June 27-28, 2007
Jun 27 03:59 Shut Your Pie Hole Jun 27 11:58 Break Out the Double-Barrels... Jun 27 16:55 Richard Lugar is Wrong Jun 28 02:28 Just What You'd Expect From Ted Jun 28 12:18 CAIR Attorney Loses Motion Jun 28 10:41 53-46!!! Jun 28 12:42 Baby, You're No Good Jun 28 13:09 Time To Lobby the White House
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
Shut Your Pie Hole
That's my initial response to hearing Ted Kennedy's gloating statement after the first cloture vote passed. Here's what he said:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, said he was proud of the vote, calling it "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity."This debate is typical of Sen. Kennedy's complete willingness to throw the truth under the proverbial bus if it gets in the way of his agenda. He's been so corrupt for so long that he wouldn't know the truth if it hit him flush in the face. Calling this morning's vote "a major step forward for our national security, for our economy, and for our humanity" isn't just laughable, it's utterly pathetic.
"We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way," Kennedy said in a statement following the vote.
Calling this legislation a "major step forward for our national security" is a bald-faced lie. Sen. Kennedy knows that this legislation doesn't mean a thing because he knows that President Bush isn't serious about enforcing the borders. In fact, it isn't a stretch to say that President Bush hasn't been any more serious about enforcing the borders than President Clinton was about fighting jihadists.
The truth is that this legislation wouldn't be a blip on the radar if President Bush and President Clinton had enforced the border. I've quoted Fred Thompson about this before but I'll repeat his quote again here: "A piece of paper won't protect our borders..."
He's exactly right. He signed a bill last October to build the fence. Thus far, they've built 13 miles of the mandated 870 miles of it. That document hasn't protected our borders yet, Neither has the Bush administration. If he'd accelerated the process, I'd be inclined to trust him with border security. Right now, I don't.
The other thing that makes Sen. Kennedy's quotes so laughable is the role NCLR played throughout this process:
Controversial Latino groups, including the National Council of La Raza, were granted virtual veto power over the immigration bill hammered out yesterday by Senate Republicans, Democrats and the White House, the Washington Post reported.As I've pointed out before, here's NCLR's highest political priority:
The Post said the Latino groups "were practically in the room" as Democratic and Republican senators negotiated the bill, which would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, create a temporary worker program and increase border security.
The primary focus of these activities is to encourage immigration policies that are fair and nondiscriminatory, to encourage family reunification , and to enact necessary reforms to the current immigration system.When they say that family reunification is their priority, that says that they not only want the 12-20 million illegal immigrants made legal; they also want close relatives to be legalized.
I'm betting that my good friend King would say that we should be cautious anytime fair is used in a policymaking situation because it's such a subjective term. I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, I don't know what nondiscriminatory means in this context. I suspect it's a weasel word, too.
James Inhofe has been a true leader in fighting this legislation. He's been instrumental in the creation of a new website called Secure Borders Now. One of the website's features is a blog, complete with a post about action alerts.
After I signed the petition, I got an email with suggestions on how we can most effectively lobby our senators and representatives. Here are some of the practical things that we should do to make our voices heard:
I'm sharing four steps we must take now to defeat this bill.I strongly encourage everyone to follow this link to sign the petition. (Remember to include your zip code when you sign the petition.) The Secure Borders Now staff will break the signatures down by House district, then they'll deliver the signatures to each House member so they know how determined we are to get serious about border enforcement.
Some Senators who voted to reconsider the immigration bill have indicated they may still vote against cloture to end debate. Their explanation is they want to see how the bill looks after amendments. It is up to us to show them that this bill, in spite of almost any amendments that are tacked on to it, is unacceptable to the American people!
Step One: Amendments
Learn about the amendments that anti-amnesty and pro-border security Senators will be introducing that force security before path to legalization. Click here to be brought to the Secure Borders Now blog on amendments that will help defeat this bill. We will continue to keep it up to date with the latest information.
Step Two: Call Senators Who Voted For Cloture
After learning about the amendments, call the Senators who voted to limit debate and proceed to a final vote. We will keep the list of Senators we can influence up to date on the Secure Borders Now blog as well. Click here to learn whose minds we can change and how to reach them.
