Archive for January, 2008
DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER REASON I AM AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN
The McCain/KENNEDY bill
John McCain, Democrat-light, teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy (a favorite of Republicans) to push an immigration bill. He would say that he reached across the aisle, worked in a bi-partisan fashion to bring about change and reform the immigration mess in this country.
I would say that he turned on the Republican principles again and lent his support to the Democrats’ intentions. This bill went down in flames due to the public’s outcry, which was very loud and very upset. The bill would create a new visa category, called H-5A. It was for illegal alien workers who would perform jobs not previously covered in the existing visa categories. So we already had a program for aliens to apply for a work visa and McCain and Teddy created more. This category would lead to a green card and permanent residence after three years of working here. Spouses and children would be able to follow the principal applicant.
One thousand (a ridiculously conservative number) applicants could translate to two, three, four thousand or more. Multiply that by an estimated 12 million applicants (x 2, 3, 4 or more in spouses and children). We could be inviting 12 million, 24 million, 36 million, 48 million (with one spouse and two children). The Democrats must have noted that those “new citizens” could vote and would vote for the Dems who gave them amnesty. 48 million additional Democrat voters. But that probably wasn’t why the Democrats supported this bill. John McCain must have known that he planned to run for President of the United States and could tout that his name is actually on that bill!
Sure, McCain and Kennedy gave lip service to border security and funding for such, but who needs it after you allow everyone in and give them amnesty. Who is going to weed through the backgrounds of 48 million new applicants to see who is a drug dealer, who is a terrorist, who is a fugitive from justice in their home country, who has a communicable disease and the list goes on. There is no provision in the bill limiting the number of children an applicant can bring. What if some have six or eight children?
What will our country look like, sound like, vote like, if 48 million aliens from another country flood in? YOU will be a minority and never be able to out-vote them. They will vote for government entitlement programs giving themselves money and benefits from your tax dollars and your paychecks.
John McCain isn’t a true Republican. He’s a Democrat-light.
Why else would Joe Lieberman endorse John McCain. Joe Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate. Remember?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Last night I heard Glenn Beck say that he may not vote if John McCain is the Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential election. Why? Because he has principles. He believes that voting for a nominee who doesn’t represent his principles is part of what is wrong with our current political system. He’s tired of playing that game and doesn’t want to do it anymore.
I don’t want to vote for John McCain, either. Right now, I have no idea who I could vote for. It’s tough this year. But one thing I DO know, is that I have to do whatever I can to keep Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama out of the White House. I guess I would vote for the Republican candidate as a vote against the Democrat candidate. And if it’s McCain, I would get a tiny benefit over a Democrat. Remember, if Hillary gets into the White House, she will spend us into oblivion. At least, McCain hasn’t been a big spender like Hillary WILL BE.
A DISCUSSION OF ONE REASON WHY I DON’T WANT JOHN MCCAIN
John McCain is Democrat-light in my opinion. He’s angered me countless times. I don’t view him as the candidate of change just because he bucked his party, MY PARTY, at nearly every turn. I want a Republican, not a Democrat-light.
Unity is not the result of bucking your party on almost all issues. We’re in the Republican Party because we share values and core principles. John McCain does not share our values. He votes against them routinely.
McCAIN/FEINGOLD BILL – a bill pushed into law by John McCain and Russ Feingold (Democrat).
This abomination restricts our political free speech before an election. America prides itself on free speech to a fault. But McCain-Feingold (D) prohibits national political party committees (Republican Party) from raising or SPENDING any funds not subject to federal limits, EVEN FOR STATE AND LOCAL RACES OR ISSUE DISCUSSION. It restricts issue discussion funded by Republican Party committees prior to an election. What is this? Free speech? Not by any definition! What is the Republican Party? It’s people who have joined together to support their principles in our government’s policies and who support candidates that can make that a reality. They are the electorate – the voters. Why should they be restricted from speaking out just before an election? I don’t know. Ask John McCain – Democrat-light.
This law restricts issue ads, defined as “electioneering communications” broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus OR 60 days of a general election. This prohibits non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life from running ads naming a candidate 30 days before a primary or caucus and 60 days prior to a general election. So if a pro-abortion candidate is running, Right to Life is prohibited from running ads informing the public about that candidate’s stance on abortion within that time period. Note that the time period controlled is the most important time to get your message to the voting public. Most people pay more attention very close to time to vote. That’s when they are most listening. In my opinion, McCain has told us to shut up.
