In September 2011 Former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, a key Northern Alliance leader and the only Tajik to be President of Afghanistan, was murdered after Taliban emissaries promised to deliver him an important message of peace. When welcomed, they blew him up.

In August 2011, after a conspiracy that lured in members of our Seal Team Six with other heroic Americans, the Taliban set up an ambush and murdered them.

Following those brutal attacks, President Obama’s strategy has been to hasten negotiations with the Taliban. Additionally, the Obama administration has now not only offered to release known Taliban terrorists from detention, but has already released some and additionally offered to legitimize our sworn enemy by furnishing them a princely office in Qatar.

In return, Obama’s agents defend that they are being tough on the Taliban by demanding that they not use the office to raise funds to support their terrorism. That is a bit reminiscent of the Clinton-Albright demand of North Korea that if we give them nuclear technology, they must promise to use it for electric generation and not weapons.

According to many Afghans, all of these and other Obama Administration actions give substantial credence to the Taliban claim, supported privately by some Pakistani leaders, that the U.S. has lost in Afghanistan and is now begging them for negotiations. One Taliban leader who was released from detention by the Obama administration for medical and end of life purposes, is now back in command and recently demanded on Afghan TV that since the Americans have now lost and are begging for negotiations, Afghans disloyal to the Taliban must come ask forgiveness and for safety from the Taliban.

(more…)

The Minnesota chapter of a national civil liberties legal group is going to court to fight for the property rights of a Winona man who’s got other battles on his hands:  He’s currently serving as a U.S. advisor in war-torn Afghanistan. The Institute for Justice (IJ) will ask a Minnesota District Court in Winona to strike down a city ordinance prohibiting Ethan Dean, now on his fifth tour of duty in the Mideast, and three other homeowners from renting out their property.

“This is a law that started in Winona and has spread to other cities in Minnesota and what we need to do is stop this trend before it goes any further,” said Anthony Sanders, staff attorney with IJ’s Minnesota chapter. “The right to rent out your home is a fundamental property right, a traditional and accepted use of your property and Winona is trampling on that.”

The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota reported earlier this year on Dean’s campaign on the home front against the controversial Winona ordinance known locally as the “30 percent rule.” Dean says the ordinance is a double whammy.  By restricting rental properties to only 30 percent of houses per block, it deprives homeowners of rental income. Without a rental permit, houses are also less appealing to prospective buyers. Dean says the ordinance has cost him more than one opportunity to sell his $139,000 house, located in a prime rental area in this college town.

“I don’t really understand how someone believes they have the right to tell someone else how and what they can do with their home, but it is a strange world at times, I guess,” Dean told FFM at the time. City officials view the measure as a way to preserve the single family character of city neighborhoods particularly near Winona State University by regulating the number of houses rented mainly to college students. Complaints over student parties, vandalism and absentee landlords led to the imposition of the ordinance in 2005.

“It’s not ideal, but it’s working right now and it’s helping to address our problem of density of rental properties around the downtown core area and Winona State,” city council member Debbie White told FFM earlier this year. “We’ve been losing residences and homes and trying to keep a balance in our neighborhoods.”

(more…)

First, let me say that I respect Ron Paul a great deal. More often than not, he’s fundamentally right on the pressing issues of today and I believe that the modern political landscape is a better place because of him. Over the current president, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

That being said, regarding his online clan of “libertarian” followers… eeesh. Here’s a recent tweet that I received from one of his followers after I so much as barely criticized Dr. Paul’s foreign policy ideas;

“Hey neocon, how the h*** can you justify our costly empire overseas? Only Ron Paul will stop this!!”

Come again, dummy?

Listen, their heart is in the right place but here’s the concept that many of the younger, supposedly anti-establishment, self-professed “libertarians” can’t seem to grasp; by it’s very definition and historical precedent, an empire isn’t a costly endeavor. It’s a profitable one. Be it the Roman, Ottoman or English, all of these tyrannical government’s built their empire in order to expand their territory and reap the bountiful spoils of war.

The reason the United States supposed “empire” expanding abroad is so costly would be because it in fact is no empire at all. The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens, after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege.

Now is that a legitimate role of government? Should we really be playing “hero” to the world? Say! Now that’s a meaningful dialogue that deserves a spirited discussion!

(more…)

From The Washington Post:

The latest Obama plan “doesn’t produce any more in realistic savings than the plan they offered in April,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “They’ve filled in details, repackaged it and replaced one gimmick with another. They don’t even stabilize the debt. This is just not enough.”

