Doug Lamborn votes with fellow conservatives to save the Border Fence, Opposes 9000 Dem. Earmarks

29 thoughts on “Doug Lamborn votes with fellow conservatives to save the Border Fence, Opposes 9000 Dem. Earmarks”

1. There were Billions of PRESIDENTIAL earmarks, and BILLIONS of Republican earmarks….but for the first time under this DEMOCRATIC leadership, you can find them all…..completely transparent…I believe even indexed….as opposed to the stealth methods of the previous leadership.

   Log in to Reply

   1. As to the Democrat leadership keeping their promises on earmarks, you are strangly silent on that subject.

      I guess its because the Democrats flat out lied about making earmarks known 24 hours before a vote.  

      And 9000 in one bill, WOW, that has to set a record!
      

      Log in to Reply

2. .
   
   Thanks to Doug for fighting for our territorial sovereignty.
   
   .

   Log in to Reply

3. by Michelle Malkin
   
   December 19, 2007 02:00 PM EST

   Do you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It’s an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It’s a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal. And in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, it’s a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration enforcement converts now running for president.

   Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the “Secure Fence Act.” Did you question the timing? You should have. It’s no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for “at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors” at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.

   GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

   On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for “flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed.” Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act — now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act — 700 miles shrunk to “somewhere in the ballpark” of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline — a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an “interlocking surveillance camera system” along the border in California and Arizona — passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from “a case of ‘the slows’ on border enforcement.”

   More than a year after the law’s passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected — but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

   Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don’t make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans’ provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

   GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: “This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it’s currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable.”
   
   But so totally, totally predictable.

   GOP Majority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: “The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats’ unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration,” he said. “Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it’s consistent with the pattern of behavior we’ve seen all year from this majority.” But it’s border state Republicans who’ve been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

   To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in “emergency” funding for attorneys of illegal aliens.

   Next time you hear a leading presidential candidate try to woo you with his nine-point immigration enforcement plan or his secure ID plan or his Secure Borders platform, point to the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence. Poof! That is what happens to election-season homeland security promises. Why would theirs be any different?

   Michelle Malkin is author of “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.” Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

   Log in to Reply

4. I don’t like this any better than you, NEWSMAN.  

   Log in to Reply

   1. Perhaps if enough of us from both parties keep shining the light on this and sounding the alarm, enough voters will vote for a change in the status quo.

      Corruption is corruption whether its William Jefferson D-LA, or Duke Cunningham R-CA.

      The difference (IMHO) is, fellow Republican Office Holders are disgraced by this dishonorable action on the part of one of their party,  while Democrats seem to close ranks and don’t denounce the D-wrong doer.

      Scores of Republicans publicly denounced the action of Cunningham, while Jefferson’s actions drew barely a peep more than a “no comment” from his fellow Democrat office holders.

      While one can admire strong party unity and loyalty when directed for a good public cause, when its just covering for bad behavior to protect ones public image, it sends the wrong message and stifles true reform for the public good.  

      Log in to Reply

      1. Whether its lying under oath, accepting campaign contributions that cause a clear conflict of interest, inserting over 9000 earmarks after you campaigned to “reform” the practice, or voting for a border fence in the heat of a campaign, and then cutting the funding for that same fence a few months later after the public heat is off and you are safely elected,  its all dishonest politics and subverting the will of those who put their trust in you by their vote.

         Until we all demand they stop, many won’t stop.

         That’s why I support Doug Lamborn.  He may not be the most eloquent speaker, or the slickest politician, but he is an honest man.  And that means a lot.

         Log in to Reply

         1. It has a spell check function for all web pages and you will not have to cut and paste.

            Log in to Reply
            1. Log in to Reply

      2. and have to ask if you’re living in bizarro world.

         The difference (IMHO) is, fellow Republican Office Holders are disgraced by this dishonorable action on the part of one of their party,  while Democrats seem to close ranks and don’t denounce the D-wrong doer.