McCAIN-FEINGOLD (D) violates the First Amendment guaranteeing us freedom of speech, which addressed free politcal speech, in particular.
This is not Republican or even American or democratic. Let everyone talk all the way up to an election.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Since I questioned the Clintons’ dedication to helping African-Americans, and the Clintons’ charitable contributions, which I suggested may be lacking in that regard, I want to refer to an article written by John Soloman and Matthew Mosk, February 27, 2007 for the Washington Post. The link to this online is www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html. I recommend reading it.
The article states that Hillary Clinton failed to comply with the Ethics in Government Act which requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold outside of their office, including non-profit foundations. She has served as treasurer and secretary of the family foundation that she and Bill Clinton founded in December of 2001. She failed to disclose this on five of her ethics reports.
Of note, the Clintons were allowed to write off more than $5 million from their personal taxable income since 2001. They dispensed $1.25 million in charitable contributions during that period. ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORS OF THE ARTICLE, THE CLINTONS WROTE OFF ABOUT FOUR TIMES WHAT THEY DONATED.
Now, where did that $1.25 million dollars go? Did it benefit charities helping African-Americans or the city of New Orleans? Without a complete list, I can’t say, but the article in the Washington Post online does list Yale University where the Clintons attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan (what???), and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary make $100,000 on a single commodities trade (cattle futures, and I wonder if Hillary knows anything at all about cattle or cattle futures).
Hillary didn’t amend her ethics report until some of her colleagues, Bill Frist and Nancy Pelosi, came under scrutiny. Her spokesperson said that it was simply an oversight – five times – the smartest woman in the world – ready to start running our country’s affairs on day one. (I don’t think so.) “The only time Hillary did mention the foundation on her ethics report was in 2002, in a FOOTNOTE about their $800,000 donation that year, but DID NOT DISCLOSE HER POSITION OR OTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE FOUNDATION.” The Washington Post, Soloman and Mosk
Bill is the president and Chelsea is the director. None of them are compensated (unless you think a $5 million dollar write-off on contributions one fourth that amount is compensation enough). They fund this foundation with money they’ve received from Bill and Hillary’s lucrative book deals and Bill’s speechmaking. (How long will it be until Hillary charges for her speeches and Chelsea writes a book?)
The Clintons have another one, the New York-based William J. Clinton Foundation. This is a larger foundation which directed $10 billion dollars in corporate money and resources to slowing global spread of AIDS, climate change and reducing hunger and poverty in DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Perhaps they’ve done something for poverty and hunger in America, also, but the article does not mention such.
According to the article, the foundation was launched during Hillary’s first year in the Senate, when the Clintons gave that $800,000 to launch the organization in 2001. “The charity distributed no funds that year. The next year, the Clintons made $170,000 in donations while adding $100,000 of their own funds.” The Washington Post, Solomon and Mosk
The article gives more specific information about the donations of this family foundation towards the end. African-Americans should definitely read it.
I need to re-read Hillary’s campaign speeches. Did she criticize “the rich” for not paying their fair share of taxes? Who is she? ” The rich?” Who is Bill? “The rich?” Have they taken steps to avoid paying taxes? What is the definition of “hypocrit?”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Democrats’ debate a couple of nights ago was a very racist affair. For people who claim they want to end racism, they failed to remain neutral on race and stick to the issues facing our country. All they talked about was race and gender, race and gender, race and gender. Poor John Edwards starting feeling guilty about being white and male. He came very close to apologizing for it. He was visibly squirming and looked very uncomfortable. The jokes made by Hillary and Obama poked fun at Edwards for being white and male. It’s a good thing Edwards wasn’t a conservative as well or he would have been under his chair. John Edwards may as well quit now. He is a victim of his own party’s racism.
There was no appeal made to whites and only black males’ votes were sought in this shameful exhibition. I was shocked when the discussion turned to Bill Clinton, America’s first black president. Poor Obama would love to be America’s first black president, but a white man has stolen that from him. Obama is a victim of Clinton racism.
If Bill Clinton is America’s first black president, then Hillary is America’s first black first lady. Obama should point out that there is nothing black about Bill or Hillary. Neither of them have ever suffered discrimination or true hardship because of the color of their skin. Neither of them have ever been denied entrance to a school, a public restroom, a job, a rental apartment or a seat on the bus because of their race. These two people live in the lap of luxury with multi-millions of dollars in each of their bank accounts. They vacation in the finest places, eat in five star restaurants, fly first class and wear expensive clothes.
