Government - March 2007

Why not vote to stop current governmental controls and let the people solve the problems. It is possible to use the older methods of transportation that have been basically outlawed. It is possible to contain sewage in tanks for many years until it is no longer pathegen carrying. It therefore is not necessary to bleach and disenfect the water. I believe there are a ton of useful and excellent things we could do, if the government would give us the freedom to act. Life on the planet could be extended many fold if we were given the legal ability to protect ourselves from pollution. Everyone could have a bank-teller type of delivery tube in their house. Bomb scanning tools would also be used. Reusable food containers would help keep the dump levels down, not to mention the needless profits made off of throwaway containers. We could have a world to take pride in, instead of a world to throw away. Will it take confrontation before our children will be given the legal right to win

2007-03-26 12:15:22 · 13 answers · asked by warning 2

Which amendment set this into law?

2007-03-26 12:03:13 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

And be devoted to finding the obvious answers to the problems?

2007-03-26 12:01:31 · 10 answers · asked by warning 2

I am a conservative Libertarian. Convince me in 2 or 3 sentences why I should vote Democratic in '08

2007-03-26 11:57:14 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-26 11:27:32 · 4 answers · asked by chp 1

They can call me an ignorant nazi, neocon, and call me crazy......

But I use the term dimwit,,, and my answer gets pulled.

Could they be anymore hypocrticial?

2007-03-26 11:17:07 · 15 answers · asked by Dina W 6

How many people support same sex marriage? And if you don't why not?

2007-03-26 10:36:21 · 35 answers · asked by ♥ Myfaeia Arae Colath ♥ 2

2007-03-26 10:12:21 · 15 answers · asked by screw-over-311 4

Newsletter

March 25, 2007

Vol 2 Issue 6

The Other White Meat

When President Bush asked for an additional 22,000 troops to compliment the forces in Iraq so we can hopefully end the conflict and put this war to bed, Congress obliged. However, now that the President is asking for $92 billion in emergency spending because the previous funds will run out next month, Congress in its irresponsible wisdom has delivered a car without a gas tank. In real terms, you can't drive a car without gas and you can't fight a war without the tools needed to get the job done, especially if you are pulling a trailer full of pork.

To be perfectly blunt, most of the Democrats are against the war. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that fact. So why waste the taxpayer?s time and money to push through a useless bill that everyone knows will be vetoed anyway. Okay all of you folks who are sitting on the left side of the aisle we heard you, we got your message. We are not as stupid as you believe we are. There are people out there that want to cut off our heads. So stop playing games and get the job done right. Get back to work and do the job you were elected to do; that is to uphold the constitution and protect the people of the United States.

Tacking on all sorts of useless amendments is totally counterproductive. You were elected to represent the people not try to bribe your colleagues with all sorts of goodies so they will vote in your favor. Let us examine what bribes they have tried to use.

The President asked for an additional $92 billion in emergency spending. He wanted $72 billion to fund the war and $20 billion in additional Hurricane Katrina relief. Knowing that placing a timetable on the bill by itself wouldn't allow it to fly so they tacked on all kinds of pork. Some of these amendments are so ridiculous that they would insult the intelligence of a two-year-old child.

They added over $24 billion that has me scratching my head. Here are just a few amendments they added on:

$4 billion in additional nationwide agricultural disaster assistance. The USDA did not request the funds. Even though farm income in 2005 was in excess of $72 billion, a record high, they added an additional $4 billion, which would not be used in areas that were affected by Hurricane Katrina. Sounds like another rainy day fund, only rain is not in the forecast.

$700 million to reroute a railroad line so it can make room for a private development of additional casinos along the Gulf Coast. That line is now fully functional after it was repaired at a cost of $300 million after being damaged by Hurricane Katrina. CSX is not excited about moving their tracks they rebuilt it as fast as possible to meet their customers needs because it was a critical artery. There is nothing wrong with the existing line. Don't bet on this one.