The most disheartening development, MacGuineas and others said, is Obama’s decision to count $1.1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan toward his debt-reduction total. Because Obama has no intention of continuing war spending at last year’s elevated levels, that $1.1 trillion would never have been spent.

(more…)

On this 10th Anniversary of the September 11th attack on America we’ll hear politicians and pundits wringing their hands over the “tragic events” of that morning. They’ll wonder aloud whether we’ve “learned anything” in these past ten years and whether we’ve achieved the correct level of “tolerance” and “understanding” that is so desperately needed to solve our worlds problems.

From our president we will hear a call to community service and a plea to find volunteer opportunities in our neighborhoods, because, you know… the real message behind 9/11 is to plant a garden at the local welfare office.

What we won’t hear enough of this momentous day is the truth about 9/11. The truth about what happened that day. The truth about why it happened.

The truth is that on September 11, 2001 war was declared on the United States of America. Our ideological opponents on the left (as well as some of the more troubling supporters of Rep. Ron Paul) will tell you that it 9/11 wasn’t an act of war because the perpetrators were not acting on behalf of any nation. As if in some way the fact that our attackers didn’t have a flag on their sleeves while demolishing our financial and military headquarters some how re-defines the act as merely a “crime”.

The liberals and libertarians mired in their denial of the reality of the world we live in are dangerous and must be answered with vigor. 9/11 was not a “criminal act”. And, despite what President Obama might say, we are not in a war against Al Qaeda. By narrowing our focus and pretending that we must only respond against those whose fingerprints can be found on the 9/11 attack is an invitation to our enemies around the world to wage war on us through proxies like Al Qaeda.  A Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul, with his pathetic call for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, would allow enemies like North Korea, Iran and Venezuela to send hundreds of organizations like Al Qaeda toward our skyscrapers all under the protective banner of “rogue criminal act”.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by New York Times’ best selling author Brad Thor to discuss his newest thriller Full Black, how he develops material for his books, the importance of highlighting the work of the fearless patriots in America’s Special Forces, and the upcoming Warner Bros. film adaptations of his blockbuster novels.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Before taking questions during yesterday’s press conference, Barack Obama issued a rambling statement that ran the left wing gamut from class warfare to an implied lament that taxes are too low.  For the most part, it came across as a tedious tour through the failed Democrat’s playbook.  The only time the President seemed truly engaged was when he used his daughters’ superb scholastic abilities to scold Congress for not taking decisive action on the debt limit crisis.

“You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time,” the President told the press corps.  “Malia is 13 and Sasha is 10. It is impressive. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters.  They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.”

Yes, according to the President, if only the members of congress could move as fast as a pair of 10 and 13 year old girls, they’d be able to fix the mess he’s created.

However, if the President is to be believed, they have no intention of doing so.  Congress is just too busy taking vacations.  Obama lashed out at this practice, claiming that while Senators and Representatives have been in and out of town, vacationing and partying like latter day F. Scott Fitzgeralds, he’s been left alone in Washington, doing all the work.

“They’re in one week. They’re out one week,” Obama scolded.  “And then they’re saying Obama’s got to step in – you need to be here, I’ve been here, I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden, and the Greek crisis. You stay here.”

Really?

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Ben Domenech to discuss Jon Huntsman’s recent comments on Afghanistan and how he appeals to the isolationist wing of the Republican party. Then we’ll talk about Michele Bachmann’s meteoric rise in the polls and how she matches up with the rest of the field.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Jon Huntsman’s Foreign Policy
Is Huntsman a Republican?
Jon Huntsman Goes Obamaesque
Bachmann in Strong Position as She Enters 2012 Race
The Tea Party Divide Grows

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter

He doesn’t really stand out in a crowd – in fact, he looks like a regular guy, the kind of guy who would own a construction business.  What Gary Johnson doesn’t look like is the great green hope, the stoner white knight coming to make America safe for the herbally inclined.  Yet legalizing pot seems to be about 80% of what everyone thinks of when the former New Mexico governor’s name comes up.  That’s too bad, in that a good chunk of what he says – the best thought-out parts – are the reddest of red meat for the kind of Republicans who wouldn’t know a bong from a bongo drum.

Johnson is a friendly guy, with an easy smile and a welcome normality that distinguishes him from the typical Stepford Spouse politician who is focus-tested and consultant-approved right down to the dead trout handshake.  But you can see in his eyes, as he starts talking to the small crowds of Republicans at party meetings across the country, that he likes to shake things up.  He starts out with straight-up Republican porn – talking about his 750 vetoes as governor and how he never, ever, raised taxes, and how he never will once he becomes President.

