So, like, what year was, like, 9-11, like?

Want proof that the nation has forgotten 9-11? It's easy to see that we have in the cut-and-runners, the treachorous rhetoric of liberal politicians, and the devil-may-care attitude towards national security that has permeated the country.

But how's this for shocking: a bunch of San Diego State University students couldn't even remember what year it happened!

Caitlin Upton should feel very proud today. It seems she's not the only young person in America who appears to be a little less than informed. Christian activist and author Mark Dice dropped by San Diego State University to see how many of tomorrow's leaders know what year 9/11 happened.

Apparently, the unsuspecting students couldn't quite remember. Perhaps if Mark had given them a hint -- like the year the Mariah Carey's cinematic masterpiece "Glitter" was released, or perhaps the year that Britney Spears' "Slave" song topped the charts.

Sad, isn't it? Even sadder is that there's video of the brainiacs. Now, only watch it if you have a strong stomach. The man who put on the video, Mark Dice, is apparently one of those "9-11 was an inside job" truther nutjobs, who also supports Ron Paul, so there's a lot of the truther crap in it. And that's on top of a bunch of college idiots who can't remember back to when they were in high school. I mean, honestly -- it was six years ago! It isn't like these kids were four years old and can barely remember it even happening. That's a sad, sad thing when you can't remember the worst attack ever to happen on American soil, and it was just over five years ago. Never forget? Yeah, right.

The greatest generation would be ashamed. Truly ashamed.



Cross-posted at Wizbang.

Did you get your white feathers yet?

You might want to start stocking up and sending them to Washington. The House just passed a measure setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq no later than April 1, 2008 - how appropriate (emphasis mine):

The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must," Bush said at a White House news conference at which he stressed the interim nature of the report.

Describing a document produced by his administration at Congress' insistence, he said there was satisfactory progress by the Iraqi government toward meeting eight of 18 so-called benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the rest.

To his critics — including an increasing number of Republicans — he said bluntly, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

Democrats saw it differently.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

"The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration's policy to work, she said, "We have already waited too long."

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill "undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe," said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. "What we have here is not leadership, it's negligence."

Why do they do this? If this even passes through the Senate, all that's going to happen is that it will get vetoed. And you've just successfully accomplished a multitude of very, very bad things:

You've told our troops that they can't win in Iraq.

You've told our enemies that if they just hang on long enough, they can defeat us, turning us into the paper tiger Osama bin Laden said we were.

You've told America that you don't care about what the results will be in Iraq, because you think this would be a better move politically, evidenced by the purposeful ambiguity in the bill.

This is sickening.

Just weeks ago, Congress approved funding for the war and told General Petraus to report back in September.

Isn't it... July? Oh, yes, that's right, it is, because my birthday is in about three weeks. But I guess that's our fault for thinking that Dems would give this strategy even the smallest chance to succeed.

Nancy Pelosi blathers on about how there has been no progress and that they've waited "far too long". What would be significant progress for her? And at what point did she first start advocating for troop withdrawals? The week after the surge? The month after? Whenever it was, it wasn't enough time for it to work. But that's because Dems don't care about it working; they just want to cut-and-run, regardless of the cost.

As Van Helsing from Moonbattery puts it:

We are fighting more than one enemy in Iraq, but all of them are fighting us in the name of radical Islam. Specifically, our main enemies are the same al-Qaeda that flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and proxies of Iran, which invaded our embassy in an act of war and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

These are the people to whom Democrats would have us surrender.

The cost of surrender will be extreme. America will officially have the status of the "weak horse." Iran will be ascendant in the region. In the short term, there will be a critical threat to the energy supply that is required for our economy to run. In the long term, Iran will dominate the Middle East and metastasize into a nuclear superpower: a Soviet Union run by Islamic terrorists who don't mind dying so long as we die too.

As for Iraqis, their reward for trusting America will be genocide on a scale we haven't seen since the Democrats and their lackeys in the media forced our retreat from Southeast Asia.

