Vets Say, ‘Don’t Play Politics With Soldiers’ Lives’

Via Wake up America

Their Action Alert:

Congress to attach pullout to needed troop funds

Our soldiers need you to act today.

1. Congress is expected to vote on the War Funding Bill today. Speaker Pelosi plans to attach "immediate withdrawal" language to a bill intended to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the bill passes the House and the Senate, President Bush will veto it. And this veto is exactly what Speaker Pelosi wants...because it makes the President look bad, and delays funding for the war.

2. Call the members listed below – tell them playing politics with our troops is unacceptable and you want the troop bill funded without troop withdraw language.

3. Email your family, friends and co-workers this email. Ask them to join with other patriots around America who will stand up and demand Congress do the right thing.

4. Feel free to post this info on your favorite blog or website – help us spread the word!


Who should you call?


Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) – (202) 225-2190
Rep. Jerry McNerney (S-CA) – (202) 225-1947
Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) – (202) 225-5792
Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) – (202) 225-6601
Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) – (202) 225-6265
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) – (202) 225-4636
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) – (202) 225-3731

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) – (202) 224-5641
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) – (202) 224-2523
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – (202) 224-3744
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) – (202) 224-3753
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) – (202) 224-2841
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) – (202) 225-6316
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) – (202) 225-5476


* Remember: These calls will take less than 45 minutes of your total time. Please help our soldiers today!

Prepare for your call

Things to remember when calling members of Congress:

* Be courteous. A young staffer is likely answering the phone.

* If you are calling a member of Congress who is not from your state, say "I am [name] calling on behalf of our troops fighting overseas. I am a member of Vets for Victory and I'm calling to ask Representative / Senator [name] to fund the troops and not support a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Our soldiers are making steady progress and I believe we need to let them finish the job without political interference. Please pass along this message to the Representative / Senator."

* If you are calling a member from your home state, say "I am [name] from [City, State] calling on behalf of our troops fighting overseas. I respectfully request to speak with Representative / Senator [name]." When they ask to take a message, say "I am a member of Vets for Victory and I'm calling to ask Representative / Senator [name] to fund the troops and not support a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Our soldiers are making steady progress and I believe we need to let them finish the job without political interference. Please pass along this message to the Representative / Senator."

* When you're done with the calls, just shoot a quick email to info@vetsforvictory.com and let us know so we can count our calls.

Press release

Vets say, ‘Don’t play politics with soldiers’ lives’

Iraq Vets denounce the holding hostage of much needed war funding

A quick look at who and what Vets For Victory is:

November 14, 2007 – Vets for Victory, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and those that support them, is demanding that Congressional leadership stop using funding bills to make political statements. The veterans noted that Congressional leaders are frustrated with not being able to change military policy in Iraq. Now, vets say, they are trying to legislate defeat by holding hostage critical war funding that the troops need by attaching an irresponsible call to abandon Iraq as the troops continue to fight with success. “Congress knows the new counter-insurgency strategy has produced successful results,” said Lt. Col. (ret.) Steve Russell of Vets for Victory. “They also know that by not funding the current effort, American troops will not be able capitalize on their work against those who would like to destroy Iraqi and Afghan self-governance and a better way of life. This shameful tactic is both irresponsible and dangerous for our soldiers.”

The members of Vets for Victory have seen the fight firsthand and have faced the enemy. They speak about the kinds of evil the enemy use to weaken the very nations that soldiers have sacrificed so much to protect. Now these vets say they will not stand by and watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid legislate what the enemy has been unable to accomplish in Iraq and then endanger their brothers and sisters who are still serving abroad.

“Taking away the funding for the troops is akin to sending them into war and then taking away their tools to fight. It is not the American tradition to abandon our troops as they fight in the field. We cannot allow General Pelosi to undermine our troops to save her political image. Why take them out of a fight that they are about to win and that will make Americans safer at home and give Iraqi and Afghan citizens a much brighter future?” – Lt. Col. Steve Russell (ret.), Founder and Chairman, Vets for Victory.

Ok folks... Lets start making some calls, our Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans and active military rarely ask us to do a thing except to let them do their jobs, so when they do ask something of us, to take 45 minutes out of our lives.... I think it is the least we can do in return for all they have done and continue to do for us.

Sphere: Related Content

AFA Alert: Philadelphia Punishes Boy Scouts Because of Their Beliefs

This AFA Alert came to my email this week, and frankly, I'm disgusted.

I am so tired of the gay agenda, I just want to throw up. Are the assholes going after NAMBLA next, and try to force that down our throats as well?

Anyone who reads my site with any regularity knows I highly disapprove of the gay AGENDA. I have many gay friends, and they're aware of my disapproval of their lifestyle choice. However, they are not militant gays trying to force an agenda down my throat and are respectful of my children. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, FOLKS, and a big one. So I don't want to hear any bullshit about homophobia.

Let me clarify my views--homosexuality is BIBLICALLY wrong. It is against God and nature. PERIOD. Trying to FORCE a GLBT agenda down my throat just pisses me off. Recent antics include the desecration and trespass at Most Holy Redeemer church in San Francisco, and now, we're revisiting the Boy Scouts.

