lframerica.com Blog

http://oneoldvet.com/?page_id=5711#5

By Karoun Demirjian
The Congressional Quarterly (Washington, DC), March 31, 2008

Monaca, PA — As Rep. Jason Altmire walked into the Beaver County Sportsmens Conservation League Awards Dinner at the Monaca Turners lodge, he was pretty sure that between the handshakes and the backslaps someone might ask him about immigration.

“I hear about it everywhere I go,” the freshman Democrat said of his talks with constituents in western Pennsylvania’s 4th District. “People want to see Congress move a bill.”

Across the state, fellow Democratic freshman Christopher Carney faces similar concerns from his constituents in the 10th District.

“People say, ‘We don’t want any kind of amnesty,’ ” Carney said. “People want us to control the process . It’s a real concern here.”

When it comes to immigration, constituents like these hold the kind of influence that Washington lobbyists — and perhaps Democratic leaders — only dream of.

Even though they have relatively few foreign-born residents, districts like Pennsylvania’s 4th and 10th are the emerging battlegrounds of immigration, and their representatives are the prime targets of Republican efforts to push get-tough, enforcement-first approaches through the House.

The future of threatened first-term Democrats such as Altmire and Carney may hang in the balance. And Republicans hope that what those lawmakers heard back home during the spring recess improves the chances that some sort of get-tough legislation moves forward this spring.

Competing Pressures

At issue in the House are two GOP-initiated discharge petitions — one to force floor debate and a vote on an enforcement-only measure by Rep. Heath Shuler , D-N.C., and another, expected to be filed Tuesday, on a bill by Rep. Bart Stupak , D-Mich., to increase the number of H-2B visas for seasonal workers.

Each petition must garner 218 signatures to be successful — and each of the bills has enough Democratic cosponsors to theoretically clear the hurdle. But signing those discharge petitions is no small commitment for first-term Democrats, who are being pressured not to break with party leadership while at the same time feeling the need to satisfy constituents — and deflect GOP attacks — by talking tough on immigration.

Carney and eight other Democrats signed the discharge petition on Shuler’s bill before leaving for the two-week recess. Altmire, and the majority of the bill’s Democratic cosponsors, didn’t sign — and challengers have tried to make that an issue.

“They talk a good game and they say they support things, but don’t do anything to make sure anything happens,” said Melissa Hart, who lost her seat in Congress to Altmire in 2006 and is challenging him in 2008. “He’s all talk and no action. He’s trying to have it both ways.”

Hart’s criticism of Altmire directly reflects talking points that were circulated during the recess by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in rural districts represented by first-term Democrats in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. Several of those seats — such as the ones held by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York’s 20th District and Zack Space of Ohio’s 18th – have been listed as NRCC targets for 2008.

In each of those areas, a changing economy has heightened concerns about illegal immigration.

“You have immigration serving as a way to talk about two things. One is the economy, and the idea that somehow these immigrants coming into the area would be taking jobs and employment away,” said David Harris, a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. “Second, there’s a feeling that there’s a cultural transformation happening, and people begin to get uncomfortable when they see the world changing around them.”

In Aliquippa, a portion of Altmire’s district north of Pittsburgh on the banks of the Ohio River, a summertime roundup of illegal immigrants laying fiber-optic cable for Verizon Inc. brought the immigration debate too close to home for some longtime residents — in an area where less than 2 percent of the population is foreign-born.

“These guys are taking people’s jobs here,” said John DiCioccio, a retired pipe fitter. “It comes down to making money — they can get those guys to work for half-price or a third of the price; they’re going to hire them.”

Lacking Resources

In Sayre, part of Carney’s district just across the border with New York, Police Chief Larry Hurley has staged at least three impromptu raids on undocumented workers in the past three years — unprecedented in a town of fewer than 6,000, he says, and requiring the kind of policing he and his 10 officers don’t have the resources to conduct.

“I see money pouring into the cities, but we’re up against the same type of criminal activity, and we get nothing,” he said. “I try to stay out of politics. But I don’t think I’m the only person in law enforcement in small towns in rural areas having to deal with this trend.”

For constituents like these, discussion of discharge petitions remains a bit too technical a topic for meet-and-greet get-togethers. Because last year’s debate over comprehensive immigration reform took place mostly in the Senate, there’s not much of a House voting record to point to when it comes to immigration, and the competition has been mostly a war of words.

