A Call to Arms–Amnesty, Troop Funding and HR 5515


Ladies and gentlemen, once again the not so bright Congress is trying to force amnesty down our throats. This time, it’s been sneaked into the troop funding bill.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is trying to sneak in an agricultural amnesty into the troop funding bill. This has been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican sources. It was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee May 16, 2008 and a vote by the full Senate may occur early this week. Not only does this show Washington doesn’t like what we say and is determined to do what it wants rather than perform to the wishes of the people, they have attached this to our troop funding bill. Our. Troop. Funding. Bill. The money for our military, to get them the equipment they need and all that goes with funding the military. Heinously illegal.

People, we have repeatedly told Washington, in NO uncertain terms, we are against amnesty in any form. We have to do it again, and we have to continue to stay on this issue and continue to pressure Washington until they get it through their thick skulls. No amnesty. Ever again. Enforce the existing laws and build the fence. More information on this issue and a chance to send a fax to your representative, free of charge (as well as phone information) can be found at NumbersUSA here. Follow the links, contact your representative and let your voices be heard, loud and clear. Be polite but relentless. Susan at Wake Up America has plenty of information as well.

Through Snooper at A Newt One, we also hear about HR5515. This little gem is designed to keep us from defending ourselves against the illegals and protecting our property and our persons. He was notified through a post at the Eeevil Conservative here. Again, follow the links to find out who the sponsors are, what the text of the bill is, etc. Here is a teaser of her article:

There is NO DOUBT in ANY of their minds that WE the American people are not willing to bend one iota on the issue of illegal alien squatters and those who employ them – until they take care of enforcing the laws that already exist (deportation and holding employers accountable) and find a way to STOP this invasion at the border FIRST!

Ladies and gentlemen it is clear–we have GOT to clean out Washington. Term limits is a great place to start (although my freshman representative–Gabrielle Giffords–is one of the sponsors of HR5515–and she ran on a strong enforce the borders campaign–what a liar). It is OBVIOUS those on the Hill don’t give two hoots about their constituency. The inmates are running the asylum and we have got to (figuratively speaking) lock the inmates up and take back control of said asylum. As of yesterday.

If you want a solution (BESIDES–NOT instead of–calling, writing, faxing, emailing and flooding their offices with faxes before this vote), pay a visit to “What If America?”. It offers a real solution, basically helping build the fence the government doesn’t want to build and using the government’s money to do so.

The time for talk is over. It’s time to act.

Advertisements

A Call to Arms–Amnesty, Troop Funding and HR 5515


Ladies and gentlemen, once again the not so bright Congress is trying to force amnesty down our throats. This time, it’s been sneaked into the troop funding bill.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is trying to sneak in an agricultural amnesty into the troop funding bill. This has been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican sources. It was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee May 16, 2008 and a vote by the full Senate may occur early this week. Not only does this show Washington doesn’t like what we say and is determined to do what it wants rather than perform to the wishes of the people, they have attached this to our troop funding bill. Our. Troop. Funding. Bill. The money for our military, to get them the equipment they need and all that goes with funding the military. Heinously illegal.

People, we have repeatedly told Washington, in NO uncertain terms, we are against amnesty in any form. We have to do it again, and we have to continue to stay on this issue and continue to pressure Washington until they get it through their thick skulls. No amnesty. Ever again. Enforce the existing laws and build the fence. More information on this issue and a chance to send a fax to your representative, free of charge (as well as phone information) can be found at NumbersUSA here. Follow the links, contact your representative and let your voices be heard, loud and clear. Be polite but relentless. Susan at Wake Up America has plenty of information as well.

Through Snooper at A Newt One, we also hear about HR5515. This little gem is designed to keep us from defending ourselves against the illegals and protecting our property and our persons. He was notified through a post at the Eeevil Conservative here. Again, follow the links to find out who the sponsors are, what the text of the bill is, etc. Here is a teaser of her article:

There is NO DOUBT in ANY of their minds that WE the American people are not willing to bend one iota on the issue of illegal alien squatters and those who employ them – until they take care of enforcing the laws that already exist (deportation and holding employers accountable) and find a way to STOP this invasion at the border FIRST!

