Monthly Archives: November 2007

Illegal Aliens Murder 12 Legal Americans Daily – 4380 A Year…………
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily 4380 a year 26,280 since Sept 11th, 2001. Drunk illegal aliens kill 13 Americans while drunk driving daily 28470 a year. Illegal aliens sexual abuse 8 children daily 2920 a year. When is enough, enough. Where is the out cry?

“CNN Staged Democrat Debate” Article by Euphoric Reality

Some more lying and deceitfulness in the Democrat party

Thanks given to Euphoric Reality for all of this great research
and spelling it out for us with links to prove the connections,
staging debate and the people involved.

I know I haven’t been blogging, but this is too good to pass up.

CNN Planted Questions For The Democrats? By Rob on November 16, 2007 at 03:52 pm 20 Comments Looks that way.According to the MySpace page of the girl (one Maria Luisa) who asked Hillary the “diamonds or pearls” question, every question at the debate last night was staged.

Which is pretty pathetic. CNN should be ashamed of itself for perpetrating such a fraud on its viewers.

Also, though, I wonder if CNN extended this same courtesy to Republicans. For instance, CNN broadcast a debate in New Hampshire back in June where the Republican candidates took questions from the audience. Were those questions planted?

I wouldn’t be happy about it if they were, but I’m willing to be they weren’t. Which would be pretty telling, if true.

Her name is NOT Maria Luisa. That must be the name on her myspace page. According to the transcripts of CNN’s debates, her name is Maria Parra-Sandoval (which you can hear her say, anyway) and…she worked for Harry Reid. (page 23 has her picture, here)

Interestingly enough, Kalid Kahn, the man who asked the racial profiling question is the president of the Islamic Council of Nevada. Big dude. If you websearch, you can find possible connections to him and Harry Reid, as it appears Harry Reid visited the mosque.

Upon further search, and a link from someone on Ann Coulter’s forum, we will see that Maria Parra-Sandoval was an illegal alien, who came from Mexico as a child, but has since got her paperwork together.

However, it is no coincidence that that girl HAPPENED to be there, and HAPPENED to be picked to ask and HAPPENED to be called upon, yet HAPPENED to have worked for Harry Reid. If you websearch, you will find her name associated with him all over the internet.

Jeannie Jackson is a professional moonbat. There are too many links to put up, but we are currently searching about her possible connections to city council in a town just outside of Santa Ana, Ca. I will post that link if I find something that connects her.

Anyway, I’m sick. I can’t believe this is true. Do the research yourself, and you’ll see. Simply amazing.

I apologize for not including this link. This is the last one about Maria being an illegal alien

I have done HOURS of research this afternoon. I’m sick at the connection. I’m sick because I haven’t got the resources to nail it in the head. (I did however, email Matt Drudge and others).

Is there no end to what they’ll do? I mean, we can’t even get real people to ask real questions? These people were fake.

I’m currently researching, but apparently some of the names were changed from the transcripts, because in interviews, they’re different. Kalid Khan is seen in websearches as having the first name Mohammed. Chris Jackson is really Chris Gallagher. Maria Luisa is Maria Parra-Sandoval. This is sick. Why would they change the names?

I’m currently researching an other one, who appears to have political connections, too. I won’t mention it here, as I don’t know that for sure yet, I’m just 50/50 on that, but if I get more sure, I’ll be sure to post the link.

I will not let this go, I watched that debate, and I feel lied to and deceived.

Let me apologize for dominating this board- it isn’t what I intended to do. However, just when I think I’m going to take a break, more things keep tripping me up and I find out even more.

Why does everyone keep referring to her as Maria Luisa? Why because that’s her MIDDLE NAME! Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval. Wanna see her picture again?

And if it didn’t get any better, Harry Reid has a listing of his staff:

(Please note that when searching the two of them, do not include her middle name as they don’t use it in their records)

More interestingly enough, here’s more info (with PICTURE) of her scholarship write up. Sounds like a nice girl, but still a PLANT!

