Ready for the CASH (Immigration) FLOW?

Toes to the fire, and customers dropping accounts. Bank of America (BOA) is holding true to their promotional campaign for allowing Illegal Aliens to obtain credit cards through their LA branches. Kenneth D. Lewis Chairman, CEO and President, stated that they will go ahead with their program on a promotional basis, despite emails and letters from angry BOA account holders.(Although I know that there are illegals from places other than Mexico, BOA's move to place this basically in the LA area it is meant to draw from the Hispanic illegal aliens, thus the flag on the logo.)

Many account holders have started to go through the withdrawal procedures to close their accounts with BOA and have them moved to other banks, banks that do not cater to illegal immigrants. BOA however seems to think that this will be a good move for them.

My opinion is this, it might draw them in more customers from the illegal side of the border(s) since it is not requiring them to have a SSN# (which is standard practice toward Americans), green card or any other means of identification. But the problem arises in the aftermath. Let's say that BOA's campaign is successful. Let's say that it draws in around 2 million new illegal customers, probably a little high, in the next six months or so. Now these individuals start running up their accounts into the millions of dollars, what happens next? Well, how about since they are illegal, and do not want to give legal addresses, they don't make any payments on their accounts. Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for these delinquent accounts? Why us hard working Americans of course, and those "Legal immigrants" that are working through the system that are lucky enough to get an account.

Now, I am not a mathematician or schooled in accounting, but I don't think that you have to have a degree to figure out that this move is doing two things. One, it is going to call for more illegal aliens to make their way into the U.S., simply due to the fact that they will now have something that millions of Americans bust their butts for every day, "CREDIT". And since they want to make it hard for the US Government to track them, most of their information will be phony; since it can not be checked through a SSN# - WHO WILL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? Secondly, there will be a definite impact on the economy from this. Oh there might be an upward spike for a short period of time, but in the overall picture it will draw it down; and those that stay the course with BOA will feel the pinch.

BOA is making a mockery of our financial institutions by going forward with this program. Personally, I feel that if illegal aliens are able to get credit without proper identification, why shouldn't I? If they can get hundreds maybe thousands of dollars of credit, why can't I? If I don't pay it back, I can guarantee they will be coming after my arse. Yet, how do they plan of compensating their loss that they will suffer from this? Have they told their customers how? Probably not since so many are closing their accounts.

One thing is clear though, BOA will have to change their name. As the picture at the beginning of this post shows, they will or should change it to the Bank of Illegals. And their motto should be "Helping America grow through Illegal Immigration". Thank God for small town banks that are not associated with BOA/BOI.

Is John Murtha For The Troops?

Just how bad does Rep. John Murtha want the US to fail in Iraq? According to numerous statements made by Murtha, he very much wants our troops to fail. Murtha, who is now in charge of the House Defense Appropriations Sub-Committee has recently made it clear how he will use this power. Murtha stated that by placing conditions on the $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said. "We will set benchmarks for readiness," a top Democratic leadership aide told the nonpartisan Politico.com Web site, which summarized the Democrats' strategy this way: "If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops in Iraq." By doing this Mutha is basically leaving the troops on the ground with a no win solution. Something that I know that military has no intentions of doing, but will have little choice if he gets his way.

Rep. Murtha has been against this war in Iraq since 2004, and has made every effort to cut the legs out from under our troops and the administrations war plans. His comments and remarks regarding the troops have fallen just short of treason and in the eyes of many troops in the field has become a discredit to the Marine Uniform, which he once wore. Many call Murtha a “hero”, a word that was used on a frequent basis during the John Kerry run for the White House in 2004. A phrase that was later proven to be a pure fiction, and an alteration of the real facts.

Murtha himself has come under fire on more than one occasion. His part in the Abscam, which was somewhat cleared, his convicting troops in Iraq before an investigation was completed, simply by taking what was printed in a magazine as truth; his own admission to another political friend regarding his own medals from Vietnam have been questioned. Yet Murtha has refused to produce any documentation to verify how he received them.

His cut and run tactics over the last three years have cost many troops their lives and has emboldened the enemy. Mr. Murtha has stated on several occassions that the troops went in unprepared, untrained and poorly equipped. Yet he has served on the Appropriations committee from the beginning of this conflict, and in fact voted in favor of going to Iraq. If he had been doing his job corretly, especially as a former military officer, he would have or should have been able to procure the proper training and equipment. But he, and the Democratic party have continously tried to cut the military legs out from under them.

Now Murtha, along with Pelosie and fellow cut and run democrats, will try to use his committee power to ensure that our troops fail. Murtha has asserted that "the US Army is broken, worn out and living hand to mouth". Yet, Military officers have a different outlook on our troops than Murtha. Shortly after Murtha muttered these words, Col. Joseph Curtin stated, “ The Army is not broken, every day, our soldiers are making tremendous contributions in Iraq, in Afghanistan and more than 120 countries around the world. Retention rates are at an incredibly all-time high, particularly in the active component."

