Put a Warrior in the White House

Forum - please excuse this post - it is not spam.
I was obliged to answer the questions put to me, with my last 2 posts. But as you are aware, this has become a most delicate and passionate issue and in order to assure the forum and mmarsh of my position & sincerity in them I am posting here a poem I wrote last month regarding the legitimacy of War and I believe it brings into focus our ultimate dependacy upon the miltary. As it happens it in no way involved the question of abortion at the time; I have never written on that subject because it is such a personal issue.


WAR

Would you fight to save a baby,
Helpless but for you. ?
Would you fight to save your children,
When the wolves were at the door?
Would you fight to save your soul-mate,
The one you vowed to live for?
Would you fight to save your neighbour
From slavery and death?
In the stand to save your country
Would you offer your last breath?
Would you fight to save a people
From deliberate extinction?


When they said
We will allow
No children
Less than one metre tall
To survive
In this community
And they conducted
Regular rounds
With a measuring stick
For the small children
Who
Tried to stretch upwards
To become taller,
To avoid extinction,
Would you fight?


Would you fight to save the world
From enslavement and oppression
Others would impose upon it?
Would you fight to save your soul,
My friend,
When you heard your conscience call ?
This is the great dilemma.

We call it war.


c.may2007

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
First of all lets be clear about the terminology.

In the US, a fetus is not a baby, nor a kid, nor even a human being. The United States Supreme Court (which interprets the US Constitution) has only recognized a fetus as being 1/4 of a human being (Roe vs Wade, 1971). Fetuses have very little rights (almost none) according to US law. Its just like the yoke of an egg cannot be considered a chicken. Therefore because US law does not consider a fetus to be Human, an abortion can not be considered murder. At the same time, the Fetus's mother does have full rights of Life and liberty which means she is entitled to govern her body in the way she sees fit, until the final stages of pregnancy when the Fetus legally becomes a baby and inherits the rights gaurenteed to it by the US Constitution. Thats is how the law in interpreted in the USA, and over 70% of Americans are pro-choice.

One last point. In the US if you are against abortion you are considered pro-life, if you are for keeping it legal you are pro-choice. It doesn't mean your an activist, it just defines you as where you stand on the issue. That's all I meant by pro-life. I am pro-choice, but I am not an activist either.

In terms of Immigration, as much as we try and pretend that racism is dead in America, it isn't. I think racism is the issue for many people, espicially those who want to deport every illegal they find. I find it funny that nobody never mentions the thousands of illegals from countries from places like China, and that the debate is almost totally focased on the Mexican Border. I don't think people are completely honest with themselves as to the reasons of why the are against immigration. There ARE some good reasons, but you never hear them mentioned.

Case in point, Just a few days ago Bill O'Reilly (Fox News GOP apologist) and John McCain was discussing immigration and bemoaned the loss of the "white, Christian, male, power structure". When pressed, McCain doesn't actually deny that Racism is a factor, (he skillfully ducks the question).

The transcript and video are here:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10970.html

In terms of WWII yes the Americans played an important role in liberating Europe (my other Grandfather was at D-Day), but that doesn't serve as the universal excuse to do whatever the US pleases especially when it 60 years later. A true friend advises you on what's in your best interest, even when its not what you want to hear. I would have vastly preferred that Blair had told Bush what an awful idea invading Iraq was, instead of sucking up to him. By playing the part of 'Bush's poodle' not only did he facilitate America's descent into this god-awful mess he allowed Britain to be dragged down with it.
 
Last edited:
We are right on it Bulldog, don't worry.

The following is addressed to mmarsh -

Tell that to The marines, or in this case to the baby whose head is crushed.
No-one needs a law to recognise killing. As i clearly stated - life is snuffed out.

As for the rest, yes, I am on your case now - all who are concerned with immigration are racists to a degree! What a sad take!

Listen to me - My country is full of this stuff you peddle, and it eats away at the moral fibre of the nation continually, we become weaker and weaker.

America should beware of those who nibble away at its long held principles.