Ladies and gentlemen it is clear–we have GOT to clean out Washington. Term limits is a great place to start (although my freshman representative–Gabrielle Giffords–is one of the sponsors of HR5515–and she ran on a strong enforce the borders campaign–what a liar). It is OBVIOUS those on the Hill don’t give two hoots about their constituency. The inmates are running the asylum and we have got to (figuratively speaking) lock the inmates up and take back control of said asylum. As of yesterday.

If you want a solution (BESIDES–NOT instead of–calling, writing, faxing, emailing and flooding their offices with faxes before this vote), pay a visit to “What If America?”. It offers a real solution, basically helping build the fence the government doesn’t want to build and using the government’s money to do so.

The time for talk is over. It’s time to act.

FITNA Is Here


Geert Wilders’ film, FITNA, has been released. For all those wishing a true education into the hatred and violence of islam, I refer you to this film Mr.Wilders’ now has a fatwa upon him for exposing the correlation between muslim acts and the verses of the koran. LiveLeak and United American Committee [UAC] both have the film up. LiveLeak is here and United American Committee [UAC] is here.

Here is the English Version of Fitna The Movie: Geert Wilders’ Film About the Quran:

Spree at Wake Up America has several posts regarding the release of this movie and they are all worth reading. She has them summarized here and today’s post is here. She’s done the research and she has the goods–go read her posts, watch FITNA–and educate yourself as to the true threat we are facing.

It’s not a war in Iraq, it’s not a war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or ANYWHERE else. It’s a war against a murderous, zealot driven, societal ideology which is no more a religion of peace than the moon is made of green cheese. It IS about our very survival against barbarians.

Ben has posted a follow up at A Newt One titled “FITNA: Supporting Documentation” here; hopefully he will soon have it up here at MBVD.

Also posted at Digg! here; GOP Hub here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

FITNA Is Here


Geert Wilders’ film, FITNA, has been released. For all those wishing a true education into the hatred and violence of islam, I refer you to this film Mr.Wilders’ now has a fatwa upon him for exposing the correlation between muslim acts and the verses of the koran. LiveLeak and United American Committee [UAC] both have the film up. LiveLeak is here and United American Committee [UAC] is here.

Here is the English Version of Fitna The Movie: Geert Wilders’ Film About the Quran:

Spree at Wake Up America has several posts regarding the release of this movie and they are all worth reading. She has them summarized here and today’s post is here. She’s done the research and she has the goods–go read her posts, watch FITNA–and educate yourself as to the true threat we are facing.

It’s not a war in Iraq, it’s not a war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or ANYWHERE else. It’s a war against a murderous, zealot driven, societal ideology which is no more a religion of peace than the moon is made of green cheese. It IS about our very survival against barbarians.

Ben has posted a follow up at A Newt One titled “FITNA: Supporting Documentation” here; hopefully he will soon have it up here at MBVD.

Also posted at Digg! here; GOP Hub here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

Blurring the Lines–Politics, Religion and Terrorism

Cross posted from Wake up America

For those of us watching the chaos within the Democratic party in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s battle for the nomination is definitely a sight to see.

One campaign releases something that will hurt the other, the other campaign rushes to shift the spotlight to the other candidate and then the supporters of both campaigns jump into the fray and pound home the talking points.

In the meantime, both camps, in their fierce battle, are forgetting that every document, ever rumor proven true, every photo and every argument they are using against each other, is out there now, to be used against the party or eventual nominee for the November elections.

Lets take a walk through the events of the past couple of weeks.

Religion and Politics.

Recently there has been a firestorm in the news, blogosphere, forums and discussion groups about Barack Obama’s association and his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ and the words of his longtime pastor, friend and man Obama calls “like family”, Jeremiah Wright, who has been in the news with snippets of some of his sermons shown, saying “God Damn America”.

To be clear, some of his comments, such as the one I just mentioned, were offensive to many and the fact that Obama first denied hearing any of those comments, then admitted to hearing them but said he disagreed with them, led to questions of his own ideology and why he would continue to go to that church of he did not agree with the majority of what Wright was saying.