Step Three: More Voices = More Power
Senator Inhofe will continue to present updates to the petition to his fellow Senators. Spread the word about the Secure Borders Now petition to your family, your friends, and people in your community. We've already prepared a forward to friends invitation e-mail and form. Click here to forward the petition to up to five of your friends.
Step Four: Positive Reinforcement
All Senators are under tremendous pressure from the Senate's Democrat Leadership and the White House to vote in favor of the amnesty bill. Click here to see the Senators who voted against the reintroduction of the immigration bill.
Call them and thank them for their vote and encourage them to continue holding strong against this bill.
There's alot more battles to be fought on this issue so it's important that we stay engaged in the fight. Yesterday's successful cloture vote was a major disappointment for the activists that have fought this battle. It's ok to be disappointed or angry with the outcome of the vote. That's natural. There's too much at stake here to leave the battlefield now, though. It's now time to redouble our efforts, though. It's time that we reminded legislators like Ted Kennedy that the Preamble starts with "We The People", not "We The Senators".
It's time that we sent them the message that voting for bad national security legislation isn't just unacceptable. It's time that we said that voting for bad national security legislation will cut their political careers short.
Voting against cloture the only acceptable vote.
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:00 AM
Comment 1 by Sandinator at 27-Jun-07 03:34 PM
Ted Kennedy has been shoving a lot more than just pie down that disgusting hole in the front of his vile face. Kennedy obviousy has brain rot from all the years of his heavy alcohol consumption. We are not going to take his crap or his amnesty bill!!!!!
Break Out the Double-Barrels...
Last Saturday, I called into King's and Michael's show like I usually do. During the first hour, Michael said that his perspective on campaigns was to "never bring a knife to a gun fight", a position that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. In fact, when I called, I said that "We can be sure that the DFL is bringing 'a gun' to the campaign so let's adopt this slogan: 'It's time to break out the double-barrels'". This Hill magazine article is another reminder that Democrats are trying to silence us in a variety of ways so it's time to break out the double-barrels. This time, our target is the (un)Fairness Doctrine.
House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.First of all, the statement that "Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits..." is utter nonsense. What conservatives are upset about is that (a) the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment, (b) it's based on a report that presumes a number of questionable conclusions, all of which can easily be contested. As usual, Captain Ed's got the details on it:
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.
But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.
"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."
The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to "make reasonable judgments in good faith" on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.
Forcing radio stations to start "balancing" their content won't mean that listeners will have to hear liberal talk radio. Many of them will tune out altogether. Just the notion of having to force people to listen to the liberal arguments on talk radio shows a certain amount of desperation on the part of Durbin and Feinstein, to say nothing of the implications of government dictating who gets to speak, and when.The truth is that conservative talk radio and the Right blogosphere is a balance to the liberal's indoctrination centers otherwise known as MSNBC, CBS, CNN, the NY Times and the LA Times. Another thing that we won't let get glossed over is the fact that truly public-funded talk radio is essentially devoid of balanced programming.
That brings us to the most absurd point of all: NPR. The government owns and operates its own radio stations in every market of the nation. In fact, they have over 300 stations nationwide. Do they practice a Fairness Doctrine there? No. The spectrum of hosts and shows at NPR range from centrist to very liberal. If Durbin and Feinstein want to impose a Fairness Doctrine on radio broadcasts, let them start with NPR first.
It's time that we told liberals that they can't run roughshod over the First Amendment anymore because we take that type of thing damn personal. It's time we told the American people that liberals like Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin want to silence their critics by essentially stripping out important First Amendment protections. I don't think that the American people will approve of the Democrats' tampering with our Constitutional protections.
The good news is that Mike Pence is fighting back:
Rep. Mike Pence (R), who worked as a syndicated talk radio host in Indiana before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of the legislation. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.Here's the text of Pence's floor speech:
"A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called a massive imbalance on the airwaves," said Pence. "I think a case is being made for government control of the use of the airwaves. The legislation we're preparing is aimed at preventing that
from happening."
