It appears that Pelosi is on a roll. She’s pushed (and bribed) an unacceptable bill of defeat. Now, reports have surfaced that she is, currently, refusing to allow a House Resolution (HRes 267) up for a vote.
The resolution (see above link) condemns Iran for it’s abduction of the British Marines and Sailors.
Today, Iran released another propaganda video, forcing a British Marine to make a statement. Hot Air (see link) also has a link to the third letter the female sailor (Faye Turney) has, presumably, been forced to write or sign.
BlackFive has an interesting post up. It’s entitled Troop Reaction to the Democrats. I highly recommend you take a look at the post as well as the comments from soldiers and their families. BlackFive is a former paratrooper with loads of links etc in the military. Michael Yon is another excellent site for dispatches from the front lines by a blogger (former military) who actually stays with military units rather than collecting ’stringer’ reports from the green zone.
I know it seems like beating a dead horse but the Democrats can’t seem to get it through their head that the troops believe we will win and do NOT feel supported by the cut-and-run rhetoric. They don’t seem to buy the shoddy “I support the troops but not their mission” line. It makes sense, they overwhelmingly believe in their mission, so they aren’t going to feel supported by people fighting so hard to defeat that mission.
“Unfortunately, Utah has quite a reputation for mortgage fraud now,” Croft said, noting California also has moved up the list from No. 8 to No. 3.
Mortgage fraud takes many forms. A buyer lies on a loan application. A mortgage lender inflates someone’s income so they can qualify for a loan. A crook uses someone else’s Social Security number and uses it to buy a home [emphasis added].
No one is sure why Utah has such a high rate of fraudulent activity. One suspicion is that unscrupulous lenders try to qualify too many heavily indebted Utah families for homes they cannot afford. Another is the makeup of Utah’s trusting population, where many people place a great deal of trust in community, religious leaders and authority figures.
The state has made some efforts, some at the legislative level, to rein in fraud. In the past session, state regulators pushed the passage of Senate Bill 199, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, designed to curb the growing amount of fraud committed by people who act as mortgage loan providers, real estate agents and appraisers without a state license.
COMMON TYPES OF MORTGAGE FRAUD
Application fraud: Buyers lie on a loan application or supporting documents to ensure they qualify for a home loan, or so they can borrow a larger amount of money.
‘Straw’ buyers: Crooks use someone else’s identity to obtain a mortgage and can pursue a related type of fraud called equity skimming, in which they cash out of any equity in the property.
Lender fraud: Lenders want so badly to make a loan, they lie on a loan application to ensure it will be approved.
Lease scams: Buyers may think they are getting a home but are actually signing long-term lease agreements with an option to buy the home sometime in the future.
As I’ve noted before, the legislature had the opportunity to take a good bite out of identity theft (see emphasis above), but decided ID theft is ok if it benefits business. The rumor is several banks, besides the manufacturing and sundry business folks, were behind the effort to kill the bill.
Obviously, the bill would be no “magic bullet” for ID theft and certainly wouldn’t solve the other types of mortgage fraud mentioned above, but it would have been a very good step in addressing the crime.
A year or so ago, an ID thief (illegal immigrant, in this case) was caught using a two-year-old girl’s SSN for his mortgage (I guess he defaulted on it and the family was tipped off when debt collectors came asking for their daughter). I’ll have to try to find the story and post a link here.
UPDATE: Must read - I found the 2 year old girl story: Investigative Report: Could Your Child’s ID Already Be Stolen? - note I was wrong about how the family was ‘tipped off’ and they did not explicitly state that he had a mortgage - only that he had loans. The story is a super example of id theft, particularly dealing with children’s SSNs.
Rodriguez later learned that Heber Uriel Nevarez, an employee of Centro de Servicios Hispanos - a tax and law assistance center in Ogden where he had his taxes prepared - was one of the subjects of an identity-fraud state investigation and allegedly illegally used Rodriguez’s personal information.
Juan de Jesus Lopez and Nevarez were alleged co-conspirators in getting credit card numbers to buy vehicles and using stolen Social Security numbers [emphasis added], Roberts said. Court records show that Nevarez has a long history of traffic citations and lawsuits over alleged failure to pay his debts.