Legitimate questions all.

Other snippets from Wright’s sermons were taken out of context and blared across America without bothering to separate the legitimately offensive racists words from the portions where Wright was simply quoting other people.

Obama then gave a speech, 30 plus minutes where he distanced himself from his Pastor’s remarks, but to which he was criticized because he did not distance himself from the man himself.

Hillary Clinton supporters, specifically Lanny Davis, via the Huffington Post, then challenged Obama to answer a couple questions that were not answered in that speech.

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the “N” word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her “Religious Advisory Committee” of his or her presidential campaign?

I hope my message gets to someone in the Obama campaign — or to a reporter traveling with the Senator — who can persuade Senator Obama to answer them directly. As I just wrote, he will have to do so — either now or perhaps in the fall.

Again, legitimate questions, but Hillary Clinton had still not jumped on that same bandwagon and has remained suspiciously quiet, at least publicly, about the Obama/Wright controversy.

The reason I say, at least publicly, is news reports show that according to “key allies”, the Clinton campaign was “privately pushing the issue with key party members to lift her candidacy.”

That same New York Time article reports that the Obama campaign, in an attempt to shift focus from his relationship with Wright, supplied The New York Times with a picture of Mr. Wright and President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1998 at a breakfast meeting with religious leaders hours before the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal was made public.

(A photo from the Obama campaign of President Bill Clinton with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at a breakfast in 1998.)

They further provided a letter from Bill Clinton thanking Wright for his “kind message” and saying they were touched by his prayers.

Blurring the lines.

In politics it is easy to blur the lines between legitimate questions and associations and what many would call illegitimate questions and association.

This morning’s news is full of what many would and are categorizing as the latter of the two.

One example of what many are citing as a blurring of those lines is in a story that is creating some talk about Obama.

The Obama buzz is about a Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church, and a newsletter that was published on July 22, 2007, where the church reprinted an article by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook in which he justifies Hamas’ withholding of recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The article originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

The reason that many are calling this an illegitimate association is because the World New Daily published an article about the Church reprinting that op-ed, yet WND did not get a response from Obama…… someone else did though and his response clearly denounces the op-ed, the fact that it was published in the churches newsletter as well as harshly condemning his pastor’s views about Israel.

In a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, Obama said, “A pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church’s bulletin is “outrageously wrong.”

Obama’s continues, “I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin. Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.

He concludes his statement with, “The story of Queen Esther and her uncle Mordechai saving the Jews of ancient Persia from destruction. Even as the parties are held, the songs are sung, and the noisemakers are rattled, the history of a people that has had to fight for its survival, remains at the heart of the Purim story. In our day, the celebration is mingled with a determination to ensure that Israel remains safe and strong, that we fight anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, and that the American Jewish community continues to play such an active and vital role in the life of our nation.”

The problem with blurring the lines between legitimate questions about Obama’s association with Wright and publishing a piece such as the one above without also publishing Obama’s response and clear condemnation causes difficulty in allowing people to see the whole picture.

In politics the statement “all is fair in love and war” can be applied but without context, without providing full disclosure of information available and without acknowledging Obama’s full and stringent denouncement of Wright’s pro-terrorism sympathies, the lines between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms are becoming blurred to the point where the public cannot separate truth from rumor.

If the public cannot separate the questions that need to be asked about why Barack Obama would continue a 17 year relationship with a racists, terrorist sympathizer, like Wright, from intellectually dishonest questions and associations that imply that Obama himself is a terrorist sympathizer, when he has made it clear he is not, then it is the public at large, the citizens and voters that lose out the most by not having the full range of information available to them.

Blurring the Lines–Politics, Religion and Terrorism

Cross posted from Wake up America

For those of us watching the chaos within the Democratic party in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s battle for the nomination is definitely a sight to see.

One campaign releases something that will hurt the other, the other campaign rushes to shift the spotlight to the other candidate and then the supporters of both campaigns jump into the fray and pound home the talking points.