And it would be nice not to lightly sweep aside America's contribution to WW11. They saved Europe then, so that you can now sit comfortably in Paris.

America is freedom's only hope. If they lose their moral conviction, who will pick up the baton. Not those who cannot be trusted to defend the spark of life.

Do I detect a sudden dropping of the Holocaust issue?

I would not dream of interfering in American politics, and I do not require instructions regarding how Britain should treat the greatest friend we ever had. We agreed with our friend. History will judge. The unfortunate point is how poorly the post war arrangements were handled.

We are involved in a Global War against Fundamental Islamic Ideology.
You were late in recognising it. Sep 11 woke the giant. The worst move the enemy ever made. I suppose that you yourself are in denial regarding that as well. The enemy within? Rubbish, I suppose! Your attitude is translated by the enemy as the weak under-belly that will bring about your destruction.

The question for you is, is it too late for Europe? Or, more to the point, is it too late for Europe without the support of the US.

When the time comes that you are confronted by the dragon - will you tell it your country has a law against it?
 
Last edited:
We are right on it Bulldog, don't worry.

The following is addressed to mmarsh -

Tell that to The marines, or in this case to the baby whose head is crushed. No-one needs a law to recognise killing. As i clearly stated - life is snuffed out.

We are a society of laws and we respect those laws whether we agree or not. In the US there are laws in that making killing in certain cases legal. The Death penalty is legal, as is assisted suicided (in certain states), as is abortion. Sometimes killing is a necessary evil, and no it doesn't bother me. There is far worse in the world to get hung up on the trivial matter like abortion.

As for the rest, yes, I am on your case now - all who are concerned with immigration are racists to a degree! What a sad take!

You didn't read what I said did you? I never said all people, just that racism is bigger issue than people give it credit for. Trying to twist around my words will not prove you right.

Listen to me - My country is full of this stuff you peddle, and it eats away at the moral fibre of the nation continually, we become weaker and weaker.

People are sick and tired of being lectured to about their lack of 'morality'. Are you really so pure yourself? I highly doubt it. I have lots of British collegues and I dont them moan about the lack of moral fiber in Britian. People who complain about a societies lack of morality also happen to have the political/social views that society has rejected. Its just sour grapes to me. What I can say is because the UK is now one of the most powerful nation in the World and is now stronger on the world stage than it has been in the past 50 years, that we can dispense the gloomy and unfounded predictions about of the collapse of morality within the British Empire.

America should beware of those who nibble away at its long held principles.
And it would be nice not to lightly sweep aside America's contribution to WW11. They saved Europe then, so that you can now sit comfortably in Paris.

I believe in remembering that past, not dwelling on it. I, like most people wasn't born in 1944. Do you really expect me to dwell on ancient History that I didn't experience myself? I prefer to spend my energy on the present and future. The only person who is sweeping aside his countries contribution in WWII is yourself. I have not heard you mention one thing about your own countries contribution which I find odd because your country suffered more during WWII than mine did.

America is freedom's only hope. If they lose their moral conviction, who will pick up the baton. Not those who cannot be trusted to defend the spark of life.

What makes you think we are so pure? Have you not read about Abu Garib? About Torture? so on and so forth. We are a great nation but we do not wish to be put on a Global Pedestal (I don't think the world wants us on that pedestal either). The US can certainly provide assistance, but ultimately people need to find their own freedom. Its not our job to play world cop, we have our own problems...

Do I detect a sudden dropping of the Holocaust issue?

Yes, but not because of you. As Bulldogg stated we are way off-topic. You're new here, The Mods here don't like when the subject goes too far off as it has now. I am trying to move this thread back to the subject. Start a new thread and I gaurentee you won't find me timid. But I am done here.

We are involved in a Global War against Fundamental Islamic Ideology.
You were late in recognising it. Sep 11 woke the giant. The worst move the enemy ever made. I suppose that you yourself are in denial regarding that as well. The enemy within? Rubbish, I suppose! Your attitude is translated by the enemy as the weak under-belly that will bring about your destruction.

