Posted on 02/17/2009 11:02:19 PM PST by Coleus
If that is true, why don’t the British and French pay for US pensions? They honor our dead and give us airspace, but as far as I know, my uncles and grandfather got no check in British pounds or Euros, or even French francs, prior to the conversion...
The Japanese did the invading, why not tax them with war reparations?
Japan paid reparations - 1 trillion, 30 billion yen, plus individual amounts to countries that did not agree to collective remuneration.
The British pay (or paid) pensions for US citizens who fought in Brit units, and have since the war ended. We didn’t do the same for Filipinos.
Acknowledging those who fought with us is right. But it doesn’t make the porkulus one inch better. It’s shameless windowdressing.
No argument. I said as much in a followup post.
Idea = good.
Sticking it in Porkulus to try to make it more appetizing = bad.
Were I in Congress, I would not have voted for it, even with a thousand such provisions.
Ok, enough, pay them. Who cares, the golf carts and road to Vegas pet projects dwarf this money.
I was just curious.
I salute those brave men and was unaware the Brits paid us.
Last year the Philippine government sent $500,000.00 to a lobbying firm in Wash, DC. The fee was the price to pay to get the veterans funding.
RP signs $500,000 US lobby deal
By Cynthia Balana
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:41:00 01/31/2008
Filed Under: Licensing Agreements
MANILA, Philippines — The government has signed a $500,000 (P20 million) lobbying contract with one of Washington D.C.’s more influential law firms to push the country’s interests in the United States, particularly veterans issues in the US Congress, the Philippine embassy in Washington said Thursday.
In his report to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila, Ambassador to Washington Willy Gaa said he signed the contract on behalf of the Philippines, while Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat signed on behalf of International Practice of Covington & Burling LLP as its chair and partner.
Gaa said the contract, signed on Wednesday, was valid for six months and did not entail additional expense to the Philippine government, such as for travel and representation.
Gaa said the contract-signing was held after both sides had complied with the requirements of Philippine and US laws and after several rounds of discussions.
“Ambassador Eizenstat and his team will provide welcome support to our efforts here in Washington,” said Gaa. “Our consultant and his excellent team will work broadly on a bipartisan basis, particularly in Congress.”
More importantly, Gaa said, their priority remains correcting the grave injustice done to Filipino World War II veterans, referring to the veterans equity bill that is awaiting approval on Capitol Hill.
Gaa said the Philippines remained committed to winning for the “Filipino veterans the benefits, dignity and recognition that they truly deserve.”
Gaa said the embassy would release a copy of the contract after the signed copy had been registered with the US Department of Justice and received officially in the Philippines.
Philippine laws and regulations, particularly Executive Order No. 662-A, require that the contract be submitted to the Procurement Transparency Group under the Government Procurement Policy Board, which is chaired by the secretary of budget and management.
Reports out of Washington said Eizenstat was tapped to push the Philippine political, security and trade agenda on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and the Department of State.
The Philippines also has consultancy agreements with Burson-Marsteller, as well as Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg to lobby for bigger Philippine garment quotas.
The firm’s recent pro bono matters include:
* Former and/or continued representation of fifteen Yemenis, one Pakistani, and one Algerian being held at Guantanamo Bay, and have obtained favorable rulings that detainees have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.[15] The court ruled in March 2005 that the government could not transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to foreign custody without first giving the prisoners a chance to challenge the move in court.
* Preparing an amicus brief on behalf of a number of social scientists in the Cook v. Rumsfeld case challenging the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
* Filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in support of the Planned Parenthood challenge of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
* Supporting the District of Columbia in District of Columbia v. Heller which argues that the District’s ban on the possession of handguns and its storage provisions for other firearms in the home is not implicated by the Second Amendment.[16]
Private practice
Since 2001, Holder has worked as an attorney at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.,[
Eric Holder
According to the source, because they were members of the US Army, not the Philippine Militia. You do remember that the Philippines was US Territory then?
Are you under the impression that anyone who gets US Government money does so without lobbying for it? That the Fillipinos had lobbyists goes without saying.
I can get along with this one.
why in the world is this in a stimulus bill that has to be signed off on immediately? this action happened over 60 years ago.
Didn’t know that...
.
Yep, the Phillippines was US territory from 1898 to 1948. We were building them for independence when WWII started.
The answer to your question is simple. The Philippines were a US territory until shortly after WWII. While it is true the Filipino service members were liberating their lands, those lands were a territory of the United States of America, and not an independent nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.