Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Congratulations Mr. President-elect!

Congratulations Mr. President-elect!

I am, of course, reluctant to accept that someone so different in political ideology from me has been elected to the highest post in the world.

However, as much as I decry an Obama presidency, I also celebrate this great nation. The people voted, the populace chose, the constitutionality of the Electoral College (even though not expedited yet), will be fulfilled. And a new leader of the free world, commander-in-chief, high executive has been called to service in the most peaceful transfer of governance of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

What’s more is that it IS an incredible testimony that an American of African ancestry has been elected… popularly and constitutionally.

And now that an African American has been chosen as the president-elect, there is no excuse for ANYONE of ANY race not to strive for the best this nation has to offer. There can be no circumstance preventing the pursuit, and not the gift, of happiness.

That holds value to me as a patriot.

So congratulations, Mr. President-elect!

However…

I still do not trust that he will not lead us into a path towards socialism and that is unacceptable.

I still believe that he will fulfill every radical promise he made as that far left guy campaigning during the primaries.

I still believe that he doesn’t truly grasp the accountability and responsibility that he has been chosen to undertake.

So congratulations, Mr. President-elect!

Now to my fellow conservatives and conservative wannabees:

We have no one to blame but ourselves. We failed to prevent a moderate candidate from gaining the nomination. We failed by letting moderates and liberals hijack the Republican Party. We failed by letting pop culture rule our society instead of truth. We failed by getting caught up in the hype of an obligatory candidate who really didn’t deserve it. We failed by letting the press and the GOP dictate to us who our candidate would be.

We failed conservatism and by doing that we have failed our country.

There are some of you who have said that it took a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan. And even though the merits of that statement are reassuring to us in the hopes for the future, they mean nothing without conservatives willing to stand up and take action for that future. And they mean nothing if there isn’t anything left of this nation for a true conservative in the mold of Reagan to be nominated.

Conservatives have got to back up conservative words WITH conservative actions. Conservatives have got to vet, choose, nominate and elect conservatives to public office AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THOSE CONSERVATIVE IDEALS AND VALUES for which they were elected.

The election this year started something WE have got to continue. AND GOOD RIDDANCE! Conservatives have got to vote out those RINOs and ConWans who are compromising our nation by trying to appease all people.

If we want someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan, we have to work hard to show that conservatism is in the nation’s best interest for all people.

We have to act like conservatives who are proud Americans. We have to work in and of ourselves to show our fellow Americans that personal responsibility and accountability ARE the pursuit of happiness.

Frankly, John McCain did not inspire that. Yes, he is known for reaching across the aisle. But that is the crime of conservatism compromised. McCain would compromise to the left. The thing that made Reagan a great president of unity was that the compromise involved him getting the other side to reach across the aisle to work with him.

McCain chose to play it safe in the hopes of reaching independents. He took the conservative vote for granted before and after Sarah Palin was chosen as his veep pick.

And no, Sarah Palin shoulders no blame for this loss. Although, I am sure she would certainly hold herself accountable. But she was what brought conservative back into the GOP campaign. She is not perfect, folks, and there were so many that held her to an even higher standard than perfection. When she had a minor blemish, it was portrayed as a gaping and festering wound. Palin is an everyday American woman who was thrust into the national spotlight. Her political rise is one that can be compared to John Adams or Harry Truman. In my humble opinion, that is good company!

So congratulations, Mr. President-elect! You are what the American people wanted. We’ll see how long that lasts. I will pray for you when I pray for this country. And one of my prayers will be that God preserve this nation in spite of your presidency.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

So, there really was only one presidential debate...

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

These Truths ARE Self-Evident

Saturday, October 25, 2008

John McCain is NOT necessarily pro-life

McCain is not necessarily pro-life

Let me start by stating that I still strongly endorse McCain, even on the abortion issue.

However, like a lot of you, I feel that the pro-life issue has been hijacked by the GOP inasmuch as has become a partisan issue. The issue used to be one of conscience that was beyond party loyalty. But in the last 30 years, the sanctity of life has taken a back seat because voters look at it in terms of political party rather than conscience. You can read an explanation of why abortion is murder here.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has one of the best takes on the abortion issue in regards to the candidates.

As a Christian, this is one of those issues in which I have had a problem with McCain. Yes, his voting record is politically pro-life and yet he would still allow abortion to be legal where some states rule it legal. This would encourage interstate travel and more deception by those seeking abortions.