Several of the targeted freshman Democrats already espouse a hard-line stance on immigration, so what has emerged is a game of rhetorical one-upsmanship. Both the incumbent and the challenger try to portray themselves as the champion of ever-tougher border and workplace enforcement.

For incumbents such as Altmire, though, there is an additional challenge: the need at some point to match rhetoric with action. Signing a discharge petition on the Shuler bill might accomplish that, but Altmire has nevertheless decided against it, because he doesn’t trust Republicans— who, as the filers of the petition, would assume control over floor debate on the bill if they discharge it — to be as enforcement-minded as they profess.

“Every time the Republicans have had the chance to deal with the issue, they bring amnesty to the table,” he said. “For me, it’s very simple: I want to see [Shuler’s bill] on the floor, I want to see us address immigration in a way that secures the border . I’ve been clear with my position, and I think the people are happy with where I am.”

Nonetheless, the struggle to be the toughest when it comes to immigration may leave these freshman Democrats in a ticklish position.

Of course, not every constituent has the same concerns.

Keith Eckel, a fourth-generation farmer from Clarks Summit, Pa., and a lifelong conservative Republican, is at odds with his party’s push to harden the bottom line on the debate. Last week, he decided to stop growing the tomatoes that he’s been selling up and down the East Coast since 1949 because Congress has failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

“In our business, we’re totally dependent on seasonal farm workers of basically Hispanic descent to harvest our crops,” he said. “I’ve been wrestling with this decision for the past two years, hoping that Congress would move on the immigration reform issue. This year it just became apparent that we were not going to have enough people to harvest the crop.”

Carney, Altmire and their challengers have expressed an interest in legislation on the seasonal H-2B visa shortage as a means of addressing the concerns of farmers and contractors in their districts who rely on immigrant labor.

For employers like these, it’s a short-term, bottom-line problem. But solving it may be a tall order when the only acceptable political options seem to be getting tough or getting tougher.

March 14, 2008

In typical government fashion, they sit on their thumbs regarding important issues, and someone ends up paying a high price for it, usually resulting in death. 

 WBTV

March 14, 2008

There is nothing wrong with Obama making a donation out of his own checkbook, but when he uses tax payer money to make his donations, then there is a problem. 

It also seems Mrs. Obama has made out very well, with a pay increase that doubled her already enormous salary. For being a not-for-profit it sure seems that Mrs. Obama makes a good profit.  It would be wonderful if all those vice-presidents salaries would be cut in half and put back into the hospital.  Think of all the aid and research they could provide for American citizens then.  

American’s can be sure of one thing if they elect Obama President, he will bring home the bacon to his own family.

Newsmax 

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president.

The request for $1 million for the University of Chicago Medical Center was to help pay for construction of a new pavilion.

“I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Michelle Obama was not part of our lobbying over the request, not in any way,” Kelly Sullivan, another vice president at the medical center, told the New York Times.

In any case, the 2006 request for the hospital was not approved by the Senate, as was about $7 out of every $10 the Illinois senator asked for in earmarks.

Bud he did manage to secure $1.3 million for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The program was overseen by General Dynamics, and one of Obama’s top supporters, James Crown — a member of Obama’s national finance committee — serves on the board of General Dynamics.

Obama also secured a $750,000 earmark for renovation of a space center named for Crown’s grandfather, Henry Crown, at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

And Obama secured several million dollars for a project at Chicago State University. Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a close personal friend of Obama and one of his benefactors, has been a strong supporter of Chicago State, according to the Times.

Other earmarks sought and secured by Obama include more than $10 million for a military arsenal in Rock Island, several million dollars for research on soybean disease and livestock genes, and $100,000 for after-school programs at the Chicago Jesuit Academy.

Michelle Obama is on leave from her job while her husband campaigns for president, but after Barack was elected to congress, she received a big raise.

USA Today reports that officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals told the Chicago Tribune that Michelle is “worth her weight in gold.”

“She’s terrific,” added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

Hospitals spokesman John Easton told the Tribune that Michelle Obama’s salary is in line with those of the 16 other vice presidents at the not-for-profit medical center.

