Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do we really want Democrats in charge?
World Net Daily ^ | August. 24, 2006 | Larry Elder

Posted on 08/24/2006 8:04:30 AM PDT by Reagan Man

Sixty percent of Americans, according to recent polls, consider Iraq a mistake. Given the unpopularity of the war, Democrats expect to capture one, if not both, chambers of Congress this fall. Assuming this happens – and I still don't believe so – will Americans be better off?

Sure, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the Democratic primary. But look at Lamont's "strategy" for the war in Iraq. He calls for a "phased pullout" of troops. A "phased pullout"?

Sen. Lieberman, who disagrees with President Bush on virtually every domestic issue, understands the stakes in Iraq, even if his party members fail to. "I am convinced," wrote Lieberman, "almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if [U.S.] forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country."

During the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah (and Lebanon and Syria and Iran), we justly criticized the Lebanese government for the lack of will or ability to police its southern border. Yet many Democrats want us to leave Iraq and abandon the Iraqi military and police that show the will, if not the ability so far, to police and protect their own country.

Lamont's "phased pullout" would send yet another signal to the enemies to simply wait us out. Osama bin Laden considers America impatient, lacking resolve and unwilling to sacrifice. Recall that our hasty pullout from Vietnam, and subsequent failure to abide by promises made to the South Vietnamese, resulted in a bloodbath in Southeast Asia that left 3 million or more dead.

For insight into the Democrats' brand of appeasement foreign policy, look no further than former President Jimmy Carter. Just a few months into his presidency, he urged Americans to reconsider our "inordinate fear of communism." Carter kissed then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek. Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan.

Carter, a staunch Bush critic, helped to usher in the "Iranian Revolution" of 1979 by leaning on the Shah of Iran to "release political prisoners." To show their gratitude, Iranians seized 90 hostages at the U.S. Embassy, holding 52 of them for 444 days, before releasing them minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. At the time of the hostage crisis, Carter sent what some called a believer-to-believer letter in longhand to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The letter praised the ayatollah as a "man of God."

The other major Democrat line of attack accuses the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility. This is their strongest and most persuasive argument. For it is true that this president, with the approval of the Republican-run legislature, ran up bills at a rate faster than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Even if we exclude the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security and Katrina relief, the Republican Party turned its back on their alleged "limited government" philosophy.

But the Democrats' primary criticism is to call Republicans too stingy. About the monstrous expansion of Medicare with the prescription bill for seniors, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Because the administration and the Republican leadership refused to provide the funds needed for an adequate drug benefit, more and more seniors are facing the ridiculous 'donut hole.' That's the huge gap which leaves enrollees with major out-of-pocket costs."

About No Child Left Behind, another unwarranted expansion of the federal government in education, Democrats, along with the National Education Association, call it insufficiently funded. "The law requires Washington to pay for it," said NEA President Reg Weaver, "and the fact is that Washington is not keeping that promise. As a result, our parents' tax dollars are getting steered away from the classroom and going toward boosting the profits of testing companies, instead of going toward their children's education."

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and other House Democrats recently released a six-pronged "New Direction for America" agenda for change: Real security and immediate phased pullout in Iraq; higher minimum wage; more affordable college; energy independence and lower gas prices; affordable health care; and something called "Retirement Security and Dignity," which calls for shoring up private pensions.

Notice anything missing? Not one word about North Korea. Not one word about Iran. And virtually every one of the six Democrat initiatives requires greater federal government intrusion, higher taxes and contempt for the private sector to compete and innovate. In short, "fiscal irresponsibility."

Americans, despite our uneasiness with the war in Iraq, nevertheless realize the consequences – in the war against Islamofascism – of an abrupt abandonment. And the next time you hear a Democrat attack Republicans for "reckless spending," ask the following question: "Aside from defense, where should government cut back?"

The silence will be deafening.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: democrats; dnc; election2006; hezbocrats; liberals; sorocrats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: Reagan Man

You mean this one:


What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic “Gods” in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.

Carter wasn’t finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?

“This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi…Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade.” (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)

Held out as a “celebration” of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.

Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.

To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:

“We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there…But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!”

How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.

But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.

But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carter’s verbal exploits include:

*Regarding President Ronald Reagan’s talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : “I have always thought ‘Star Wars’ was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity”

*Regarding President George H.W. Bush’s preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation.” Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would “reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.”