$594 million in additional highway funding. This is in addition to the $286 billion that was passed last year. Only this money has nothing to do with Katrina or Iraq. It would be used for the emergency relief highway backlog across the country. The only project specifically mentioned in the committee's report is the Kuhio Highway in Hawaii, which is, located over 4,000 miles away from the Gulf Coast. Sounds like another bridge to nowhere.

$21 million is the amount President Bush originally wanted to restore fishery resources in the Gulf region as assistance to the seafood industry that was hard hit by Katrina. The House eliminated this portion of the bill. However, the Senate reinstated it and raised the stakes to over $1.1 billion. This is well beyond the already millions that were spent to repair and replace damaged boats and docks. Smells a little fishy to me.

You are going to love this one! $3.8 billion to prepare for a potential bird flu epidemic like the last one. You know the last one that is the one where we have 500-million vaccines ready to go. The current vaccine is not scheduled to expire for at least two- years. So now, they want us to throw it all away and start over. Sounds like a bird brained idea to me.

$74 million for the peanut farmers to store their crops. There is a peanut quota in the U.S. This holds down the supply and increases the price. So now, they want to hand the peanut farmers our hard- earned tax dollars to buy them storage units. I wonder if they will be located in Plains, Georgia. This sounds like a nutty idea.

$400 million to help the timber industry in Oregon. This industry was originally hurt when Congress shut down harvesting the Northern timberlands to protect the Spotted Owl from being displaced. However, they have no problem displacing you and me through eminent domain if they needed our houses for a municipal parking lot. By the way, the Northern Spotted Owl originated in Mexico, they are probably here illegally.

$400 million for the low-income energy assistance program. The Democrats have been blocking our efforts to drill our own oil resources. They also don't want us to increase nuclear power. So what are they going to do with the $400 million? Send me low energy light bulbs.

Here is the real problem. According to the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates the funding of the war runs out on April 15, 2007. If Congress does not act immediately, on April 15 there will be no funds available to protect our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends who are fighting to keep America safe. Congress will be on Spring Break when that happens. They will be romping on the sands of Palm Beach and Santa Monica while our troops are romping on the sands of Baghdad. They will be sipping champagne and Rum Punch while our troops will be wondering where their next meal is coming from because the funds ran out.

This is not the first time pork was added to an emergency spending bill. During the last go around, they tacked on a $1 million price tag for a telescope to be used to discover intelligent life in outer space. Let's start by looking for intelligent life in Washington, DC. And, that is my opinion.

Michael Solomon

If you want to help restore sanity to America, join the Flag Day campaign.

Michael Solomon

Author of 'Where Did My America Go?"

2007-03-26 10:01:22 · 8 answers · asked by AFIN 3

2007-03-26 09:50:27 · 13 answers · asked by BizFire_tract 1

Nancy Pelosi and her team are crying foul over the firings of eight U.S. federal attorneys.

But the hard truth is this: federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is perfectly legal for him to fire any - or all - of the U.S. attorneys for any reason at all.

In March of 1993, the Clinton administration fired all 93 federal prosecutors with absolutely no fanfare. No controversy. No congressional subpoenas or public hearings.

But the House of Representatives - and now a Senate panel as well - have issued the ''OK'' for subpoenas of key aides to the President.

2007-03-26 09:44:32 · 14 answers · asked by Mail J 3

I'm writing a paper and I need reasons why she shouldn't be in office, im looking for reasons and websites and newspaper./magazine articles to back up the reasons, Please help!

2007-03-26 09:37:44 · 5 answers · asked by Emily E 1

why dont we write the journalist to ask them to ask Bush on his next television interview "how much money are you making from your affiliations with other groups are you making off the war in Iraq?" " and is that the real reason why you don't want to pull out of Iraq?"

2007-03-26 09:26:32 · 10 answers · asked by tre_132mp 4

End. The arch bishop of york apparently is demanding he says sorry. About 7 generations have passed since the days of slavery, so whats it got to do with Blair? It surely would be a meaningless gesture.