But as a political conservative, I agree with him that, constitutionally, the federal government should not be involved in the issue. And McCain has promised to nominate SCOTUS judges that will interpret the constitution as it was intended. That is why he is the better candidate on this issue.

Despite Barack Obama’s mantra to reduce abortions, he will nominate judges that will follow the DNC’s platform to unswervingly uphold Roe v. Wade. This would make abortions “safe and legal.”

Sarah Palin is absolutely pro-life and will promote a legal end to abortions nationwide based on her Christian faith.

Joe Biden is simply a conniving coward when it comes to practicing his faith in terms of applying it to the abortion issue.

Now, I strongly believe that National Security is the main reason to vote McCain-Palin. If Obama is elected, our nation faces a physical and social invasion where Islamic law would become a standard. If that happens, abortions will be controlled by the government and there will NOT be ANY choice.

In conclusion, even though neither candidate would effectively put an end to abortion altogether, McCain is the candidate who would promulgate a stronger start to protecting the sanctity of life.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Pro-life is a TRUTH & Pro-Choice is a LIE

The following mock debate is based on issues of morality. Notice how each stereotypical candidate answers, and then compare their answers to the real answer of our true political leaders.





And from our elected officials…

Nancy Pelosi:

She obviously didn’t check the bible about it and her understanding of the early church fathers is WAY off.

Joe Biden:

“Wikipedia” Joe forgot to check his facts as well.

Sarah Palin:


Barack Obama on Late Term Abortion:


McCain on Partial Birth Abortion:


Obama and McCain at Saddleback Church with Rick Warren:


Get the connection. Why do we champion the morality of issues like rape, incest, domestic abuse, etc. and yet we refuse to acknowledge that abortion is a moral issue that affects not only the mother but the life of the human being growing inside of her?

Now, check this clip where pro-life is proven to be factually TRUE!



If you vote for someone who is in favor of abortions and participates in pro-abortion legislation, you are just as guilty as those who choose and perform abortions.







Why is abortion the murder of a human being?

The following is from Scott Klusendorf


Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.

In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?

At this point, some of you may object that those comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.

We can be vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. We can support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that we can and should fully support for women. But some choices are wrong; like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No one should be allowed to choose that.

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.

Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.

Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.

Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today.

SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than adults. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

I challenge you to be intellectually honest:
Q - Do you think that birth makes the unborn human?
A – If so, how does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?
Q - Does brain development or higher consciousness makes us human?
A – If so, would you agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not?

Some of you are going to ignore the scientific and philosophic case presented for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. I remind you that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.

So then ask yourself – Is your position on abortion one of logic and science or one of self-interest.

This last video is of Scott Klusendorf speaking at Gordon College in Massachusetts. BE WARNED, THERE ARE ABOUT 95 SECONDS OF VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES.
Scott Klusendorf - Speech to Gordon College


There are many of you who still have the question of victims of rape and incest. And I empathize with those who have that concern. As a Christian, I believe that the life of the unborn child is just as valid as that of the victim mother, and one cannot be give priority over the other, except where the life of the mother is threatened. We Christians have got to acknowledge that a victim is suffering and we cannot erase that by promoting the life of the unborn. However, what we should do is to show compassion and generosity towards the mother, by ensuring that she understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God’s will is for her to have the baby. We should NOT EVER minimize a victim’s experiences simply because we know that her unborn child has the right to life.

In addition to the evidence presented above, I believe that the primary elemental DNA coding of life happens at conception. Everything that the unborn human will be is determined the moment the sperm meets the egg through that genetic coding. Don’t agree? Then ask why embryonic stem cells are seen as ultimately valuable in medical research.

Abortion is murder.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Fact Checking Tax Policy Discussion in the Final Presidential Debate

Fact Checking Tax Policy Discussion in the Final Presidential Debate


October 15, 2008
By Gerald Prante


On the issue of whose tax plan would provide more relief to middle-income taxpayers, Barack Obama once again brought out this line:

“And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Sen. McCain does.”

The "95 percent" figure is correct. Even though many conservatives have argued that you can't cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes, most of those who are receiving refundable tax credits on the income tax side are still net taxpayers given that they do pay payroll taxes, corporate income tax, excise taxes, etc. (And even that assumes the fact that a person is a net taxpayer even matters, versus the net fiscal incidence of the person, and once we go down that road, at least we are actually getting somewhere on the core questions of public finance and the role of government in distributional outcomes.)

