Today is the day, March 10th.
Operation Bankrupt, a project of the FIRE Coalition, is a national drive started to punish Bank of American for giving credit cards to illegal immigrants, making it easier for them to live and stay in our country.
The drive calls for anyone who has a Bank of America account, to close it today. The hopes are that Bank of America feels the collective sting of thousands of account closing forever by legal American residents and discontinues the program. In addition to Bank of America, they also calling for action against Wells Fargo and Washington Mutual
Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a felony under federal law, Section 8 USC 1324 (a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii).
Check it out- http://bankrupt.firecoalition.com/
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Expanding the Welfare State
Congress is going to hold hearings about "unfair" practices perpetrated by credit card companies. In effect, people are complaining that they are being charged fees when they pay their bills late or do not pay the full minimum due. They are also complaining that when they have been late in payment, their interest rates have been increased, with the credit card companies saying they are high risk.
Out of all of the complaints, the credit cards companies have been found to be within the law. One complainer, got into trouble with his card, was put into a high risk interest rate, and hit with over-limit charges when his account went over-limit. He complained to politicians, and the card issuer waived the remainder of his account.
Apparently, if you charge your way into debt, complain to the government. After all, it's the credit card company that keeping you in debt, even when you keep using it.
Should elected politcians really be getting involved in private financial matters??
Out of all of the complaints, the credit cards companies have been found to be within the law. One complainer, got into trouble with his card, was put into a high risk interest rate, and hit with over-limit charges when his account went over-limit. He complained to politicians, and the card issuer waived the remainder of his account.
Apparently, if you charge your way into debt, complain to the government. After all, it's the credit card company that keeping you in debt, even when you keep using it.
Should elected politcians really be getting involved in private financial matters??
Read What Islamic Law Does For You
A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced a woman who was raped 14 times by 7 men to 90 lashes for being with men who were not her relatives.
This is the big kingdom that everyone thinks is one of our biggest allies in the Middle East. It might be time for Americans to wake up and realize that it is the muslims who are rallying around the world and yelling for the muslim domination of the West, and want Islamic Law imposed upon us.
read it- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html
This is the big kingdom that everyone thinks is one of our biggest allies in the Middle East. It might be time for Americans to wake up and realize that it is the muslims who are rallying around the world and yelling for the muslim domination of the West, and want Islamic Law imposed upon us.
read it- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
New Documentary About Michael Moore
There is a documentary film being released Saturday at the Texas Film Festival called "Manufacturing Dissent."
It was made by two liberal Canadians who started out looking to make a film that celebrated Moore. Instead, they became so disillusioned by his behavior, that they ended up making a film that is critical of his hypocrisy.
Check it out...."Manufacturing Dissent"
It was made by two liberal Canadians who started out looking to make a film that celebrated Moore. Instead, they became so disillusioned by his behavior, that they ended up making a film that is critical of his hypocrisy.
Check it out...."Manufacturing Dissent"
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Whatever Happened to the Bush Doctrine?
On September 20, 2001 President Bush delivered a speech to both houses of Congress, just 9 days after the attack on our country by Islamic extremists. He spoke of many things, including the course of action the United States would be taking in the prosecution of world terrorists. The President's words inspired the country, and brought together the two dominant political parties that controlled the government. In part, he said:
"We will starve terrorists of funding..." Bush recently asked for $83 MILLION to give to the palestinian authority, even after the aggression out of Gaza that resulted in the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and subsequent military action to recover him, and the past decades of terrorist action against the state of Israel.
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism." Aside from fronts opened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a small role in Ethiopia's offensive on muslims bent on government control in neighboring Somalia, the United States has not undertaken any prominent action against known terrorist havens around the world. While I'm sure there are covert actions that have been executed, it is past time the we stood in front of the world and said loud and clear, "WE DID THAT", and that we will do it to you to if you continue to harbor those that would hurt Americans.
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." North Korea is one-third of the 'Axis of Evil' declared by Bush, but we are negotiating with their leaders and considering their demands just to do so. The palestinian Hamas is a declared terrorists organization, but the President is still negotiating with them after all of these years. Everyone on the ground in Iraq knows that Iran, another third of the 'Axis of Evil', is supporting the terrorists in the south of Iraq. Yet we still sit by and watch them cross the borders and pursue a weaponized nuclear program. This is setting the precedent of how the United States treats a "hostile regime."
