Kerry's Real Vision of Homeland Security
From the Capitol Hill Blue:"Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war president and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it," Kerry told several hundred enthusiastic UCLA students at the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations.
Bush, he said, has driven away America's allies, mishandled conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and failed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush's reassuring words in the days after September 11th," Kerry said. "But since then, his actions have fallen short. I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror; I believe he's done too little."
Matt's Chat
What the junior senator from Taxachusetts is really wanting to say is that a President Kerry would increase regulations that would radically change the American way of life. That's right, libertarians, Mr. Kerry would impose a plan that makes the USA Patriot Act look like child's play.Kerry envisions the average American spending three plus hours in the airport. He sees a string of vessels on the ocean waiting to reach American ports. He conceives every building hardened and guarded. Intense scrutiny divided out equally to anybody and everything.
What would all this mean to the American way of life? As I see it, Sen. Kerry's plan would severely hurt us economically; would radically effect the War on Terror in a manner that is inconsistent with the goal of winning; would significantly alter the way Americans would engage in their Constitutional right to pursue happiness; and would not leave Americans any safer.
A considerable amount of goods consumed by Americans are imported from countries all over the world. While it is a noble goal to want to examine each and every container that comes into our ports, it just isn't economically feasible at this time. Consider that Presidnet Bush tripled the budget for such searches and the percentage of containers being examine rose only from 3% to 6%. Without major technological advancement, Senator Kerry's plan would cause momentous delays in goods reaching the American marketplace. Furthermore, I suspect that the cost of implementing such procudures would be passed on to the consumer (liberals, that means you and me).
The effect of Senator Kerry's plan on the War on Terror would be astronomical. And not in a positive way. By radically altering the American way of life, Senator Kerry would be giving our enemy what they want: for the citizens of the United States to change the way we live our lives. President Bush was absolutely correct when he said that we must go on doing the things we normally would, because to do otherwise gives the terrorists an easy victory. Senator Kerry would not prosecute the War on Terror with the goal of winning the struggle against our enemies. It is clear to me, that a Kerry administration would seek to appease our enemies and surrender our soverignty to the United Nations and the "international community."
The American people have always had the freedom to choose their destiny; to be who they want to be: when, where, and however they decide to exercise their rights. Senator Kerry, if elected, would significantly alter the fabric of American life by "doing more" for homeland security here in the United States. Now "doing more" sounds good on the campaign trail. In reality, what the Senator proposes will cost time, energy, effort, and more government regulation in our daily lives. President Bush has taken the strategy of imposing the security restrictions externally rather than internally because that is where the threat is; if we can stop the threat BEFORE it gets here, we win. Kerry wants to capitulate to the demands of the "international community" and lift those security standards and instead deal with threat on OUR SOIL.
Kerry's plan indicates a desire to check out every container and every passenger. Again, this has the ring of being a good thing but in actuality would be a disaster. Instead of focusing in on the threats, government agencies would be engaged in beauracracy and administrivia. Instead of zeroing in on the problem, TSA would be looking everywhere; increasing the size of the haystack when looking for the proverbial needle. Would that make us any safer? I don't believe so.
While we should execute any and all means to make our nation safer, we must always ask the question of whether or not the changes we endorse would fundamentally transform our nation. Senator Kerry would like to lead us down a path of intense government regulation. President Bush has demonstrated his position time and again.
The choice is clear.
Mark's Remarks
Yes, the choice is very clear. You know, Dimcan'ts and the liberalistas are constantly saying that conservatives and Republicans are anti-freedom. However, look at Kerry's plan. It is by far more intrusive with fewer safeguards than the Patriot Act. Mr. Kerry would love to usher in the era of Big Brother and probably would send Matt and I to gulags with Rush and Sean Hannity.
You see, it is OK to exercise your freedom of speech if you agree with liberals. They will defend you all day if you are advocating the murder of
You want to see the Kerry plan. Look at the French. All religious ornamentation would be forbidden.
You want to see the Kerry plan? Look at Neville Chamberlain. As he was harassing hard working Americans going their way, he would be cozying up to the terrorists and rogue states, just like his party's god, Bill Clinton did.
The choice is clear. We are either for an America that stands at the forefront, leading the way to liberty....or we could return to the days of malaise and uncertainty that plagued the Carter Administration, when appeasement was the order of the day.