The crowd, initially polite but reserved, leans in, rapt – it likes what it hears.  And there’s more.  Now he’s doling out big slabs of GOP prime beef, hot and fresh from the grill.  He moves on to the Johnson Plan for cutting the deficit that makes up 43% of the federal budget , which is essentially employing the simple expedient of cutting the federal budget by 43% tomorrow.  Mainstream Republican candidates take note – these are California conservatives, which pretty much means borderline Marxists compared to our Midwestern and Southern allies, and they ate it up.  There’s a huge appetite out there in conservative-land for a guy who will not only talk about shuttering the Departments of Education and Commerce but has a crazy glint in his eyes that say he’s just nuts enough to actually do it.

And he would too – Johnson is clearly absolutely dedicated to doing what he thinks is right.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, we’re joined by D.B. Grady, a correspondent for The Atlantic, author, paratrooper, and veteran of Afghanistan, to discuss the regional fallout from the death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

D.B. Grady’s Website
The Atlantic: Veteran’s Day
DC Examiner: Pakistan’s Role as Bin Laden’s Protector
RCW: Pakistan’s Osama Problem
RCW: In Osama’s Death, a Vindication of Obama’s Choices
RCW: Should Obama Have Captured Bin Laden?
(more…)

Of course it’s great that Osama bin Laden is dead. It’s wonderful. People should be celebrating and dancing in the streets. Are Muslims dancing in the streets the way they were dancing when bin Laden took the Towers down? Crowds of cheering Americans gathered Sunday night outside the White House in Washington and at Ground Zero in New York, chanting “USA, USA.” Not a burka in the crowd. I think that’s very telling. But what is most significant about bin Laden’s death is what it reveals about Barack Obama and Pakistan.

When Obama spoke about the killing of bin Laden Sunday night, he was shameless. Every other word was “I.” I am really surprised that Obama didn’t insist that bin Laden be brought to Manhattan to stand trial. Seriously. Obama can puff himself up and shamelessly strut like peacock, claiming credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, but Gd bless our troops. Hats off to the US military that has been relentless, dogged and brave for ten years in their mission to kill that devout bastard.

In fact, it was intelligence gleaned from interrogating Gitmo detainees, specifically Khalid Sheik Muhammad, that led to capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. These are the very techniques that Obama and Holder have stopped and fought to reverse. Obama railed against these interrogations and wanted to prosecute the CIA interrogators who led to this capture.

Obama’s chest pounding leads to some troubling conclusions. If he takes credit, that causes other problems. Remember: when Muslims were killing innocent people in Afghanistan because fringe pastor Terry Jones burned a Koran in Florida, Obama said that Jones should curtail his freedom of expression, implying that he would be responsible if Muslims killed anyone because he burned a Koran. But if we follow Obama’s line of thinking, if Muslims go jihad now and start killing people because of the death of bin Laden, who will be responsible for those deaths? Barack Obama.

How does he reconcile such crippled thinking?

(more…)

From The National Journal:

But one expert on the region is warning against broad predictions today in assessing the impact of bin Laden’s death. “We need to be very cautious… in assuming it will now damage al Qaida and other Islamist extremist networks, or that we can predict the political and strategic consequences,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, in a commentary for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Strategically, he said bin Laden’s death “might have been a decisive blow in 2001 or 2002” but “may have far less effect today” on al Qaeda’s ability to attack targets. He said nobody today can possibly know how the killing of bin Laden will play with potential terrorists or in Pakistan. “We need to be very careful about what bin Laden’s death will mean for relations with Pakistan and for the war in Afghanistan,” he said.

Far from helping Obama politically, the latest development could increase the pressure on him to get American troops out of Afghanistan. It will, said Cordesman, “raise new questions about whether the Afghan war can really put an end to al Qaida and other terrorist sanctuaries and lead some of those who oppose the war to state that the U.S. and its allies should now withdraw.”

Cordesman said “it will take weeks and possibly months” to assess the strategic impact.

So that new “Mission Accomplished” banner that Democrats would love to unfurl at the next Obama campaign event? Probably best to keep it in George Bush’s attic. Less than 48 hours after such an historic event is a little too early for declarations of victory.

Read the whole thing here.

“I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” Voltaire

Who would have ever thought a philosopher from France (of all places) would support individual freedoms more than American political leaders? Not moi, but unfortunately we’re not making American political leaders like we used to!

