonder how many political parties there are in the United States?
If so, check out this link from Wikipedia.
Friday, July 15, 2005
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
FREEDOM 'OF' OR FREEDOM 'FROM'
When Thomas Jefferson died he left specific instructions as to what would be written on his tombstone. No mention of his presidency, of his vice-presidency, of his being a member of the Continental Congress, of him being the first Secretary of State, of his governorship of Virginia and no mention of his ministry of France. He wanted three things to be listed on his tombstone. The three things; his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his founding of the University of Virginia and his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779 but it was James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', who secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature seven years later in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both Jefferson and Madison considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives.
Please read the following and decide for yourself if these 'founding fathers' were more concerned with protecting religion or protecting the people FROM religion when they wrote this and when the 1st amendment of the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Keep in mind; this, the Virginia Statute, was at a time shortly after the ouster of the repressive Anglican Church of the royal government. Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia (1779).
by Thomas Jefferson
S e c t i o n I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
S e c t i o n II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
S e c t i o n III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
When Thomas Jefferson died he left specific instructions as to what would be written on his tombstone. No mention of his presidency, of his vice-presidency, of his being a member of the Continental Congress, of him being the first Secretary of State, of his governorship of Virginia and no mention of his ministry of France. He wanted three things to be listed on his tombstone. The three things; his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his founding of the University of Virginia and his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779 but it was James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', who secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature seven years later in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both Jefferson and Madison considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives.
Please read the following and decide for yourself if these 'founding fathers' were more concerned with protecting religion or protecting the people FROM religion when they wrote this and when the 1st amendment of the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Keep in mind; this, the Virginia Statute, was at a time shortly after the ouster of the repressive Anglican Church of the royal government. Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia (1779).
by Thomas Jefferson
S e c t i o n I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
S e c t i o n II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
S e c t i o n III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
GIVE HIM A PASS
Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, Republican Congressman from San Diego is now under federal investigation for his shady dealings with a defense contractor. Cunningham, an 8-term congressman announced yesterday that he would not run for re-election.
As some of you know, I'm not generally one to sympathize with Republicans but in this case, Duke Cunningham has deserved a 'pass' on federal prosecution. Why? Duke Cunningham is a war hero. He was the Navy's highest decorated pilot during Vietnam-earning the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals and a the Purple Heart. And, he was the first 'Ace' in the Vietnam War.
So set him and his political career out to pasture, drop the investigations, let him retire with dignity and pay him back for what he did. He deserves a pass.
As some of you know, I'm not generally one to sympathize with Republicans but in this case, Duke Cunningham has deserved a 'pass' on federal prosecution. Why? Duke Cunningham is a war hero. He was the Navy's highest decorated pilot during Vietnam-earning the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals and a the Purple Heart. And, he was the first 'Ace' in the Vietnam War.
So set him and his political career out to pasture, drop the investigations, let him retire with dignity and pay him back for what he did. He deserves a pass.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
GUMPSPEAK
Only a Republican could brag about a $333 BILLION deficit.
"It's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," George (Forest Gump with a trust fund) Bush - 7/13/05
"We got to this point largely because of the president's pro-growth policies, especially tax relief," White House budget director, Joshua B. Bolten
(TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN-LAST YEAR FEDERAL REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GNP WAS THE LOWEST SINCE 1959!)
Republicans, the party that has left this country in financial ruin is now bragging about "$333 deficits"!. When Bill Clinton left office four short years ago, there was a $127 BILLION SURPLUS and now you have Gump and the Republican controlled Congress wanting people to stand up a cheer them for the $460 BILLION dollars swing. (For you Republicans without your calculators handy-you take the 333 and add 127)
For those of you who want to learn just how 'conservative' Republicans have NOT been over the last 25 years, see a portion (below) of an earlier post done on Koolaidsubliminal on June 25th, that proves that if you want to include yourself as a 'fiscal conservative', than you're living a lie if you call yourself a Republican. The term 'conservative republican' is an oxymoron, morons!
WHAT ECONOMISTS SAY ABOUT YESTERDAY'S NEWS
"Economists at Goldman Sachs, in a research note on Wednesday, said it agreed with the administration forecast for this year but not for the longer term. The main reasons, it said, were that the jump in tax revenue stemmed largely from one-time gains in the stock market and the elimination of a temporary tax break last year for businesses to invest in new equipment".
The FACTS about 'unconservative' Republicans posted here from 6/25/05
FEDERAL SPENDING
Many people refer to Ronald Reagan as a 'fiscal conservative' and nothing could be further from the truth. In Reagan's 8 years in office his average increase in federal spending was 6.8%. Compare that to Bill Clinton whose average increase was only 3.55%.
When told this many people attempt to excuse Reagan because of the 'Cold War' spending but that's factually incorrect. If military spending had increased only by the rate of inflation during Reagan's 8 years in office, his average increase in spending would still have been 5.76%, still much higher than Bill Clinton.
An often-repeated fallacy is that Bill Clinton cut military spending and that is how he held down federal spending. Military spending was $292 billion per year when he came into office and it was $306 billion in his last year in office. They obviously confuse his record with George Bush the Elder, who in his 4 years in office reduced military spending from $304 billion to the $292 billion mentioned above.
DEFICITS AND THE NATION'S DEBT
Ronald Reagan was a miserable failure when it came to balancing the federal budget with an average yearly deficit of nearly $177 billion and adding $1.4 TRILLION to the nation's debt during his two terms in office. Another fallacy of this era that is usually spouted by Reagan-revisionists was that the "Democrats in Congress made him do it", which is totally ridiculous since the Senate had a Republican majority from 1981 to 1987.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton's administration is the only one since Dwight Eisenhower to balance a budget and they balanced four in a row. The amount added to the debt during Clinton's two terms? None. In fact, the cumulative total of his eight budgets was a SURPLUS of $62 billion.
The two George Bush's? If you think you're a conservative and a republican, you don't want to know. But I am going to tell you anyway. George HW averaged deficits of $259 billion a year and George W has averaged an astronomical $328 billion in his first four. Together the two Bush's have added $2.35 TRILLION to the nation's debt in their combined eight years in office.
So that's Reagan's $1.4 TRILLION and the Bush's $2.35 TRILLION for a grand total of $3.75 TRILLION in debt from three presidents that you want to be called 'conservative'?
Keep in mind; the $3.75 trillion is just the principle. The nation's debt is currently $7.7 trillion and all but about a trillion is directly attributed to these three 'conservatives' (sic).
Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, and when he left the nation's debt was $789 billion-now it's $7.7 TRILLION. Bill Clinton didn't add a dime to that debt, so guess who is responsible for almost $7 TRILLION of it? Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush. Three Republicans and definitely NOT fiscal conservatives!
When you read Koolaidsubliminal, you educate yourself-even if it's not what you want to hear or learn and it exposes all your heroes as the liars they are. You get the FACTS, not hyperbole here.
You're welcome, Yellow Dog.
"It's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," George (Forest Gump with a trust fund) Bush - 7/13/05
"We got to this point largely because of the president's pro-growth policies, especially tax relief," White House budget director, Joshua B. Bolten
(TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN-LAST YEAR FEDERAL REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GNP WAS THE LOWEST SINCE 1959!)
Republicans, the party that has left this country in financial ruin is now bragging about "$333 deficits"!. When Bill Clinton left office four short years ago, there was a $127 BILLION SURPLUS and now you have Gump and the Republican controlled Congress wanting people to stand up a cheer them for the $460 BILLION dollars swing. (For you Republicans without your calculators handy-you take the 333 and add 127)
For those of you who want to learn just how 'conservative' Republicans have NOT been over the last 25 years, see a portion (below) of an earlier post done on Koolaidsubliminal on June 25th, that proves that if you want to include yourself as a 'fiscal conservative', than you're living a lie if you call yourself a Republican. The term 'conservative republican' is an oxymoron, morons!
WHAT ECONOMISTS SAY ABOUT YESTERDAY'S NEWS
"Economists at Goldman Sachs, in a research note on Wednesday, said it agreed with the administration forecast for this year but not for the longer term. The main reasons, it said, were that the jump in tax revenue stemmed largely from one-time gains in the stock market and the elimination of a temporary tax break last year for businesses to invest in new equipment".
The FACTS about 'unconservative' Republicans posted here from 6/25/05
FEDERAL SPENDING
Many people refer to Ronald Reagan as a 'fiscal conservative' and nothing could be further from the truth. In Reagan's 8 years in office his average increase in federal spending was 6.8%. Compare that to Bill Clinton whose average increase was only 3.55%.
When told this many people attempt to excuse Reagan because of the 'Cold War' spending but that's factually incorrect. If military spending had increased only by the rate of inflation during Reagan's 8 years in office, his average increase in spending would still have been 5.76%, still much higher than Bill Clinton.
An often-repeated fallacy is that Bill Clinton cut military spending and that is how he held down federal spending. Military spending was $292 billion per year when he came into office and it was $306 billion in his last year in office. They obviously confuse his record with George Bush the Elder, who in his 4 years in office reduced military spending from $304 billion to the $292 billion mentioned above.
