Virginia Dhimmis In Action

Lawmakers ripped over 9/11 mosque fundraiser
Democrat congressmen 'trashed their oath to protect U.S.'

An anti-jihad watchdog group has slammed two U.S. lawmakers for breaking their oath to protect the country by agreeing to appear as special guests at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for a radical Saudi-funded mosque tied to the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter, among other Islamic terrorists.

Reps. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have "trashed their oath to protect and defend the U.S." by agreeing to attend the annual banquet for Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a large mosque in Falls Church, Va., a suburb of Washington, according to the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, or VAST.

The group also criticized Virginia Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine for agreeing to attend the event, while praising Democrat Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia for withdrawing from the event following complaints from concerned constituents.

......according to the book, "Muslim Mafia," Connolly and Moran have received thousands of dollars in donations from several Virginia Islamists under federal investigation for financing terrorism. In addition, the book reveals, Connolly received an $18,758 windfall from the Saudi government's U.S. public relations firm while fighting to keep open a Saudi-owned madrassa in Northern Virginia also tied to terrorism.

Dar Al-Hijrah hosted at least two of the 9/11 terrorists who attacked the Pentagon, as well as the Fort Hood terrorist and an al-Qaida sleeper agent convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali graduated valedictorian from the Saudi madrassa – Islamic Saudi Academy – in Alexandria, Va.

VA-11 News on Healthcare Repeal

Fimian, Herrity sign on to health care repeal pledges
By: William C. Flook

The two Virginia Republicans seeking to challenge 11th District Rep. Gerry Connolly have signed a pledge vowing to repeal the federal health care overhaul, further cementing the nearly $1 trillion initiative as the central issue in the June primary.
Both candidates already had denounced the legislation, which Connolly backed. Pat Herrity, a Fairfax County supervisor, labeled the Democratic incumbent "Gerry Pelosi" and announced he would "work tirelessly to repeal this bill." Keith Fimian, a businessman who ran against Connolly in 2008, charged the changes would "devastate the best health care system in the world."

But putting their names on a repeal pledge represents an irreversible promise to conservatives -- and other opponents of the health care overhaul -- who will decide the GOP nominee. And it signals that both Herrity and Fimian are putting great stock in public unease over remaking the nation's health care system.

"The two biggest problems we have are out-of-control spending and our failure to create jobs and get the economy back on track," Herrity said. "And this bill makes those two problems worse, and adds a whole new one in terms of threatening our quality of health care."

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Not a Cop; He's a Security Officer

TO: Fairfax County Public School Security Office
RE: Security Officer Behavior at 1st Amendment Protected Assembly

Your security officer was completely out of line and violated the attendees' 1st Amendment rights.

I suggest sensitivity training and a civics class.

His only justification for his behavior was HIS opinion of a sign being carried by the attendee.
Just because HE doesn't like it, doesn't give him the authority to prohibit the sign.

His final comment... "It aint no more" to the attendee's comment about this being America is frightening in its implications.

This most certainly IS America. We still have a Constitution. People are still free to speak their mind.



Earlier reports that Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. is a police officer were in error. Further investigation has revealed Officer Cheeks is a member of the Fairfax County Public Schools' trained School Security Officer team. To contact the school's security force, e-mail Fred Ellis, the director of safety and security for Fairfax County Public Schools, or Jim McLain, the security coordinator.

Military Absentee Ballots Being Rejected?

From our friends at Vets for Freedom

Fairfax County Virginia Rejection of Military Absentee Ballots

· The Fairfax County Registrar—and possibly other Registrars in Virginia—is rejecting most Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWAB) cast by our men and women in uniform.

· The FWAB is a federally mandated write-in ballot that allows military servicemembers and their dependents to cast an absentee ballot when they have not received a ballot before the election. It is a safety net that allows a servicemember to vote even if the mail truck hasn't reached his or her remote base in Iraq or Afghanistan in time to cast a regular absentee ballot.

· Why is the Fairfax Registrar rejecting these ballots? The Registrar states that the witness who signs the envelope containing the FWAB must include his or her address—but most of the ballots don't include the witness' address.

· Virginia law does not require a witness address for any other type of absentee ballot. So, for example, a Virginia resident attending college out of state does not need to include her witness' address on her absentee ballot envelope. But the Fairfax County Registrar is holding servicemembers, including those currently defending their country in war zones, to a much more exacting standard, requiring the witnesses who sign their FWABs to include their address.

· To make matters worse, the Federal form (SF-186A) that is used for the FWAB does not have a space for witnesses to include their address. And the Department of Defense's official Voting Assistance Guide, which it provides to servicemembers as an instruction manual for casting votes while overseas, does not tell servicemembers that they must include an address for their witness. The servicemember would thus have no way of knowing of this requirement.

· Federal law does not allow this type of disparate treatment of servicemembers. The Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act (UOCAVA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973ff-2, requires states to process FWABs "in the manner provided by law for absentee ballots in the State involved." (emphasis added). In other words, the FWAB must be treated like any other absentee ballot under state law and may not be subject to more restrictive requirements. Yet that is precisely what is being done here.