If that weren’t enough, there have been apparent connections to the “unknown” woman who asked about the supreme court justices (which Suzanne Malveaux stepped all over), and according to Dan Riehl’s site, she is linked to the democratic party in …*drumroll* ARKANSAS…Look it up! (she is listed as her name unknown in the CNN transcripts)

Man this just keeps getting better. I don’t know how I’m going to be able to sleep.

As promised, here is the link. The connection has been made and once everyone catches up to Maria Luisa Parra- Sandoval, the DNC and possibly CNN is toast.

The insinuation I made earlier regarding a possible plant that had to do with the democratic party in Arkansas is none other than the supreme court questioner, Lashannon Spencer. Big wheel in the democratic party in LITTLE ROCK.

The connection was first made by a person commenting in the section on Dan Riehl’s site, then Dan made it, then Hot air picked it up. what I’m giving you here are More PICTURES! (Isn’t the internet great?????)

If you can look at them side by side, it is ONE in the SAME lady! Jesus. Mary. Joseph.

I’m just waiting on everyone to figure out who Maria is, and it’s over.

Cartoon By Michael Ramirez


Defense Bill And Link To 2,049 Earmarks Slipped In This Bill

November 8, 2007

Defense Conference Report Loaded with Pork

The conference report for the fiscal year 2008 defense appropriations bill contains a massive number of earmarks – 2,049 to be exact.

The total cost of these earmarks is $4,982,309,000. Twenty-four earmarks costing $59 million were “airdropped” into the conference report.

These earmarks were considered by neither the House nor the Senate and were immaculately conceived in the conference report.

The complete list of earmarks can be found on page 500.

I was going to list all of the earmarks – I changed my mind when I actually went to the document and seen the 100 plus pages of earmarks. You can look at all of the earmarks on the link above “complete list of earmarks.”

Senator Coburn Teaches Us How Senators Slip In Earmarks – Toolkit

July 1, 2007

Earmark Toolkit

Cost of earmarks doubles
This chart indicates the cost of earmarks has doubled since 1994.

Dr. Coburn has established this site to empower voters to demand reforms that will place the future quality of life for the next generation above concerns about the next election.

How Congress Spends Your Money

Congress spends money by passing appropriations bills each year. There are 12 such bills in the Senate, each covering several federal agencies that are part of the regular process and subject to budgetary caps established by the annual congressional budget process. When Congress passes a budget resolution, it imposes a spending limit for what’s called the “discretionary” part of the federal budget. That includes the part not spent on entitlement programs that Congress is not legally allowed to limit – such as Social Security and Medicare. Congressional leaders then assign certain spending caps to each of the 12 appropriations bills. It takes a supermajority of the Senate to override those caps.

Outside of this regular appropriations process is what’s called “emergency supplemental” appropriations bills. Congress can pass an unlimited number of these each year, for the alleged purpose of quickly addressing unforeseen emergencies such as funding massive disaster relief or responding to a terror attack or act of war. In general, Congress tends to pass one or two of these each year. In recent years, they have been labeled as being for Katrina relief or for war funding. By continuing to pass supplemental “emergency” bills, even when the hurricane struck last year and the war is several years old, Congress gets away with placing all these expensive but necessary programs outside the usual budget disciplinary measures. Supplemental appropriations bills operate outside the budget – they have no caps and therefore no spending discipline is required.

That’s why supplemental bills get turned into vehicles for every irresponsible spending whim of any member of Congress. They move quickly through the Congress, and they are seen as “must-pass” because no one wants to vote against the war or against Katrina relief. In some instances, nobody sees the bills until right before they are supposed to vote.