Murtha has elaborated that, “80% of the Iraqis want us out of there (bogus poll numbers), and 47% say it is OK to kill Americans…” Truth of the matter is there is only about 29% that want the US to leave NOW, 80% do want the US to leave but not until they are able to stand on their own, and only 8% think that the foreign forces are the reason for the country going in the wrong direction. More of Murtha’s comments that I consider to embolden the enemy are, “We can’t win this.” “We are causing the problem.” (Congressional Record, June 15, 2006, p. H4028) “American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to the world peace than nuclear threats from N. Korea or Iran.” (June 24, 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel) However, Murtha stated in his own book, From Vietnam to 9/11, where Murtha advocates that the U.S. should not pull out of Iraq prematurely or create a timetable. “An untimely exit (from Iraq) could rapidly dissolve into a civil war, which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but its perseverance.”

I know not what Murtha thought of the quick withdraw from Vietnam, or how it affected the military and the US as a whole. But for a former military officer, especially a Marine Colonel, to stand up and presume to speak for the troops in the field is ludicrous. Many of the troops on the ground totally disagree with Murtha. In fact they feel that Murtha, regardless of his military record, should simply go away. His continual ranting does nothing short of telling our enemies we can not succeed and you might as well come on in and take over the country,

As far as Murtha being a spokesperson for the military, here a just a few comment made by some of those same soldiers he said “… could not speak for themselves…”. Iraq War Veteran Craig Minnick stated "I have called time and time again to Congressman Murtha's office and they have refused to listen to me, even though I am one of Rep. Murtha's constituents,…” SGT Mark Russak tagged in with the following comments, “I have written two letters about John Murtha (both published in several newspapers) and sent to his office in Johnstown, Pa. I even visited his office while on R&R Leave in January 06 to ask him to stop the lies about our mission but his Aid said he wasn't in. I never heard one word from him and to my knowledge neither did any one in our Task Force”. I think that this pretty much sums up his authority as a spokesperson.

If Murtha is allowed to go his way, our troops will never be able to hold their heads up. It will forever be in their minds that they could have finished the job, but were not given the chance by our politicians (a terrible ring back to the Congress during the Vietnam War). Congress was never established to manage wars. That privilege was granted to the DOD and the President.

Dateline 1972...or is it 2007?

Well, it seems as though the democrats are wasting no time for a countermeasure against the resolution to protest against President Bush’s escalation of troops in Iraq. It would seem that before the vote was even taken on Saturday, many democrats were already discussing the possibility of limiting President Bush’s power over the war in Iraq. According to most major news sources Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that a bipartisan senate proposal is in the works to “modify” the “wide open” 2002 congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Levin added, that such a modification could stop the president from continuing on a failing course.

Senator Levin stated, “We will be looking at a modification of the authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of combat mission, and it is very different from cutting off funds.“ This is pretty much follows in step with what senator Murtha was stating earlier in the week, only Murtha was in favor of reducing funding for the war and a reduction of forces, this resolution calls for limiting the addition of more troops, without Congressional approval.

This move could very well be the first time in congressional history where Congress has determined that they can micromanage the war better than the president, or those within his administration.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said that he “could guarantee that in future debates on Iraq, senate republicans are going to want to vote on funding the troops . “ A move to cut off funds by the democrats for the war and for the troops in Iraq is less favored in the polls by the public. Recent polls show that 63% of adults opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, and 68% also opposed efforts by Congress to cut off all war funding. A move to restrict the president’s war powers, is seen as more politically expedient ground for republicans.

Senator Chuck Hagel, was amongst the republicans who voted in favor of debating the Iraq resolution Saturday. “What this debate is about right now is the continuation of an escalation of American military involvement in Iraq, putting young men and women in the middle of a sectarian and intra-sectarian Civil war, “ Hagel told “Meet the Press. “

According to Fox News, Hillary Clinton plans on introducing the resolution on the floor of the senate this next week to end the war or bring home the troops within 90 days. Although Clinton knows that she probably will not have the votes to carry this motion, it is believed that she is making this motion to strengthen her base showing that she against the war in Iraq. Most of the democratic base knows that Clinton has not apologized for her vote in favor of the war and probably will not, and is hoping that this will appease the democratic base showing that she has a strong stand against the war. Earlier this year at a democratic meeting Hillary made the statement that if she were president she would end the war now; and has also made the statement that if she was the president and 2002 she would not have went to war with Iraq, knowing what she knows now. Yet Hillary voted in favor of every measure placed on the floor during that time.

For those of those that were around during the sixties and early seventies during the Vietnam War, we know how that war ended. Then, as it is now, the battles are being won by the troops and lost on the home front because of Congress, the radical antiwar movement, and the far left mainstream media. I for one know that this is not what the troops in the field were hoping for, because it shows a great lack of support by our Congress, whose main purpose it is, or should be, during war is to support the troops. It would seem that the number two man in Al-Qaida was right. Americans do not have the guts to hold the course when American blood is being shed. “Make them bleed and they will leave.”

Please do not get me wrong, I support our troops in harm’s way and I support their mission (which obviously Congress does not). I weep for each and every soldier that has fallen on the field of battle and for those thousands of that had been maimed in one way or another from injuries suffered during battle. It is just that I believe they deserve so much more from the Congress the United States of America than they are receiving.