2007-03-26 09:15:35 · 18 answers · asked by ? 5

The money people get to feed and clothe their children is dreadful, there is a lady down the street who gets something like £60 for her 3 children a week :|

And they wonder why people try to cheat the system?

2007-03-26 08:58:23 · 16 answers · asked by Elite117 3

The owner, address, phone number any and all information about a specific piece of property

2007-03-26 08:54:19 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have another Political Science project. Yea.

2007-03-26 08:53:45 · 5 answers · asked by ittibittymama 2

He is credited with writing the Declaration of independace, but he was not the sole writer and stole most of the ideas from elsewhere.

2007-03-26 08:45:00 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

I a bunch of historic characters who have done a whole lot more and don't have a holiday.
They should call this day, lazy farmworkers who didn't do anything for history but got a holliday anyway day.

2007-03-26 08:40:54 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I need the address to mail my 8453-OL form

2007-03-26 08:24:00 · 3 answers · asked by grandmahangloose 1

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. AP

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader.
______________________________...
Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
9/11 panel hears from Berger, Tenet
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 1:16 AM EDT (0516 GMT) CNN
A day of drama at the 9/11 Commission
Clarke: 'No sense of urgency'
Tenet admits 9/11 intelligence failings
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
"I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue," Richard Clarke told a commission investigating the September 11 attacks.".
______________________________...
Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262

2007-03-26 08:17:33 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Does Mr. Penn think that he would for one minute get away with the subersive and disrespectful speech and attitude about Iran's Mullah's or President? He should count his blessings that he lives in this great country where he can have his radical opinions and stay alive.It doesn't matter what Mr. Penn feels about this present administrations shortcomings and how they lead us to war. The Presidency is temporary, but the goodness of this country goes beyond any man or administration. If Mr. Penn hates this country so deeply why doesn't he leave? In addition, Sean Penn is an Actor supposedly and should stick to his profession and shut his mouth about Political matters that he knows little about.

2007-03-26 08:09:35 · 9 answers · asked by Lonely joe 2

Many of the dollars we spend on imported oil are going to nations that support radical Islamist terrorists against whom we're engaged in a global war. We are in fact fighting a war on terrorism and paying both sides of the war. We are sending troops and dollars to fight for freedom and democracy all over the world, and we are sending money to the people who don't like us. Instead of both parties fighting each other in government, and citizens bickering shouldn't we come together, and set America free by focusing on existing technologies for cheap alcohol based fuels. Don't you think we must all come together immediatly to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel rather than waste another quarter of a century coming to terms with our dependence on foreign oil. Why not stop spending your time debating the war, debating whose the best, and email your congressmen on this issue, and talk about ways to make this happen!

2007-03-26 08:02:37 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

It seems like there are alot of people out there that hate President Bush. The crazy thing is that most of those people have had to vote for him since, after all, he did become our President. So if he is hated by so many then how is it that he became the President? FYI: I did NOT vote for Bush, I'm just tired of hearing all this BS about him when apparently many of you out there liked him enough to vote him for President, so PLEASE give it a rest. You can't change it now!

2007-03-26 07:52:23 · 11 answers · asked by J 2

2007-03-26 07:50:22 · 15 answers · asked by NONAME 1

2007-03-26 07:47:10 · 13 answers · asked by angry youngman 1

That many people who wish the United States was purely democratic instead of a republic(i.e. all matters are solved by a popular vote, rather than by the votes of representatives), probably wouldn't go out to the polls to vote anyway? I mean, voter turnout is ... what? Next to nothing?

2007-03-26 07:29:44 · 5 answers · asked by This Is Me Being Grumpy 3

2007-03-26 07:24:34 · 5 answers · asked by Tim W 1

Whats the odds of Bush getting impeached, is it possible?

2007-03-26 07:12:49 · 17 answers · asked by shawnie 3

If so, what does that say about the Republican Gang?

2007-03-26 07:03:14 · 17 answers · asked by samanthakhz 2