Much has recently been made of Florida preacher Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran and the subsequent Afghanistan riots that resulted in the murders and beheadings of UN workers. What has been more repugnant, but not surprising, is the speed in which American political leaders have rushed in front of cameras to condemn Jones and even suggest restricting the First Amendment and freedom of speech!

South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CBS Face The Nation yesterday. He stated:

“You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Senate Leader Harry Reid added on the same program:

“Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Shame on these lame excuses for Americans! Graham has the audacity to state “free speech is a great idea?” No, Senator Graham, free speech is one of the cornerstone liberties that separate America from the totalitarian controls in countries where citizens suffer with the oppression of communism or sharia law. It is America’s love and defense of individual freedoms and rights that serve as the backbone of our love and defense of liberty.

(more…)

American Jews, 78% of whom voted to make Barack Obama president are continuing to move away from Obama and his policies. According to a survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) , 51% of Jews approve of the way Obama is doing his job. While that number may seem high keep in mind that the AJC poll conducted in March 2010, showed the president with a 58% approval.

As expected, there is an uncomfortableness with Obama based on his Middle East Policies (although they still support his efforts), but surprisingly, many of the President’s economics policies are not popular with the Jewish community.
Approve of the way Obama is handling:

• The Economy 45% approve (51% disapprove)
• Health Care 51% approve (46% disapprove)
• Homeland Security 62% approve (33% disapprove)
• Gulf oil spill  53% approve (42% disapprove)
• The Iran nuclear issue 43% approve (46% disapprove)

Also surprising is the fact that American Jews support the controversial Arizona law to curb illegal immigration:

• A new law in Arizona gives police the power to ask people they’ve stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law? Support 52% Oppose 46%

• Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration’s handling of U.S. -Israel relations? The last poll conducted in March reported a 55% approval, that number today has slipped to 49%. During that same period support of the way Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is handling US-Israel relations has grown from 57% to 62%.

• Not that Jews are ready to leap into the laps of the GOP, when asked if they think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress? Republican 33%, Democrat 57%

The Most Important Issues to the Jewish Community are the same as those of the general population the economy.

(more…)

Last night I read the front-page Washington Post story on Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars. Frankly the article gave me nightmares. The revelations about Obama’s naive views on terrorism and his lack of a firm commitment to the Afghan War  was nothing really new, they simply confirmed many of the worst fears about our President and the War on Terror. But Obama’s priorities, hes desire to place politics before victory was both surprising and upsetting.

The book details how Obama is not trying to win the war as much as he was desperately trying to placate his progressive base, regardless of the safety of American citizens. At one point the POTUS tells Woodward directly:

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

Holy Cow!! Tell that to the families of the terrorist attack’s victims.

Even worse the book reports that President Obama did not even want to hear about many of the terrorist threats:

During a daily intelligence briefing in May 2009, Mr. Blair [former Director of Intelligence] warned the president that radicals with American and European passports were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands. Mr. Emanuel afterward chastised him, saying, “You’re just trying to put this on us so it’s not your fault.” Mr. Blair also skirmished with Mr. Brennan about a report on the failed airliner terrorist attack on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama later forced Mr. Blair out.

Obama’s Wars,  covers last fall’s agonizingly slow Afghanistan strategy review last fall. One of the reasons for the snail-like pace for developing a plan was Obama seemed more interested in mapping out an exit plan than winning the war. The book makes it clear that the U.S. military has been asked to achieve its goals in Afghanistan without the level of troops they requested and in an unrealistic time frame.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

The minister of a Florida church said he has canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the leader of a much-opposed plan to build an Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its location. The agreement couldn’t be immediately confirmed.

The Rev. Terry Jones said Thursday that Americans oppose the mosque being built at the location and that Muslims do not want the Quran burned. He said instead of his plan to burn the books on Saturday to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11, he will be flying to New York to speak to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf about moving the mosque.

“We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans,” Jones said during a news conference. We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it.” (more…)

As the Central Illinois 9/12 Project has briefly written about in the past, one form of banking in which Shorebank is engaged is microfinance, especially in foreign countries. As this is not a type of finance that is well known to the general public, we will discuss briefly what microfinancing is, how it is used in conjunction with green initiatives and Sharia law, and how Shorebank is using this type of financing in their banking processes.