         In every recent example I can think of – including the very two you cite – it’s the Dems who’ve denounced their own while it’s the ‘pubs who close ranks. ‘pubs were all “no comment” while the Dems stripped Jefferson of his plum committee assignment. Remember all the ‘pub dismay and condemnation of Tom DeLay? Me neither. And if any said “boo” over Cunningham it was only after it was clear that he was guilty as sin and was going down in flames. What a brave, principled party the GOP is!

         Log in to Reply

         1. Republicans from around the country blasted Rep Mark Folly, and Duke Cunningham.  Larry Craig was widely and immediately criticized on Conservative talk radio, and by elected officials.

            Democrat’s blocked the subpoena for William Jefferson D-LA’s taxpayer funded office AFTER the cops found his refrigerator stuffed with loads of cold cash.  

            Log in to Reply

            1. including your precious then-majority ‘pubs.

               Name one ‘pub who condemned Cunningham or DeLay before it was obvious they were going down.

               I’ll give you Foley but that was typical ‘pub homophobia at work there. Keep in mind that Hastert was alerted to Foley’s inappropriate behavior years before it became public. Keep in mind also that the ‘pubs in charge of the page program let other ‘pubs know what Foley was up to but failed to warn any Dems.

               The party of values, that GOP.

               Log in to Reply

               1. In case you don’t remember, Barney Frank used the services of a gay prostitute, allowed the man to move in with him, and then allowed the guy to run a prostitution ring out of his apartment.

                  Now say what you will about orientation, but most people still think selling sex is a crime. And Congressmen who have major crimes being committed on their property generally and rightfully usually have their judgment questioned.

                  Dems never have sex scandals, oh, except for
                  
                  Rep. Wilbur Mills (D-Ark.)
                  
                  Rep. Wayne Hays (D-Ohio)
                  
                  Rep. John Young (D-Tex.)
                  
                  Rep. Allan Howe (D-Utah)
                  
                  Rep. Fred Richmond (D-N.Y.)
                  
                  Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
                  
                  Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.)
                  
                  Rep. Jim Bates (D-Calif.)
                  
                  Rep. Gus Savage (D-Ill.)
                  
                  Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
                  
                  Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.)
                  
                  Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.)
                  
                  on and on.

                  Republicans have some bad apples too.  The difference is, when exposed, the vast majority in our party hold them accountable.

                  I can’t see George Bush (41 or 43), getting a pass from the Republicans in Congress or Republican voters if he had had sex with a subordinate female intern employee 20 years his junior, and then lied about it under oath to a Grand Jury.

                  And if you’re honest, neither can you.  

                  Log in to Reply

                  1. You fail to prove your point when you have to dig so deep in the past. What matters is what’s happened in the past decade, when actions show what the parties are doing about their own corrupt members, and on that front the Dems are much cleaner than the ‘pubs, which you will have to admit if you’re honest or else try to back up your earlier assertions of how they played the Cunninham, DeLay, and Jefferson scandals. (I notice you have had nothing to say about DeLay in this exchange.)

                     I’m going to guess that your list of Dems are all as old as the Frank scandal. I am not familiar with any of those names. (Brock Adams? I lived in Washington in the 90s and no such person was a Senator for that state.)

                     And the only people who think “sex is a crime” are hard right social cons who preach “less government” but are more than happy to have more of it in your bedroom and other areas of your private life..

                     I know nothing about the others you list, but if they were run-of-the-mill cheater stories then that’s hardly a scandal. (Larry Craig is only a scandal because he’s got a nice anti-gay track record.) Frank at least was up to something illegal by the looks of it.

                     Log in to Reply

                     1.  
                        

                        (I notice you have had nothing to say about DeLay in this exchange.)

                        Also from Wikipedia:
                        

                        In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during that period. DeLay denied the charges, saying that they were politically motivated, but Republican Conference rules forced him to resign temporarily from his position as Majority Leader.

                        In January 2006, under pressure from fellow Republicans,DeLay announced that he would not seek to return to the position

                        Again, Tom Delay has never been convicted of any crime.  Some of the politicaly motivated charges against him were dropped.