DEFICITS AND THE NATION'S DEBT
Ronald Reagan was a miserable failure when it came to balancing the federal budget with an average yearly deficit of nearly $177 billion and adding $1.4 TRILLION to the nation's debt during his two terms in office. Another fallacy of this era that is usually spouted by Reagan-revisionists was that the "Democrats in Congress made him do it", which is totally ridiculous since the Senate had a Republican majority from 1981 to 1987.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton's administration is the only one since Dwight Eisenhower to balance a budget and they balanced four in a row. The amount added to the debt during Clinton's two terms? None. In fact, the cumulative total of his eight budgets was a SURPLUS of $62 billion.
The two George Bush's? If you think you're a conservative and a republican, you don't want to know. But I am going to tell you anyway. George HW averaged deficits of $259 billion a year and George W has averaged an astronomical $328 billion in his first four. Together the two Bush's have added $2.35 TRILLION to the nation's debt in their combined eight years in office.
So that's Reagan's $1.4 TRILLION and the Bush's $2.35 TRILLION for a grand total of $3.75 TRILLION in debt from three presidents that you want to be called 'conservative'?
Keep in mind; the $3.75 trillion is just the principle. The nation's debt is currently $7.7 trillion and all but about a trillion is directly attributed to these three 'conservatives' (sic).
Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, and when he left the nation's debt was $789 billion-now it's $7.7 TRILLION. Bill Clinton didn't add a dime to that debt, so guess who is responsible for almost $7 TRILLION of it? Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush. Three Republicans and definitely NOT fiscal conservatives!
When you read Koolaidsubliminal, you educate yourself-even if it's not what you want to hear or learn and it exposes all your heroes as the liars they are. You get the FACTS, not hyperbole here.
You're welcome, Yellow Dog.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
Who's lying? Republican lying spinmasters or a CIA operative who knows Valerie Plame very well? You know the answer.
By Larry Johnson - TPM Cafe
"Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her".
Karl Rove committed an act of treason when he not only outed Valerie Plame but he blew the cover for her overseas contacts as well. Contacts that were helping the U.S. in finding WMD's. If some of you want to defend that type of behavior just so you can defend the Republicans-go ahead. It doesn't surprise me one bit and it's exactly the type of person I've known you to be all along anyway.
By Larry Johnson - TPM Cafe
"Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her".
Karl Rove committed an act of treason when he not only outed Valerie Plame but he blew the cover for her overseas contacts as well. Contacts that were helping the U.S. in finding WMD's. If some of you want to defend that type of behavior just so you can defend the Republicans-go ahead. It doesn't surprise me one bit and it's exactly the type of person I've known you to be all along anyway.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
REPUBLICANS vs. THE FACTS
As usual, Republicans play lip service to our nation's security
Below are the description and the vote on Senate Amendment 220 that a Democrat sponsored to restore funding that Republicans had cut from the FY06 Homeland Security budget. It passed the Senate by a vote of 63-37 and the 37 Senators who voted 'no' are listed below. Do you see anything about the 37 Senators who voted 'no' that would give you any indication of which party is serious about the security of our nation?
Senate Amendment 220
To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
NAYs ---37
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Do you see any 'no' votes from Democrat Senators?
The total restored to homeland security was $855 million. Keep in mind, George Bush is spending that same amount, $855 million, every 2 1/2 days in his made-up 'war on terrorism' debacle in Iraq. Every 2 1/2 days!
Along with that, the House of Representatives proposed $150 million in rail and transit security funding for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee (read-REPUBLICANS again) proposed cutting related grants for fiscal 2006 by $50 million to $100 million. $50 million? That's what Bush is wasting every 3 1/2 hours in Iraq.
As usual, Republicans are liars, pretenders and downright fools who talk a big game on security. And as usual it is Democrats who are fighting them tooth and nail to deliver on national security. Republicans can lie and spin all they want but Democrats have the facts and the voting record to back their argument.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00064
Below are the description and the vote on Senate Amendment 220 that a Democrat sponsored to restore funding that Republicans had cut from the FY06 Homeland Security budget. It passed the Senate by a vote of 63-37 and the 37 Senators who voted 'no' are listed below. Do you see anything about the 37 Senators who voted 'no' that would give you any indication of which party is serious about the security of our nation?
Senate Amendment 220
To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
NAYs ---37
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Do you see any 'no' votes from Democrat Senators?
The total restored to homeland security was $855 million. Keep in mind, George Bush is spending that same amount, $855 million, every 2 1/2 days in his made-up 'war on terrorism' debacle in Iraq. Every 2 1/2 days!
Along with that, the House of Representatives proposed $150 million in rail and transit security funding for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee (read-REPUBLICANS again) proposed cutting related grants for fiscal 2006 by $50 million to $100 million. $50 million? That's what Bush is wasting every 3 1/2 hours in Iraq.
As usual, Republicans are liars, pretenders and downright fools who talk a big game on security. And as usual it is Democrats who are fighting them tooth and nail to deliver on national security. Republicans can lie and spin all they want but Democrats have the facts and the voting record to back their argument.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00064
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