They claim to care so much for the blacks of this country and claim to have worked to help them. How much of their wealth do they donate to help black children, families, seniors, disabled, veterans, or black institutions? I never hear of any. I would be very surprised if they give any of their money at all to black causes. I only hear them asking for people to give money to them. There is nothing preventing either Clinton from being generous with their vast wealth. Let them put their money where their mouth is.
The same goes for the Democrat party. Why aren’t more of them donating a portion of their wealth and resources to rebuild New Orleans? Black Americans should open their eyes to the truth. When Bill Clinton left the White House, he took an office in a predominately black area just for show. Everytime he appeared in a news story, he was in a foreign country, not the office in the black neighborhood. He raised money for tsunami victims in Asia, but how much time did he spend in New Orleans?
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Racism is alive and well in the Democrat Party and two faces that represent it well are Bill and Hillary Clinton.
P.S. Why is Bill Clinton called America’s first black president? Was it because he appointed Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General to repay a favor for his mother? How long was Elders in office before she had to resign in disgrace? Perhaps appointing Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce earned the title for Clinton. Of course, if Ron Brown had not died in a plane crash, he may have ended up in prison on multiple charges. He was under investigation at the time. Did Clinton appoint any other blacks during his administration? I can’t remember any others. Clinton had eight years. He could have appointed so many that we would easily remember them, but he didn’t.
On the other hand, Pres. George W. Bush appointed Condoliza Rice as Secretary of State, General Collin Powell as Secretary of State, Rod Paige as Secretary of Education and they all served well and with honor. But it wasn’t enough to label Bush as a black president. Can’t explain it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The news media did a lousy job covering the campaign of Duncan Hunter, while over-covering one who was obviously missing in action – no, make that two MIA’s – Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Sen. Hunter was there in the states, campaigning while Rudy decided to pass on them and put all his chips on Florida. Fred Thompson was pretty indecisive as to whether or not he wanted to run at all. I guess he knows now that he waited too long to make up his mind.
However, Duncan was in there campaigning for conservatives dissatisfied with this cycle’s crop of candidates. News worthy? Just as much as any other candidate. Covered by the media? Not so you’d notice. Why not? Could it be that they don’t want a conservative in office? The media is known to be mostly liberal. Polls have shown that to be true. They know more than anyone how their coverage helps shape an election and/or the public’s perception of a candidate, an issue or even a falsehood. If the public hears something long enough, they believe it must be a fact – even if it’s a lie.
Right now, the media is hyping John McCain as if he had already won the nomination of his party. When his candidacy was thought to be DOA, they were hyping Rudy – the other white meat – I mean, “barely Republican” candidate. McCain and Giuliani are putting on their best Republican face because they know they need that perception to win. They will take it off after they win, if they do win.
Duncan Hunter’s big mistake was not putting his face on every milk carton in America. MISSING – WHITE MALE CONSERVATIVE
Senator Hunter dropped out of the race recently and is supporting Mike Huckabee. I guess now we know who will be ignored by the media the most in the next few weeks.
“Mike, listen to me. Put your face and name on all the milk cartons! Please!”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Ahhh. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Universal. That means that no one will ever live without health care again. How comforting. No more little children without medical treatment. No more senior citizens choosing between food and medicine.
Now where will we find free health care? Is there such a thing? Nooooo. No matter what, health care has to be paid for – by someone. The government will make “deals”. They will call it, “negotiate contracts”, but it will still be “making deals in a closed room” and we won’t be there to represent ourselves.
We won’t ever hear all the wheeling and dealing that went on. We won’t know, at least right away, who banked a profit – politicians, I mean. We won’t find out until it’s too late, whose brother, husband, uncle, son or daughter, had the contracts directed to their companies. (Is it possible that any company who refuses to play that game, will simply be cut out of the game all together?) Absolute power corrupts.
The government will decide how much coverage each one of us can have and how much is “excessive” or “unnecessary”. If they decide that the care you want is not “cost effective”, you won’t get it. You also won’t be allowed to buy it separately and pay for it yourself. After all, if you can afford to buy health care that others can’t afford to buy, that would not be fair. Some politicians are adamant about “levelling the playing field.” In other words, bringing everyone DOWN to the level of the lowest denominator. It’s impossible to bring everyone up to the highest level, so everyone must come down.
