So, what is a "dhimmi"?

Ever heard of the Mafia running "protection rackets"? If the local baker, or grocer, or florist or barber pays the mob a certain percentage of their revenue, the Mafia will "make sure nuttin' happens" to their property, thus offering "protection." Of course, what that payment "protected" them from was the Mafia they were paying to "protect" them. See also extortion.

That's what "dhimmitude" is. You pay the local mosque a certain amount of money, they'll make sure "nuttin' happens" to you. Of course, if you don't, then "sumtin' might happen." And guess who would "make it happen." That is the type of government that people like Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, and the left-wing media in this country want us to live under.

For a fuller explanation, go here.

Next verse, same as the first

"The MOST ethical Congress...EVER!!!!!" Er, something. Apparently Dingy Harry doesn't care enough about being "ethical" to allow you, the public, who pays his salary doesn't get anything back in return, to know what you're paying for. If he did, then why did he and his cronies feel the need to gut the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007", also known as the "earmark reform bill"? (via Porkbusters):

Porkbusters obtained the latest version of the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007’’, and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

--The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.

--The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.

--The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.

--The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.

But don't take our word for it: you can download a PDF of the new text right here. Check it out, and if you find more nasty surprises in there, please leave a comment and tell us what you've discovered...

Over at Right Wing News, they ahve posted a chart so you can more easily follow what WAS in the bill, and how the Democrats have changed it to keep everything secret.

Now, you've probably heard the term "earmark" quite a bit in the news, especially when it comes to many in the "most ethical congress...EVER!!!" putting in their requests for more money to go to catfish hatcheries in Lonesome Turtle, NV or, say, a museum commemorating the human dungpile that was Woodstock. But just what is an "earmark"? Well, according to an article in Slate Magazine online,

No one can agree on the precise definition. In general, the word "earmark" refers to any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing—a given project, say, or location, or institution. For example, if Congress passed a budget that gave a certain amount of money to the National Park Service as a whole, no one would consider it an earmark. But if Congress added a line to the budget specifying that some of that money must go toward the preservation of a single building—definitely an earmark.

Some earmarks are easy to spot, like this year's $500,000 grant to the Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C. But an expenditure doesn't have to be an earmark just because it's specific. Defense spending bills, for example, come with a very detailed accounting of how each dollar will be spent. When the DoD submits a request for funds, it might tell Congress exactly how much money would be used to buy a particular kind of fighter plane. In another context, this level of specificity would merit the scarlet E; for a defense bill, it's business as usual. (Using the broadest definition, you could say that all defense spending is "earmarked.")

in other words, it's pork. And people like Dingy Harry, and "Happy Jack" Murtha, and many of the other "reformers" don't want you to know that, contrary to what they told you during their campaigns, they don't have any more desire to raise ethical standards than they do to have their eyeballs plucked out. But, the American voters bought their lies, and now we're stuck with them. And the beat goes on...

Friday Fillmore Funnies--6/22/07

Immigration bill: Not quite a doornail

Well, just when those of us with a brain in our head thought that the most asinine piece of legislation to ever erupt out of the dunghill that is Washington, DC had bitten the dust, some goofball nicknamed "Dingy" has decided that he just can't sleep a wink unless he allows the 12-20 million people who disrespected this ocuntry's laws to remain here including people like this, this and this (via Right Wing News):

First off, it does look like the Senate immigration bill is coming back. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it's going to be brought up right before the July 4th break, so that the Senate Republican leadership can try to use that as leverage to get votes (In other words, "vote for the bill or we'll have to waste your vacation time until you do").

You know, when a guy dates a girl who's already seeing someone else, gets her to break up with her boyfriend, and then finds out later that she's cheating on HIM, why does he seem surprised. In much the same way, why are people surprised that so many people who are here ILLEGALLY are criminals, and many want to kill us?

Harry Reid--more unpopular than the President!

I don't hear a lot of chatter among the left to get rid of Harry Reid, even though The Dingy One's poll numbers are far below those of President Bush (via Rasmussen):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.

Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid’s highest ratings were 30% favorable in February.

Each week, Rasmussen Reports updates favorability ratings for a number of political figures and others in the news. The latest numbers for Defense Secretary Robert Gates reflect a steady decline in recent months. He is now viewed favorably by 36% of Americans and unfavorably by 34%. Last December, 49% have a favorable opinion and only 26% held a negative opinion.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s numbers held steady—38% favorable and 58% unfavorable.

Oh my gosh, I can almost hear the chafing among the liberal elites as I type! For crying out loud, CHENEY'S FAVORABLE numbers are TWICE AS HIGH as Dingy's! And the VP's unfavorable figures aren't much higher than Dingy's! Does that tell you anything about the direction this country is headed? If Dingy Harry keeps going along the track he's on, we'll take back the Senate easily in '08.

So, Dennis Miller, tell us how you really feel about Harry.

¿Tiene Carta Verde?

Apparently, in Harry Reid's universe, you don't need one. (For all you non-Spanish speakers, the title of the post says, "¿Got Green Card?") Because, according to The Dingy One (via Michelle Malkin):

This week, we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong. In the days ahead, we will work to improve the bill to protect and strengthen family ties while improving the structure of the temporary-worker program.

Um, excuse me. What did I miss here? 12 million people who came into this country illegally, who had no respect for our borders or our soveriegnty or our laws, many of whom come here to do us harm, and rob our welfare system...since when do we consider them to be Americans? Well, I guess when you're desperate to hang on to the House and Senate majority you worked so hard to get, and you really want to win the White House, you want to sign up as many new Democratic voters as you can.