The independent study that Sen. Obama is referring to comes from the Tax Policy Center, which does indeed verify this fact for middle-income tax units when you exclude the effects of the two candidates' health care plans. What Sen. Obama doesn't tell us is that Sen. McCain's health care tax plan (which he criticizes on many occasions, and in his ubiquitous TV ads) would actually provide more savings to middle-income tax units (as a group) than Sen. Obama's health care plan. And when you include the effects of these health care plans, the "three-times as much tax relief" claim no longer holds. When TPC ran the tax plans, they analyzed the health care plans separately from the other parts of the candidates' tax plans.

Speaking of Sen. McCain's health care plan, Sen. Obama once again made this invalid comparison:

“By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you.”

Sen. Obama's saying outright that Sen. McCain's plan is a loss for you is nonsense.

The $12,000 cost and $5,000 credit are not comparable unless one assumes two facts for McCain's health care tax plan: (1) the worker will be dropped by his employer, and (2) the worker's wages will not increase to offset the lost health care. For most workers, this isn't going to happen. If somebody is receiving $12,000 in health insurance that is now taxed as ordinary income (and there is no dropping of coverage), a $5,000 credit is going to more than offset the additional tax a person must pay on his/her employer-provided health insurance. Eventually, since the credit is indexed for inflation and not health-care costs, the credit's value would diminish. But over the next ten years, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that McCain's health care tax plan is a $1.3 trillion tax cut for American taxpayers, and they have shown that the average middle-income tax unit would be better off under McCain's health care tax plan than Obama's in that time period. Now it is true that the average doesn't hold for everyone in the middle, and some will gain a lot in the middle and some could lose a lot in the middle (such as those whose coverage is dropped), but the reality is that the health care tax plan is the most progressive part of Sen. McCain's plan. It would make the federal income tax more progressive.

Finally, on the issue of small businesses, Sen. Obama said this in defense of his tax plan's impact on small businesses:
“The last point I'll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.”

That "98 percent" figure is technically correct under certain assumptions, but it's basically irrelevant given the latter point he wanted to make. Under Sen. Obama's metric where the mere number of tax returns affected by his tax plan is what matters (2 percent), a small business that earned $100 in business income and had only one employee would have the same "drive" of the economy as a small business that earned $500,000 in net income and had 50 employees. Obviously, that's ridiculous, but it fits with the theme of this campaign: if it sounds good, say it, even if it's misleading (or not true).

Summary

Is it November 5th yet?

Friday, October 10, 2008

VIDEO: ACORN: The True “Thug-Thizzle” Since at Least 2006

VIDEO: ACORN: The True “Thug-Thizzle” Since at Least 2006

Barack Obama gave ACORN $800,000 to help with it’s funding. ACORN has endorsed Obama for president.

ACORN’s history of voter fraud and other questionable activities going back to the 2006 election!

Currently:

10/10/08



Earlier this year:

6/24/08



08/05/08


AND FROM 2006!!!!!!!!!!!

10/3/06


10/4/06


12/13/06:

Monday, October 6, 2008

So, Character is now an issue...

Character does count!

Character – noun
- the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. - moral or ethical quality. - qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity. - status or capacity. - Moral or ethical strength.

Origins - c.1315, from Old French caractere, from Latin character, from Greek kharakter "engraved mark," from kharassein "to engrave," from kharax "pointed stake." Meaning extended by metaphor to "a defining quality." - Online Etymology Dictionary

A defining quality… how apropos.

There is another saying that goes with “character” –

“Show me your friends and I’ll show you your future.”

Therefore, character can be affected by associations just as much as life experiences and attitudes.

The character of Barack Obama has been called into question for this very reason.

But before we address Obama’s associations, let’s look at the disastrous scandal involving John McCain which the democrats and liberal press claim addresses the issue of his character.

”The Keating Five”

From 1987 to 1989, McCain underwent a federal investigation as a member of the “Keating Five,” a group of senators who were accused of improperly intervening with federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr., a bank chairman whose Lincoln Savings & Loan Association eventually became one of the biggest failures in the savings and loan disasters of the late 1980s. He was eventually cleared of the charges, although investigators declared that he had exercised “poor judgment” by meeting with the regulators.

Basically, this is an asterisk, as McCain himself calls it.

It all started in March 1987. Charles H Keating Jr., the flamboyant developer and anti-porn crusader, needed help. The government was poised to seize Lincoln Savings and Loan, a freewheeling subsidiary of Keating's American Continental Corp.

As federal auditors examined Lincoln, Keating was not content to wait and hope for the best. He had spread a lot of money around Washington, and it was time to call in his chits.

One of his first stops was Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.

The state's senior senator was one of Keating's most loyal friends in Congress, and for good reason. Keating had given thousands of dollars to DeConcini's campaigns. At one point, DeConcini even pushed Keating for ambassador to the Bahamas, where Keating owned a luxurious vacation home.

Now Keating had a job for DeConcini. He wanted him to organize a meeting with regulators to deliver a message: Get off Lincoln's back. Eventually, DeConcini would set up a meeting with five senators and the regulators. One of them was John McCain.

McCain already knew Keating well. His ties to the home builder dated to 1981, when the two men met at a Navy League dinner where McCain spoke.

After the speech, Keating walked up to McCain and told him that he, too, was a Navy flier and that he greatly respected McCain's war record. He met McCain's wife and family. The two men became friends.

Charlie Keating always took care of his friends, especially those in politics. McCain was no exception. Keep in mind that there was no scandal at this point, nor anything wrong that Keating was doing.

In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.

In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

McCain also had carried a little water for Keating in Washington. While in the House, McCain, a reluctant participant, along with a majority of representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts such as Lincoln.

Despite his history with Keating, McCain was hesitant about intervening. At that point, he had been in the Senate only three months. DeConcini wanted McCain to fly to San Francisco with him and talk to the regulators. McCain refused.

Keating would not be dissuaded. On March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Keating went to DeConcini's office and asked him if the meeting with the regulators was on. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous.

Keating presented McCain with a laundry list of demands for the regulators.

McCain told Keating that he would attend the meeting and find out whether Keating was getting treated fairly but that was all.

The first meeting, on April 2, 1987, in DeConcini's office, included Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, as well as four senators: DeConcini, McCain, Alan Cranston, D-Calif., and John Glenn, D-Ohio.

(Years later, McCain recalled that DeConcini started the meeting with a reference to "our friend at Lincoln." McCain characterized it as "an unfortunate choice of words, which Gray would remember and repeat publicly many times.")

For Keating, the meeting was a bust. Gray told the senators that as head of the loan board, he worried about the big picture. He didn't have any specific information about Lincoln. Bank regulators in San Francisco would be versed in that, not him. Gray offered to set up a meeting between the senators and the San Francisco regulators.

The second meeting was April 9. The same four senators attended, along with Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich. Also at the meeting were William Black, then deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., James Cirona, president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and Michael Patriarca, director of agency functions at the FSLIC.

In an interview with The Republic, Black said the meeting was a show of force by Keating, who wanted the senators to pressure the regulators into dropping their case against Lincoln. The thrift was in trouble for violating "direct investment" rules, which prohibited S&Ls from taking large ownership positions in various ventures.

"The Senate is a really small club, like the cliche goes," Black said. "And you really did have one-twentieth of the Senate in one room, called by one guy, who was the biggest crook in the S&L debacle."

Black said the senators could have accomplished their goal "if they had simply had us show up and seen this incredible room and said, 'Hi. Charles Keating asked us to meet with you. 'Bye.'"

McCain previously had refused DeConcini's request to meet with the Lincoln auditors themselves. In Worth the Fighting For, McCain wrote that he remained "a little troubled" at the prospect, "but since the chairman of the bank board didn't seem to have a problem with the idea, maybe a discussion with the regulators wouldn't be as problematic as I had earlier thought."

McCain concedes that he failed to sense that Gray and the thrift examiners felt threatened by the senators' meddling.

The five senators, including McCain, seemed like a united front to Black. "They presented themselves as a group," Black said, "and DeConcini is the dad, who's going to take the primary speaking role. Both meetings are in his office, and in both cases it's we want this, with no one going, 'What do you mean we, kemo sabe?'"

According to nearly verbatim notes taken by Black, McCain started the second meeting with a careful comment. “One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion,” McCain said. “ACC (American Continental Corp.) is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them...” “I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper.”

Black said the comment had the opposite effect for the regulators. It made them nervous about what might really be going on. "McCain was the weirdest," Black said. "They were all different in their own way. McCain was always Hamlet . . . wringing his hands about what to do."

Glenn, a former astronaut and the first American to orbit the Earth, was not as tactful. "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," he told the regulators. "If things are bad there, get to them. Their view is that they took a failing business and put it back on its feet. It's now viable and profitable. They took it off the endangered species list. Why has the exam dragged on and on and on?"

DeConcini added: "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act?"

Cirona, the banking official, told the senators that it was "very unusual" to hold a meeting to discuss a particular company.

DeConcini shot back: "It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."

The meeting went on. McCain was quiet. DeConcini carried the ball. The regulators told the senators that Lincoln was in trouble. The thrift, Cirona said, was a "ticking time bomb."

Then Patriarca made a stunning comment, according to transcripts released later. "We're sending a criminal referral to the Department of Justice," he said. "Not maybe, we're sending one. This is an extraordinarily serious matter. It involves a whole range of imprudent actions. I can't tell you strongly enough how serious this is. This is not a profitable institution."

The statement made DeConcini back off a little. "The criminality surprises me," he said. "We're not interested in discussing those issues. Our premise was that we had a viable institution concerned that it was being overregulated."

"What can we say to Lincoln?" Glenn asked.

"Nothing," Black responded, "with regard to the criminal referral. They haven't and won't be told by us that we're making one."

"You haven't told them?" Glenn asked.

"No," said Black. "Justice would skin us alive if we did. Those referrals are very confidential. We can't prosecute anyone ourselves. All we can do is refer it to Justice."

After the meeting, McCain was done with Keating. "Again, I was troubled by the appearance of the meeting," he said later. "I stated I didn't want any special favors from them. I only wanted them (Lincoln Savings) to be fairly treated."

Black doesn't completely buy that argument. If McCain was concerned about Keating asking him to do things that were improper, why go to either meeting at all?

Black said McCain probably went because Keating was close to being the political godfather of Arizona and McCain still had plenty of ambition.

"Keating was incredibly powerful," Black said. "And incredibly useful."

McCain's reservations aside, Keating accomplished his goal. He had bought some time, though the price was very high.

A month later, the San Francisco regulators finished a yearlong audit and recommended that Lincoln be seized. But the report was virtually ignored because of politics on the bank board.

Gray was being replaced as chairman by Danny Wall, who was more sympathetic to Keating.

The audit, which described Lincoln as a thrift reeling out of control, sat on a shelf.

In September 1987, the investigation was taken away from the San Francisco office, away from Black and Patriarca. In May 1988, it was transferred to Washington, where Lincoln would get a new audit.

It was a win for Keating. A battle, not the war. Despite the reprieve, Keating's businesses continued to spiral downward, taking the five senators with him. Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, and their critics added a new term to the American lexicon: "The Keating Five."

The Keating Five became synonymous for the kind of political influence that money can buy. As the S&L failure deepened, the sheer magnitude of the losses hit the press. Billions of dollars had been squandered. The five senators were linked as the gang who s shilled for an S&L bandit.

As the investigation dragged through 1988, McCain dodged the hardest blows. Most landed on DeConcini, who had arranged the meetings and had other close ties to Keating, including $50 million in loans from Keating to DeConcini's aides.

But McCain made a critical error. He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain. On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.

When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself. "You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating. "That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot," McCain said later in the same conversation. "You do understand English, don't you?"

He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife's ties to Keating. "It's up to you to find that out, kids."

The paper ran the story.

In his 2002 book, McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" during that particular interview and adds that The Republic reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."

"I don't know how (The Republic journalists) would have reported the story had I been more civil and understanding or just more of a professional during the interview," McCain wrote.

At a news conference after the story ran, McCain was a changed man. He stood calmly for 90 minutes and answered every question.

On the shopping center, his defense was simple. The deal did not involve him. The shares in the shopping center had been bought by a partnership set up between McCain's wife and her father. (The couple also had a prenuptial agreement that separated Cindy McCain's finances and dealings from his.)

But McCain also had to explain his trips with Keating and why he didn't pay Keating back right away. On that score, McCain admitted he had fouled up. He said he should have reimbursed Keating immediately, not waited several years. His staff said it was an oversight, but it looked bad, McCain jetting around with Keating, then going to bat for him with the federal regulators.

"I was in a hell of a mess," McCain later would write.

Meanwhile, Lincoln continued to flounder. In April 1989, two years after the Keating Five meetings, the government seized Lincoln, which declared bankruptcy. In September 1990, Keating was booked into Los Angeles County Jail, charged with 42 counts of fraud. His bond was set at $5 million.

During Keating's trial, the prosecution produced a parade of elderly investors who had lost their life's savings by investing in American Continental junk bonds.

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee convened to decide what punishment, if any, should be doled out to the Keating Five. Robert Bennett, who would later represent President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case, was the special counsel for the committee. In his opening remarks, he slammed DeConcini but went lightly on McCain, the lone Republican ensnared with four Democrats.

"In the case of Senator McCain, there is very substantial evidence that he thought he had an understanding with Senator DeConcini's office that certain matters would not be gone into at the meeting with (bank board) Chairman (Ed) Gray," Bennett said.

"Moreover, there is substantial evidence that, as a result of Senator McCain's refusal to do certain things, he had a fallout with Mr. Keating."

Among the Keating Five, McCain took the most direct contributions from Keating. But the investigation found that he was the least culpable, along with Glenn. McCain attended the meetings but did nothing afterward to stop Lincoln's death spiral.

Lincoln was the most expensive failure in the national S&L scandal. Taxpayers lost more than $2 billion on the bailout. McCain also looked good in contrast to DeConcini, who continued to defend Keating until fall 1989, when federal regulators filed a $1.1 billion civil racketeering and fraud suit against Keating, accusing him of siphoning Lincoln's deposits to his family and into political campaigns.

In January 1993, a federal jury convicted him of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud in the collapse of American Continental and Lincoln. Keating was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison but served just 50 months before the conviction was overturned on a technicality. In 1999, at age 75, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud. He was sentenced to time served.

In the end, McCain received only a mild rebuke from the Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Still, he felt tarred by the affair.

"The appearance of it was wrong," McCain said. "It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

McCain noted that Bennett, the independent counsel, recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation.

"For the first time in history, the Ethics Committee overruled the recommendation of the independent counsel," McCain said. For his part, DeConcini is critical of McCain's role in the affair. The two senators never were particularly cozy, and the stress of the public scrutiny worsened their relations.

McCain owns up to his mistake this way: “I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."

Basically, John McCain’s sinister involvement in this scandal was to attend meetings regarding someone he considered a constituent, travel on the same person’s dime without immediate reimbursement, and get mad at the press for attacking him.

Once McCain KNEW that he had been partnering with a person of questionable character, he immediately disassociated himself with that person.

Now let’s look at Barack Obama’s associations.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor for approximately twenty years. He was the man who married the Obamas and who baptized their children. Obama claimed that he could no disassociate with Wright (considered as similar to one of his family) and then he did just that when Wright’s words came back to haunt Obama. He claims that in that twenty years, he NEVER heard any inflammatory statement or sermon. Yes, if this pastor was so close to him, it is very unlikely that Obama NEVER hear a disparaging word that would be considered even slightly controversial.

Another associate, William Ayers is a university professor and a member of Chicago's intellectual establishment. Forty years ago he was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical group that claimed responsibility for a series of bombings, including at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Ayers was a fugitive for years with his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn. But after surrendering in 1980, the charges against Mr. Ayers were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. He wasn’t cleared of the charges or found “not guilty.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers served together on the board of a Chicago charity and were co-panelists on at least two academic panel discussions and an academic testimonial — two of them at the University of Chicago. In the mid-1990s, when Mr. Obama first ran for office, Mr. Ayers hosted a meet-the-candidate session for Mr. Obama at his home.
Ayers wasn’t exactly an unknown figure, especially in Chicago. There is no way Obama could have worked with him that much or started his political moves from the guy’s house without knowing about Ayers’ past.

Rashid Khalidi is a Palestinian scholar and author on Middle Eastern affairs who has called Israel a racist state bent on creating "an apartheid system." He's also a friend of Obama.

They met while both were teaching at the University of Chicago and living in the same neighborhood. Mr. Obama and his wife sometimes had dinner with Mr. Khalidi and his wife, Mona. The Khalidis hosted a political fundraiser for Mr. Obama in 2000, and the Woods Fund charity gave money to the Arab-American Action Network, run by Mrs. Khalidi, while Mr. Obama served on the charity's board.

Mr. Obama has said they hold very different opinions on Israeli issues, though Mr. Khalidi praised Mr. Obama as "the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause" and for his willingness to hold talks with Iran, which has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map.”

This appears to be a pretty intimate understanding of each other.

As far as Joe Biden, the character issue goes back to his 1988 bid for the presidency.

In September 1987, the campaign ran into serious trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labour Party at that time. Though Biden had usually credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video (I’m still looking for it).

It was also discovered that as a first-year law student at Syracuse Law School, Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a class paper he wrote. Though the dean of the law school in 1988 as well as Biden's former professor played down the incident of plagiarism, they did find that Biden drew "chunks of heavy legal prose directly from" the article in question. Biden said the act was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F.

Biden also released at the same time the record of his grades as an undergraduate which were C's and D's with the exception of two A's in physical education, one B in a course on English writers and an F in ROTC during his first three semesters. His grades improved later in his undergraduate career but were unexceptional.

Further, when questioned once about his grades in law school Biden had claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class, (when he actually graduated 76th in a class of 85) that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees. In fact he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need.

Faced with these revelations, Biden withdrew from the nomination race in September of 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his mistakes.

In conclusion, John McCain got involved with a guy and immediately dropped him when that guy turned out to be doing bad things.

Joe Biden is a copy-cat who lied about his past.

Barack Obama was raised and mentored by communists and Marxists, associated with terrorists and race haters, yet claims that he knew nothing of them being terrorists or race haters until he was campaigning for president.

Ask this question: Can Obama be trusted to represent this nation in terms of the Logan Act as someone who probably won’t learn enough or know thorough information about those world leaders he will be interacting with?

That old saying can be revamped as: “Show me Obama’s friends and I’ll show you your nation’s future with him as president!”

Monday, September 29, 2008

The Beginnings of Socializing Our Economy

$920 Billion More to Bail-Out the World


AIM COLUMN BY CLIFF KINCAID
SEPTEMBER 28, 2008
(article condensed)

With one socialist “bailout” bill apparently on the way to passage by Congress, two more are pending―both of them sponsored by Senator Barack Obama. One is the Jubilee Act, which would cancel as much as $75 billion worth of Third World debt, and the other is the Global Poverty Act, which would cost an estimated $845 billion. Total potential cost: $920 billion.

Meanwhile, in an appearance on the Fox News Channel on Sunday, Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan called the $700 billion plan now before Congress “Fleece in our time,” a reference to Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” appeasement deal with Hitler that eventually plunged the world into a World War. The House is scheduled to vote on the measure on Monday.

Calling the deal “Wall Street socialism,” McCotter added, “Now the Wall-Street crony capitalists have put a 700-pound billion dollar bag of dung on taxpayers’ doorsteps, rung the bell, and expect you to thank them when you answer it. I think the American people will believe otherwise.”



But consider what’s going to happen when the American taxpayers realize that more and larger bailouts are on the way.

Commentators such as Andrew C. McCarthy have pointed out that Obama’s Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) would cost even more than the $700 billion that is being proposed as part of a socialist takeover of the U.S. financial sector. Obama’s bill passed the House and Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee and now awaits full Senate action.

But the Jubilee Act (S. 2166), which is co-sponsored in the Senate by Barack Obama, has also passed the House and awaits Senate action.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is not an official sponsor of the Jubilee Act or Obama’s Global Poverty Act. But the pressure is mounting on McCain, as well as running mate Sarah Palin, to endorse the legislation.

While the Global Poverty Act has started getting more serious attention, the implications of passage of the Jubilee Act have been generally ignored. Yet, a representative of the Treasury Department, Assistant Secretary For International Affairs Clay Lowery, testified at a Senate hearing in April that “The Jubilee Bill represents an unfunded international mandate to fully cancel roughly $75 billion worth of debts owed by the potentially eligible countries to official bilateral and multilateral creditors.” This is on top of the $110 billion in debt reduction already being granted to various countries, he said.

Also bowing to the left, before he came to Washington, D.C. to work on the $700 billion federal takeover plan for the U.S. financial sector, McCain had taken time to attend and speak at the “Clinton Global Initiative,” a campaign underwritten by big companies and rich individuals to promote the pet causes of the disgraced former president. One of these causes has been an international tax on airline tickets to generate funds to fight HIV/AIDS.

Obama, as well as Bono, also spoke at the Clinton event.

On September 25, after conversing with McCain and Palin, Bono and his collaborators were scheduled to hold a “United Nations emergency summit on the Millennium Development Goals.” Bono’s ONE organization described them as “eight goals” that were “drawn from the targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations―and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.”

Similar language is incorporated in Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which has passed the House and Senator Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee, and now awaits full Senate action. As AIM has documented repeatedly, a careful analysis of the legislation, as well as the follow-up 2002 U.N. Financing for Development Conference, which was designed to make the “goals” into a reality, leads to the conclusion that the U.S. will have to provide $845 billion in increased foreign aid spending, generated if necessary by a global tax on the American people.

At the Clinton Global Initiative meeting, Obama reaffirmed a “commitment” to “embracing the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.” He added, “This will take more resources from the United States, and as President I will increase our foreign assistance to provide them.”

Once again, observers say, the McCain staffers seem to have tried to strip the Alaska Governor of her conservative core beliefs.

For his part, if McCain backs a financial bailout of the rest of the world, on top of an endorsement of the $700 billion Wall Street socialist scheme, some conservatives are saying that they may start looking elsewhere for a presidential ticket to support.

One place some may look is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, who has already been endorsed for the presidency by Rep. Ron Paul. Baldwin, calling the Wall Street plan a “fraud” on the American people, has called for “No Amnesty” for the Wall Street “banksters.”

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Presidential Voter's Guide

Presidential Voter’s Guide from WallBuilders.com

Presidential Voter’s Guide from WallBuilders.com


We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands. . . . It becomes necessary to every citizen to be in some degree a statesman and to examine and judge for himself . . . the . . . political principles and measures. Let us examine them with a sober . . . Christian spirit. – John Adams


The "Spew": the difference between drooling and frothing

Babs and her cres of harpies can't hide their bias.



My favorite scene, however is when McCain is asked about religion and says something about not believing in anything and turns to indicate Joy Behar.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Tale of Two Twitties

The following was quoted from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram by a fellow blogger


September 05, 2008

HOW RACISM WORKS


What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said “I do” to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? What if Obama were a member of the “Keating 5”? What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

— Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth

Posted at 12:05 AM in Letters to the Editor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And the following is my response:

You make some great points and I can understand the argument you are validly making. However…

As I understand it, racism is the notion that one finds one’s race superior to another or all others. While I do acknowledge that racism is alive and not exactly struggling in this day and age. I tend to think that since one of the two candidates running for office is a different race than the other, the argument of racism being the only reason for poll numbers is incomplete and even intangible. I will concede that PREJUDICE, by all races in America, is abhorrently present in the way people relate to both Obama and McCain

But none of the issues or aspects you mentioned have anything to do with race. They have had to do with the respective individual’s past.

First things first, Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain have both done some pretty stupid things. Yet, they have both been successful, been professional women who have raised or are raising families, and they have both been involved in very commendable philanthropic projects. They would both make exceptional first ladies. Any mistakes they have made have been answered for and are non-sequitor to this campaign, but neither of these ladies is running for any office.

Now as to the candidates running, the reasoning you gave can be used with another viewpoint as well.

What if Barack Obama was raised with a multigenerational military family background who espoused honor, courage and integrity in the rearing of its children? What if John McCain was raised by a non-Christian family, enrolled in a Muslim school, and then mentored by known communists and socialists? What if Barack Obama had a distinguished military career which included the command of a major fighter squadron? What if John McCain had been the community organizer and law professor? What if Barack Obama was beaten and tortured in a POW camp for five years? What if John McCain admitted to and acknowledged experimentation with drugs with a nonchalant attitude? What if Barack Obama developed a reputation of legislative independence and believed that policy was more important than party? What if John McCain had the appearance of using each successive elected position as a campaigning step to the next one? What if Barack Obama had the reputation of doing things to heal this nation's past wounds including, but not limited to Native American affairs and the Viet Nam War? What if John McCain had the reputation of associating and doing business with known terrorists and race baiters?

If those questions reflected reality, would John McCain be the GOP nominee? Absolutely not! Not because of race, but because his merit and character. As the media portrays them, Obama is the messiah who causes tingling in the legs merely by speaking and McCain is the doddering old fart, who is too out of touch with today’s generation. If the lives were reversed, Obama would still be the media darling… just like McCain was in 2000 during the primaries. That isn’t racism. That’s favoritism and biased behavior.

I truly think racism does much more than what you described above. I believe it promulgates itself into an election cycle and even into society with a lot of help from people, of all races, who don’t know how to deal with straight up success or failure.

For sure, racism is absolutely the last remnants of the chains of slavery that bind people down. But in this day and age, some of that binding has been self-inflicted.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Obama Campaign Stupidity

Criticizing John McCain for not being able to use a computer or email is like criticizing Barack Obama about not being able to survive in a Viet Cong Prisoner of War Camp for five years....much less 2 of them in solitary....Oh, YES I SAID IT!!!!