"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech.Let's examine Dick Durbin's statement a little closer:
"Congress must take action to ensure that this archaic remnant of a bygone era of American radio does not return. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.
"During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty. It is with this in mind that I will introduce the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
"The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from prescribing rules, regulations, or policies that will reinstate the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance. The Broadcaster Freedom Act will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill.
"John F. Kennedy stated, 'We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.'"
"I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."I'd actually agree with Durbin's statement. The argument that I'd make is that the American people won't "hear both sides of the story" without conservative talk radio. They certainly didn't hear "both sides of the story" on the NSA intercept program through the Agenda Media. They didn't hear "both sides of the story" of Plamegate through the Agenda Media. They certainly didn't hear "both sides of the story" about the provisions in the Kennedy-McCain-NCLR immigration (un)reform bill through the Agenda Media.
People like Hugh Hewitt and Ed Morrissey read the legislation, then posted the details on their blogs. After posting that information on their blogs, they then talked about it on their radio programs, Ed on his BTR show, Hugh on his talk show.
I didn't see the NY Times or MSNBC do that. In fact, I'd bet big money that you'll never see them do that. During a number of my conversations with a friend in South Dakota, I've observed that "a free nation can't sustain itself without the free flow of accurate information." It's obvious that the main reason why the Right Blogosphere took off is because the NY Times, CBS, NPR and the AP weren't fulfilling that responsibility. Had they done their jobs, the Right Blogosphere wouldn't exist to the extent that it does.
I can't think of a better way to sum this discussion up than with Mike Pence's words:
"Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation," Pence wrote in his prepared remarks. "Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves."
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:59 AM
No comments.
Richard Lugar is Wrong
That's the opinion of no less a man than Fred Barnes. When Fred talks, people listen. Here's what Fred said this time that's noteworthy:
THE BUZZ IN WASHINGTON this week is all about Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his speech Monday night about Iraq. Lugar isn't ordinarily a topic of lively conversation, except when he bails on President Bush on the "surge" in Iraq. Then he gets attention and deservedly so. He is not a hot dog or a partisan blowhard or a politician worried about re-election. He's serious and levelheaded.Sen. Lugar was a big fan of the ISG report when it first appeared on the radar screen. Now he's turned against one of the key opinions in that report:
And wrong. In the speech, Lugar declared there's not enough time for the surge, the counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus to secure and pacify Baghdad and Anbar province, to work. Instead, he proposed a "thoughtful Plan B," which consists chiefly of diplomacy, economic aid, and a "downsizing and re-deployment" of American troops. Here's his key sentence: "The prospects that the current 'surge' strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the president are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate."
Lugar makes two major mistakes in his speech. The first is obvious: the surge hasn't had a chance to work. The troop buildup was just completed this month and the strategy is only now being fully implemented. And Petraeus won't report on the progress of the new strategy until sometime in September. Yet Lugar says it won't succeed because of "political fragmentation" in Iraq, "the fatigue of our military," and constraints imposed the "political process" back home in Washington. Maybe he's right, but we won't know that for months.
His second and more important mistake is misunderstanding the effect an American pullback in favor of a diplomatic offensive would have. Lugar insisted the new approach would help achieve America's "four primary objectives" in Iraq. These are: preventing the creation of a terrorist haven, curbing sectarian violence, preventing Iranian dominance of the region, and "limiting the loss of U.S. credibility in the region." These are worthy goals. The problem is his Plan B would not achieve them, quite the opposite.
A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations.Now Lugar is saying that abandoning Iraq except to fight terrorists and help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure is the best course of action. Here's Fred's explanation of why Sen. Lugar is wrong:
Abandoning the surge strategy would cause the opposite of what Lugar wants. It would leave al Qaeda and Baathist diehards with a staging area, either inside or near Baghdad, for their attacks. It would mean sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere would increase, particularly because Iranian agents would be free to provoke it. Iran's role in Iraq would grow. As for American credibility, Lugar's plan would have the same impact on it that the pullout from Somalia had in 1993 and the retreat from Lebanon a decade earlier. Our credibility would plummet. Al Qaeda would gloat and declare victory.If Fred's explanation isn't succinct enough, then Peter Hegseth's explanation should suffice. Hegseth's Washington Post op-ed was a rebuttal of Carl Levin's views but they apply just as nicely to Sen. Lugar. Here's Hegseth's rebuttal:
A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise.Sen. Lugar says that his plan consists chiefly of diplomacy, economic aid, and a "downsizing and re-deployment" of American troops. Based on Mr. Hegseth's personal experience, Sen. Lugar's plan doesn't sound like it has a chance of succeeding because it lacks a security component. It's time that the
Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.
