Radical Chicano Group gets millions is Earmarks

What can you say. I have no words left at the moment. My brain has momentarily succumbed.

Radical Chicano Group Gets Millions In Earmarks
Click Here To Get Realllly Ticked Off

An extremist Mexican “La Raza” group that annually gets millions of U.S. federal grant dollars will receive even more taxpayer money in the next few years thanks to a Massachusetts congressman’s multi million-dollar earmark to counsel Hispanics about housing.

The National Council of La Raza already got $1.3 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development this year to conduct “comprehensive housing counseling’’ for Hispanics, whether they are in the country legally or not. Now the radical group that advocates the return of the American Southwest to Mexico, will get an additional $15 million thanks to an earmark inserted by Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank in a housing bill.

Frank, the House Financial Services Chairman, is giving the National Council of La Raza $5 million this year and $10 million in each of the next two years. The new law (FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008) includes $100 million for mortgage counseling to be administered by non-profit groups like the National Council of La Raza, which has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars over the year. In fiscal 2006 alone, the group got $15.2 million in federal grants.

Americans should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to a group that, not only advocates open borders but organized many of the country’s disruptive pro illegal immigration marches a year ago. Although the National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, it actually caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan.

LaRaza is nothing but a Hispanic KKK and it has no purpose but to incite and aid and abet illegal aliens.  How this government can allow this is beyond me. 

This is yet another example of liberals being out of touch with reality. There are not enough tax dollars to be all things to all people. And yet they keep trying!

The discussion needs to center on "What can be done about it?" How can we remove such politicians, like Barney, from office? How can the American people become informed about such actions? What will it take to have voters become so outraged about how elected politicians spend our money that they vote them out?  

Complacency is one of our biggest enemies! Another factor, unfortunately, is that voting is often driven by emotions instead of sound analysis of issues! How can that be changed? I believe that we are on our way with such sites as this and other avenues that by-pass the MSM, like talk radio. The challenge is enormous but no one ever said change would be easy.

I urge all concerned citizens to redouble their efforts and use the internet/e-mail to educate and inform people about the issues such as this. 200 years ago a small group of people stirred the nation to action. We can do it again!

 

I have posted this in as many web sites as I could locate

Look at all the contoversy over Barney Frank and yet he still gets elected.  I just do not understand the people of this nation.  They are commiting suicide and are too dumb to know it.

That would be Peter Puffer Barney Fwank. Must be looking for a new place to run his male prostitute ring from. They won't let him use his office anymore.

---

Nothing government does surprises me anymore.  It's no longer a jungle out there but rather an insane asylum.

I am sorry but none of the comments above accomplish one thing! We need a strategy to get Barney and his ilk out of office. Just posting rants doesn't cut it!

eyeswideopen said: I am sorry but none of the comments above accomplish one thing! We need a strategy to get Barney and his ilk out of office. Just posting rants doesn't cut it!

I agree... but there is NO peaceful, lawful strategy to remove the traitors from office.

---

eyeswideopen,  When you come up with a way to get rid of the Barney Franks and Ted Kennedy let us know.

Mammaw said: eyeswideopen,  When you come up with a way to get rid of the Barney Franks and Ted Kennedy let us know.

 

And don't forget John Kerry -- my idea? -- Make all the voters leave Massachusetts (since no one will admit voting for any of the three) ...................

---

I am on the phone with Senator Boxers office and I said I want to "opt out" of this so that none of my tax payer dollars goes to this organization.

I called her CA office and they said to call her DC office.  No one answered at the DC office so I left a very long message saying I want to "opt out" of this bill with my tax dollars and will let you know if I get a reply.

I think everyone should start calling your Senators and Congressmen and ask them to put it on the voting ballot if we should be able to "opt out".

 

CJBL,  You have a great idea there.  Let's all get on the phones and see who gets a reply.  I'll bet they will have to come up with a new form letter to answer this one.