Victor Lopez, who owns Centro de Servicios Hispanos, met Nevarez a few years ago and gave Nevarez a job in early 2005 because he seemed like a “good person,” knew English and Spanish and was computer savvy. That’s where Nevarez and Juan de Jesus Lopez met, Victor Lopez said. Victor Lopez said his brother, who is an undocumented immigrant [emphasis added], has worked for him since moving to Utah in 1999. But he said Nevarez hasn’t worked for him since August 2006.
For Juan Jesus Lopez [no relation to "de Jesus Lopez"], the identity theft experience has delayed his plans to get a new house for his wife and three grown kids. He said he was “really mad” when he found out about someone using his information. “I couldn’t do anything because my credit was ruined.”
Yesterday’s Senate vote wasn’t much of a surprise and, the more I think about it, works out better for those who want our servicemen/women to get the funding and support they need. If the amendment would have passed, the conference committee would have put the retreat wording back in and only delayed everything even more.
It’s better the let the Dems get their bill to the President for his immediate veto so that we can get to work on a clean bill without the billions in pet projects (pork) and idiotic timetables.
That being said, public pressure is key. It is, again, time for us to stand up for those on the field of battle and, unequivocally, let legislators know that political pandering to special interests and pork spending have no place on a bill that funds our soldiers in combat zones!
The time to act on this is NOW. Call and email your Senators and Representatives. Demand that a clean emergency appropriations bill be passed ASAP.
Endorsing Gen. Petraeus (including his plan) and then trying to pull funding to score points with your donors when Gen. Petraeus’ surge is being implemented and appears to be working , is nonsensical. This behavior must stop.
Note: If the Dems just can’t give up the pork and pandering by April 15th, it may be possible for President Bush to use executive orders and shift money from other programs/agencies to fund our soldiers. However, I am NOT 100% positive about this. Thus, April 15th is a major deadline.
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday endorsed a March 31, 2008, target date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq, moving Congress a step closer to a showdown with President George W. Bush over the war.By a vote of 50-48, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have stricken the withdrawal language from a $121.6 billion bill that mostly would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A final vote on the bill is expected later this week.
I believe the amendment would’ve also stricken the pork from the bill - I’ll have to double check that, though.
Senator Lieberman and Senator Pryor voted for the amendment. While I disagree with him on other subjects, both deserve our thanks (click the links) for giving our soldiers priority over politics. Republican Senators Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel could learn a lesson from them (both voted for defeat). Since Senator Ben Nelson survived his reelection bid, he also voted for defeat (hey, he got his 6 years). Please note: Senator Enzi (WY) was unable to vote because he was attending to a sick family member.
Now, don’t get too angry. Even if the Victory Senators had succeeded, while sending a much better message, the bill would’ve gone to the Conference Committee (where the select House and Senate members hash out a compromise on changed bills), the Democrat-dominated committee (they’re in the majority) would have, assuredly, stuck the language back in. The only result would have been a longer delay prior to President Bush’s veto, which would also further delay getting necessary funding to our military in the combat zone. Note: funding runs out on April 15th!
This allows the President to issue a veto and have Congress actually get our troops funding without the pork and defeatist barf.
Now that the Senate is grappling with it’s own version of the House surrender bill, I thought it would be timely to post a quick reminder to contact you Senators and politely ask them to oppose the defeatist bill and not pull funding from our military:
Just prior to the start of Utah’s legislative session, the Deseret News wrote a nasty editorial full of personal attacks and race-baiting remarks. I commented on it in my Preemptive Race Baiting blog post (includes a link to the original editorial). In that post I made the following prediction:
Unfortunately, in today’s politics, race baiting and personal attacks happen but I can’t wait until, a few weeks from now, the Deseret News prints the obligatory editorial decrying the personal nature of politics, wishing everyone would hammer out policy in a civil manner.
In the past, the Deseret Morning News has had “enhancing civil discourse” as one of its yearly goals. Judging by recent events, we either didn’t do much of a job, or the issue needs to be revisited.