For those that keep watchful eyes on out Government happenings, so frequently we see Unconstitutional actions and deceitful acts on the floor being played off as something else.  This is a wonderful read about yet another Unconstitutional action that our Government squeaked through. 

NewsWithViews 

By Cliff Kincaid

March 9, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

The liberals have come up with a clever way of ratifying dangerous treaties, which now require a two-thirds vote (67) to pass in the Senate. They will introduce them as legislation, requiring only a majority vote to pass. The model for this new approach is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which President Bush mistakenly refers to as a treaty.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been portrayed by our media as being opposed to it. In fact, they want to make NAFTA stronger. They want to renegotiate the pact and attach binding commitments and strong enforcement mechanisms on labor and environmental issues. In effect, the Democrats are calling for NAFTA to assume even more supranational authority over economic activity in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. This could be the next step on the road to a proposed North American Union.

Regarding NAFTA, Hillary says she wants “to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we’ll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement. We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now. “Obama says, “As president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers.”

When President Bush criticized these comments as tantamount to threatening a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, he said that “It’s not good policy on the merits and it’s not good policy as a message to send to…people who have in good faith signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty.”

But it was not treated as a treaty in the U.S.

Clinton submitted NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

Clinton did it this way because he didn’t have the votes to pass NAFTA as a treaty (requiring 67 votes) in the Senate. But how did he pull off such a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional move?

Although the strict text of the U.S. Constitution includes the treaty clause as the only means by which the U.S. can enter into such international agreements, there’s a growing body of mostly liberal-left “legal opinion” that holds that “congressional-executive agreements” like NAFTA can serve as substitutes for treaties.

Clinton’s move was seen at the time, even by some on the left, as an effort to bypass constitutional processes and the United Steelworkers challenged NAFTA’s constitutionality in court. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, after lower courts had thrown the case out, saying it was a political matter between the President and Congress. The Bush Administration sided with Clinton and the Supreme Court declined to get involved.

The Bush Administration’s support for the unconstitutional Clinton approach could easily backfire on conservatives if the Democrats take the White House and hold Congress in the fall elections. Citing NAFTA as a precedent, liberal Democrats could submit and pass treaties by a simple majority vote.

In an article in the liberal American Prospect, Thomas Geoghegan lamented that the Kyoto global warming treaty and the International Criminal Court “are among the great global projects of our day” but are not getting through the Senate because of the two-thirds majority required for passage. “So what’s the way out of this bind? It’s the same way out we used for NAFTA or for fast-track free-trade agreements. That is, we just pass a simple law,” he said.

Geoghegan says the reason liberals can’t get these measures currently passed in the Senate is because this body “overrepresents” states like “Wyoming, Idaho and America’s backwoods.” In other words, Red State Senators have too much clout under the Constitution. They are obstructing the “progressive” vision.

Geoghegan says legal justification for this new approach can be found in an article in the American Journal of International Law by Steve Charnovitz, an associate professor of international law at the George Washington University School of Law. The article complains about Senate inaction on such treaties as the feminist Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the anti-parent U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, Convention on Biological Diversity, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and various U.N. human rights treaties.

Since this article appeared, in October of 2004, the Bush Administration has been trying to pressure the Senate into ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. It now awaits full Senate action.

Charnovitz admits the approach of pushing these treaties as mere agreements would be controversial. But he finds comfort in the fact that the legal action against NAFTA was thrown out.

It would make a good issue for John McCain, except for the fact that he’s for NAFTA and most of the U.N. treaty agenda.

© 2008 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved

WASHINGTON - House Republicans are trying to force action on a Democratic-written immigration enforcement measure, the latest GOP attempt to elevate the volatile issue into an election-year wedge.

Republican leaders hope that by pushing the bill — endorsed by 48 centrist Democrats and 94 Republicans — they can drive Democrats into a politically painful choice: Backing a tough immigration measure that could alienate their base, including Hispanic voters, or being painted as soft on border security in conservative-leaning districts.

The plan is fraught with political risks for both parties. A full-blown immigration debate could call attention to Republicans’ divisions at a time when their expected presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, is fighting to gain the trust of the GOP base.

McCain, R-Ariz., played a prominent role in failed legislative efforts to grant some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here a path to legal status, which conservatives deride as “amnesty.” He now says he would consider such a plan only after the borders have been fortified.

