BORDER FENCE MAY DISAPPEAR

The U.S. Senate is about to scrap the 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border and thumb its nose at the majority of Americans who are demanding border security?

That's the buzz in Washington, DC.

But hold on! Didn't Congress pass the Secure Fences Act of 2006 authorizing funds for that fence? And didn't the President sign it into law?

No... Not exactly.

Yes, Republican leaders passed the Secure Fences Act of 2006 almost three weeks ago, and went before television cameras, strutting and crowing... proclaiming that they had finally heard and heeded the demands of the American people!

And three weeks later, that fence bill -- which passed both houses of Congress -- is sitting in limbo... no one has bothered to put it on the President's desk!

But what about the bill the President signed? Wasn't that the Secure Fences Act of 2006?

The answer is NO.

The legislation the President signed was an appropriations bill that allocates $1.2 billion in funding to the Department of Homeland Security. And, you and your fellow Americans were led to believe that the $1.2 billion was earmarked for the construction of the fence!

But guess what! If you read that bill, you will find that the lion's share of the $1.2 billion in that appropriations bill DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPENT ON THE FENCE!

Just in case your head is spinning... Let's recap!

At the eleventh hour -- right before they recessed to campaign for your vote -- our elected leaders passed legislation to build a 700-mile fence. But they know full well that it cannot become law until someone actually puts it on the President's desk and he signs it.

They appropriated $1.2 billion in funds on a totally different bill, which you and I were told would go toward the building of the fence -- but in actuality doesn't have to be used to build that fence.

Then they went home to campaign hoping you didn't notice the shell game before going to the polls on Election Day!

Our next action as patriotic Americans is clear... we MUST make it abundantly clear that we have not been fooled and we must DEMAND that the Secure Fences Act of 2006 be sent to the President and be signed into law IMMEDIATELY.

The election is coming upon us quickly. Our elected leaders really don't have a second to lose... not if they know what's good for them!

Use the hyperlink below to send your time sensitive and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George Bush and the Republican leaders of the House and Senate.

Warn them that no trickery will be forgiven; no pocket vetoes will be tolerated. Demand that they put the Secure Fences Act of 2006 on the President's desk and demand that the President sign it into law IMMEDIATELY -- before Election Day -- or the American people will take appropriate action at the polls.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/amnestyxxivhe.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.

THE PARTY OF COMPASSION, THE PARTY OF DIVERSITY

There is a particular strain of liberal viciousness that is reserved for one particular type of individual, that being any black American who runs for political office as a Republican. If there is "treason" to a liberal, this would be it. No holds are barred, no language is forbidden, when demonizing a black person who has strayed from the Democrat leftist straight-and-narrow.

As you may (or should) know, there's quite a race going on in Maryland for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes. Maryland's Republican Lt. Governor Michael Steele is running for the seat, as is Congressman Ben Cardin. Steele is black. This hasn't made Democrats happy. This means he's as close to a traitor as one can get in the mind of a leftist.

So along comes Maryland Democrat Congressman, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is campaigning for Cardin, and since Cardin's opponent is a black Republican, all bets are off. Hoyer tells a campaign audience .. a largely black campaign audience .. that Michael Steel "slavishly" supports the Republican Party. This is pretty much par for the course for Hoyer. Four years ago he referred to Steele as a "token." Then we got one of those "out of context" excuses from Hoyer. This time we're getting an apology. Hoyer says "I should not have used those words." Yeah, right. But he did -- and the damage was done. A black campaign audience heard that the Republican candidate for Senate was acting pretty much like a slave .. and those words have grave impact in the black voting community.

If Steele is a slave, he is a runaway. He has committed the unpardonable sin .. .he has fled the Democrat plantation. Now he must be punished. Today's runaways are punished with scorn and words like "Uncle Tom," "Oreo" and others. This from the party that tells us how much it appreciates diversity. Diversity of color? Maybe. Diversity of thought? Not on your life.

WHY DID WE ELECT JIMMY CARTER ANYWAY?

That’s the question I’m asking after reading this article:

The former U.S. president said the late North Korean leader, Kim Il Sun, had agreed to every stipulation that Carter proposed, including a freeze of the weapons program, a halt to processing of nuclear fuel, a return of U.N. inspectors and bilateral talks with South Korea. Within weeks, Kim died, but his son and successor, Kim Jong Il, soon notified the Clinton administration that he would abide by the agreements, Carter said. In exchange, he said, there were no sanctions, and the U.S., Japan and other countries agreed to supply North Korea with enough oil to produce electricity to replace that generated by a nuclear plant shut down under the agreement. “All of that has been thrown in the wastebasket,” Carter said. He said that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea.” “Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil,” he said.

It’s scary thinking that this man once had his proverbial finger on the nuclear trigger. Then again, Carter’s such a pacifist that he didn’t even sufficiently fund the military with adequate supplies of spare parts. Carter’s belief that “Kim Jong Il…would abide by the agreements” is scary. It’s obvious that Carter thinks that anyone who gives their word is honest. Carter should know that certain people are dishonest to their core.

As for Carter saying that after President George W. Bush took office, “there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea. Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil.” That’s true Mr. Carter. That “rapid change” is often refered to as 9/11, which might not have happened had President Carter (a) kept a real military together; (b) confronted Ayatollah Khomeini rather than welcoming him as a religious man and (c) taken Islamic extremism seriously after they took the US Embassy staff as hostage for 444 days.

Between October 1994 and December 2002, no plutonium was produced in North Korea, said Marion Creekmore, author of the new book “A Moment of Crisis,” about his 1994 trip with Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, to Pyongyang. “Most people believe that since 2002, North Korea has produced enough plutonium for six to 10 nuclear weapons,” said Creekmore.

Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea didn’t produce uranium between 1994 and 2002. Mr. Creekmore, most people don’t think that North Korea’s ‘nuclear history’ started in 2002. In fact, the North Koreans don’t even attempt to deny the steps they took in their march to acquiring nuclear weapons. That Mr. Creekmore would make such a statement is both insulting and delusional.

Laney said it appeared that war was certain before Carter’s trip, which demonstrated to him that every opportunity for peaceful resolution of a crisis must be used. “That is not appeasement. It’s not being a wimp,” Laney said.

Mr. Laney can say whatever he likes but it doesn’t mean that Carter’s advocacy isn’t appeasement or that his actions weren’t the actions of a wimp. One of the definitions of appeasement given at Dictionary.com is this:

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

If Mr. Carter’s actions weren’t conceding to Kim Jong Il’s demands, if Carter’s action weren’t a conciliatory effort that came at the expense of important principles, then I’d like to know what they were.

Thankfully, we don’t have a pack of appeasers in office now. Thankfully, we survived the Carter years. Unfortunately, we paid a price for Carter’s ‘dovishness at all cost’ policies.

PROBLEMS MOUNT FOR HARRY REID

Ask yourself this: Imagine right now, three weeks before the general election, that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was found to have been involved in a shady land deal....one in which he pocketed quite a hefty sum...despite not owning the land. Also imagine that Hastert was found to have paid for his personal condo staff out of his campaign funds, a violation of umpteen campaign finance laws. What do you think the media would be doing?

You just know it would be the top story...the calls for Hastert's resignation would be deafening. But the person being accused of all these things is a Democrat....and just not any Democrat. It's Harry Reid...the Senate Minority Leader. The organization making the accusations? Not some right-wing, politically motivated newspaper. Nope...it's the Associated Press. But aside from the AP and the story being linked on Drudge, you won't find the story covered much anywhere.

And why? Simple....Reid is a Democrat and the media isn't interested. They're too focused right now on dethroning the Republicans from the House and Senate. There simply isn't any desire to cover a story about Harry Reid's ethics problems. But if it was a Republican....he would have been run out of Washington D.C. by now.

Don't believe the media is biased? Watch this one unfold before your eyes and you'll change your mind.

BUSH AND ROVE UPBEAT ABOUT ELECTION

A news report over the weekend says that President Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove are upbeat over the GOP's prospect at the polls in three weeks. In fact, it is reported, they don't even have a contingency plan for a Republican defeat. Confidence or Bravado?

Rove only thinks the Democrats will gain 8 to 10 seats...short of the 15 they need to take over. As for the Mark Foley scandal, Rove said late last week: "The data we are seeing from individual races and the national polls would tend to indicate that people can divorce Foley's personal action from the party." So have the president and Rove lost their minds? Is their confidence warranted?

Maybe. The one thing the media focuses on is the so-called "generic ballot." This is the polling question where people are asked whether they intend to vote for the Republican or the Democrat. But this is a somewhat useless measurement...because that's not how people vote anymore. They vote for the individual. Take Connecticut for example. Many Republicans will be voting for Joe Liebermann, a liberal Democrat running as an independent. Unless you ask people whether they intend to vote for Joe Blow or Mary Smith, you're never going to get accurate polling data. Just asking "Democrat or Republican?" has been shown not to get an accurate pool of polling data.

In the end, it's all going to come down to whether or not people think that Congressman or woman is doing a good job and warrants re-election. Will they take their frustration against the administration and its Iraq policy out on their member of congress? Maybe...but only if they go vote. There's 3 weeks and 1 day to go....an eternity in American politics. Stay tuned.

Now ... having said all of this, I'm still bothered by this show of confidence in the White House. It's as if they've done nothing wrong, and they don't really believe that the voters have a legitimate beef.

No .. I'm not talking about the war on Islamic fascism here. It's ugly. Mistakes have been made. Opportunities wasted. But it's a war we fight now or later ... and the cost later would surely be much higher.

I'm talking here at home. If Republicans maintain control of the House it will just be seen as a signal to them that the American voters aren't upset with they way they've handled their stewardship of the House. Just consider this short list:

Earmark (pork) spending truly out of control

Government growing bigger by the day

The hideously expensive prescription drug program for wizened citizens who spend an average of $1.70 a day for their prescription drugs.

No real move against eminent domain abuses

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform monstrosity.

Sarbanes-Oxley. (If you're not a part of the corporate world you don't realize how hideous this anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise bill is).

The truth is the Republicans have not come close to earning the control they seek. The only thing they have going for them is the fact that the alternative is even more hideous. Isn't that a pathetic choice to have on election day?

A SPINE IS DETECTED?

Strange as it seems, it appears as though Republicans are growing a spine in light of this article:

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000.
Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, (R-CA), and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate. They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.

Sandy ‘Burglar’ isn’t being held accountable for his actions. A $50,000 fine is a sizeable fine but he needs to answer about which documents he took from the Archives, what those documents pertained to, why he took them and a host of other questions.

Just because he’s paid his fine doesn’t mean that the American people have gotten all of the answers that they’re entitled to. Berger owes it to the American people to explain if he was helping Bill Clinton destroy important information that would ruin Clinton’s already-shrinking legacy. It isn’t unthinkable that Berger might’ve taken documents that had Clinton’s notes on them, notes that might’ve caused Clinton serious damage.

During Berger’s sentencing hearing, Breuer characterized Berger as eager to get the facts of the Sept. 11 attacks right when he took the material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.

That’s Clintonesque doublespeak if I’ve ever heard it. It’s as credible as hear OJ say that he’ll spend the rest of his life looking for his wife’s murderer. The words ring utterly hollow.