In the meantime, both camps, in their fierce battle, are forgetting that every document, ever rumor proven true, every photo and every argument they are using against each other, is out there now, to be used against the party or eventual nominee for the November elections.

Lets take a walk through the events of the past couple of weeks.

Religion and Politics.

Recently there has been a firestorm in the news, blogosphere, forums and discussion groups about Barack Obama’s association and his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ and the words of his longtime pastor, friend and man Obama calls “like family”, Jeremiah Wright, who has been in the news with snippets of some of his sermons shown, saying “God Damn America”.

To be clear, some of his comments, such as the one I just mentioned, were offensive to many and the fact that Obama first denied hearing any of those comments, then admitted to hearing them but said he disagreed with them, led to questions of his own ideology and why he would continue to go to that church of he did not agree with the majority of what Wright was saying.

Legitimate questions all.

Other snippets from Wright’s sermons were taken out of context and blared across America without bothering to separate the legitimately offensive racists words from the portions where Wright was simply quoting other people.

Obama then gave a speech, 30 plus minutes where he distanced himself from his Pastor’s remarks, but to which he was criticized because he did not distance himself from the man himself.

Hillary Clinton supporters, specifically Lanny Davis, via the Huffington Post, then challenged Obama to answer a couple questions that were not answered in that speech.

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the “N” word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her “Religious Advisory Committee” of his or her presidential campaign?

I hope my message gets to someone in the Obama campaign — or to a reporter traveling with the Senator — who can persuade Senator Obama to answer them directly. As I just wrote, he will have to do so — either now or perhaps in the fall.

Again, legitimate questions, but Hillary Clinton had still not jumped on that same bandwagon and has remained suspiciously quiet, at least publicly, about the Obama/Wright controversy.

The reason I say, at least publicly, is news reports show that according to “key allies”, the Clinton campaign was “privately pushing the issue with key party members to lift her candidacy.”

That same New York Time article reports that the Obama campaign, in an attempt to shift focus from his relationship with Wright, supplied The New York Times with a picture of Mr. Wright and President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1998 at a breakfast meeting with religious leaders hours before the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal was made public.

(A photo from the Obama campaign of President Bill Clinton with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at a breakfast in 1998.)

They further provided a letter from Bill Clinton thanking Wright for his “kind message” and saying they were touched by his prayers.

Blurring the lines.

In politics it is easy to blur the lines between legitimate questions and associations and what many would call illegitimate questions and association.

This morning’s news is full of what many would and are categorizing as the latter of the two.

One example of what many are citing as a blurring of those lines is in a story that is creating some talk about Obama.

The Obama buzz is about a Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church, and a newsletter that was published on July 22, 2007, where the church reprinted an article by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook in which he justifies Hamas’ withholding of recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The article originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

The reason that many are calling this an illegitimate association is because the World New Daily published an article about the Church reprinting that op-ed, yet WND did not get a response from Obama…… someone else did though and his response clearly denounces the op-ed, the fact that it was published in the churches newsletter as well as harshly condemning his pastor’s views about Israel.

In a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, Obama said, “A pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church’s bulletin is “outrageously wrong.”

Obama’s continues, “I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin. Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.

He concludes his statement with, “The story of Queen Esther and her uncle Mordechai saving the Jews of ancient Persia from destruction. Even as the parties are held, the songs are sung, and the noisemakers are rattled, the history of a people that has had to fight for its survival, remains at the heart of the Purim story. In our day, the celebration is mingled with a determination to ensure that Israel remains safe and strong, that we fight anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, and that the American Jewish community continues to play such an active and vital role in the life of our nation.”

The problem with blurring the lines between legitimate questions about Obama’s association with Wright and publishing a piece such as the one above without also publishing Obama’s response and clear condemnation causes difficulty in allowing people to see the whole picture.

In politics the statement “all is fair in love and war” can be applied but without context, without providing full disclosure of information available and without acknowledging Obama’s full and stringent denouncement of Wright’s pro-terrorism sympathies, the lines between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms are becoming blurred to the point where the public cannot separate truth from rumor.