If they decide that you don’t have that many years left (in their opinion), they will refuse certain medical care because it isn’t cost effective. Now don’t forget that they originally sold Americans on this deal by using senior citizens who couldn’t afford health care. They had to choose between their food and their medicine. But universal health care will look at cost efficacy, not the plight of the senior citizen. (I believe it’s called “a bill of goods”.) Don’t be sold on this.
I can tell you right now, they will cover abortions and euthanasia. How do I know that? Look at who is fighting for universal health care and what else have they fought for in their lives. If they can marry two or more of their goals into one solution, they most definitetly will. Whether we like it or not, those of us who believe abortion and euthanasia is morally wrong will be party to the practice.
Now back to who will pay for it. People who don’t buy it now because they can’t afford it, will be forced to buy it. The government will look at all citizens’ earnings as a big money pot. Everyone puts their earnings in the big pot. Then the government divides it up equally and disperses as they see fit. Doesn’t this sound like socialism? Where has that ever worked successfully? I can’t think of any place. Isn’t that totally opposite our original founding fathers plan of government? That isn’t democracy or a republic. It’s socicalism. You earn it. They take it. Someone else gets it.
I hope you get it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Hugo Chavez has probably explained himself better than he realizes. In a four hour speech to the National Assembly, Chavez stated that he chews cocoa paste every morning. Cocoa paste is made from cocoa leaves and can be made into cocaine. He receives it from President Evo Morales of Bolivia. My question is whether Pres. Morales is sending it as a favor to a friend, or an effort to “off” the guy who is crazy and a threat to his neighbors (my personal assessment of Hehr Hugo). When I heard Hehr Hugo speak at the United Nations a while back, I immediately thought the guy was crazy. Now, I think I know why.
This man controls part of the world’s oil supply, commands an army and controls the lives of the people of an entire nation. AND HE CHEWS COKE EVERYDAY.
There is some fear that Hehr Hugo may be planning to overtake Guyana in an effort to control it’s oil fields. If I lived in Guyana, I wouldn’t take this lightly. Neither should our government or the United Nations.
For more information on the Guyana story, see the link below.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
No African American soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor during World War II. In 1993 the Army contracted Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, to research and prepare a study “to determine if there was a racial disparity in the way Medal of Honor recipients were selected.” Shaw’s team researched the issue and, finding that there was disparity, recommended the Army consider a group of 10 soldiers for the Medal of Honor. Of those 10, seven were recommended to receive the award. In October of 1996 Congress passed the necessary legislation which allowed the President to award these Medals of Honor since the statutory limit for presentation had expired. The Medals of Honor were presented, by President William Clinton, in a ceremony on 13 January 1997. Vernon Baker was the only recipient still living and present to receive his award; the other six soldiers received their awards posthumously, with their medals being presented to family members.
Follow the link below to read the accounts of the African-American soldiers who were awarded the medal of honor.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Have you noticed that Iraq no longer dominates the headlines? I remember when the news media gave us a daily update on the number of deaths in Iraq. They paid special attention to the magic numbers, i.e., 100 deaths, 200 deaths, etc. Every day they discussed the Bush mistakes in Iraq. Why is it conspicuously missing from the news today? Why aren’t they still counting the deaths or pointing out the Bush mistakes? Could it be because the deaths are very low now; the surge is working; violence is waning; peace is growing; hope is taking hold among the Iraqis; things are improving very much? The success in Iraq is not news worthy because …………………….?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Get that Democrat’s vote! We hear it every election year. The Democrats, of course, are trying to win the votes of other Democrats. But they never speak of winning the votes of Republicans. It’s very different for Republicans. The news media, the pollsters, the candidates themselves, all talk of moving to the center to persuade Democrats to vote for the Republican candidate. Why is that?
Republicans are expected to move to the center to be more appealing to Democrats, while Democrats are moving farther and farther to the left. Why is pressure put on the Republicans to compromise their priniciples to appeal to the other party? Why is there no pressure or expectation for the Democrats to move to the center to appeal to Republican voters?
It’s not going to happen. And why should it? There are two schools of thought. Allow Republicans to hold their opinions and not give them up for the other side. If Republicans do move toward Democrat views, then we only have one party – Democrat. We need candidates who will stand up for their constituents and not cave in. Let the other side cave in this election year!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries