Raul Grijalva's Response to Pork Spending

I received this condescending, patronizing letter in my email from Congressman Grijalva (I call him "Pancho Villa" and it's NOT a compliment). I will highlight certain areas so you can see how this man's mind is twisted in his Democratic, Defeatist, BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)mentality.

Dear Miss :

Thank you for taking the time to communicate with me regarding the supplemental spending bill for the Iraq War.

Since my arrival in Congress, I have voted against every single previous bill to fund this war. I have opposed this war from the beginning and I want to see our men and women in uniform withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as is practically feasible. As a member of the Progressive Caucus, I support an immediate commencement of a withdrawal to be completed within six months. In other words, you're a coward who wants his rights protected but no one else's and you don't have the stomach to support those who fight to protect your rights along with everyone else's.

Accordingly, I have co-sponsored a number of bills to bring this war to an end, foremost among them HR 508, the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007. I am well aware of your voting record--I subscribe to two voting services that keep me apprised of your self-serving interests.

However, in making my decision on the supplemental, I had to take into account that any bill that could pass this House would have to be the product of negotiation and compromise among a number of incongruous groups with often incompatible philosophies and goals. Furthermore, there are a number of provisions in this bill that are desperately needed and that I wholeheartedly support. These include fulfilling our moral obligation to properly fund medical care for our nation's veterans, increasing the minimum wage, restoring the people and communities of the Gulf Cost region, addressing health care needs for our children, and low income energy assistance. The troop funding is not the place to put your pork and special interests. It should have funded the troops and veteran's EXCLUSIVELY.

Still, I was disappointed with the end product of this House's legislative process. I felt, and I still feel, that the schedule for withdrawal in the bill is far too long, and that the benchmark formula in the bill will be easily manipulated by an Administration that has demonstrated a willingness to deceive the Congress and the American people with regard to the situation in Iraq . Still, the bill did set a precedent by declaring a date for withdrawal, however distant. I don't see that you've ever had any military service, although you talk a big game. You're a coward, plain and simple, and can't stand there are positive things happening in Iraq.

Ultimately, I was faced with the option of voting for the bill or voting against it and seeing the Congress' first attempt to bring the War in Iraq to an end fail, thus delivering a victory for the Bush Administration and an even larger defeat for the peace movement. NICE TO SEE THEY ADMIT DEFEAT FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT!

I will tell you in all sincerity that this choice was extremely difficult. Sure it was--until you got your pork and appropriate bribe in the pork--what was your bribe to get you to sell out the country?

But in good conscience, I could not sit on the sidelines, with the vote as close as it was, and witness a result that would, in effect, enable this administration's desire for war without end. I voted to pass this bill. You have no conscience and you have no morals or you would have demanded a clean bill for troops and veteran's alone instead of all the pork and your bribes.

If I had the opportunity, I would have voted for an amendment offered in Committee by Representative Barbara Lee, to fully fund a withdrawal of US forces and bring the War to an end. This remains my preferred policy.

I am certain that this will not be the last word by this Congress on Iraq . Ultimately it is the American people who have pushed their government to face reality with regard to Iraq , and their sustained pressure which will continue to move this debate forward. The reality is if we don't finish in Iraq, we'll be fighting here at home. The reality is the surge is working. And the reality is, the last word will be held by the true President, not the 535 pretenders such as yourself.

I will continue to fight to bring this tragic misadventure in Iraq to an end, and I hope I will retain your confidence in this struggle. Fighting for your rights is not a tragic misadventure. You, however, are a tragic excuse for an American.

Sincerely,

Raul M. Grijalva

Member of Congress

This is what the troops are facing in the 110th Congressional mindset, not to mention the treasonous behavior and fiduciary mismanagement encouraged by Pelosi and Reid.

Sphere: Related Content

Keeping Up the Pressure on the Pelosi Worm

Thanks Snooper (Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide) for this article!

Opinion Derived From Fact...Unlike A Leftinistra

Did Nancy Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

That is the complete text of the Logan Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on January 30, 1799, and in force to this day.

Did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and others) violate that act during a much-publicized, self-authorized trip to Syria?

The answer, like the law itself, is simple and straightforward: YES

Nancy Pelosi qualifies as "any citizen of the United States," with no exemption as Speaker of the House.

Nancy Pelosi acted "without authority of the United States," which, in matters of foreign policy, resides solely and exclusively in the executive branch of the U.S. Government, meaning the President of the United States and his designees. The President of the United States specifically disapproved of the Pelosi trip to Syria, asked her not to go and criticized her thereafter.
Nancy Pelosi directly commenced "correspondence or intercourse" with officers and agents of a foreign government.

Nancy Pelosi, by her own statements, intended and attempted to influence the "measures or conduct" of that foreign government. Those measures and that conduct directly relate to disputes or controversies with the United States (and its allies).

That the measures and conduct of Syria are among the worst of nations is of considerable concern from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but is irrelevant from the standpoint of the Logan Act, which does not grade the behavior of countries or delineate among them for the purposes of its strictures.

That Speaker Pelosi says she said nothing on her trip that differs from the positions of the President is also irrelevant, from the standpoint of the law, and either woefully ignorant or ignorant and spiteful, from the standpoint of international relations.

The current policy of the U.S., as made by the executive branch, is to isolate Syria. That may be right; it may be wrong; it may not even matter. It is not, however, anywhere within Speaker Pelosi's prerogative to tangibly interfere or even interpose herself by meeting directly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the purposes of any "diplomacy."

Pelosi's defenders make much of the fact that she is Speaker of the House of Representatives and only behind the Vice President in order of succession to the Presidency. That may get heads nodding on television talk shows, but falls with a thud against the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing the "exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations" or "the decision of the executive is conclusive."

(Contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, presidential succession is not specified in the Constitution, but in statutory law made by Congress, subject to change, as it has changed in the past. No Speaker has ever succeeded to the Presidency. Even if one ever does, that will never make the legislative branch the executive branch or allow anyone in the legislative branch to adventure past the separation of powers that is one of the cornerstones of our government.)

It is far more pertinent to ask another question regarding Pelosi's role as Speaker of the House. What does it say to this country that she openly violates a law made by the very legislative body of which she is the putative leader? If she disagrees with the law, for any reason, it is her job to try to change it, not to violate it, no matter how much she may disagree with the foreign policy positions of a duly-elected President.

The Logan Act may be old and no one ever before prosecuted for violating it. But it is neither ill-founded nor archaic, particularly in a time of world unrest and significant domestic tension regarding U.S. policy toward that unrest. The law does not preclude all legislators' discussions with foreign leaders, such as fact-finding, but only those which have the unauthorized intent to influence those leaders.

As recently as September 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House issued a memo to all members and officers that cautioned against activities that implicate the Logan Act, albeit intended as a warning to outgoing members. Similarly, in February 2006, the Congressional Research Service prepared a survey of the Logan Act for Congress. While neither document is particularly respectful of the law, there should at least be no one in Congress claiming not to understand it (including Speaker Pelosi's Republican fellow travelers).

There is no question that many Americans and many in Congress disagree strenuously with foreign policy positions of the Bush Administration. Any and all, including Speaker Pelosi, may say so, loudly and often, in Congress, in the public square. But none of us, including Speaker Pelosi, has the right to conduct any foreign policy, without specific authorization of the President.

Now, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are openly discussing a diplomatic trip to "dialogue" with Iran. In the Byzantine world of foreign relations, that's like trying to dismantle a nuke wearing only a head scarf for protection.

The Washington Post called Speaker Pelosi's mission to Syria "foolish." Vice President Cheney called it "bad behavior." We call it FELONY.

Sphere: Related Content

Another TRUE American Speaks Out!

This is from Spree's Wake Up Americans Blog (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/) and she has asked us to pass it along. I do so with great honor and pleasure. All emphasis is mine.

It speaks volumes.

Insight of a Sergeant MajorJ.D. Pendry, CSM, U.S.Army (retired)

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.

Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"... the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should re-deploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine sir. You wouldn't amount to a pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese which led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we will run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New YorkTimes particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's axis of idiots. Your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don't get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

This is long but this retired CSM lets it all hang out! This should be sent to every person in the USA and that includes the President and the rest of our country's leaders...It's time we as Americans stood together!

WELL SAID, Sergeant Major.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

Sphere: Related Content

A Little Perspective on Gas Prices and this ALLEGED War for "Oil"

This came to me as a joke, but it rings true, as all good humor does.

And for all the looneys and nutters out there that think this war is over oil, please remember--we only get 17% of our oil from the Middle East (and ZERO% of that from Iran; 5% from Iraq) and 48% from Canada (So why aren't we at war with Canada if it was JUST ABOUT THE OIL?) (Statistics from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm)

The price of Gas
All these examples do NOT imply that gasoline is cheap; it just illustrates how outrageous some prices are....
You will be really shocked by the last one!!!! (At least, I was...)

Compared with Gasoline.... ..Think a gallon of gas is expensive?

This makes one think, and also puts things in perspective.

Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 ... $10.32 per gallon
Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 ..........$9. 52 per gallon
Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 .... $10.17 per gallon
Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 . $10.00 per gallon
Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 . $33.60 per gallon
Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 ... $178.13 per gallon
Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 .. $123.20 per gallon
Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 ....... . $25.42 per gallon
Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 .....$84.48 per gallon

And this is the REAL KICKER...Evian water 9 oz $1.49....... ...$21.19 per gallon! $21.19 for WATER and the buyers don't even know the source. (Evian spelled backwards is Naive.)

Ever wonder why printers are so cheap? So they have you hooked for the ink. Someone calculated the cost of the ink at.......... ......you won't believe it.......... .........but it is true........ ......... ........$5,200 a gal. (five thousand two hundred dollars)

So, the next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't run on water, Scope, or Whiteout, Pepto Bismol, Nyquil or God forbid, Printer Ink!!!!!

Just a little humor to help ease the pain of your next trip to the pump...

Makes one stop and think, doesn't it?

Let's keep it in perspective!