While I agree with President Bush more than I disagree with him, he has lost the momentum over the last few years. What could have been an aggressive worldwide campaign against terrorists has been reduced to squabbling between politicians trying to get re-elected. We need to make the consequences of hurting Americans so horrible to contemplate that attacking an American becomes unthinkable.
"We will starve terrorists of funding..." Bush recently asked for $83 MILLION to give to the palestinian authority, even after the aggression out of Gaza that resulted in the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and subsequent military action to recover him, and the past decades of terrorist action against the state of Israel.
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism." Aside from fronts opened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a small role in Ethiopia's offensive on muslims bent on government control in neighboring Somalia, the United States has not undertaken any prominent action against known terrorist havens around the world. While I'm sure there are covert actions that have been executed, it is past time the we stood in front of the world and said loud and clear, "WE DID THAT", and that we will do it to you to if you continue to harbor those that would hurt Americans.
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." North Korea is one-third of the 'Axis of Evil' declared by Bush, but we are negotiating with their leaders and considering their demands just to do so. The palestinian Hamas is a declared terrorists organization, but the President is still negotiating with them after all of these years. Everyone on the ground in Iraq knows that Iran, another third of the 'Axis of Evil', is supporting the terrorists in the south of Iraq. Yet we still sit by and watch them cross the borders and pursue a weaponized nuclear program. This is setting the precedent of how the United States treats a "hostile regime."
While I agree with President Bush more than I disagree with him, he has lost the momentum over the last few years. What could have been an aggressive worldwide campaign against terrorists has been reduced to squabbling between politicians trying to get re-elected. We need to make the consequences of hurting Americans so horrible to contemplate that attacking an American becomes unthinkable.
$1.5 BILLION of Your Taxes Are Going to Fix Old Televisions!
Welcome to tax season. While you are thinking about deductions, itemizing, and returns give this some thought. In 2005 Congress quietly set aside $1.5 BILLION to cover the cost of converter boxes for soon to be out of date television sets. That's where part of the taxes you pay this year will go.
From the beginning, television broadcasts have been sent using analog technology. We're talking about non cable and satellite channels here. Starting in the year 2009, all broadcasts are going to be sent out using digital television technology. If you are using a TV that only receives analog transmissions, then you will not be able to view TV after the change over without a converter box.
The plan legislated by Congress will give two $40 voucher to eligible households, good towards a converter box. The US Commerce Department had planned on only allowing households without cable or satellite service be eligible for the vouchers.
Representative John Dingell, (D-Mich), criticized the plan saying it "disadvantages the poor, elderly, minority groups and those with multiple analog television sets in their homes." So he want to expand the program and set aside even more than the $1.5 BILLION already set aside. Folks with multiple TV sets in their homes are "poor"??? I only have one in mine. "Disadvantages....."?!? Go cut a yard and earn the money it will take for you to get a converter. Noone gave me the money when I bought a TV that is already capatable.
Dingell went further to say that people deserve a "government backed plan...." Last I knew there is no right to TV. Maybe we should all apply for lost costs to upgrade from vinyl albums and BETA vhs tapes. If your TV is that old that it will not receive digital broadcasts, it probably isn't even worth the $80 in voucher the government will hand you. See if your neighbor down the road tells you thanks!
Again, this is not the kind of responsible legislation we should expect from elected officials, and it certainly doesn't make much sense for America. I guess we really don't have that much else more important they should be doing.
From the beginning, television broadcasts have been sent using analog technology. We're talking about non cable and satellite channels here. Starting in the year 2009, all broadcasts are going to be sent out using digital television technology. If you are using a TV that only receives analog transmissions, then you will not be able to view TV after the change over without a converter box.
The plan legislated by Congress will give two $40 voucher to eligible households, good towards a converter box. The US Commerce Department had planned on only allowing households without cable or satellite service be eligible for the vouchers.