House Republicans are eyeing a bill by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would do just that, as well as mandate that employers verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.

Leaders are expected as early as Tuesday to use a parliamentary tactic that would eventually force a vote on the measure if 218 lawmakers — a majority of the House — demand it. Republicans are pressuring Democratic backers of the measure — including several first-termers and dozens from swing districts, all facing tough re-election fights — to defy their leaders and sign the petition.

“Lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats would like to see something done,” Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the No. 2 whip, said Friday.

The move would be a rebuke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who opposes the Shuler bill unless it’s paired with measures to allow undocumented workers a chance at legal status and allow legal immigrants to bring more family members to the United States. Democratic leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft an alternative that could dissuade their more conservative members who back Shuler’s bill from joining the GOP effort to press forward on it.

They are considering pairing a widely popular measure by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to allow more seasonal workers to come to the United States under so-called H-2B visas with proposals aimed at speeding the process of granting immigrants’ spouses and minor children visas to join their parents in the U.S., among others. Also under discussion is a bill that would allow nonresident immigrants serving in the military to become citizens.

It’s not clear whether Republicans can gather enough support for a vote on the bipartisan enforcement bill, which couldn’t take place until April at the earliest. GOP leaders relish the idea of calling attention to Democrats’ rifts on the issue in advance of Congress’ 14-day Easter recess starting next week. They plan to blast Democrats who have endorsed the legislation but not signed onto the effort to force a vote on it.

“I think it makes it harder for the majority to do nothing,” Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla, said of the idea last week. “On a district-by-district basis, there will be places where this is an important issue.”

Shuler has said he would sign the petition. He’s one of several conservative-leaning freshman lawmakers whose elections in Republican or swing districts gave Democrats control of the House in 2006, handing Pelosi the speaker’s gavel. He won his race amid Republican efforts to tie him to Pelosi, including an ad that accused him of plotting with Democrats “to take over Congress with the votes of illegal immigrants.”

“He does support the (legislation) and would like to see an up-or-down vote,” said Andrew Whalen, Shuler’s spokesman. “He would prefer that it didn’t become a political issue.”

Some Democrats said they are eager to debate the legislation.

“It’s a very big issue. I hear a lot about it, and that’s why I want to bring it to the floor,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, R-Pa., another first-termer who is co-sponsoring the bill. “We need to address it. Let’s just bring it all to the floor and see what wins.”

Even some Democrats who back Shuler’s bill bristle at the idea of joining Republicans to force a vote on it, voicing concern that they’re being used as political pawns.

“For their presidential candidate to have supported amnesty and for them to be pulling a stunt like this is pure politics,” said Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., a co-sponsor of Shuler’s bill.

In the Senate, a group of mostly conservative Republicans last week unveiled a package of legislation to crack down on illegal immigration and secure the border. They, too, said they would use procedural tactics to get Democrats on the record on the volatile immigration issue.

Democrats are trying to turn the tables, hoping that Republicans’ efforts to push get-tough immigration measures will hurt McCain with Hispanic voters and independents, two groups that have supported him in the past.

In a letter to McCain last week, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the Arizonan to reject the GOP leaders’ plans, calling them “draconian and divisive.”

“Such a rejection will let this nation’s 44 million Latinos know that demonizing them for political purposes will not be tolerated and that the more hateful rhetoric in the immigration debate has no place in our country’s civic discourse,” Menendez wrote.

March 10, 2008

Sen. Byron Dorgan, (Dem-N.C.) has called for an investigation by the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the Transportation Department has broken the law by spending federal funds on a program allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.

This call came just hours after Transportation Secretary Mary Peters warned of economic losses if Mexican trucks were prohibited from driving deep into the United States.  Peters has been busy fighting in court to prevent the program’s end, disregarding that Congress prohibited spending money on the program last year.

NAFTA granted Mexican trucks greater access to U.S. roads beginning in 1995.  When the pilot program began in September only a few trucks were agreed upon.  Without the program at all, Mexican trucks are confined to only 20 miles beyond the border where the goods they bring in are picked up by U.S. drivers to carry the final U.S. destination.

Dorgan firmly states that the agency is violating the Antideficiency Act with their current policy, an act which prohibits spending federal money which has not been authorized or appropriated.