My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council, built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation, did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.
What's ironic is that they're willing to defy the will of the people with the immigration bill but they're totally cowed by voters on fighting jihadists. It's time that they grew a spine and did what's right.
It's also time that Sens. Levin and Lugar stopped thinking about the political ramifications instead of national security implications.
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:57 PM
No comments.
Just What You'd Expect From Ted
Much was made about the $4.4 billion enforcement package to the latest version of the Open Borders Act. (I refuse to call it immigration reform because that implies that its objective is to secure the US-Mexico border.) At the time, I voiced my skepticism that this money would be used on enforcing the border. The increasingly indispensable Jim DeMint has issued a press release that shines the light of truth on this despicable piece of legislation. Here's what it says:
According to the CRS report provided to Senator DeMint, the mandatory spending in the bill could immediately be used for Z visas. It says, "(r)eceiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the trigger mechanisms outlined in Section 1; this means that funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used for this purpose."This memo should be circulated before the vote to every Republican senator and every Democrat up for re-election next fall. If Kennedy's and NCLR's disinformation hits the airwaves, the wobblies will vote against cloture.
In addition, the report says the funds could be used for Y visas and other programs once the trigger mechanisms have been met but it does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify the trigger. The report says, "S. 1639 does not explicitly stipulate whether the certification required by Section 1 would have to take place prior to funding being made available for the additional purposes outlined in Section 2(C)."
This has Ted Kennedy's fingerprints all over it. If I were a millionaire, I wouldn't bet a penny that he has an ounce of integrity. He's a lying scumbag who should be treated like he's radioactive. He isn't the only deceitful person or organization involved in this mess. I can't say that NCLR wants open borders but I'll confidently say that they'd love seeing the federal government to expand the visa program to such an extent that it wouldn't be appreciably different.
Here's the link to the PDF file that CRS sent to Sen. DeMint. It's well worth reading.
Most importantly, fill the senators' inboxes & dial the phone until your fingers are numb.
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:29 AM
No comments.
CAIR Attorney Loses Motion
According to this article, the Flying Imams' attorney, Omar Mohammedi, lost a frivolous motion yesterday. I characterized it as frivolous because of this quote:
"You have provided no legal authority supporting your request to limit public access to this case," Montgomery wrote.In other words, Mohammedi's motion was likely a way of manipulating the press. It obviously didn't work. Powerline's Scott Johnson nails it with this quote:
CAIR is a master of media manipulation, but I doubt that it has previously sought to enlist a federal judge in its media management efforts. This story represents an almost unbelievable combination of chutzpah and bad judgment.I couldn't disagree with what Scott said. What I can do, though, is say that CAIR has lots of practice being the whiniest fake 'civil rights organization' in US history. It's also worth noting that Mr. Mohammedi is the executive director of CAIR-NY. In fact, that isn't the only thing that isn't mentioned in this AP article. Here's some information about the imams from a FrontPageMag article I did with Joe Kaufman:
The President of NAIF (and one of the removed imams) is Omar Shahin. Before NAIF's founding in 2004, Shahin was the imam and President of the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), a mosque that represented one of Al-Qaeda's main hubs in America, prior to the '93 attack. One of Shahin's predecessors at the mosque was Wael Hamza Julaidan, a former colleague of Osama bin Laden and bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Shahin, himself, has admitted to once supporting bin Laden.Omar Shahin was the imam that was the most quoted, and most outraged, imam after being removed from US Airways Flight 300. You'd think that he'd take a low profile after he helped raise funds for two charities that the Treasury Department has shut down. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Instead, he's maintained a higher profile since then.