Representative John Dingell, (D-Mich), criticized the plan saying it "disadvantages the poor, elderly, minority groups and those with multiple analog television sets in their homes." So he want to expand the program and set aside even more than the $1.5 BILLION already set aside. Folks with multiple TV sets in their homes are "poor"??? I only have one in mine. "Disadvantages....."?!? Go cut a yard and earn the money it will take for you to get a converter. Noone gave me the money when I bought a TV that is already capatable.
Dingell went further to say that people deserve a "government backed plan...." Last I knew there is no right to TV. Maybe we should all apply for lost costs to upgrade from vinyl albums and BETA vhs tapes. If your TV is that old that it will not receive digital broadcasts, it probably isn't even worth the $80 in voucher the government will hand you. See if your neighbor down the road tells you thanks!
Again, this is not the kind of responsible legislation we should expect from elected officials, and it certainly doesn't make much sense for America. I guess we really don't have that much else more important they should be doing.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Democrats' New Plan for Special Forces
The Democrats gained the majority of seats in Congress in the past year, and have published their New Direction for America. It's a document that lays out their plan for making America "better."
While it's largely all party line material, there is one line that has quietly slipped by much of America, and it displays the depth of the lack of understanding many politicians have concerning our military. It's the third line of the first bullet in their New Direction:
"Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda."
Double the size of the Special Forces?? They obviously have no idea how unrealistic that goal is. It's hard enough to fill the current slots for men like that. Just by doubling the gene pool of potential SF candidates, you would inherently lower the standard. Quite honestly, there are just not enough of those kind of men out there. And of the ones that are out there, not all of them attend SF selection.
The 'special' part of Special Forces comes from their training, and you must attract men that want to excel under very hard standards. Not all soldiers want to do that, and simply by lowering the standards you will not gain the kind of soldiers that will make for an effective Special Forces.
see what else we're in for with the New Direction: http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf
While it's largely all party line material, there is one line that has quietly slipped by much of America, and it displays the depth of the lack of understanding many politicians have concerning our military. It's the third line of the first bullet in their New Direction:
"Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda."
Double the size of the Special Forces?? They obviously have no idea how unrealistic that goal is. It's hard enough to fill the current slots for men like that. Just by doubling the gene pool of potential SF candidates, you would inherently lower the standard. Quite honestly, there are just not enough of those kind of men out there. And of the ones that are out there, not all of them attend SF selection.
The 'special' part of Special Forces comes from their training, and you must attract men that want to excel under very hard standards. Not all soldiers want to do that, and simply by lowering the standards you will not gain the kind of soldiers that will make for an effective Special Forces.
see what else we're in for with the New Direction: http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/thebook.pdf
Useless Legslation by Florida Demcrat
Much like the non-binding resolution that failed in the Senate anyway, a Democrat from Florida is pushing legislation that would ban use of the term 'illegal alien' and replace it with 'illegal immigrant' on official forms. The word 'alien' should be reserved for those from "outer space" Senator Fredricka Wilson said.
The big kicker about her bill is that there is no penalty attached to it. Useless laws. How much taxpayer money is she spending to get this changed, and how much taxpayer money would be spent reprinting every official document that uses the term illegal alien. Surely a Florida Senator has more important social issues that she should be concentrating on.
I guess that this is in keeping with Democratic Party attitudes that illegal immigrants should be given a free ride in this country. Indeed, when asked about the term 'illegal', she said she "likes the term undocumented better."
If you don't believe that Democrats want to make it easier for illegals to be here, her latest 'alien' legislation was the result of hearings she held on a bill she sponsored trying to make it easier for foreign born students to be eligible for in-state tuition at universities and colleges.
That doesn't make sense for America does it?
The big kicker about her bill is that there is no penalty attached to it. Useless laws. How much taxpayer money is she spending to get this changed, and how much taxpayer money would be spent reprinting every official document that uses the term illegal alien. Surely a Florida Senator has more important social issues that she should be concentrating on.
I guess that this is in keeping with Democratic Party attitudes that illegal immigrants should be given a free ride in this country. Indeed, when asked about the term 'illegal', she said she "likes the term undocumented better."
If you don't believe that Democrats want to make it easier for illegals to be here, her latest 'alien' legislation was the result of hearings she held on a bill she sponsored trying to make it easier for foreign born students to be eligible for in-state tuition at universities and colleges.
That doesn't make sense for America does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