Shockingly enough, CNN actually has a video of a family in Iraq saying they want US forces to stay (thanks to Beyond the News for the clip).



Dems have sent their message. They don't support our troops (but don't question their patriotism!). They don't care about national security or what the aftermath will be in Iraq (but don't question their patriotism!).

And the fact is, it is not Congress' job to tell our military how to run operations or deal with the troops. That is the President's job, which he said himself yesterday:

I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength . . . I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.

Liberals, of course, were shocked, shocked at this display of aggression, as they put it.

And where did President Bush get that idea? Well, our Constitution -- specifically, Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

And of course, don't expect Harry Reid or Pioneer Pelosi to actually, you know, answer your questions:

TAPPER: I'm sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?

REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe….We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We're now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That's enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers' money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that's enough.

TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question.

REID: OK. This is not a debate.

TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?

REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?

There are very specific words that we can use to describe what the Dems in Congress are pulling, or to describe them. The words "traitors" and "cowards" are somehow floating to the front of my mind...

I think it's time to break out Michelle Malkin'sWhite Feather campaign again.

Reader and Vietnam Vet Jack Haley e-mails:

The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world.

I was in Vietnam the day that the 101st took “Hamburger Hill” — the headline in the Stars and Stripes was Teddy Kennedy’s statement to the effect that it was all such a waste. I am sure it raised the spirits of the folks on top of the hill — I know it gave my morale a boost. Surely these leaders of our country will head out on a USO tour to encourage the troops further.

As far as I am concerned this is a Congress of Quislings.

I'm buying my white feather today. And there are 223 Congressmen/women who need one.

And hey, John, where's the Project Payback for this?

John Kerry supports "Fairness Doctrine"

Ugh.



I am so sick and tired of liberals harping on, all shrill and hysterical, about talk radio being overwhelmingly conservative. So what? The answer is a government-enforced legislation requiring there to be a "balance"? Like the mainstream media is fair and balanced, right guys? Whoops, gotta be politically correct. Right, people?

Well gee, government enforcing what can and can't be said in the media. Call me crazy, but doesn't that go against something called... freedom of press? And there was liberal talk radio -- Air America. It had a grand total of what, five listeners? It tanked, and that's why talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative -- because liberal talk radio was a disaster. A quagmire is perhaps a better word to use, since liberals are so fond of that particular word.

Hate to tell you this, but the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is not at work here. If it was, believe me, we'd have a monopoly on all media, not just talk radio. I mean, liberals have the upper edge in almost every other forum, from newspapers to television to the blogosphere (and you don't know how much it pains me to have to write that last one). We have the upper edge in radio, one out of four widely used news sources, and they're getting their panties all in a bunch. Conservatives don't get all hysterical about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post... well, so on and so forth... being "balanced". Conservatives aren't shrieking about how we need legislation to fix that -- because that just serves to further undermine our Constitution and one of the inalienable rights housed within it. The government has no right to enforce what can or cannot be said in media -- period.

And besides, what is so bad about conservatives getting their message out somewhere? Liberals' message is overwhelmingly heard. Are they that insecure that they can't even listen to an opposing thought?

Wait, that was a dumb question. I take it back.

Oh, and wait, I forgot. Conservatives like our Constitution. My bad.

It's just another hole. They poke holes into our "inalienable" rights one by one, until the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper some dead guys wrote a long time ago. They want to take away our freedom of press with the "fairness doctrine". They want to take away our right to bear arms any way they can, such as by imposing outrageous bureaucratic red tape on gun shops, and they want to take away our freedom of speech with "politically correct" speech requirements, hate speech enforcements, and other things like the McCain-Feingold Act.

A little at a time, they'll keep punching holes. How long will we allow it to happen?

UPDATE: Cloture fails, 45-50

UPDATE: From Michelle Malkin, of course, who has been liveblogging all day:

Somber Harry Reid: "Mr. President, this has been a very difficult time...I was hoping that my friends on the other side of the aisle that a small group shouldn't dictate what happens around here."

Um, yeah.