Earmarks Hidden in “Reports”

What’s worse, appropriations bills move with a so-called “report” attached. In these reports, additional elaboration beyond the bill language is provided by the bill authors, and this language is seen as almost as binding as the bill language itself. Agencies ignore this “report language” at their peril. It is in these reports that most earmarks are hidden. The provisions get slipped into reports by the bill authors late at night, behind closed doors and nobody has a chance to vote on them individually. To make matters worse, these spending bills are often rammed through Congress before anybody has time to actually read them. Earmarks, however, aren’t always in appropriations bills. Sometimes, they are stuffed into “authorization bills” like the highway bill – a bill passed by the Congress every few years to reauthorize transportation programs. Regardless of what bill they move in, earmarks are usually only discovered after they have become law.

So What Are Earmarks Anyway?

Earmarks are short provisions that direct funds to a specific project in a specific location. Their champions come to Washington, D.C., and lobby members of Congress to insert the earmark into an appropriations bill, which essentially provides the organization in question a check for a certain amount of money to do a specific type of project. For example, more than $250 million was earmarked to a so-called “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska – to fund a long bridge to an island with 50 residents, where a 7-minute ferry already existed. Another example was a sculpture garden for several hundred thousand dollars in Seattle, Washington. Often, very little oversight occurs about whether the project was completed properly, on budget and on time. Earmarks are taken out of accounts that are supposed to fund broader programs that operate in a more competitive manner. For example, a grant program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that provides grants to communities for economic development projects is one of the worst-“raided” accounts for earmarks. This process leaves almost no money left in that account to fund the competitive grant program.

Perhaps the defining characteristic of earmarks, or “pork projects,” is the fact individual members of Congress exercise sole funding and oversight authority over earmarked funds. In most cases, no competition occurs, no outcomes are demanded, and no accountability is provided for the taxpayers to ensure they got something of value for their money.

Motivations for Earmarking

Earmarks have grown over time. In the 1980s, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it had about 160 pork projects. Last year, more than 15,000 pork projects were passed by Congress. Earmarking is neither a time-honored tradition nor an honorable process. Earmarks serve a parochial interest at the local level – the very opposite of what federal programs are supposed to do. Members of Congress brag about the “pork” they bring home to their districts or states. In this way, the special interests in their districts who lobbied them for the project then praise the member and often campaign on his/her behalf. In other words, earmarking is inherently a political activity designed to keep incumbents in power and in the pocket of special interest groups in their home districts. There are only a handful of the 535 members of Congress who do not engage in earmarking. In the Senate, only three senators do not earmark. Dr. Coburn is one of them.

Leading the Charge Against Pork

Although some members defend the earmarking process as a legitimate use of power to serve their constituents, Dr. Coburn has led the fight against earmarking. He has vowed, along with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to challenge every single earmark this year, even if it means bringing the entire appropriations process to a virtual standstill. Dr. Coburn believes earmarking is the “gateway drug” to spending addiction. Often, fiscally conservative members get bullied into voting for monstrously bad spending bills because they are threatened with losing earmarks they inserted if they vote against the bill. In order to protect their earmarks, they violate their broader principles on spending.
For more information about various amendments Dr. Coburn has offered to stop earmarks. In addition to his floor action, Dr. Coburn has held a variety of hearings in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee. Dr. Coburn also convened a hearing specifically on earmarks for museums, zoos and other projects. These hearings provide a wealth of testimony, charts and other resources.

The Power of the People

Only an informed voting public can begin to demand reform to the earmarking process. Many members of Congress engage in earmarking because they mistakenly believe they need to earmark in order to protect their seats. Dr. Coburn hopes this toolkit will empower you to let your elected officials know that earmarking is damaging America now and endangering the long-term fiscal legacy for future generations of Americans.

Check out CongressDaily’s coverage of earmarks on Capitol Hill.

Urgent Action Needed!!! Help Our Troops!!!

Victory on the battlefield. Victory at home.



November 14th, 2007

Urgent Action Needed!!!

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 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


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 n ot 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

* * * | Dedicated to Winning the War on Terror! • Copyright ©

The Smiles On The Faces Of Iraqi Children – The Joy They Have In Their Hearts


Scouting In Baghdad? Who’d Have Thought…

One thing that’s a normal part of growing up in the United States is Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Many of us probably participated in these organizations when we were younger and our children may have as well. In Iraq, that’s been quite a different story. Thanks to coalition volunteers though, that’s quickly changing.