The Consultive Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) defines microfinance as simply “the  supply of loans, savings, and other basic financial services to the poor.”  These loans are generally relatively small, but carry with them a high interest rate due to costs incurred by defaulting on loans and the transaction costs that are disproportionate to the size of the loan.  (The cost of manpower and other factors needed to make the loan are the same regardless of the size of the loan – thus for smaller loans, the  percentage of these costs in relation to the amount of the loan is greater.)  Specifically, the microfinancing industry enables people to receive loans when they would not otherwise be able to do so, whether due to poverty, lack of a bank account, inability to provide collateral, and/or inability to prove employment. In 2007, there were 873 microfinance institutions worldwide serving more than 133 million loan recipients.

Microfinance was initially, and oftentimes still is, aimed at providing loans and opportunities to those who otherwise may not have the funds to get a business off of the ground, but microfinance is sometimes tied into other things such as green initiatives. Shorebank, a community development bank whose practices the Central Illinois 912 Project has highlighted before, is a partner in an eco entrepreneurship through a project called “Yurtcozy.” This initiative allows individuals to “offset their carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits which enable a microfinance loan recipient to receive funding  for things such as energy efficient appliances and solar lighting. It may also finance education on clean energy for microfianance recipients and partnerships in green initiatives. Yurtcozy asserts that if the carbon credit purchases were made for all microfinance loan recipients worldwide, then loan recipients could decrease their carbon emissions by 260 million tons, and thirty percent of their income would be unlocked.

One of Shorebank’s first forays into microfinance was through the establishment of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. Grameen Bank was founded by Mohammed Yumus, a Noble Peace Prize Recipient in 2006 and 2009 recipient of the Congressional Medal of Freedom from President Obama. Yumus’ description of the features of Grameencredit includes stating that “credit is a right,” and it’s built on “trust” (i.e., social justice in banking.)

(more…)

Money will make a whore out of just about anyone, apparently even unionized teachers.

The American Federation of Teachers recently passed a resolution at its annual convention which demands an immediate cessation of American activities in Afghanistan. From the Democratic Socialists of America website:

Delegates adopted a resolution that puts the giant teacher union on new ground in opposition to the war and occupation of Afghanistan, opposing any further escalation and calling for “rapid, orderly withdrawal of all armed forces and military contractors, to begin immediately.”

But what’s funny – not to mention hypocritical – is that the teachers union is also pushing the $80 billion war spending bill because it contains pork for public schools. The bill is now in the Senate where it faces likely changes or defeat altogether.

So on the one hand, the union opposes the war, but will push to continue funding it if it contains funds for its members.

(more…)

The original $23 billion in public education stimulus spending has been whittled down to $10 billion and cynically stuffed in a bill to continue funding the war effort in Afghanistan.  While Democrats can hardly be accused of coming up with the idea, it’s a maneuver that we can ill afford right now.

If the Democrats had the courage to continue racking up debt to give handouts to their political supporters, they’d promote the bill on its own. But they don’t, so it’s stuck in a bill that has nothing to do with education and everything to do with a war effort President Obama once said “We need to win.”

Perhaps he should remind his fellow Democrats of that and not allow them to hold the war in Afghanistan  hostage by demanding pork barrel spending to satisfy campaign financiers.

Worse yet, the president and his administration are allowing members of their own party to strip funding away from one of Obama’s signature initiatives, Race to the Top – a $4 billion fund aimed at incentivizing reforms such as performance pay and charter schools.

So Democrats such as Rep. Dave Obey want to take funds away from reform and give them to maintaining a failing status quo.  Is that where the Democratic Party really stands on sensible and much-needed reform?  Apparently when the going gets tough, they revert back to instinct: whatever Big Labor wants, Big Labor gets.  Don Loos exposed a communication on BigGovernment.com showing the firefighters union president explaining it was Big Labor’s idea to attach public works spending to the war bill.

(more…)

[UPDATE (7/2/2010): Pelosi plan worked  239-182]

Pelosi is using important money for armed services fighting a war as an opportunity to reward Big Labor with another federal power grab:

From National Right To Work President Mark Mix:

I don’t know about you, but I’m OUTRAGED.

In a matter of just a few hours, union-label Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies will take up emergency war funding.

And attached to the war supplemental is Big Labor’s Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill!

The union bossed and their allies have proved they will stop at nothing to pass this scheme.

That’s why it’s vital you contact your Congressman at (202) 224-3121 or send an email here IMMEDIATELY to urge a vote against the Obey Amendment to H.R. 4899.

You see, if passed, this dangerous bill could force every police officer and firefighter in the country under union boss control, override state and local labor laws across the nation and lead to MAMMOTH state and local tax hikes.

So what does this Big Labor payback scheme have to do with the Afghan War or national security?

Literally NOTHING

(more…)