*Regarding Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement…it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.”

It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.

There are numerous examples of former president Carter’s innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.

If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be “ineffectual,” for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.

Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.

Or maybe this one (she thinks):

2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.

According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."

Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.

Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....


21 posted on 08/24/2006 10:04:34 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

You mean this one:


What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic “Gods” in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.

Carter wasn’t finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?

“This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi…Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade.” (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)

Held out as a “celebration” of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.

Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.

To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:

“We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there…But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!”

How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.

But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.

But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carter’s verbal exploits include:

*Regarding President Ronald Reagan’s talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : “I have always thought ‘Star Wars’ was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity”

*Regarding President George H.W. Bush’s preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation.” Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would “reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.”

*Regarding Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement…it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.”

It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.

There are numerous examples of former president Carter’s innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.

If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be “ineffectual,” for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.

Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.

Or maybe this one (she thinks):

2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.

According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."

Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.

Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....


22 posted on 08/24/2006 10:04:39 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 (My ? to libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own DOPE: Plant a LIB!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; All
Thanks for posting this. I have excerpted one of Larry Elder's quotes and added it to my missive (missile?) for email trees:

DEMOCRATS: WEAK ON DEFENSE

DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress? 
(EVERY Democrat elected to Congress WILL vote for Nancy Pelosi or some other terrorist-appeaser for Speaker of the House!)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted To Cut Intelligence Funding, Even After September 11th:
In 2003, 33 SENATE Democrats Voted To Withhold $50 Million In Intelligence Funding.  (H.R. 2658, CQ Vote #287: Motion Agreed To 62-34: R 51-0; D 11-33; I 0-1, 7/17/03)
In 2003, 44 SENATE Democrats Supported An Amendment That Would Have Transferred $300 Million Away From Intelligence Activities. (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 7/23/03)
In 1996, 154 House Democrats Voted To Reduce The Total Amount Authorized By The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization By 4.9 Percent. (H.R. 3259, CQ Vote #187: Rejected 192-235: R 37-193; D 154-42; I 1-0, 5/22/96) 
In 1995, 40 SENATE Democrats Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95) 
In 1993, 120 House Democrats Voted To Cut Intelligence By $500 Million. (H.R. 2330, CQ Vote #393: Rejected: 134-299: R 13-159; D 120-14; I 1-0, 8/4/93) 

In 1989, 31 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Appropriations For Intelligence And Intelligence-Related Activities Of The U.S. Government For The CIA And Related Agencies. (H.R. 2748, CQ Vote #288: Passed 369-31: R 161-8; D 208-23, 10/12/89)

  • "American supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today." -- George Soros, MoveOn.org's billionaire benefactor
     
  • "Now it's our party! We bought it, we own it!"
    -- Radical leftist Eli Pariser, one of the organizers and leaders of MoveOn.org, referring to the Democratic Party.
     
  • Now about that hysteria over "warrantless searches":  You can't even WRITE, let alone issue, a warrant to look for patterns in communications, a warrant for the purpose of  eventually finding unexpected patterns that might appear out of the blue, like "liquids" mentioned along with "airplanes."  It was THIS type of pattern recognition that allowed U.S. Intelligence agencies to alert the British about the latest terrorist airliner plot before the radical-leftist appellate judge (appointed by Democrat Jimmy Carter) ruled terrorist monitoring unconstitutional.
     
  • "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.  The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810 
     
  • "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has published a report that makes one wonder if they know who really is the enemy. ... In both houses of the U.S. Congress the committees and sub-committees which used to concern themselves with threats to national security by alien and subversive groups have been closed down.  There is, however, a Senate Committee to ride herd on our intelligence gathering agencies to see that they number one, operate lawfully, and number two, effectively.  So far they've only concerned themselves with number one." -- Ronald Reagan, June 15, 1977
     
  • "In a very real sense, the reason September eleven of  '01 happened is because right behind me about five blocks the [Democrat-controlled] Frank Church committee hearings in the early 1970's and the [Democrat] Carter administration later in the 1970's largely destroyed the CIA's operations directorate." -- Tom Clancy on Kudlow and Cramer, 9/2/03 
     
  • "Actually you can trace our failures in stopping global terror all the way back to Jimmy Carter and Democratic Senator Frank Church." -- Neal Boortz, 9/1/03
     