"We're going to keep the bill off the Senate floor." Proposes having more GOP amendments. "Hopefully, we can do that in the next several weeks...One of my colleagues who has worked very hard on this came into my office and shed some tears."

Bets, anyone? Mine: Lindsay "Hissy Fit" Graham.

Reid extols the DREAM Act provision in the bill that promises illegal alien college tuition discounts not available to Americans and law-abiding immigrants--in violation of a federal ban on such special treatment.

Whines some more about lack of support for his cloture vote.

Reid vows that he will "put aside hurt feelings" and "move on with the anticipation that this bill is something that the country needs" and "hope we can figure out a way to do it."

Thank God. Reid has said that if this final cloture failed, he will drop the bill. While it can of course resurface again, this was their best chance to force it through. The closer we get to election season, the more scared Republican senators will be of alienating their base, although they have already done that anyway. Right now, I -- and a lot of other conservatives -- are breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Michelle Malkin has been liveblogging from the Senate floor:

I liveblogged the vote on the Coburn amendment earlier this morning. The roll call deserves its own separate post. Everything you need to know about your US Senators' commitment to the rule of law is right here. Note that GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain didn't bother to cast a vote:

The Coburn Amendment states:

EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):
(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)

(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.

(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).

(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).

(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).

(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).

Here are the GOP senators who opposed it (I won't list the Dems, because we all know they hate America already):

Bennett (R-UT)

Brownback (R-KS)

Collins (R-ME)

Craig (R-ID)

Domenici (R-NM)

Graham (R-SC)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL) -- that's me!

Murkowski (R-AK)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)

The bill just avoided cloture with a 33-63 vote -- again -- but there is still another vote coming up at 5:00. Let's hope we can avoid that. It will help slow momentum, but it won't kill it completely. Keep the pressure on your senators. Get their phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses here, on the official Senate website.

Also, call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000, and the Republican National Committee at (202) 863-8500 (option 1). Tell them all -- politely, of course -- that you will not support any senator who lets this bill pass. Remind them that this bill would be national suicide, costing taxpayers trillions of dollars and that you don't want it passed.

If it does pass, John Hawkins of Right Wing News is ready with The Payback Project. Hopefully, he won't have to use it. Here is the plan if the bill passes:

If the amnesty bill in the Senate passes, The Payback Project is going to work through the end of the primary season to defeat any Republican senator up for reelection in 2008 who votes for it.

Some of the ways we're going to do that include,

* Googlebombing the targeted senators with negative articles (I know some people are claiming Googlebombing no longer works. They may be right. But, my expectation is that it will work fine because they were saying the exact same thing last year and it worked like a charm).

* Writing articles like this about each targeted senator, "What Republicans in South Carolina should know before they vote for Lindsey Graham."

* Making YouTube videos similar to these aimed at the targeted senators.

* Building up or acquiring in-state email lists of Republicans to use in an effort to convince as many Republicans as possible in the targeted states not to vote for the targeted senators.

* Making ourselves freely available to the local press to explain, as conservatives, why Republicans shouldn't support the targeted senators.

* Raising money for viable challengers to targeted senators.

Our goal will be to either defeat these senators in the 2008 primaries or, if that's not possible, to cause enough early damage to cost them 5k-10k votes in the general election.

The point of that will either be to put more senators willing to listen to us into office or hurt the targeted senators enough that the GOP will never go against the base again on an issue this important.

Keep the pressure on. Keep fighting. With any luck, this bill will die in the Senate.

NASA's Griffin caves under political pressure

Typical:

The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

I was really disappointed to see this. It's interesting how, whenever a scientist or climatologist or politician or college professor or whatever, speaks out against the global warming hysteria their career is threatened. I don't know what happened with Griffin, but reading between the lines leads me to believe that he probably was "gently" asked to make some sort of statement. He hit the nail on the head: the problem is more political than technical.

For Al Gore and the global warming fanatics, it's a dead lock. There is NO argument to be had. Al Gore invented the internet, so we must believe everything he says about global warming. He said so, and a bunch of celebretards believe it too, and therefore it is 100% accurate that humans invented global warming, and the planet is going to die, and the only way to prevent it is to cause massive destruction to the economy in the United States.

Unfortunately for the Goracle, Leo, Laurie David, Pioneer Pelosi, and the rest of the hysterics, the argument is far from over. There is even a petition, The Global Warming Petition Project (which over 17,000 scientists have signed) stating that global warming is not a problem and might actually be environmentally helpful:

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Unfortunately, most of the fanatics aren't interested in actually stopping global warming. As Griffin discovered, the argument is for political gain. Just thirty years ago, they were saying we'd be in a massive ice age right now. Shoot, my weatherman can't even predict whether it will rain in a few days, and we're supposed to believe Al Gore -- who isn't a scientist or a climatologist -- is who we should believe can predict what the weather will be like ten or twenty years from now?

Unfortunately, the political crowd will excommunicate you if you question their gospel. Too bad Griffin couldn't stick to his guns.

Previous: NASA scientist "unsure" of validity of global warming

Bloomberg: Get a Life, New Yorkers!

Did the recent JFK terror plot get ya' down? Worried about a repeat of 9-11? New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has an answer!

"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said.

That "What, me worry?" attitude pretty much sums up Bloomberg's advice to New Yorkers on the terror plot. As far as he was concerned, the professionals were on it, so New Yorkers shouldn't let it tax their brains.

"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

"In terms of what you as individual on the streets should worry about is not whether the person sitting next to you on the subway is a terrorist. The likelihood of that is so small it is not something you should worry about," Bloomberg said.

New Yorkers were disinclined to agree:

New Yorkers say Bloomberg is entitled to his opinions, but not everybody agrees with him.

"I feel that he's definitely wrong about that because terrorism right now is at its all-time high since 9/11. Everybody wants to be a terrorist and blow something up," one New Yorker told CBS 2 HD.

"We're always going to be a major hit for terrorism. After 9/11, you never know," another added.

But fear not, you wimpy Americans! Bloomberg and his team of "experts" are on the case, and there is nothing that any of us need to worry about! The threat of another terrorist attack is miniscule! And if you worry about terrorism, then you need to get a life!

Except, you know, there's all those terrorist plots we keep foiling. Obviously, the terrorists aren't giving up. And I'm sure on September 10, 2001, the entire country with the exception of the Clinton administration would have listed planes flying into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field killing over 3,000 Americans as an impossible thing that could never happen.

But don't worry. Stop thinking about terrorism. It won't happen again. Right, Mayor Bloomberg?

Except as soon as we do that, that's when it'll strike again.

Democratic debate tougher than cotton balls!

CNN and Wolf Blitzer hosted the Democratic debate last night, with the usual puffball soft questions, designed to let it as obvious as possible how much each candidate hates our troops, democracy, and America. Pull out of Iraq now! Socialize, socialize, socialize! We must submit to the UN!

One of the best parts (for me, anyways), was when Hillary Clinton disagreed with John Edwards about the global war on terror being a "bumper sticker slogan" because... she's a New Yorker , and has seen first hand the effects of terror.

Since when is Hillary Clinton a New Yorker?! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she have to purchase property in New York in order to hold a Senate seat there because she isn't a New Yorker? And does this mean that those of us not in New York are unable to comprehend how horrific 9-11 was?

Then there was John Edwards' line, "I don't know if I know what a rich person is!"

Gee, John, could it be someone who spends $400 on a haircut, and then an additional $225 at a spa and salon called the "Pink Sapphire" in "services"? Or maybe someone who made their living chasing ambulances and charging ridiculous fees pretending to be the advocate for the little guy?

Only two candidates -- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- had the guts to mention that Clinton and Edwards both voted for the war initially.

At the end of the debate, each candidate was asked what they would do in their first 100 days of office. John Edwards said he would travel the world to "re-establish America's moral authority" -- because, ya' know, John Edwards just has so many morals! And the first 100 days as president of America should not be spent in... America!