I would be mindful of telling a New Yorker about being in denial or of anything else having to do with 9-11. I witnessed the death of many people I knew that day. Can you say the same? My father also lost a few aqaintences as well, not to mention the firehouse on my street that lost 19 guys from the station house when the building collapsed on top of them. I still remember their faces and the offices of our clients at the Cantor Fitzgerald office, but do not recall their names. There were almost no survivors of the entire 700 person staff. On this subject I probably know most than most people here, because it was my hometown that got attacked, not yours. Remember that, the next time you try and play the 9-11 trump card.

And No, the fact that al-Qaeda overstepped was not lost on us. For example did you know that one of bin Laden son (when he heard about 9-11) abandoned his father in the Afgan Mountains when he heard about it, he thought his dad had brought disaster on them. Nor were we New Yorkers surprised about the attacks, although we didn't imagine the scale. There was the 1993 WTC attacks and several other minor attacks done by various Palestinian groups. Unfortunatly that opportunity is know lost thanks to tragic missteps of foreign policy. According to the CIA, Al-qaeda is now stronger than ever.

With all the misery in the Middle East, something was bound to follow us back here. As long as we meddle in Arab affairs, we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism.


The question for you is, is it too late for Europe? Or, more to the point, is it too late for Europe without the support of the US.

You really have a poor view on Europe don't you? The French have been fighting Islamic Extremists since the 1950's. And they are much more experienced at it that the Americans are. Their anti-terrorism commandos (RAID) are considered the best in the world so much so that your own SAS trains on a regular basis. The fact is the French have not had a successful attack on French soil in about 15 years. They have done this WITHOUT American help.


When the time comes that you are confronted by the dragon - will you tell it your country has a law against it?

Absolutely, because we don't fight monsters by becoming monsters ourselves. We are civilized, they aren't. Thats what makes us better then them.

This is my last post. We are too far Off-topic so I am disengaging before the mods step in.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh - your ' triviality of abortion' is in fact mankind's greatest error, and you might like to know that your quoted ruling has well passed it's sell-by date, 1971. This is 2007 for pete's sake.

I believe it is you who didn't read what you wrote.

The rest of the tripe you have cast around is not worthy of an answer;
the cliches I am so familiar with are paraded out one at a time. Who questioned your morality? Please don't attempt to set me up against your establishment ; my comments have all been addressed directly to you, and they have involved merely an exchange of personal opinions, that's all. Your morality is you own responsibility, I have no wish to be loaded up with your worn out labels; I can collect that stuff anywhere, cheap.

Was that your best shot?
Well then, I have to go along with the original post you picked up on; that is - you do need a warrior in the White House.

I'm done here on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff DelBoy, nice to know there are people like yourself across the pond. I wouldn't take MMarsh's shots to heart mate. ;) Its more like a sign of intelligence on your part when he starts firing cross yer bow.
 
Thank you kindly Bulldog. And my hand to mmarsh. I just try to fight my corner as hard as I can until the whistle blows. That's the very best thing about a good forum. When I take on the newspapers here , mostly on sport, they can just use the spike, so only one side of the argument is seen!

Apologies for getting involved in American affairs, that was never my intention. Anyway, I have no axe to grind here other than the hopefully good debate. But with some passion of course. God Bless America, bulldog.
 
Our choice in President has effects in every country so I would hardly call it a matter of internal affairs. I, for one, welcome the input of people who are not American when discussing choices in President. There is no better way for my CONUS bound citizens to know how POTUS is seen and felt by others in foreign lands where things like our "foreign policy" are usually a direct hand in their internal affairs, for better or worse. To be fair, we rarely hold our own tongues when viewing the national leaders of other countries so why would a thinking man expect different of an Englishman, a Scot, a Czech, et al?

No sir, DB, by all means do NOT hold your tongue but instead, broaden the minds of some of our younger members with your wisdom and views, lack of American passport be damned.
 