                        BBC World service  Dec 5, 2005
                        

                        DeLay conspiracy charge dropped

                        A Texas judge has dismissed conspiracy charges against top US Republican politician Tom DeLay.

                        The judge said Mr DeLay’s actions in the conspiracy charge were not a crime at the time that the alleged violations took place.

                         

                        Log in to Reply

                        1. But you’re guilty of unclear judgment if you think his prosecution was politically motivated, especially given his connections to Jack Abramoff, this decade’s most notorious peddler of influence.

                           And keep in mind that DeLay and his ‘pub allies tried changing those rules that forced him to step down, only being blocked by a few brave, ethical ‘pubs and the poor publicity their craven move was generating.

                           Log in to Reply

                           1. While I rarely agree with you, you will at least concede a point well made.  It makes it more interesting to speak to a thinking person over one who just blindly lashes , rants and raves.

                              OK, on to Jack Abramoff.  The lobbyist deluxe gave to both parties.  That dog won’t hunt for me. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but J. A. is an embarrassment to any self respecting D or R.

                              Tom Delay.  What he did was perfectly legal 20 years ago. For different reasons, I think Tom Delay destroyed the conservative movement and squandered the Republican revolution of 1994. So you won’t here this guy defending the Hammer.

                              Your buddy Ronnie Earl has questionable ethics if you ask me.  
                              
                              SEE http://www.nationalreview.com/…

                              My opinion is that each and every law that restricts you from giving voluntarily as much of your own money to any and every cause you see fit is unconstitutional, (so long as the cause is itself not criminal like drugs or prostitution).

                              If George Sorros or George Bush want to give a fortune to their favorite politician, that should be constitutionally protected.  A law to require full disclosure would be the only exception.  

                              Give as much as you wish to whom you wish, just disclose it, and let the voters decide.
                              

                           2. but I’ll have to settle for this.

                              I’m not interested in discussing finance, save my opinion – that the notion that giving money is the same as free speech is ridiculous, because more money would therefore equal more free speech. That makes it akin to “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

                              I’ll leave it at that.

                  2. You said “selling sex is a crime,” not “sex is a crime,” so I need to withdraw that part of my statement, at least as a response to yours. (Most social cons do seem to think sex is a crime and do want more government in the bedroom, but you haven’t made that case… yet.)

                     Log in to Reply
                     1. Log in to Reply

                        1. and I respect other posters who do the same.

                           Log in to Reply

                           1. and will give you the opportunity to do it again – see below.

                              I am sorry about your hero here, but Barney “Henry Higgins” Frank is PATHETIC, and a criminal.

                              My reading only impresses me with how Frank handled the situation – no obfuscating, no public denials, no covering up. Quite the contrast with much more recent ‘pub behavior.

                              Yeah, quite impressive. He’s a saint.  Went right to the ethics committee, after he was outed by the 2 largest papaers in DC in a bidding war with a DC TV station.

                              GIVE ME A BREAK.

                              I quote from the Washington Post. (Full story link below)

                              Prostitute and pimp Stephen L. Gobie … recalled in an interview yesterday. …’One day, don’t be surprised if you see me on TV.’ ”

                              Gobie’s dream has come true. His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times.

                              Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, …

                              Frank, a leading House liberal, likened himself to Henry Higgins, who in “Pygmalion” tries to transform a cockney waif into a member of English society. Gobie dismissed that as “garbage.” “This is not the case of the poor waif who is being sheltered,” Gobie said. “This was the first time he felt good in a relationship. Here’s a guy who didn’t have a social life until he was 45.”

                              Gobie said his motive was largely financial. Gobie had offered his story to WUSA-TV (Channel 9), then the Washington Times. Later he came to The Washington Post, saying he was looking “to start a bidding war” for “a better offer” than the Washington Times made. He and the Times say he was not paid.

                              Gobie also said he wants “to show up people in positions of power who abuse other people.”