Clinton and Obama both said bringing the troops home from Iraq, although Obama added in national health care. Hillary didn't need to, because we all know how she feels about health care.

Kucinich had the realistic goal of "reshaping the world for peace" and ending ALL nuclear weapons, everywhere! After he's done with that, he and Miss America will braid each other's hair and have a pillow fight.

Other responses included a $40k a year minimum wage for teachers (Richardson), and more ending the war in Iraq (Biden).

Some oddball answers were "restoring constitutional rights" to the country (Dodd), and not actually ending the war in Iraq, but simply reminding congressional leaders that they should (Gravel).

Funnily enough, although Shrillary said she'd pull out our troops now, she still refuses to admit that her vote was wrong. Whatever's most popular at the time, eh, Hillary? Oh, and she also mentioned her husband, saying, "Bill Clinton, my dear husband, would be sent around the world as a roving ambassador." Ugh.

Each candidate also said they'd get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military as well.

Maybe next time, the Democrats will actually get asked real questions... like whether John Edwards prefers cherry or strawberry lip bloss better.

Strenghtening America's Borders, one misspelling at a time

Wow. When I saw this image on Right Wing News, I almost fell out of my chair laughing:



This image is still live on the RNC's website!

First of all, how has this been up without anyone noticing the misspelling? I know I'm a grammar nazi and all, but jeez. And since when is letting 12 million illegal immigrants into our country and leaving our borders porous "strenghtening America's borders"?

UPDATE: The image has now been corrected.

Stop Amnesty Now

Hot Air always amazes me. Those people are brilliant -- I wish I came up with this stuff.

The RNC has seen their donations drop by 40%, as Americans angrily try to fight against the amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants that the White House seems so desperate to force on us. But why? That's what I don't understand. This bill is unpopular on both sides of the political fence. They want to give this country away to a bunch of people waving Mexican flags, sending money back to Mexico, refusing to speak English, and refusing altogether to assimilate in any way, shape, or form. Wherever there is a large influx of illegal immigrants, a large influx of crime -- and especially violent crime -- seems to follow. And what will happen to national security when our borders are wide open, free for anyone to penetrate?

How are we supposed to get through to the idiots in Washington, when even drastically cutting back their money doesn't do it?

Don't stop -- keep the pressure on Washington. Hot Air is asking everyone to Join the Cero Peso Campaign.



This is a document with four cero peso notes, free for you to print out and send to the RNC. And while you're at it, send it to the Democrats, too.

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington DC 20003

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Also, don't forget to sign Rep. Eric Cantor's No Amnesty Petition:

The rule of law is vital to the success and character of our nation.

I strongly urge our nation's leaders to oppose the Ted Kennedy Amnesty Bill currently being considered by the United States Senate.

Almost two decades ago, amnesty was attempted - it failed. Repeating that mistake will do nothing to secure our borders today.

America's insecure borders are an enormous threat to our national security - a liability we can not afford in the struggle against gang violence on our streets or in the Global War on Terror.

We must take steps to secure our border, but amnesty is not the way.

Our message is simple - do not support amnesty.

Keep the pressure on. Don't give up. We can send a message to Washington and stop amnesty in its tracks.

UPDATE:

Rep. and Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter has a petition to build the border fence:

"It’s all too obvious that America is under threat because its land borders are largely porous and unprotected. In response, last year Congress passed, and the President signed into law, legislation calling for the construction of 854 miles of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite this legislative mandate by the U.S. Congress, the Department of Homeland Security recently announced its intention to build only 370 miles of fencing along the border, not the 854 miles required by the legislation. The Kennedy-McCain Amnesty bill, also would cut the 854 miles of fence down to 370.

I wrote the border fence bill and it is not ambiguous. It is not a suggestion. It was passed and signed by the President. It is the law. It has been over six months since we passed that law and only 11 miles have been built. At that rate, it will take us 20 years to build it. If elected President, I will build all 854 miles in six months. In the meantime, it is still the law and the fact that only 11 miles have been built is unacceptable." - Congressman Duncan Hunter

Be sure to sign it.