  • "Carter helped to usher in the 'Iranian Revolution' of 1979 by leaning on the [pro- U.S.] Shah of Iran to "release political prisoners" [which ultimately led to his downfall and his replacement by the Islamofascist mullahs and ayatollahs]." -- Larry Elder, 8/24/06
     
  • The first country to steal oilfields developed by western companies with their advanced technology (which gave them rightful ownership) was Iran in 1951.  By their frightened silence and the extremely slow and secretive eventual response on the part of their successors, Prime Minister Attlee [Labor Party] in the U.K., with the acquiescence of President Truman [Democrat] in the U.S., set the stage for all the other Muslim countries in the middle east to follow suit, eventually giving to pathetic primitive barbarians the ability to purchase nuclear weapons (let alone computers) and spread unspeakably evil philosophies.
Now here's something ELSE scary: Nomatter how nice a guy he may be in person, EVERY Democrat in the Congress WILL vote for San Francisco's barking moonbat Nancy Pelosi or some other liberal for Speaker of the House, 3rd in line for the Presidency.
 
 

DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

Democrats Have Voted Against Billions In Funding To Support Our Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan:
In 2005, 54 House Democrats Voted Against Over $37 Billion In Funding For Military Operations In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 1268, CQ Vote #161: Adopted 368-58: R 225-3; D 143-54; I 0-1, 5/5/05)
In 2005, 39 House Democrats Voted Against Over $53 Billion In Funding For Military Operations And Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 1268, CQ Vote #77: Passed 388-43: R 226-3; D 162-39; I 0-1, 3/16/05)
In 2003, 11 SENATE Democrats Voted Against $87 Billion For Military Operations And Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03) 
In 2003, 115 House Democrats Voted Against $87 Billion For Military Operations and Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 3289, CQ Vote #601: Adopted 298-121: R 216-5; D 82-115; I 0-1; 10/31/03) 

 
 

 DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST WEAPONS USED IN THE WAR ON TERROR
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Funding The B-2 Spirit (Stealth Bomber):

Democrats Voted Against Funding The Stealth Bomber At Least Eighteen Times, In 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, And 1997.  (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Motion Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/17/89; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90; S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92; H.R. 4990, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 90-9: R 34-9; D 56-0, 5/21/92; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18, 9/18/92; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D 37-19, 7/1/94; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96; H.R. 1119, CQ Vote #228: Rejected 209-216: R 60-163; D 148-53; I 1-0, 6/23/97)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Funding The F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornet:

Democrats Voted Against Funding The F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornet At Least Nine Times, In 1990, 1995, 1996, And 1997.  (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; H.R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96; S. 936, CQ Vote #172: Rejected 19-79: R 1-54; D 18-25, 7/11/97)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Funding The Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV):

Democrats Voted Against Funding UAVs At Least Four Times, In 1995 And 1996. (H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Funding The Tomahawk Cruise Missile:

Democrats Voted Against Funding The Tomahawk Cruise Missile At Least Four Times, In 1990, 1995 And 1996.  (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96)

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Funding The LHD Helicopter Carrier:

Democrats Voted Against Funding The LHD Helicopter Carrier At Least Five Times, In 1990, 1995 And 1996.  (S. 3189, CQ Vote #273: Passed 79-16: R 37-5; D 42-11, 10/15/90; H.R. 5803, CQ Vote #319: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90; S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96)
 
 

DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST CRITICAL DEFENSE FUNDING
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted Against Critical Defense Spending Bills:
In 2006, 30 House Democrats Voted Against Over $512 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 5122, CQ Vote #145: Passed 396-31: R 227-1; D 168-30; I 1-0, 5/11/06)
  • This Funding Included Almost $17 Billion For Military Construction And Family Housing. (H.R. 5122, CQ Vote #145: Passed 396-31: R 227-1; D 168-30; I 1-0, 5/11/06)  
In 2006, 52 House Democrats Voted Against Over $67 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 4939, CQ Vote #65: Passed 348-71: R 204-19; D 143-52; I 1-0, 3/16/06)
In 2005, 37 House Democrats Voted Against Over $440 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 1815, CQ Vote #222: Passed 390-39: R 225-2; D 164-37; I 1-0, 5/25/05)
  • This Funding Included $108 Billion For Defense Personnel And Over $12 Billion For Military Construction And Family Housing. (H.R. 1815, CQ Vote #222: Passed 390-39: R 225-2; D 164-37; I 1-0, 5/25/05) 
In 2004, 33 House Democrats Voted Against Over $447 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 4200, CQ Vote #206: Passed 391-34: R 221-1; D 169-33; I 1-0, 5/20/04)
In 2003, 66 House Democrats Voted Against Over $400 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 1588, CQ Vote #221: Passed 361-68: R 223-1: D 138-66; I 0-1, 5/22/03) 
In 2002, 56 House Democrats Voted Against Over $383 Billion In Defense Funding. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #158: Passed 359-58: R 212-1; D 146-56; I 1-1, 5/10/02) 
  • This Funding Included A 4.7 Percent Pay Increase For Military Personnel. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #158: Passed 359-58: R 212-1; D 146-56; I 1-1, 5/10/02) 

OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS, DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST MISSILE DEFENSE
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

During The Bush Administration, Democrats Have Voted Against Missile Defense At Least Nine Times:
In 2006, 130 House Democrats Voted To Cut Over $9 Billion Dollars From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 376, CQ Vote #155: Rejected 131-294: R 0-229; D 130-65; I 1-0; 5/17/06)
In 2006, 117 House Democrats Voted To Limit The Deployment Of Ground-Based Defense Systems And To Halt The Deployment Of Space-Based Missile Interceptors. (H.R. 5122, CQ Vote #142: Rejected 124-301: R 6-221; D 117-80; I 1-0; 5/11/06) 
In 2005, 34 SENATE Democrats Voted To Cut $50 Million From Missile Defense. (S. 1042, CQ Vote #311: Rejected 37-60: R 2-52; D 34-8; I 1-0, 11/8/05)
In 2005, 132 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #85: Rejected 134-292: R 1-225; D 132-67; I 1-0, 3/17/05)
In 2004, 43 SENATE Democrats Supported An Amendment Offered By Sen. Levin (D-MI) And Voted To Cut $515 Million From The Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-Based Midcourse Interceptors. (S. 2400, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 44-56: R 0-51; D 43-5; I 1-0, 6/22/04)
In 2004, 118 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H. Con. Res. 393, CQ Vote #88: Rejected 119-302: R 0-220; D 118-82; I 1-0, 3/25/04)
In 2003, 66 House Democrats Voted Against A Bill That Included Over $9 Billion For The Anti-Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 1588, CQ Vote #221: Passed 361-68: R 223-1; D 138-66; I 0-1, 5/22/03)
In 2002, 56 House Democrats Voted Against A Bill That Included $7.8 Billion For Missile Defense Systems. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote #158: Passed 359-58: R 212-1; D 146-56; I 1-1, 5/10/02)
In 2002, 156 House Democrats Voted To Block Funding For Space Based Missile Defense Programs. (H.R. 4546, CQ Vote # 145: Rejected 159-253: R 2-206; D 156-46; I 1-1, 5/9/02) 

 
 

WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS, THEY CUT BILLIONS FROM MISSILE DEFENSE
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