Peters claims the agency is not violating any law as the law, according to her, prohibits using funds to establish the program, but that the money is being used on the existing program.

This argument is the same as was given in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who are considering an appeal by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to stop the program all together.

March 10, 2008

MINNESOTA — Democrat Mike Ciresi has chosen to drop out of the race for U.S. Senate today.  He in turn endorced Al Franken to aid him in his Senate bid.

Franken who has raised millions in campaign funds and lined up union endorsements seeks to out seat Republican Sen. Norm Coleman in the upcoming election this November.

In what is becoming typical fashion, Senators seem to once again avoid the issue and the voices of the people that voted them into office when it comes to illegal immigration.   One can only hope that the people of Alabama take note of the Senators who didn’t bother to have time, or didn’t feel it important enough to come or stick around, and when it comes time to vote, don’t bother to have time to cast their votes for them.
WAFF

Illegal immigration hearing draws spectators, few senators

Updated: March 6, 2008 10:50 AM

In a vote of 66-33 the Indiana House floor voted in favor of cracking down on illegal aliens.  This vote echoed that of the Senate who approved a similar bill by 37-11 back in January.

This vote was a major step in favor of protecting America and American’s for many leaders who had to overcome pressure from big business, Hispanic leaders and passionate lawmakers on both sides.

The legislation which can revoke an employers business license for repeatedly hiring illegal aliens will likely be heading to the House-Senate conference committee.  There the differences between the two bills will be worked out.

In addition to the crackdown of employers, the legislation requires Indiana State Police to enter into an agreement with federal officials regarding training and enforcement of immigration laws.  The Attorney General would also be requested to investigate written complaints against employers of illegal aliens.

While opponents of the bill claim that it offers a wide open door for racial profiling and racial discrimination.
Supporters of the bill stated that the bill was necessary as illegal aliens are taking jobs away from legal residents as well as costing the state taxpayers money for eduction, law enforcement and incarceration.

In a “You should have thought about that before breaking and ignoring the law” moment.  Rep. Mara Candaleria Reardon, D-Munster asked “How will we adjust to worker shortages in Indiana?”  Fearing thousands of Hispanic workers leaving the state out of fear, such as has been the case in Oklahoma and Arizona.

How They Voted

Democrats Voting No.  23

Rep. Dennis T. Avery D-Mount Vernon, Rep. Jeb Bardon D-Indianapolis, Rep. John Barlett, D-Indianapolis, Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, Rep. William A. Crawford, D-Indianapolis, Rep. John Day, D-Indianapolis, Rep-Chester F. Dobis, D-Merrilville, Rep. Craig R. Fry, D-Mishawaka, Rep. F. Dale Grubb, D-Covington, Rep. Earl L. Harris, D-East Chicago, Rep. George Philip Hoy, D-Evansville, Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, Rep. Carolene Mays, D-Indianapolis, Rep. Joe Micon, D-West Lafayette, Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, Rep. Gregory W. Porter, D-Indianapolis, Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, Rep. Vernon G. Smith, D-Gary, Rep. Dan C. Stevenson, D-Highland, Rep. Vanessa Summers, D-Indianapolis, Rep. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington.

Republicans Voting No.  10

Rep. Matt Bell, R-Fort Wayne, Rep. Randy L. Borror, R-New Haven, Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, Rep. James Russel Buck, R-Kokomo, Rep. Richard “Dick” Dodge, R-Pleasant Lake, Rep. Jeffery K. Espich, R-Avilla, Rep. William G. Friend, R-Macy, Rep. Eric A. Gutwein, R-Rensselaer, Rep. Michael B. Murphy, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel.