The Scouting program in Iraq, was originally founded in the 1920’s by the British personnel who were stationed in Iraq at the time. The scouts in Iraq were members of the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), which supports scout programs all over the world. When Saddam Hussein came into power, the program was changed from it’s original roots into a paramilitary organization. Because of that, it lost the support of the WOSM.

During that period, there was an underground movement that upheld the original ideals of the WOSM. However assisting and participating in that movement was very dangerous and a person risked being jailed or murdered if they participated in the underground movement.

In 2004, the Green Zone Council, formed of volunteers, was founded to assist in the local efforts to revitalize the Iraqi Scouting to it’s former ideals and position of leadership in the middle east. They have worked with local groups to advance the strategic goals of the Iraqi Scouting Council, which oversees scouting programs in all of Iraq.


The Iraqi Scouting Council works closely with the Ministry of Education on the program. According to the Green Zone Council’s website there are currently more than 150,000 youth who are members of the Iraqi Scouting in all 18 provinces in the country, as well as several thousand leaders. The Green Zone Council working closely with the Ministry of Education have raised money for training and equipment, been host to meetings of senior Iraqi scouts and made sure those funds were available to help advance the organizational goals and missions of the Iraqi Scouting.


Following the British system of organization, according to Army 1st Lt. Amy Staub, co-chairman of the Green Zone Council, Iraqi Scouts are called Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. Other than the difference in names, this program is very similar in structure to the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. The scouts in Iraq, like their counterparts in other countries are expected to abide by a law that governs their conduct and they are taught leadership skills, how to practice tolerance and respect and they are encouraged to have strong pride in their nation. Like the scouts here, they are able to participate in events meant to strengthen their friendships with each other and to build self-confidence.

Many of the Green Zone Council volunteers, have been involved in scouting programs in the United States, so they were eager to help establish this scouting program in Iraq. One such volunteer, Spc. Donald Willilams volunteered to spend his Saturdays helping with the Scouts. He says his love for scouting comes from helping with his cousins’ Cub Scout pack at home.


“I’ve always loved being involved,” he said. “Whether it be showing them how to tie knots, doing some physical fitness training, or even raising money for them. I’m glad I found out about this program so I can continue to help out even while I’m here.”

Currently there are about 30-50 volunteers involved with the Green Zone Council. Membership is open to all Coalition Members who’d like to volunteer their time. There is no set amount of time that the volunteers have to spend, as the council is aware that mission does come first. Volunteer opportunities can range from helping to facilitate meetings and events or assist in fundraising.

“Volunteering to help is more than worth it,” said Lt. Col. Tina Flanagan. “Judging by the expressions on their faces, you can tell how much they love this.”

This is a wonderful program and one that I’m proud of our Coalition Troops, for becoming involved in. Please take the time to visit the Green Zone Council’s webpage and read about what they’re doing, to help the Iraqi children and to bring normalcy into the lives of these children. One look at the faces of the children, convince me that this program is living up to it’s intentions.

The Good News That American Main Stream Media Isn’t Showing Us

The Petraeus Curve

Serious success in Iraq is not being recognized as it should be

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. The Government headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become more proactive since the summer, but must immediately take advantage of these favourable conditions. The supposed representatives of the Iraqi people in Baghdad need to show both responsibility and creativity if the country’s potential is to be realised.

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit. In Britain, in a somewhat more subtle fashion admittedly, Gordon Brown assumed on becoming the Prime Minister that he should send signals to the voters that Iraq had been “Blair’s War”, not one to which he or Britain were totally committed.

function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin =’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&&sectionName=LeadingArticle’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655′); }

Related Links

All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld’s resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity. The instinct of too many people is that if Iraq is going badly we should get out because it is going badly and if it is getting better we should get out because it is getting better. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. Iraq is getting better. That is good, not bad, news.


Sgt. Freedom Campaign – Episode 20