Sphere: Related Content

From Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide: "Blessed July"

My friend Snooper over at Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide posted this article on his blog today. It's Cross posted here: "Blessed July" http://takeourcountryback.townhall.com/g/74b6cade-1735-4f34-a273-c4992a7f5a0d

It's originally dated May 10, 2006. However, I feel it's relevant NOW for several reasons. The first reason is the defeatist/liberals constant talking points about Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda and therefore the war is illegal and it's time to impeach Bush. This article eloquently shows Saddam WAS associated with AQ PRIOR to our invasion. This article shuts that argument DOWN.

The second reason is, simply, Patriotism. Saddam chose July for a reason and my belief (although unsubstantiated) that reason is because July is the month in which we AMERICANS celebrate our INDEPENDENCE. What better way for Saddam to truly hit the emotions of Americans than to desecrate our celebrations? Thank GOD he didn't get the chance to take that from us.

Here's the article in full: (Original link here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=media_mum_on_new_evidence_of_saddams_terror_ties&ns=JoelMowbray&dt=05/10/2006&page=full&comments=true)

Media mum on new evidence of Saddam's terror ties
By Joel Mowbray
Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Ask even news-savvy Americans what they know about Saddam’s plans to deploy suicide bombers against the West, and the most common response will be blank stares. Ditto for asking about how Saddam’s thugs trained thousands of terrorists from around the Arab world, right up through 2002.

Both stunning revelations surfaced recently, one in Congressional testimony last month and the other in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. The Pentagon has known about these items on Saddam’s terrorist agenda since the end of 2003, which is when it received the after-action analysis report it had commissioned. (It served as the basis for the testimony and the magazine article.)

Now declassified, the book-length report analyzed thousands of Iraqi documents and interviews with over 100 officials of Saddam’s regime to piece together what was going on in the tyranny’s final days. Much of it is darkly humorous, such as the lengths to which minions would go to deceive Saddam or how the despot actually appeared to believe the ridiculous propaganda spewed by Baghdad Bob.

To the extent the report or its summaries were covered by the mainstream media, attention mostly was focused on the finding that Saddam apparently behaved himself in late 2002 and early 2003 in a vain attempt to stave off the invasion. Yet entirely ignored by the supposedly objective news outlets were the rather newsworthy items indicating that, in fact, Saddam was interested in exporting terror.

According to a Nexis search, only four news outlets have even mentioned “Blessed July,” which was, in the words of the Foreign Affairs article, “a regime-directed wave of ‘martyrdom’ operations against targets in the West.” All nine articles were editorials or opinion pieces. The New York Times essentially avoided covering the report or the magazine summary of it, as the paper instead excerpted a book co-authored by one of its reporters that relied heavily on the report. Even the Associated Press declined to print a quick mention that preparations for “Blessed July,” again quoting from the magazine article, “were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion.”

The Washington Post, however, did cover the release of the Foreign Affairs article, but with this headline: “U.S. Said To Misread Hussein On Arms.” The not-so-subtle implication of the rather brief story was that Saddam didn’t pose as big a threat as we thought. In the weeks following the Post article, the full report was released and its authors appeared before Congress. Neither event triggered additional coverage.

Even if Post reporters missed the section in the 230-page report on terror training camps operated by the Fedayeen Saddam, the militia of soldiers most loyal to the ruthless ruler, that issue was raised again in Congressional hearings last month. The camps, which were started in 1994, trained some 7,200 Iraqis in the art of terrorism in the first year alone. “Beginning in 1998,” according to the full report, “these camps began hosting ‘Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, ‘the Gulf,’ and Syria.’”

So in the late 1990’s and beyond, during which time conventional wisdom tells us that Saddam was “contained,” Iraq was training thousands of terrorists from across the Arab world. Saddam was not slowing down. “The training activity of the groups were increasing both internal and apparently external. It was increasing over time,” testified Lt. Col. Kevin Woods (retired), the report’s chief author.

Many Democrats, leading leftists, and even ostensibly objective members of the Fourth Estate scoff at Bush’s contention that the war in Iraq was a necessary component of the war on terror.

Yet when fairly compelling proof emerges that Saddam was actively involved in both training terrorists and planning attacks, the collective response was silence.
Most baffling, though, is that the White House has been equally silent.

Had President Bush made even one mention of “Blessed July,” Saddam’s plans for a “wave of ‘martyrdom’ operations” would have dominated cable newscasts and newspaper headlines for at least a day. Maybe not dominated, but it would have garnered at least some attention.

Had the White House press office decided that the mainstream media couldn’t be trusted to disseminate the information accurately, it could have at least highlighted Saddam’s terror training camps for friendly columnists, talk hosts, and bloggers. It didn’t.

The White House doesn’t believe in re-fighting the decision to go to war, which is painfully logical. But politics isn’t logical. Neither are Bush’s political enemies. If the President wants people to trust that he made the right call by toppling Saddam, he needs to reiterate everyday what we know: Saddam was a threat who could no longer be tolerated.

“Blessed July” and Saddam’s terror training camps would be as good a place as any to start.

Snooper's Blog: http://takeourcountryback.townhall.com/

Visit my fellow Victory Caucus bloggers and see what wonderful things they have posted!

Sphere: Related Content