That’s the intro line to the editorial written last Friday (I didn’t bring it up then - had other issues I was more interested in).
Anyway there’s a taste of the local drive-by media for you.
This is likely an unintended consequence of the Democrats’ fishing expedition. I doubt they really wanted this information to get out given their pro-amnesty stance. The information also indicates a good reason why several of the 8 attorneys deserved to be fired.
It is obvious that we need to streamline the visa process and make it easier for people who desire to become citizens to enter the country. It is also not an unreasonable expectation that immigration law be enforced and identity theft that goes along with illegal immigration be addressed. Clearly, that is not the case.
Excerpt from FoxNews:
Guidelines issued by U.S. attorneys in Texas showed that most illegal immigrants crossing into the state had to be arrested at least six times before federal authorities would prosecute them, according to an internal Justice Department memo.
The disclosure provides a rare view of how federal authorities attempt to curb illegal immigration. The memo was released this week in response to a congressional investigation of the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys.
The Border Patrol makes more than 1 million arrests a year on the U.S.-Mexico border. T.J. Bonner, head of a union representing Border Patrol agents, said it’s unrealistic to prosecute all violators.
“Let’s be honest, there isn’t enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border,” said Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. “If everyone demanded hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days.”
It is unclear when the memo was written, but the Justice Department reviewed the guidelines sometime after a February 2005 performance review of Carol Lam, the top federal prosecutor in San Diego from 2002 until she was fired last month. Some Republican lawmakers had complained that Lam failed to aggressively prosecute immigration violations.
The prosecution guidelines have been a source of frustration for years among the ranks of U.S. Border Patrol agents, said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. Smugglers can figure out the criteria by trial and error, he said, and can exploit it to avoid prosecution.
“It’s devastating on morale,” Bonner said. “Our agents are risking their lives out there, and then they’re told, ‘Sorry, that doesn’t meet the criteria.’ “
The memo was written in response to DOJ inquiries at five U.S. attorney offices, including Houston, about immigration prosecutions. The others — San Antonio, San Diego, Phoenix and Albuquerque — cover the 2,000-mile border.
In a statement, DOJ spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the agency sent 30 prosecutors to districts along the Southwest border in 2006. The added manpower “will permit districts to adjust their guidelines and take in more cases,” according to the statement.
So much for the “Blue Dogs” pledge to be specifically responsible and oppose pork (all 14 freshmen Democrats voted for the bill). Maybe “Blue Hogs” would be a better name. Democrats made a rush to the trough in exchange for their votes in support of a bill promoting retreat or defunding our troops while they’re in the field.
President Bush has vowed to veto the bill and it is unlikely to make it through the Senate. Check Hot Air for the video of President Bush’s response (a must see). A transcript of his remarks is also available at the White House site.
Nevertheless, this bill results in a delay in getting necessary funds (if they are, eventually, approved) to our troops in a combat zone, despite the surge’s successes. Sec Def Robert Gates weighs in:
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for Congress to pass a bill quickly, or the military would be forced to take severe stopgap measures because of a lack of funding.
Among those measures, Gates said, would be slowing deployment of replacement troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and extending the tours of units already there.
“This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families,” Gates said. “I urge the Congress to pass the supplemental as soon as possible.”
Some choice quotes from the President’s response (I recommend the full response available at the Hot Air and WH links above):
The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
…Today’s action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.
Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we’re beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.
UPDATE: Human Events has a good piece on the Blue Hogs. Amanda Carpenter discusses the pork and ‘forgotten’ campaign promises and lists those voting for pork (36 of 43) and against it (7 of 43).
The British personnel from the frigate HMS Cornwall were “engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters,” and had completed their inspection of a merchant ship when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, the ministry said in a statement.
“Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters,” said the [Iraqi] fisherman.
I wonder what was on the boats they were searching…
On the surface, it seems those boats may have been smuggling something Iran was willing to risk an international incident to protect.
Remember, Britain is withdrawing from its AO in Iraq and Europe has been trying to negotiate with Iran, basically telling us to leave them alone. Why put all this in jeopardy?
What was on the boat(s)? More arms, munitions, bombs, personnel, something more insidious?