Again Bulldog, thanks for the courtesy the forum has shown me.
And just maybe I have a little claim for my attachment to America.
records have recently come to light establishing that right back then one of my grandfathers was, in fact, the friend and sponsor of Christopher Columbus, and spurred him to his journey, providing navigation charts and the first METAL (therefore accurate) astrolabe invention. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. He negotiated with the King and Queen for support, and went on to do the same for Vasca da Gama. And one more thing - my name is BOSTON. Oh, and my uncle fought Max Schmelling just like Joe Louis. Lastly - I have a personal message sent to me by Mae West. I've been in the White House, The Senate, The Ford Theatre and I have spent time on Governors Island. Now I guess I really am off-thread, just trying to justify my interuption.:smile:
 
Thank you kindly Bulldog. And my hand to mmarsh. I just try to fight my corner as hard as I can until the whistle blows. That's the very best thing about a good forum. When I take on the newspapers here , mostly on sport, they can just use the spike, so only one side of the argument is seen!

Apologies for getting involved in American affairs, that was never my intention. Anyway, I have no axe to grind here other than the hopefully good debate. But with some passion of course. God Bless America, bulldog.

Hand is extended as well, we will just have to agree to disagree...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter

Parent's Empowerment Act

On April 28, 2004, Hunter introduced legislation that he said could "turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity."[19] HR 6390 IH, also called the "Parents Empowerment Act",[20] would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue in federal court anyone who knowingly disseminates material "that is harmful to minors", or specifically, "any pornographic communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other pornographic matter of any kind",[21] if it is distributed in a way that "a reasonable person can expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material and the minor, as a result to exposure to the material, is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare."
Hunter's call for Harry Reid to resign after Reid declared that the Iraq war is "lost"

On April 25, 2007, after Senate Majority leader Harry Reid declared "the war is lost", Hunter wrote "my highest obligation is, like yours, owed to our forces in uniform, especially during this time of war...Given your position of leadership within the United States Government, I find your pronouncement of failure irresponsible and disserving to America's armed forces. In light of the fact that this statement has both been used by our adversaries and has exhibited a marked lack of leadership to U.S. troops, I call on you to resign your leadership position".[27] Hunter further wrote that Reid's declaration "can have no effect but to demoralize the brave men and women, who are honorably fulfilling their mission in Iraq, and to encourage our adversaries...Even if you sincerely believe it to be true, your pronouncement of failure will undoubtedly be used by terrorist leaders to rally their followers — inevitably leading to increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duncan_Hunter

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 1 1/2 minutes to respond to the first assertion just made by my colleague, to the effect that we sent the troops in without what he called life-saving equipment.

When we finished the Clinton administration, virtually no one in any of the 10 Army divisions, which, incidentally, had been cut from 14 Army divisions when that administration went into power, none of the 10 divisions that were left, virtually none of them had any bulletproof vests, any of this body armor that we talk about that our troops have today.

When we went into the first operation, we had much more than the Clinton administration had. At that point we had a number of the inserts, of the so-called Small Arms Protective Inserts. We had the outer tactical vests that incorporate those inserts with all of our Marines, with all of the infantry units going in with the U.S. Army. And very quickly after that, we developed a plan in which we fielded body armor for not only the people on the front lines, the infantry, the artillery, the armor, but also everybody that is in theater.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely outrageous to tell the American people that the Americans were dangerously unequipped when we went into Iraq. We went in with better equipment than we have ever had in any wars that this country has ever fought. And today, we have fielded over 40,000 pieces of new equipment that we didn't have 4 years ago that makes our troops yet more efficient.

I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, let me just take 2 minutes to respond to my colleague who has just made a number of points.

First, there are a number of live Democrats that I like to refer to. When somebody asks me whether or not Saddam Hussein was indeed a dangerous terrorist in and of himself, I like to take the words of all of the Democrat leadership of this country in the 1990s, when, in their words, there was no Bush administration to trick them, who made that point very, very forcefully.

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq and the taking of Baghdad in record time with very low casualties has been described by most military leaders as being a remarkably efficient and effective operation. In fact, while we had people saying that our troops would be bogged down, the same talk shows would be interrupted with a news flash that Tommy Franks had taken yet another stronghold of Saddam Hussein.