                              Although Frank and Gobie differ in some details of their relationship, they agree on the story line. They met on April Fool’s Day 1985. The representative answered a classified ad in the Washington Blade, the local gay weekly. “Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time.”

                              Then in his third term, the 45-year-old representative had not yet stated his homosexuality publicly. He paid Gobie $80 in cash for sex.

                              I believe the Democrat Congressman actually committed a crime there didn’t he.

                              Gobie, then 28, was one of many young men “freelancing” in male prostitution. Gobie said he was born in Boston and grew up in a military family. He has felony convictions for possession of cocaine, oral sodomy and production of obscene items involving a juvenile.

                              Gobie and Frank say they became more friends than sexual partners. Gobie says he attended a bill-signing at the White House, and helped coach and played left field for Frank’s team in the Congressional Softball League. “I was the star player,” Gobie said.

                              Frank began to help Gobie financially, paying his attorney and court-ordered psychiatrist. The House member also said he hired Gobie as a personal aide, housekeeper and driver, but Gobie said that was a “cover story” concocted for probation officers.

                              …Gobie says, he began to use Frank’s apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.

                              “He knew exactly what I was doing,” Gobie said. “It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear .

                              .

                              . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing.”

                              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

                              В© 1996 The Washington Post Co.

                              Barney “I’m Henry Higgins” Frank is still a Democrat in Congress along with former KKK Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd D-WV.

                              If Barney Frank was a Republican, the voters would have thrown him out.

                              Case in point. Mark Foley. As far as we know, nothing ever happened except inappropriate IM’s and E-mails. Before Foley was ever charged or convicted, Republicans sent faxes and emails to Folly’s office condemning the behavior and asking him to resign.

                              Where were the Dem letters and faxes in the Barney Frank case.  

                              There weren’t any.

                           2. unless Frank was actually brought up on charges, I don’t think he can be called a criminal. Why they didn’t charge him I can’t say, but it could be that maybe that kind of solicitation isn’t a felony.

                              You’re probably right, if he was a ‘pub they would have thrown him out, but only because ‘pubs like to preach sexual morality which makes them hypocrites when they’re caught in some affair.

                              I still don’t think Foley makes for a good counter argument given (A) ‘pub homophobia and (B) the fact that they knew about him for YEARS. Yeah, it sure was brave of them to ask for his resignation once his behavior came to public light (the second time I’ve had to point that out to you).

                              And it’s hilarious that you quote Goble, who was thoroughly discredited by the investigation.

                              And you ask, where were the calls for resignation for Frank. Given his conduct, why should there have been? At worst, he was guilty of a victimless crime that took place between consenting adults (and remember, without a conviction there was no crime). Foley was preying on underage kids from a position of authority – something infinitely worse.

                              I’m starting to take measure of your sense of judgment, Newsman, and I’m finding it lacking.

                           3. Well…….
                              
                              unless Frank was actually brought up on charges, I don’t think he can be called a criminal.

                              Websters Dictionary defines : criminal Function: noun Date: circa 1626
                              
                              1 : one who has committed a crime 2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime.

                              He’s a criminal no less than an un-prosecuted KKK lyncher, or an un-indicted co-conspirator.  
                              
                              He is not a convicted felon.

                              You’re probably right, if he was a ‘pub they would have thrown him out, but only because ‘pubs like to preach sexual morality which makes them hypocrites when they’re caught in some affair.

                              NO. because conservatives believe in the rule of law, and believe that if you campaign on certain values, you should walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Foley is a hypocrite.  Larry Craig too.

                              I still don’t think Foley makes for a good counter argument given (A) ‘pub homophobia and (B) the fact that they knew about him for YEARS.

                              Yeah, it sure was brave of them to ask for his resignation once his behavior came to public light (the second time I’ve had to point that out to you).

                              Yeah I probably should have told you, that you were full of _ _ _ _ the first time. Sorry, let me correct that.

                              A very few in the leadership had unsubstantiated rumors, but I have heard of no smoking gun evidence the leadership had before the story became national news.  

                              And I can assure you “the local level” Republicans like me sure didn’t approve or look the other way on either of these guys.

                              And it’s hilarious that you quote Goble, who was thoroughly discredited by the investigation.

                              No more discredited than Joe Wilson was, yet the left still quotes him. I don’t think Goble or Wilson exaggerated or lied about everything.  And I didn’t quote him, the Washington Post did.  I put the WP story in front of your face to prove Barney “I’m just like Henry Higgins” Frank did not give himself up to the ethics committee until after it was a national scandal.  

                              And you ask, where were the calls for resignation for Frank. Given his conduct, why should there have been?

                              I rest my case. There shouldn’t be if he is a Democrat, because you guys are perfectly proud of his behavior.  But if he is my Conservative representative, he has broken my trust, does not represent my values, and will not win re election.  

                              Gay or Straight, you are toast if your a Republican and behave like Frank did.  He’s pathetic.  Re-read the WP story and tell me you would not be ashamed if Democrat Colorado Governor Bill Ritter behaved that way. I sure would if it was Owen’s.

                              At worst, he was guilty of a victimless crime that took place between consenting adults (and remember, without a conviction there was no crime). Foley was preying on underage kids from a position of authority – something infinitely worse.

                              The kids in Foleys case were underage when they were pages.  The text messages took place after they graduated and were Adults. Foley was never convicted (and maybe never even charged with a crime.)

                              I’m starting to take measure of your sense of judgment, Newsman, and I’m finding it lacking.

                              DITTO.

                  3. I decided to finally look it up. Here’s what Wikipedia says:

                     In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank’s apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie’s activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.[1] Regarding Gobie’s more scandalous claims the report by the Ethics Committee concluded, “In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself.”[2]

                     So let’s review the major points:

                     * The Dem-majority house reprimanded Frank
                     
                     * Frank himself reported it to the Ethics Committee
                     
                     * Frank fired Goble when he found out what he was up to
                     
                     * Goble’s countercharges against Frank were not supported by evidence, and in fact were mostly proven false

                     So now I would like you to post a comment admitting that the Frank case does not prove your assertion that Dems “close up ranks and don’t denounce the wrongdoer,” and in fact demonstrates the opposite.

                     Log in to Reply

                     1. RE: Barney Frank

                        I said:
                        

                        Congressmen who have major crimes being committed on their property generally and rightfully usually have their judgment questioned.

                        Barney Frank reported it to the ethics committee, after it was reported by the press, and the Republicans called for an investigation.  The Dem’s at the time closed ranks and defended Frank, until weeks later when the evidence and Frank’s own Mea Culpa saved him.

                        I don’t believe there was ever any evidence presented that Barney Frank was involved in the illegal activity.  I never said that.

                        Log in to Reply

                        1. There’s a difference between saying

                           In case you don’t remember, Barney Frank used the services of a gay prostitute, allowed the man to move in with him, and then allowed the guy to run a prostitution ring out of his apartment.

                           and saying

                           I don’t believe there was ever any evidence presented that Barney Frank was involved in the illegal activity.  I never said that.

                           In short, I think you did say that. It certainly makes no sense if that wasn’t what you meant.

                           If you read the link I provided, it says that Frank himself asked for the Ethics Committee to investigate. It says nothing about the ‘pubs other than that none other than Larry Craig pressed for both censure and expulsion.

                           My reading only impresses me with how Frank handled the situation – no obfuscating, no public denials, no covering up. Quite the contrast with much more recent ‘pub behavior.

                           Log in to Reply

                           1.  Barney Frank used the services of a gay prostitute = True.

                              allowed the man to move in with him = True.

                              and then allowed the guy to run a prostitution ring out of his apartment = He did allow him to live there, he* (*the prostitute) did run a prostitution ring out of his basement. Barney was responsible for what went on in his home, but there is no evidence Barny Frank knew.

                           2. You still need to either admit that the Frank scandal does nothing to prove your original point, or provide better evidence. The facts I presented contradict your assertion; please provide the facts that support it.