If the public cannot separate the questions that need to be asked about why Barack Obama would continue a 17 year relationship with a racists, terrorist sympathizer, like Wright, from intellectually dishonest questions and associations that imply that Obama himself is a terrorist sympathizer, when he has made it clear he is not, then it is the public at large, the citizens and voters that lose out the most by not having the full range of information available to them.

The Release of Barack Obama’s 2005-06 Earmark Requests Brings up Questions

Cross posted from Wake up America

Barack Obama has released his earmarked federal spending requests for 2005 and 2006 having previously released his requests for 2007. In the recent release there are specific requests that are being questioned in the media today.

In the midst of all three presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama and McCain, backing a proposal in the Senate to ban all earmarks for one year, an amendment to the Senate’s 2009 budget act, which the Senate rejected with a vote of 29-71, Barack Obama has released his list of requested earmarks for 2005-06, then calling on Hillary Clinton to release a list of hers.

The Senate roll call on that vote found here.

“Earmarking” is the word used for a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Usually, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

John McCain has long been known to be a vocal critic of earmarks and has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona. McCain recently challenged both of his Democratic rivals to reveal their earmarks for transparency.

Hillary Clinton ranked 10th highest in the list of Senators, for her $342 million worth of earmarks last year and has not released the details of her requests for 2007.

Barack Obama secured $98 million for Illinois projects for the fiscal year of 2008, but his requests totaled $311 million, according to the list he has just released.

Furthermore, according to information released Thursday by Obama, he had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.

His total requested funding was about $330 million.

One of those earmarks is being questioned. The earmark is listed as being for a “High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program”.

Obama Requested $8 Million And Helped Secure $1.3 Million For The High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program. In 2006, Obama requested $8 million and helped secure $1.3 million for High Explosive Air Burst Technology funding. Through General Dynamics, this project supported the 25mm Bushmaster cannon, the primary weapon on the Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) and the US Marines’ Light Armor Vehicle (LAV). Under contract for System Design and Demonstration (SDD), GD-OTS is developing a Family of Ammunition for the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) to include a High Explosive Air Burst (HEAB) round. This program will upgrade the capability of the current forces BFV and LAV. Additional funding for the 25mm HEAB for the SFV and LAV will ensure this program will run effectively during its planned service until 2051. [House Report 109-676 (109th Congress); Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 2006]

That request resulted in $1.3 million in funding for the program, which was a defense project that was overseen by General Dynamics, one of the nation’s largest military contractors. Obama’s Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on the company’s board of directors and his family holds a large stake in the company.

Crown and his wife, Paula Crown, are members of Obama’s National Finance Committee and have raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign, according to a list of fundraisers posted on Obama’s campaign website.

Another one of the earmarks on the lists of requests was for the Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago, where Michelle Obama works:

Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago. UCH is one of the largest Medicaid providers in Illinois, and it provided more than $90 million in uncompensated care for Medicare and Medicaid patients this past year. To continue providing the best care for patients from all walks of life, UCH is proceeding with the construction of a new 600,000 square foot facility that will ensure their ability to provide the best care for patients well into the future. Funding will go towards assisting the construction and equipping a new hospital pavilion that will increase the Hospitals’ clinical capacity by over one-third. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

The reason the media is questioning that particular earmark is because of what could be considered a conflict of interest.

His wife, Michelle Obama, has worked for the University of Chicago Hospitals since 2002, at the time she was executive director of community affairs, making a salary of, according to the CNN Money, $121,910. That salary rose to $316,962 in 2005 as she became vice president of community affairs, right after Barack Obama became the Senator for Illinois.

The Obama campaign says that neither of those earmarks were discussed with Michelle Obama or James S. Crown.

The complete list of requested earmarks for Barack Obama can be found here.

Aides to the Obama campaign say he will not be requesting any earmarks this year.

Now that Obama has released this list for public scrutiny, he is joining McCain is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her requested earmarks, in a release from the Obama Campign that says, “If Sen. Clinton will not agree to join Sen. Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn’t believe they have the right to know [how] she wants to spend their tax dollars.”

H/T Talk Left and the Campaign Spot.

NYT is also discussing Obama calling for Hillary to release her requested earmarks.