We took Baghdad with very low casualties, very, very quickly, in a very effective and efficient military operation.

Lastly, I don't think that the gentleman can say that there have been no ripples, no ripples whatsoever in the Middle East with respect to freedom and democracy and people wanting to be free as a result of the elections in Iraq. There clearly was action in Libya where they moved lots of parts of their nuclear weapons program which are now residing in the United States, I think as a result of American actions there. Clearly actions toward freedom, toward ejecting the Syrians from Lebanon and moving toward multiparty elections in Egypt. All imperfect to be sure but nonetheless reactions from our operation in Iraq.

Lastly, I would just say to my colleague let me just say to my colleague, there are no smooth roads. The smooth roads not taken, that have been held out by the armchair critics, like we should have kept Saddam Hussein's army in place, that was an army with 11,000 Sunni generals. What are you going to do with an army with 11,000 Sunni generals? Certainly not establish stability in a country in which you have a Shiite majority.

The idea that we needed to have 300,000 Americans in Iraq and yet at the same time put an Iraqi face, as a number of the critics have said, on the military apparatus.

So I think a number of the gentleman's points have been strongly disproven by the American operation in Iraq. We are in the second period right now of a three-phase operation: stand up a free government; stand up a military capable of protecting that free government; lastly, the Americans leave. Let's give the second phase a chance to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070216-6&person=400191
 
Last edited:
PACs are a way of life for a politician but some still owe the majority of their money to the people and NOT to special interests...

Duncan Hunter receives 53.7% of his campaign money from individuals.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00006983

Compare that to...

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi
32.9% from individuals and 66.6% from PACs

Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer
26.7% from individuals and 72.4% from PACs

Majority Whip
James Clyburn
27.3% from individuals and 72.7% from PACs

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.asp

I can keep going but then it would take the fun out of you all looking for yourselves (be sure not to miss the fact that Rep Hunter is one of the VERY few who have 100% disclosure)... the point is if the majority of your campaign money comes from citizens that is who you will be accountable to. But if PAC money gets you elected then I am my fellow citizens get the shaft. Your vote is the power but if you put your head in your fourth point and simply vote for the moron with the coolest 15 second election commercial then you are quite succinctly :cen:ing yourself.
 
Last edited:
Duncan Hunter Backs Preemptive Strike on Iran

Republican candidates for U.S. president agreed on Tuesday that Iran must not develop atomic weapons even if a tactical nuclear strike is needed to stop it and accused Democrats of being soft on the issue.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/6/73123.shtml

Below is the exchange between Blitzer and Duncan Hunter during the June 5 debate. The question and answer occurred at around 8:55pm:

Wolf Blitzer: "Congressman Hunter, I want you to weigh in, because Arnold Schwarzenegger, your governor in California, has become very popular out there by bringing in independents and moderates, and trying to forge a consensus among Republicans and Democrats in your state. Shouldn't the GOP nationally be following that Arnold Schwarzenegger example in California?

Representative Duncan Hunter: "No. And let me just say, you know, I look at Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, my good friend John McCain -- Governor Romney joined with Bill Clinton for the 1994 gun ban when I was fighting that. Mayor Giuliani stood with him at the White House on that. Governor Romney has passed what I consider to be a major step toward socialism with respect to his mandated health care bill. John McCain is standing strong with Ted Kennedy on this Kennedy-McCain-Bush border enforcement bill. I think the guy who's got the most influence right here with these three gentlemen is Ted Kennedy. And I think we need to move away from the Kennedy wing of the Republican Party."
http://newsbusters.org/node/13261

Nail on the head.
 
USA : Trade deficit with China grow by nearly 12% in 2007
June 9, 2007

According to figures released by the U.S. government this morning, the U.S. trade deficit with China grew to $19.4 billion for the month of April 2007.