As a former scout leader and district commissioner, this topic is close to my heart. My son was a scout from Tiger through WeBeLo, and, unlike most parents who choose to use these groups as babysitters, merely dropping off their sons for the meetings and not participating, I'm of the mindset if my children are interested in something enough to participate then I owe it THEM to participate along with them. As a single mother, my son needed strong, positive male influences in his life (his father degenerated into a major drug dealer that took to robbing casinos in Vegas at gunpoint and rather than being held responsible, his family helped him escape to Australia).

Scouting and Altar Serving were activities my son chose. Again, I don't want to hear any bullshit about the Catholic scandals--there's more molestation taking place PER YEAR in public schools than transpired during the entire time frame of the Catholic scandals.

Because we're Catholic, his packs were through his schools, first in Las Vegas and later where we live now, and both schools were parochial schools. The parents of my scouts were livid at the gay agenda being thrown around, trying to force BSA to accept gays against their founding charter. Then they were furious at the atheist scouts in California who wanted to be scouts but ignore the "God" provisions in the founding charters.

Just as a reminder:

"On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

That's the Scout oath. "God" is listed FIRST. Country is NEXT. "Morally straight" is in there as well, albeit last. So you have atheist scouts wanting to ignore the VERY FIRST PART OF THE OATH. Then you have gays who want to violate the very end of the oath.

God. Country. Others. Self. Principles this country was founded upon.

WHAT PART OF "OATH" DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND??? Why participate in an organization that was founded upon the basic principles of this country if they don't want to honor those principles? And, more importantly, what part of "private charter" don't they understand?

BSA isn't supported by government funding. So, therefore, BSA doesn't have to follow separate agendas to keep it's funding.

Let's have a little history of BSA, from Wikipedia (normally, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia, but their summation is pretty decent on this issue):

The BSA arose amidst concerns of the progressive movement in the United States from people who sought to promote the social welfare of young men.

And:

The progressive movement in the United States was at its height during the early twentieth century. With the migration of families from rural to urban centers, there were concerns among some people that young men were no longer learning patriotism and individualism. The YMCA was an early promoter of social welfare and other reforms involving young men. Robert Baden-Powell started Scouting in 1907 in Great Britain and the movement began to grow overseas.^[4]

In 1909, Chicago publisher W. D. Boyce was visiting London, England where he learned of the Scouting movement.^[5] Soon after his return to the US, Boyce incorporated the Boy Scouts of America on February 8, 1910.^[6] The YMCA became interested in the nascent BSA program and provided support. The first managing secretary was John M. Alexander, succeeded by Edgar M. Robinson, both from the YMCA. James E. West took over as managing secretary and later as Chief Scout Executive, beginning a long relationship with the BSA.

Hmmm...notice anything in those short quotes above? Like the term "PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT"? How about "SOCIAL WELFARE"? Let's see what else Wikipedia has to say:

Here's more:

The stated objectives of the BSA are referred to as "Aims of Scouting": character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. Each of the programs of the BSA pursues these aims through methods that are designed to be appropriate for the age and maturity of the participants.^[7] One of these methods is the establishment of ideals.

And the charter information:

The BSA lobbied the U.S. Congress for a charter.^[14] The Boy Scouts of America was granted a federal charter in 1916, now codified as 36 U.S.C. Chapter 309^[15], stating that their purpose is to,

"promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916."

The charter authorized and set standards for the incorporation of the Boy Scouts of America. A provision in the federal charter gives the BSA the "exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" that they adopt. A federal charter is considered to be a prestigious national recognition of an organization.^[16].

While the Supreme Court ruled in BSA's favor regarding the gay agenda in 2000, once again BSA is under attack--once again from gays pushing their agenda, this time by raising the rent on the Philadelphia headquarters to an outrageous amount--and on a building BSA has occupied since the building was built. Interesting how the person pushing for this rent increase APPEARS to have pulled the rent amount out of thin air, possibly purposely intending it to be so exorbitant BSA can't pay it (or, through moral integrity and the need to provide scouting services to many boys, WON'T), AND the charge is being led by someone who is openly gay himself.

Sounds like a personal vendetta to me. The more things change, the more they stay the same. 100 years ago, BSA was founded in its infancy stages to combat the progressive movement and social welfare. Listen to any of the dem presidential candidates, watch who our congress appeases and we're right there again.

If I personally knew I had a scout leader in my groups who was gay, I would indeed bar him from participating in scouts in any capacity. Why? Because the boys in my charge are more important than a homosexual agenda. You bet it's discrimination--discrimination in FAVOR of the children in my charge to keep them safe from a possible pedophile who's trolling for victims through BSA. And, should I be imprisoned for protecting those children and discriminating against adult gays, so be it. The children are more important than appeasing an agenda espoused by less than 1% (gays number about 3% of this country's population--I'm addressing militant gays pushing agenda's here) of this country.