Throughout his time with and after leaving ICT, Shahin was involved in terror financing organizations. He was the Arizona Coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a Hamas charity whose funds were frozen by the U.S. government soon after 9/11. Under his leadership, thousands of dollars were raised for HLF through ICT. As well, Shahin was a representative for KindHearts, another Hamas charity that was shut down by the U.S. (February 2006). In both cases, Shahin walked free.
According to this Treasury Department statement, KindHearts raised money to fund Hamas:
The U.S. Department of the Treasury today blocked, pending investigation, accounts of KindHearts, an NGO operating out of Toledo, Ohio, to ensure the preservation of its assets pending further investigation.The mosque that Shahin served at was also the mosque where Hani Hanjour, one of the 9/11 hijackers, worshiped at. Another notable with terrorist ties to Shahin's mosque was Abdullah Azzam, UBL's mentor.
"KindHearts is the progeny of Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, which attempted to mask their support for terrorism behind the facade of charitable giving," said Stuart Levey, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "By utilizing this specialized designation tool, we're able to prevent asset flight in support of terrorist activities while we further investigate the activities of KindHearts."
Another point Joe and I made was that Mohammedi isn't a stranger to representing unsavories:
The lawyer for the imams is Omar Mohammedi, the President of CAIR-New York, who is currently representing the Al-Qaeda-linked World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), in a 9/11 lawsuit for the murders of 3000 people, in which CAIR is also named a defendant.That's before we even start talking about CAIR's being an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal trial against HLF. Here's a screen capture that Joe made of how CAIR linked to the HLF website just days after the 9/11 attacks:
Here's the caption explaining that screen capture:
Frame 3 note: Mid right, "Donate to NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund" is direct hyperlink to website of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).I've said several times that CAIR opened its first office, in Washington, DC, after HLF donated $5,000 to CAIR's founders. Here's the link to the most recent time I posted that information.
With this much negative publicity still fresh in our minds, isn't it predictable that Mohammedi wants to limit media access to the trial?
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:22 PM
No comments.
53-46!!!
Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and La Raza fell well short of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on the bill. Simply put, the good guys won. Almost all of the wobblies that I referenced yesterday voted to extend debate. In other words, YOUR CALLS AND EMAILS turned the tide. Congratulations. This is the short across the bow that we needed to send. Give yourselves a hearty pat on the back. I'm proud of you!!!
UPDATE: My bad. I reported the vote as 53-46. I didn't make clear that there were more votes cast against than for. I should've titled the post 46-53 like this article did:
The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.UPDATE II: Leo's back to his normal self again. In other words, he's doing his happy dance. Welcome back, Leo!!!
The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation , which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:12 PM
No comments.
Baby, You're No Good
This YouTube video says it all:
It doesn't sound like Ms. Pelosi is winning the 'hearts and minds' battle these days. Who could've imagined that?
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:44 PM
No comments.
Time To Lobby the White House
Now that the McCain/Kennedy/La Raza Open Borders Act has been defeated (badly, I might add), it's time to lobby President Bush. No, I don't think that's an easy job but I'm certain that it's the next logical step. Here's why:
1. Heroes like Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn pointed out that the tools to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants were included in last year's bill. President Bush signed into law a bill that authorized and funded the building of the fence, "more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and advanced technology to bolster border security."
2. Congress has given President the tools to take a bite out of illegal immigration but he's been reluctant or unwilling to use those tools. Therefore, it's vital for us to lobby him to have the Justice Department and DHS to take enforcement seriously.
The sham that they just tried to perpetrate was disgusting. One benefit of the debate, though, was that it's unified the GOP like it hasn't been united since 1994.
3. President Bush still wants to get other things accomplished before his term expires, things that will require the base to be on board with. It's essential that we point that out to President Bush. If he wants us engaged and pulling with him, he needs to accelerate the building of the fence so we know that he's serious about border security.
If we put the intensity into lobbying President Bush that we sustained while lobbying the Senate, we have a chance of taking a serious approach to border enforcement. In other words, it's fine to give yourselves a pat on the back but it's important that we roll up our sleeves to get the next step accomplished, too.
Posted Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:10 PM
No comments.