For the year, the U.S. trade deficit with China is up 11.9 percent. At this pace, the U.S. trade deficit with China will climb from last year's record of $232 billion in 2006 to a projected new record of $260 billion in 2007.

"The U.S. trade deficit with China is out of control. It is a key reason why the United States has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2001," said American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) Executive Director Auggie Tantillo.

"The years of Bush Administration talks with China have produced negligible results. Congress now must forcefully act," Tantillo continued.

To address the China problem, two actions Congress immediately should take are passing:

• H.R. 2600, the Border Tax Equity Act sponsored by Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Duncan Hunter, Mike Michaud, and Walter Jones.

This legislation would negate the nearly $400 disadvantage to U.S. goods producers and service providers caused by foreign border-adjusted taxes.

Conservatively, U.S. goods producers alone were disadvantaged by an estimated $46 billion because of China's VAT rebates on exports and VAT impositions on imports in 2006.

• H.R. 782, the Fair Currency Act of 2007, sponsored by Congressmen Tim Ryan and Duncan Hunter in the House and its companion, S. 796, sponsored by Senators Jim Bunning and Debbie Stabenow.

This legislation would make fundamental currency misalignment an actionable subsidy under U.S. countervailing duty law. The legislation also would codify the application of U.S. CVD law to non-market economies such as China.

Experts estimate that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 15 to 40 percent.
http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/association-news/amtac/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=36304

Finally a Presidential candidate who is more concerned about protecting American businesses that manufacture in the US rather than businesses who make their money by colluding with the enemy who seeks to gut the US economically.

Have no illusions on this point- China is waging an economic war against the US, and right now they are winning.
 
In January of 2002 before anyone else started talking about the needs of the military that have now become commonplace Rep Hunter had already compiled and submitted a report linked below.
http://www.house.gov/hunter/defincrisis-title.html

The following is the text of HR 3675 written by Rep. Hunter.
HR 3675 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3675

To prohibit Federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 26, 2007

Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To prohibit Federal grants to or contracts with Columbia University.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Restore Patriotism to University Campuses Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the State of Israel, a critical ally of the United States.

(2) In January 2007, commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno stated that the United States had traced back to Iran serial numbers of weapons captured in Iraq, including rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and Katyusha rockets.

(3) These types of weapons have been used in Iraq to kill and injure members of American, Iraqi, and coalition forces and undermine the nascent Iraqi government.

(4) Despite Iran's support for terrorism, Columbia University extended an invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to address students and faculty from the University campus.

(5) Columbia University dissolved its long-standing Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program on campus because of disagreement with United States military policy, and for nearly four decades has not invited the return of any ROTC program to the University campus.

(6) Despite this fact, Columbia University has continued to accept funds made available through ROTC scholarships, while University faculty continue to oppose United States military policies and law.

(7) Through their invitation, Columbia University provided a public, prestigious platform on United States soil from which on September 24, 2007, President Ahmadinejad spoke and defended his wide-ranging support for terrorist activities.

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF FUNDS.

(a) Denial of Funds for Permitting State Terrorist Access to Campus- No funds described in subsection (b)(1) may be provided by contract or by grant to Columbia University of New York, New York, or any subelement of Columbia University.

(b) Covered Funds-

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the limitations established in subsection (a) apply to the following:

(A) Any funds made available for the Department of Defense.

(B) Any funds made available for any department or agency for which regular appropriations are made in a Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

(C) Any funds made available for the Department of Homeland Security.

(D) Any funds made available for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy.

(E) Any funds made available for the Department of Transportation.

(F) Any funds made available for the Central Intelligence Agency.

(2) Any Federal funding specified in paragraph (1) that is provided to an institution of higher education, or to an individual, to be available solely for student financial assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the funding is provided.

(c) Notice of Determinations- Whenever the head of a Federal department or agency makes a determination under subsection (a) or (b), the head of such department or agency--

(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to the Secretary of Education, to the head of each other department and agency the funds of which are subject to the determination, and to Congress; and

(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the determination and the effect of the determination on the eligibility of Columbia University for contracts and grants.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3675
 
Back
Top