If the atheists and gays want a young boy association to prey upon, let them start their own, with a well-publicized agenda and charter so the parents who enroll those boys know what they're letting their sons in for. Otherwise, STFU and get out of BSA's business.

Live with the fact BSA DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE JUST ANYONE AND IS ALLOWED TO BE SELECTIVE ON THEIR TERMS AND ACCORDING TO THEIR CHARTER.

Phildelphia--Cradle of Liberty MY ASS.

Period.

********************

Philadelphia punishes Boy Scouts because of their beliefs

Dear [Redacted]

The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.

The action by city officials means that 30 new Cub Scout packs won't be organized, and that 800 needy kids will not be going to the Council's summer camp if the city charges them $200,000.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar homosexuals from membership. Philadelphia officials, in an effort to appease the homosexual activists, began searching for a way to punish the scouts. The rent increase was the vehicle to do that.

The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.

	Take Action Send an e-mail to Philadelphia officials protesting their discrimination against the Boy Scouts. Forward this to friends and family and ask them to send the e-mail.

Thanks for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worth supporting, would you please make a tax-deductible donation to help us continue? Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely,

P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Sphere: Related Content

American Family Association ("AFA") Alert: Religious Words Such as God, Lord BANNED by Architect of the U.S Capitol

The Architect of the Capitol is responsible to the United States Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.

Currently, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, AOC's Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, in accordance with P.L. 108-7, is serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol until a new Architect is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The above definition of the position and current position holder of Architect of the U.S. Capitol can be found here.

Someone please tell me where it states this position has the authority to eliminate religious terms, without vetting, and simply on his "views"? Yet--that is exactly what he's done regarding certificates of authenticity for flags flown over the Capitol.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Who gave him this authority? Who ok'd this?

Were it not for AFA, I never would have known about this--would you? With that in mind, I'm printing the entire email I received from AFA:

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol Contact your congressman and senators today! Dear [Redacted], According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation's legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: "under God" in the pledge, "God bless you," or "in the year of our Lord, 2007." Never before has this official prohibition been leveled. Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates. Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed. The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office. Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran's 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: "This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot -- to love God, family, and country. We love you!" When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times). Take Action! Forward this to your family and friends. Take Action Send an e-mail to your representative and two senators. Ask them to put a stop to this nonsense. A low-level employee should not have the authority to ban the use of religious words. Forward this to your family and friends and ask them to send an e-mail to their representatives and senators. If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please consider making a donation to help us continue? Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman American Family Association P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

*********************

Here is the article referencing Capitol Flag Policy in the above alert:

Article published Oct 6, 2007
Capitol flag policy assailed

October 6, 2007

By Audrey Hudson -

A group of Republican lawmakers is demanding the architect of the U.S. Capitol reverse a policy that bans the use of the word "God" on flag certificates sent to constituents.

Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio said one of his constituents, Paul Larochelle, recently requested to receive a flag that had flown over the Capitol. Mr. Larochelle's son had hoped to present the flag and the accompanying certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran.

The Larochelles wanted the certificate's inscription to read, in part: "In honor of my grandfather, Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family." However, when the flag and the certificate arrived at Mr. Turner's office from the architect of the U.S. Capitol's office, which handles the Capitol flag program, the word "God" had been eliminated.

Mr. Turner said he requested an explanation from the architect's office, which cited one of its 14 Flag Office Services rules. The rule states, "... religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates."

Mr. Turner — along with fellow Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Steve Pearce of New Mexico — complained in a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the architect's office had "informed several congressional offices that the use of the word 'God' violates the rule." [Emphasis mine].

"This is an abuse of power, plain and simple," Mr. Neugebauer said. "Using the nonpartisan position of maintaining the Capitol to decide what citizens can have written on their flag certificates is unacceptable."

Stephen T. Ayers has been acting architect of the U.S. Capitol since February, when his predecessor, Alan M. Hantman, retired. Mr. Ayers' spokeswoman was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The lawmakers are asking Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, to review the authority under which the architect's office made the rules and that the policy "which censors our citizens' right to expressions of their faith" be reversed. [Emphasis mine]

They also point out that as the custodian of the Capitol, the architect is responsible for a building inscribed with many religious references, including "In God We Trust" in the House and Senate chambers.

"The architect's policy is in direct conflict with his charge as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols," the lawmakers stated.

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said a Democratic proposal may help solve the problem. [Emphasis mine]

The proposal would have the architect certify that the flag was flown, and then a member of Congress could add the constituent's message separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Emphasis mine]

"It will be resolved in the near future," he said.

Lawmakers receive more than 100,000 requests from constituents each year for flags that have flown over the Capitol.

********************
Who wants to lay odds Pelosi's office won't do a damn thing? Even her "solution" of flying the flag and later inscribing the certificate with what the constituent wants doesn't address nor alleviate the fact this non-elected official has taken it upon himself to do as he pleases. She simply wants to allow him to continue to do so rather than order him to follow the rules.

Sign the petition and contact your representatives about this. Just another piece of throwing our values under the bus and play politics for the dems. Disgusting.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

[Update] People were heard and God is once again allowed on the certificates.

Sphere: Related Content