Mammaw--One way is to get a vast internet/e-mail alert system to expose the action of each and every elected congressman, district-by-district and state-by-state. They must be publically confronted with their actions and maybe, hopefully, embarrassed by it. This, ofcourse, would be most effective during their re-election campaigns. There are several websites that now give specific info on each congressman that can be used to expose the differences between their rhetoric and their actions (voting record). One such site is www.govtrack.us.

 Another way is to document votes on specific bills. See an example at  http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25885.html

If I was from Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska,Ohio, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina I would nail McCain, Martinez, Lugar, Hagel, Voinovich, Specter, and Graham to the wall. As I said in my article:

 I strongly urge all registered voters in the States represented by these Senators to call, write, or e-mail asking them to explain their vote. If you are not satisfied with their explanation let them know that you disagree. Forcefully but politely let them know that they do not represent your views and as their constituent you will no longer support their campaign efforts via financial donations or volunteer efforts on their behalf.

Do I think this will have an effect? You bet I do!

Mammaw--Another group to use as a source for getting beyond the rhetoric of elected officials is Judicial Watch. An example from their newsletter follows. 

McCain Talks Tough on Judges But Can He Be Trusted?

Senator John McCain gave a www.newsday.com%2Fservices%2Fnewspape... color="#0000ff">speech recently on the need to appoint judges that interpret laws rather than legislate from the bench. There was a lot to like about what he had to say on judicial activism. McCain said, "The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self restraint," and railed against the "systematic abuse" by judges who push their liberal agendas through judicial fiat. He also took issue with "Senate obstructionism" practiced by liberals who are blocking the president's judicial nominees. The speech seems designed to help McCain firm up his conservative base.

But here's the problem. Senator McCain has made it harder to confirm judicial conservatives to the bench. (Judicial Watch neither opposes nor endorses candidates for pubic office.)

While Senator McCain's speech properly chastised liberals in the Senate for blocking judicial nominees, what did McCain do when he had the chance to help stop them cold? Well, here he is, in his www.newsday.com%2Fservices%2Fnewspape... color="#0000ff">own words:

"Of course, in the daily routine of Senate obstructionism, presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all. These courts were created long ago by the Congress itself, on what then seemed the safe assumption that future Senates would attend to their duty to fill them with qualified men and women nominated by the president. Yet at this moment there are 31 nominations pending…Things almost got even worse a few years ago, when there were threats of a filibuster to require 60 votes for judicial confirmations, and threats in reply of a change in Senate rules to prevent a filibuster. A group of senators, nicknamed the "Gang of 14," got together and agreed we would not filibuster unless there were 'extraordinary circumstances.'"

McCain went on to defend the deal he helped broker, saying it "showed that serious differences can be handled in a serious way, without allowing Senate business to unravel in a chaos of partisan anger."

I have two responses to these statements.

First, using a filibuster to block an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees is flat out "unconstitutional." (See Judicial Watch's www.judicialwatch.org%2Fsenatelawsuit... color="#0000ff">landmark lawsuit filed against the Senate.) I don't care how "extraordinary" the circumstances, there is never a good reason to violate the U.S. Constitution's "advice and consent" clause in the interest of political expediency.

And second, no one was advocating the "chaos of partisan anger" as the antidote to the liberal hijacking of the judicial confirmation process. Principled conservatives simply were asking that the Constitution's rules be followed by the U.S. Senate in the consideration of judicial nominations. That "chaos of partisan anger" talk sounds more like Patrick Leahy than a principled conservative.

In the end, some fine judicial nominees who would have embodied McCain's stated judicial philosophy are not on the bench because of him and his "Gang of 14."

New JW Panel: "Election 2008: What the Media Isn't Telling You"

Next Thursday, May 15, Judicial Watch will host an educational panel entitled, "Election 2008: What the Media Isn't Telling You." The panel will be held here at 1:00 p.m. in the National Press Club (in Washington, DC) and will feature special guests Jim Bopp, Attorney for Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom; Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy in Media Report; and Curt Levey, Executive Director of the Committee for Justice.

Our discussion will highlight issues being downplayed by much of the media during this election season, including political scandals, problems in the campaign finance system, and current and future battles over judges.