abolitionofman.com

A Defense of the West

abolitionofman.com header image 2

Gilchrest Now turns on Israel Too

June 28th, 2007 · 5 Comments

Update 6/29/2007:

spectrum-400149.pngAccording to Govtrack , Gilchrest is very nearly a Democrat.

6/28/2007

baltmtg4.jpgIt’s hard to believe I ever voted for this man. He joined thirty others in Congress to allow for unfettered aid to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

From Ed Lasky at the American Thinker:

Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) has been a stalwart supporter of the American-Israel alliance. He recently introduced an amendment to the foreign aid bill that would prohibit groups that deny Israel’s right to exist from receiving American (taxpayer dollar) foreign aid. The amendment passed 390-30.

—- NOES 30 —

Baird
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Dingell
Ellison
Gilchrest
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
LaHood
Lee
McDermott
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Rahall
Slaughter
Stark
Waters
Watt
Welch (VT)

Please email Andrew Harris to encourage him to run against this RINO. Besides encouraging Dr. Harris to run, I urge you to send Rep. Gilchrest an email here. Here’s what I wrote:

Rep. Gilchrest, Do you realize you voted against an amendment that would deny U.S foreign aid to any group that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist? How do you justify this vote? Do you deny Israel’s right to exist? This is unbelievable. What has happened to you? This is your worst vote yet this session, and there is a lot of competition for this dubious title. Well I guess we will see what happens in 2008. You’ve lost at least 20 Republicans votes which I can count, and I will work on more. Good luck with your support of Hamas and Hezbollah. -David Dvorak

Update: (The actual amendment and floor comments below the fold)

The specifics and the reasoning for introducing the amendment are below:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pence:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June 20, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today includes in various ways tens of millions of dollars that would be directed to advancing U.S. interests in areas known as the West Bank and Gaza.

Given the recent violent and tragic events in the Palestinian territories and the strong commitment of this body to prevent taxpayer funding from reaching the hands of terrorists, I offer an amendment that reinforces previous prohibitions on funding Palestinian terrorist organizations and offer it for my colleagues’ consideration on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, except as otherwise provided by existing law.”

So what is existing law? The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act last year, in 2006. It was signed into law in December. It states that, “No ministry, agency or instrumentality of the Palestinian Authority effectively controlled by Hamas” would be eligible for funding unless it meets the basic preconditions of civil society, namely, recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence.

The purpose of this amendment today is to clarify that assistance may be provided to the Fattah elements of the PA government, assuming such elements are not engaged in the terrorism or compromise by the terrorism of Hamas. Concern about the application of this provision may have led the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mrs. Lowey, to put a hold and request information from Secretary Rice about her intent to release funding to the PA.

Now, these safeguards and other relevant laws are critical because they prohibit assistance to terrorists, including to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority, but they permit assistance to a PA government that is in


compliance with the principles of recognition of Israel, previous peace agreements, and a renunciation of violence. Why is it necessary? Well, because, given the systematic instability, we simply don’t know what shape the Palestinian government will take in the coming months. Large portions of the Palestinian territories are in virtual anarchy at this moment. Even worse, Gaza is completely dominated by Hamas, a universally recognized terrorist organization. We cannot permit one red cent of U.S. dollars to find its way to Hamas.After lengthy discussions with the Department of State, including Secretary of State Rice herself, I would like my colleagues to know that this amendment is not opposed by the State Department. In fact, I had a warm and candid conversation today with the Secretary of State, and I told her then that it is critical that we clarify that the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 is still the law of the land and reiterate its intent, namely, to deny funding to terrorist entities within the Palestinian leadership.Mr. Chairman, we cannot permit any ambiguity to exist on this subject. This body should be on the record today, as we have before, that no American tax dollars can be delivered to any authority within the Palestinian territories that is compromised or even tainted by Hamas or other terrorist interests.

Tags: Election 08 · News

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 No shoes needed // Jun 28, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    What else was in the amendment?

  • 2 DaveD // Jun 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    there are no text on the amendment up on Thomas yet; but here is the link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=h388

  • 3 Bernie Dvorak // Jun 28, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Here is an email I sent to Dave on April 21, 2007.
    It bears repeating here.

    Dave,

    I thought you might be interested in joining me, working for Andy Harris next year.
    He is a doctor from Hopkins and a true conservative on virtually every issue.

    Mom (Penny has worked as a RN at Hopkins for over 45 years & has often worked with Doctor Harris over the years) thinks the world of him as a Dr. & a good person, as I do, since he is a honest conservative legislator.
    We had always put his signs on our lawn before redistricting.

    Dad

    ——————————————————————————–

    By Tom LoBianco
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES Click on this link for Andy Harris’ resume
    http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa02793.html

    April 21, 2007

    ANNAPOLIS — A Republican state senator says he is considering a primary challenge against Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, based upon the growing disillusionment with Mr. Gilchrest within the party.
    State Sen. Andrew P. Harris, a Baltimore County Republican, is touring Mr. Gilchrest’s district while he considers a run next year against the 16-year incumbent.
    Mr. Harris said it was “no secret” that he was making the rounds at party fundraisers while deciding whether to run against Mr. Gilchrest, but said he needs to hear from the state’s top Republicans before deciding to run.
    “The dissent may have reached a critical level,” Mr. Harris said earlier this week at a Republican fundraiser in Anne Arundel County.

    Click on this link for the whole story.- http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070420105543-2539r.htm

    If you want to email Andy to encourage him to run against Gilchrest, phone or click here: 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3706 (toll free)
    e-mail: andrew.harris@senate.state.md.us
    fax: (410) 841-3750, (301) 858-3750

  • 4 Anon // Jun 29, 2007 at 8:30 am

    Perhaps you shouldn’t support Gilcrest but doesn’t it makes sense to base your decision on his broader performance rather than his vote on one issue? (albeit a bad vote and a mistake)

    Similar to war, no one can be perfect – casting all their votes in the way you prefer. Mistakes will be made. Is one mistake any reason to withdraw your support?

  • 5 DaveD // Jun 29, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Unfortunately this isn’t one mistake. If it was I wouldn’t care much, but Gilchrest’s votes have been inline with the Democrats on the war for this entire session including voting for withdrawal requirements attached to the troops funding in March.

Leave a Comment