Democrats Voting Yes.  27

Rep. Terri Jo Austin, D-Anderson, Rep. Kreg Battles, D-Bedford, Rep. Robert J. Bischoff, D-North Vernon, Rep. Sandra Blanton, D-Indianapolis, Rep. David Cheatham, D-Depauw, Rep. William C. Cochran, D-English, Rep. Dave Crooks, D-Vincennes, Rep. Nancy Dembowski, D-Knox, Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne, Rep. Terry A. Goodin, D-Greensburg, Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Evansville, Rep. Ron Herrell, D-Kokomo, Rep. Clyde Kersey, D-Terre Haute,Rep. Winfield C. Moses, Jr., D-Uniondale, Rep. David L. Niezgodski, D-South Bend, Rep. Dennie Oxley II, D-Boonville
Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, Rep. Phillip Pflum, D-Milton, Rep. Scott Reske, D-Pendleton
Rep. Paul J. Robertson, D-Jeffersonville, Rep. Greg Simms, D-Valparaiso, Rep. Steven R. Stemler, D-New Albany, Rep. Russell L. Stilwell, D-Evansville, Rep. Vern Tincher,D-Terre Haute, Rep. Dennis Tyler, D-Muncie, Rep. Shelli VanDenburgh, D-Indianapolis

Republicans voting yes. 39

Rep. Robert W. Behning, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Bruce Borders, R-Jasonville, Rep. Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Lawrence Lee Buell, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland
Rep. Robert Cherry, R-Greenfield, Rep. Suzanne Crouch, R-Monroe, Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland
Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte, Rep. Cleo Duncan, R-Greendale, Rep. Sean Eberhart, R-Shelbyville
Rep. Jon Elrod, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Ralph M. Foley, R-Martinsville, Rep. David Nason Frizzell, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Timothy Harris, R-Marion, Rep. Phillip D. Hinkle, R-Indianapolis
Rep. Thomas D. Knollman, R-Liberty, Rep. Eric Koch, R-Austin, Rep. Don Lehe, R-Brookston
Rep. Daniel Leonard, R-Huntington, Rep. L. Jack Lutz, R-Anderson, Rep. Richard W. McClain, R-Logansport, Rep. Tim Neese, R-Elkhart, Rep. Cindy Noe, R- Indianapolis, Rep. Phyllis J. Pond, R-Indianapolis, Rep. Kathy Kreag Richardson, R-Noblesville, Rep. Michael Allen Ripley, R-Fort Wayne
Rep. William ‘Bill’ J. Ruppel, R-North Manchester, Rep. Thomas E. Saunders, R-Lewisville, Rep. Milo Smith, R-Columbus, Rep. Edmond Soliday, R-Valparaiso, Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Danville, Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Howe, Rep. Amos Thomas, R-Brazil, Rep. Jeffrey Thompson, R-Lizton, Rep. P. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, Rep. John Ulmer, R-Goshen, Rep. Jacqueline Walorski, R-Lakeville, Rep. David Alan Wolkins, R-Winona Lake

It never ends, the cash cow that has become La Raza is destined to receive even more US Taxpayer dollars from the US Government.  Of course not to be outdone, they will give ACORN some money too, the very same ACORN that conducted voter fraud in Washington, resulting in felony charges against it’s officers in 2007.  Yet by pushing this money into the pockets of these organizations, they fail to provide any economic stimulus for American citizens who will be forking the bill for these two Pro-Illegal Immigrant/Anti-American organizations.

The Democrats reacted in anger today when Senate Republicans blocked their latest economic stimulus bill.  But the truth behind Reids disappointment isn’t due to his concern for the American citizens being affected, but rather because his masters weren’t getting their pockets padded. Bob Casey (D-PA) let the rat slip out of the cage in a recent comment.

“Mr. Casey:  “We want to do a couple of things with this legislation, which we know is the Forclosure Prevention Act of 2008.  Our Majority Leader, Senator Reid, and our leadership and members of the Democratic Caucus set it out fairly specifically. A couple of basic things this legislation would have done: first of all, it would have continued what we started in the end of last year, foreclosure prevention counseling dollars, to give money to organizations around the country that are certifiably expert at this, organizations like La Raza.  I know the presiding officer knows that group. We know also the Association for Community Organizations for Reform now, known by the acronym ‘ACORN.’  They’re headquartered in Philadelphia.  These are organizations which understand what a lender has to deal with but more importantly deal with borrowers when they’re borrowing money, when they’re dealing with the difficulty and complexity of borrowing money.  These organizations would have helped even more so than they’re helping now with $200 million more of counseling money. That’s not going to happen right now because of what the other side did; they blocked that money by blocking this legislation.”

The beneficiaries for the bill were suppose to be the American people, it turns out that isn’t quite the truth. Like La Raza says, for the Race everything, for the rest nothing, and that’s just what the Democrats plan to do.