In The Early 90’s, Democrats Cut Missile Defense Funding At Least Seven Times:
In 1994, 38 SENATE Democrats Voted To Cut $513 Million From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94)
In 1994, 139 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 4301, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 155-271: R 15-160; D 139-11; I 1-0, 5/18/94)
In 1993, 44 SENATE Democrats Were Successful In Cutting Funds From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 9/9/93)
In 1993, 150 House Democrats Voted To Reduce Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 3400, CQ Vote #610: Rejected 184-248: R 33-139; D 150-10; I 1-0, 11/22/93)
In 1993, 185 House Democrats Voted To Cut $200 Million In Funding From The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #414: Rejected 202-227: R 16-156; D 185-71; I 1-0, 9/8/93) 
In 1993, 251 House Democrats Were Successful In Defeating A $467 Million Increase In Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #413: Rejected 118-312: R 113-60; D 5-251; I 0-1, 9/8/93) 
In 1993, 153 House Democrats Voted To Cut $1.5 Billion In Funding For The Ballistic Missile Defense Program. (H.R. 2401, CQ Vote #412: Rejected 160-272: R 6-167; D 153-10; I 1-0, 9/8/93)
During The Reagan Administration, A Majority Of Democrats Voted Against Missile Defense:
During The Reagan And George H. W. Bush Administrations, A Majority Of Democrats Voted Against Missile Defense At Least 14 Times. (S. 1160, CQ Vote #101: Rejected 36-59: R 1-49; D 35-10, 6/4/85; S. 1160, CQ Vote #103: Rejected 33-62: R 28-22; D 5-40, 6/4/85; H.J. Res. 465, CQ Vote #365: Motion Agreed To 64-32: R 49-2; D 15-30, 12/10/85; H.R. 4515, CQ Vote #122: Ruled Non-Germane 45-47: R 7-42; D 38-5, 6/6/86; S. 2638, CQ Vote #176: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 41-11; D 9-38, 8/5/86; S. 2638, CQ Vote #177: Rejected 49-50: R 10-42; D 39-8, 8/5/86; S. 1174, CQ Vote #248: Motion Agreed To 58-38: R 8-37; D 50-1, 9/17/87; S. 1174, CQ Vote #259: Motion Agreed To 51-50: R 37-9; D 13-41, With Vice President Bush Casting A Yea Vote, 9/22/87; S. 1352, CQ Vote #148: Motion Agreed To 50-47: R 37-6; D 13-41, 7/27/89; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #202: Rejected 34-66: R 27-18; D 7-48, 9/26/89; H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 53-47: R 39-6; D 14-41, 9/28/89; S. 2884, CQ Vote #223: Adopted 54-44: R 2-42; D 52-2, 8/4/90; S. 2884, CQ Vote #225: Motion Agreed To 56-41: R 39-4; D 17-37, 8/4/90; S. 2884, CQ Vote #226: Motion Agreed To 54-43: R 37-6; D 17-37, 8/4/90)

 
 

DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE LEFT US HELPLESS AGAINST NORTH KOREA’S MISSILES
Do YOU want THEM to take over the Congress?

If Democrats Succeeded In Cutting Missile Defense The U.S. Would Not Be Able To Defend Itself Against North Korea’s Missiles:
The Wall Street Journal: “The Navy had at least one ship-based Aegis missile-defense system deployed off the Korean coast, with a potential to shoot down a North Korean missile.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06)
  • The Wall Street Journal: The Aegis cruisers have successfully shot down missiles in seven of eight tests in recent years, and could become an important player in protecting allies and U.S. forces against regional missile threats.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06) 
  • The Wall Street Journal: “The U.S. is also dispatching PAC-3s, a more sophisticated version of the Patriot anti-missile system, to Japan. This kind of capability adds to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, reassures allies and enhances American influence.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06) 
  • The Wall Street Journal: “Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06) 
  • The Wall Street Journal: “[W]ith President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds.” (Editorial, “The Taepodong Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/21/06) 
-- excerpted from http://www.gop.com/weakandwrong/#demanc

REMEMBER: Nomatter how nice a guy he may be in person, EVERY Democrat in the Congress WILL vote for San Francisco's barking moonbat Nancy Pelosi or some other liberal for Speaker of the House, 3rd in line for the Presidency. 

The takeover of the Democratic Party by anti- American moonbats is demonstrated by the loss of strong-on-security Joe Lieberman in the primaries.  "America's national security is the lowest priority on the Democratic Party agenda." -- David Horowitz 
And remember, it was John Kerry who wanted to give nuclear fuel to the fanatic mullahs who run Iran (!) 

Please DON'T let the Democrats take over Congress.
So GET TO THE POLLS and VOTE REPUBLICAN this November.

See "The Anti-Americans" here: 
http://FreedomKeys.com/anti-americans.htm

Also see "Hypocrisy on Iraq" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

"The Secret History of the Iraq War" here:
http://FreedomKeys.com/secrethistory.htm

"MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT IRAQ" here: http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/myths.htm

And "WHY IRAQ?" here:
http://FreedomKeys.com/whyiraq.htm

Make a cleaner copy by copying THIS:
http://FreedomKeys.com/demsondefense.htm
and please PASS IT ALONG ---------->

         
 

<--------------
COPY AND EMAIL 
TO YOUR ENTIRE
ADDRESS BOOK
<--------------

 


23 posted on 08/24/2006 10:14:05 AM PDT by FreeKeys ("America's national security is the lowest priority on the Democratic Party agenda."- David Horowitz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson