Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Do we want a punk in the White House?

By a Redeemed Democrat

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider.

About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my family crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.

About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental College in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental: he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.

'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York.

It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoine 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.

About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.

In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).

With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here, or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported that Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle-class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear:

“Beware of the enemy from within”

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Do You Know the Real Barack Obama?

Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, October 06, 2008

As the 2008 presidential campaign hurtles into its final days, John McCain confronts a choice: He can either start telling the public about the real Barack Obama, or he can lose.

For much of his career, McCain has been a media darling. He could count on the press to carry his water as long as he was a “maverick” Republican, driving more conservative members of his party crazy. But as he surely knows by now, when it comes to Barack Obama and the press, all bets are off. In covering Obama, the press has adopted a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy designed to boost the least-vetted, least-known candidate ever to seek the presidency. It isn’t by accident that the media has denied all less-than-glowing stories about Obama the kind of consistent, sustained coverage that allows them to penetrate public consciousness.

If McCain is going to have a chance at winning, he must make sure that the public becomes thoroughly acquainted with the real Barack Obama – the most radical presidential nominee ever. And because the press evidently intends to abdicate its responsibility to acquaint voters with the less-popular parts of Obama’s record, he’ll have to rely on paid adver tising to do it.

For starters, McCain should consider running a series of “Did You Know” ads about Barack Obama. He should ask voters, “Did you know that:

Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:

  • Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
  • Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
  • Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
  • Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.

There is more, of course. Do voters know:

  • That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?
  • That Jeremiah Wright wasn’t Obama’s first radical mentor? As a young man in Hawaii, Obama had a quasi-filial relationship with radical Frank Marshall Davis – an avowed member of the Communist Party of the USA. In fact, in his memoirs, Obama concedes that he attended “socialist conferences” and encountered Marxist literature. (Now imagine the outcry if a Republican presidential candidate had such ties to a Nazi).
  • That the People's Weekly World – the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the USA – has rhapsodized about Obama’s presidential campaign, calling it a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term"? (Think about how the press would react if a fascist newspaper heaped such praise on McCain.)
  • That Obama has routinely tried to intimidate his critics into silence? His political organization spearheaded a massive campaign against a Chicago radio show that invited one of his critics to appear – even after being asked (and refusing) to send a representative to balance the program, hosted by a non-partisan University of Chicago psychology professor. Worse, his campaign sought to chill free speech by establishing a “truth squad” of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs, which threatened a “vigorous response” to any ad presenting information about Obama that they deemed to be “inaccurate.” And there are other examples.
  • That even as America struggles to “bail out” our own struggling economy, Obama backs a global bailout? His Global Poverty Initiative would assess $2500 per taxpayer, according to Investor’s Business Daily, to fund a global war on poverty administered by the UN and its agencies.
  • That despite touting his academic credentials as a rationale for initiating a campaign for president just two years after leaving the Illinois state legislature, Obama refuses to release either his college or his law school transcripts – just as he sought to keep records of his working relationship with former terrorist Bill Ayers on The Annenberg Challenge (a left-wing educational foundation) safely under wraps? What is it that he doesn’t want voters to know?

Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant. But Americans sense that=2 0there is more to Barack Obama than they’ve been told. Having witnessed the media’s own bias and favoritism, they’ve come to suspect – reasonably – that even if any of the rumors were true, the press might choose to conceal them until the election is safely over. What’s more, they wonder: What else is the press not telling us?

Certainly, it would be terribly wrong for John McCain to traffic in rumors. But he doesn’t need to. The truth is more than enough. There are facts that the American people deserve to know – and which the press isn’t telling them. By filling in the gaps that the media has left unmentioned, John McCain isn’t just doing himself a service. He’s doing journalists’ job for them, and allowing Americans to make an informed decision when they head to the polls next month.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Of Mice and Moose

By Julian Krasta

Glass ceilings notwithstanding, Gov. Sarah Palin is being accepted by America and other progressive nations as the new high-spirited Republican melody maker. Her in-tune communications, slowly but surely, are drowning out Obama’s bizarre ventriloquism, Joe Biden’s howlers (although I now must thank Sen. Biden for his public criticism of Obama), and the mainstream media’s pops and pings of their low-register gothic operas.

I admit I knew nothing about the lady, so when Sen. John McCain torpedoed the long-awaiting GOP with his announcement that he’d chosen Mrs. Palin as his running mate, I blurted (literally), “Who? But-but… what about Romney? Where’s Pawlenty?”

Once the conservative world had caught its breath, we scrambled like ants with road rage to bring ourselves up to speed and be informed about her as much as possible. What we learned was surprisingly uplifting, and encouraging. But encouraging and uplifting would not be enough for wary and weary Republicans. Our faith – our votes for John McCain – quite suddenly depended enormously on Mrs. Palin’s presentation of herself at the Republican convention, her message and delivery.

To put it plainly, when she finished speaking I had to find my socks. They were on the other side of the room, having been blown off by what I’d seen and heard.

As the balloons rained down on our nominees and ecstatic supporters, I concluded, with refreshed hopefulness, that Sen. McCain appeared to have done right with his choice.

In the weeks that have followed, and on the basis of hardnosed scrutiny, I came to recognize that Mrs. Palin not only has the head but the heart and constitution to assume the responsibilities of Vice President of the United States, to name a few: the hurdles, the sinkholes, and the sway of President of the Senate; the polluted power of Washington politics; and all that the second-in-command to the leader of what might be the last frontier of the free world must endure or may enjoy.

In addition, and with all due respect (I have to say this), it is my opinion that Mrs. Palin could easily be considered a candidate for U.S. Army Ranger: superincumbent point of convergence, fine sinew tone, her marksmanship with a hunting rifle, razor-sharp receptors, and she’s a flawless communicator. It’s probably why she is balls-out fearless in the face of twits wielding their toothless pitchforks and burned-out torches. Not too shabby for a mother of five.

As expected, from the moment she was named the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate, the cheese-eaters on the left went whacko, like a duck hit on the head. They didn’t just cross but leaped the line of civility and began – and continue – to snarl, spit and squawk some of the most reprehensible idioms against Sarah Palin.

They have squealed over and gnawed on everything from her pro-life position to her accession to the post of a city mayor and then governor of our largest state – even her husband and children.

They also have gone so far as to censure Mrs. Palin’s rightful choice not to abort her baby son, Trig, who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome prior to birth. (It’s one thing to push the envelope of criticism; it’s quite another, in this instance, to hammer nails in so deeply that they can never be retracted – and their contemptuous mockery of Mr. & Mrs. Palin’s faith-based decision not to terminate the life of their son, I assure you, will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.)

The liberal media (Obama’s Love Bombers: “You’re perfect just the way you are, Barack”), from top to bottom, and from the start, consciously and deliberately ignored the tenets of fairness and decency towards John McCain, and now Sarah Palin.

The most disturbing aspect is their shameless revelry in the destruction they are attempting to wreak on the Palin Family, particularly celebrities. I’m confident enough to say that they will never achieve their objective, and their words and actions will backfire in due course.

As an aside: On the topic of backfires, an example is what occurred during the Clinton administration. They bullied the banking industries into granting loans to unqualified purchasers. Approximately 30 years earlier, Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy browbeat a bill through the Senate to allow into our country a greater percentage of “the less fortunate” (i.e., from south of our borders and elsewhere), who comprise a significant (if not largest) amount of today’s unqualified purchasers. Both plans spearheaded by those two Democrats served as chief elements of the incubator in which was hatched this $700 billion T-Rex. Ironically, those screaming loudest “Save us!” are – you guessed it – liberal Democrats. End aside.

Nevertheless, the limousine liberals, who are enamored with the sound of their own voice (you listenin’ up their in your private jet, which is paid for by the People, Madam Speaker?), persist with their shrill insults at John McCain and Sarah Palin, and Mrs. Palin’s executive credentials and character, at every MSM opportunity and with serial ignorance.

At one point recently, I sat through the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan just for a respite. Thankfully, at about minute 18, I was able to turn down the volume on my TV because of the across-the-board news that two of the more vicious rodents (Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann) had both fallen victim to their own rat poison. Wait--didn’t I just say: “[…] their words and actions will backfire in due course”?

The catalog of gross offenders now also includes a certain David Kernell, a student who thought he was enrolling at Clown College (Harry Reid’s alma mater), but because Kernell, like Reid, probably failed basic comprehension instead scrawled his “X” on the University of Tennessee-Knoxville admission form. (Kernell is under investigation by the FBI and Secret Service for allegedly hacking into Sarah Palin’s electronic mail accounts.) Ditto my “backfire” comment (emphasis added).

William Shakespeare wrote: “Nothing is so common as the wish to be remarkable.”

For Sarah Palin, she needn’t wish it – she simply is. I believe in Mrs. Palin, because she exemplifies decency and morality. True, she has a tough field to plow if she succeeds Dick Cheney, but she is clearly at least ten times smarter, stronger, and on the ball than today’s passel of Washington mutts.

Ever see moose stomp mice? Me neither. But I have a hunch we’re going to see just that, come November.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Critics of McCain's Critics Want Leftward Tilt

By David Limbaugh, for Newsmax

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM

Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain?

What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?

"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.

John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?

If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain — ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.

It's easy for moderates to argue that critics of moderates are extreme. That's what moderates always say. They have been complaining about conservatism since I was wearing a "Goldwater for President" T-shirt.

They've said for years that the only way Republicans can win elections is to move to the center. Their opinion is not based on convincing data but wishful thinking. History is not their friend. Republicans win big with conservative ideas, provided they have inspiring candidates. Moderate ideas dilute the message and deflate the movement, zapping it of its verve and enthusiasm.
I have read the reasonable arguments of my friend Bill Bennett and others disputing that John McCain is a liberal. They argue he is a conservative with some liberal positions and that, in any event, he's far more conservative than Hillary or Barack.

Fair enough, though the McCain critics grossly underemphasize the differences and McCain's untrustworthiness. For the record, I can't see myself as ever voting for either Hillary or Barack, two unreconstructed socialists who are soft on defense and enemies of the unborn. But hold your horses. We're not there yet.

We're in the primary season, and there's nothing wrong with all sides advocating their respective positions. If conservatives can't hold John McCain accountable now for all his apostasies, apostasies he committed with utter delight amid mainstream-media adulation, what chance will we have of doing so later?

The idea that our party can't recover from vigorous debate during the primaries is unserious, to wit: Reagan versus Ford. In the meantime, rumors of the death of mainstream conservatism are greatly exaggerated.

McCain's relative success is not a sign of the end of Reagan conservatism as a dominant political force. It's just temporarily dormant, the victim of a confluence of factors, waiting to be re-ignited.

One factor is that we have had a weak GOP presidential field, though I think some of the candidates ultimately proved themselves to be quite inspiring. McCain has slipped in largely by default, like John Kerry in 2004.

Another factor is that Republicans have been in control of the executive branch for seven years. Though Democrats have recaptured Congress, they still haven't been able to accomplish many of their legislative initiatives, including obstructing funding for the Iraq War. Even their reprehensible character assassination of President Bush has lost steam since the surge began yielding fruit.

Nothing unites conservatives like Democrats in power and working their mischief, or out of power and maliciously but effectively obstructing good government — excuse the liberal-sounding oxymoron.

And then there's the war, which originally united conservatives but admittedly has led to the ascendancy of the neoconservative influence with its willingness to accept all kinds of economic and social liberalism. I believe that's unnecessary. All three stools — and more — of mainstream conservatism can thrive simultaneously. Nevertheless, these factors and others have coalesced to dampen, temporarily, the fires and energy of conservatism.

Sometimes conservatives become more unified out of power. Of course that doesn't mean we should allow Democrats to regain the White House, either because we would unite while out of power or because we are seriously disappointed about the prospect of John McCain as our candidate.

But would the critics of McCain's critics please quit trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives and redefine mainstream conservatism? Just admit your guy is not that conservative and let us hold his feet to the fire, especially since his success to this point will give him all the more temptation to pander to liberals. You're the ones who need to chill out.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at


© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

A Timely Parable

While walking down the street one day, a U.S. senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator. "I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy. He has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now, choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers. "Well, I would never have said it before. I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell.

The doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags, as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday, I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, danced and had a great time. Now, it's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened"?

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday, we were campaigning. Today, you voted."


Three Things to Ponder:

1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

C O W S - Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N - They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S - The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:

You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery," and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Jackie Mason asks: "Camelot - or a Cesspool?"

To view the entire article, visit

Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Camelot - or a cesspool?
By Jackie Mason

Posted: February 5, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The Kennedys recently endorsed Barack Obama, and Teddy Kennedy drew a parallel with President Kennedy - a vision of a new Camelot rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the Bush administration. Either he was addressing the largest group of amnesiacs ever gathered in one place in history, or the media and much of America has been eating funny mushrooms and is in the throes of a mass delusion.

Back to reality: The late President Kennedy bears responsibility for the initiation of one of the bleakest episodes in modern American history - the Vietnam War. Only because Khrushchev had more common sense than he did, we avoided an enormous catastrophe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, when the Russian's secret files were opened, we learned, among other bits of knowledge - such as the fact the Rosenbergs were indeed Russian atomic spies - that there were functioning deployed short- and mid-range atomic missiles in Cuba. If we ever, as threatened, tried to land troops directly after the Bay of Pigs debacle on Cuban shores, our troops would have been slaughtered - one missile, thousands of Americans annihilated. This is all not to mention that the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs was authorized by Kennedy himself, and then he left the Cuban patriots out to dry by withholding promised air support.

Many of Kennedy's private and Cabinet sessions were secretly recorded, and many years later, one of these recordings from the time of the Bay of Pigs episode reveals Kennedy musing that for a president to go down in history he has to have a war. "Where would Lincoln be without the Civil War?"

A cynic might therefore suggest that Kennedy's trip to the brink of a nuclear holocaust was not a result of his inexperience but, rather, it had a more selfish origin. On the domestic front, he accomplished little, and his promises had to be delivered by President Johnson. He did, however, inaugurate the White House revolving door policy as far as women were concerned, and even in this area it needed a subsequent president - Clinton - to bring it to a point of perfection.

The other members of the Kennedy bunch are also hardly poster boys for responsible government - or even human beings. The liberals hug Robert Kennedy's memory, but choose not to remember that he personally authorized the wiretaps on Dr. Martin Luther King. He also carried on the president's policies and, as in many families, certain traditions, such as passing down clothing from an older to younger child - only they did this with women. The most well-known of these involved the late Marilyn Monroe. After the president was through with her, he passed her down to Bobby. Ultimately, as we all know, the poor woman eventually killed herself.

There are, of course, the gaggle of Kennedy relatives who have been arrested and charged with everything from drunk driving to rape, and even murder.

This, of course, brings us to the present bloviator-in-chief, Teddy Kennedy. It would be easy to write him off as another senatorial windbag, but he bears a distinction born by no other senator. He has killed someone - and not while serving as a member of the armed forces. After a drunken party, he drove off a bridge and left his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, alone to drown to death, trapped in his car.

All of this makes us wonder at the judgment of Mr. Obama and the American public. Camelot, once the fairy tale aspect is put aside, is as attractive as a cesspool - and may even smell a lot worse.

* * * * * * *

An added piece, as exclusively reported on this morning:


I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry's running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Tough guy, eh?

by Kyle Hampton

I just got done listening to a little bit of Michael Medved. I know, I know…I should know better.

Anyway, Medved was talking about how this election is different from others where there was an ideological battle taking place in the primaries. Of course it benefits Medved to say this because it diminishes the key differences between McCain and Romney, making it a contest more of personality than of policy. Of course I could list several key policy decisions that distinguish McCain and Romney, but none is more important than McCain-Kennedy.

Immigration is the core divide in the Republican party right now and Romney and McCain stand on opposite sides of that gulf.

McCain now downplays the significance of his role as leading advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He and some other Republicans, like Trent Lott, famously called conservatives in favor of border enforcement xenophobes. McCain now tries to rewrite history by suggesting that Republicans rejected his bill only because of lost confidence in government, as if it were a purely psychological issue.

That misses the point that Republicans rejected the full idea of his bill for various reasons, but mostly because its whole purpose was to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. McCain-Kennedy’s failure was not lack of confidence in government, but a lack of confidence in McCain himself and his vision of immigration reform.

However, even granting Medved’s proposition that there is little policy difference between McCain and Romney (which I find lacks any substance), Romney has the better personality and temperament for the office of president.

Medved stated that he liked that McCain was a tough guy, but it seems to me that McCain is a tough guy only on some issues. When was the last time McCain got fiery over judges? When was he a tough guy on tax cuts? When was the last time you remember him worked up over education? Indeed it seems that McCain gets fiery over things he understands, but that is a limited number of issues.

I do admit that McCain is a tough guy on immigration, interrogation, and the First Amendment, but he’s on the wrong side of those issues. To project that McCain is a tough guy on all issues misunderstands who McCain really is.

Romney, on the other hand, has shown a consistency of character. He is affable and engaging publicly and coolly competent behind closed doors. He is never out of his league on any issue and generally is the most capable person in the room. He refrains from making personal attacks and always projects a sense of optimism.

This is the kind of personality that I want in the president’s office. Indeed, it seems much better than someone whose temper is never out of reach. Competence is what I want in a president, not a bully.


Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 2/04/2008 04:29:00 PM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Congress Poised to Give Tax Rebates to Illegal Aliens!


Congress Poised to Give Tax Rebates to Illegal Aliens
Call Your Senators Now!

The economic stimulus package traveling through Congress right now does nothing to stop the IRS from issuing rebate checks to illegal aliens. Please call your Senators now and urge them to take action!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R.5140, the economic stimulus package, by a vote of 385-35. As many of you have already learned from news outlets, the economic package includes tax rebates of $600 for individual taxpayers and $1,200 for couples. However, this package—thrown together within days—allows the IRS to send tax rebate checks to illegal aliens!

The issue stems from defining who is eligible for a tax rebate. In drafting H.R.5140, Congress left gaping loopholes. Section 101 excludes "nonresident aliens" from being eligible, but this is essentially meaningless as the IRS does not determine whether an individual is a "nonresident alien" based on his or her immigration status. Moreover, it does not address the eligibility of illegal aliens who send in tax returns using stolen or false social security numbers.

At a minimum, the IRS should be required to screen the numbers (whether individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) or social security numbers (SSNs)) used to issue the checks to ensure they match the name of the taxpayer in question. If a name and number do not match, the IRS should be prohibited from issuing a tax rebate check. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has filed an amendment to affect this change, but we do not know whether he will even be allowed to offer it.

H.R.5140 is now in the Senate and will go through the Senate Finance Committee this afternoon. From there, Senate staffers indicate it will go quickly to the floor. PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!

We urge all FAIR members, activists and friends to call their Senators now and urge them to fix the loopholes in H.R. 5140 that allow illegal aliens to get tax rebate checks. After calling your own Senators, please call the Senators who sit on the Finance Committee and urge them to take action too.

To find the phone numbers for your Senators, click here.

For the membership of the Senate Finance Committee, click here.

Friday, January 18, 2008


Let's be grateful for the protection they give us, 24/7, 365.