Funny thing is Barr didn't even want to be seen with this motley crew. How nuts do you have to be when you are too nuts for Barr?
Posted on 10/29/2008 11:56:01 AM PDT by agrandis
Various of my friends and members of my extended family are urging me to vote for Sen. John McCain for President in the rapidly approaching general election. Few of them have much or anything positive to say about McCain himself, but they tell me that the dangers presented by the election of Barack Obama leaves us no alternative but to vote for McCain, thus blocking an Obama presidency. As always, we are told on all fronts that this is the "most important election in history."
For several reasons, I disagree with these friends and family members that our only alternative is to vote for John McCain.
Claim: McCain is the lesser of two evils.
There is not a real difference between the two presidential candidates of the major political parties in philosophy, worldview, or integrity. One is Black, and one is White. One is old, and one is young. I claim that, in spite of the rhetoric, this is where the differences end. In recent sound bites, on the topic of personal liberty and the Constitution, Obama sounds slightly more conservative than McCain. On abortion, McCain sounds a little more conservative than Obama. On foreign policy, McCain sounds slightly more hyper-interventionist than Obama, and neither sound conservative. But when you consider all of the rhetoric, their records, and the practical implications of their stated goals, all the supposed differences melt away, and we are left with another Bush Administration, or another Clinton Administration, with a slightly different flavor, but the same old direction for our nation: rapidly toward more foreign interventionism, more economic interventionism, more suppression of liberty, more complete reliance on government, more tax funding for all manner of evil, including abortion, unjust war, welfare for politically connected multinational corporations, more official corruption, and, eventually, bankruptcy, chaos and/or brutal totalitarianism.
To know how a President McCain would govern in the realm of economics, one only has to remember his actions of a few weeks ago, when he pushed for unprecedented powers for the Secretary of Treasury, and, along with Bush's urging and Obama's help, lead the way for the Senate to pass the infamous bailout bill, which was the exact bill which angry voters had just persuaded the House to reject, only now with over 450 pages of earmarks (pork), tax "extenders," and new powers for the IRS added to it. McCain publicly chided House Republicans for listening to their constituents and stopping the first monstrous bill in the House! Bush and McCain and Obama told us we were all going to suffer financial ruin if we did not pipe down and hand over our children's wallets to the banksters. Now that they have had their way, we have seen dramatic drops in all of the world's stock markets. What better example do we need to see that McCain and Obama are on the same page when it comes to economics?
What about the right to be armed? Surely McCain is better than Obama on that issue? For the answer to that question, I would direct the reader to this web address: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm. It is a compendium put together by Gun Owner's of America, of John McCain's gun-control record.
What about immigration? More than even most Democrats, McCain has been a consistent advocate of uncontrolled immigration. In 2007, he was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy Act, which sought, among other things, to legalize the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country. This was being pushed during the jostling for position in the primary elections, and was a very unpopular bill among the Republican rank-and-file in an election in which opposition to unchecked immigration was expected to play a huge role. Yet, somehow, John McCain managed to win the primary popular vote. Incidentally, none other than Barack Obama was an ardent supporter of this act, and also a co-sponsor.
The environment? See McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.
Free speech? See the McCain-Feingold Act, a famously unconstitutional piece of legislation.
Foreign policy? Both candidates have advocated aggressive interventionism and nation-building. Both support our illogical and immoral policies in the Balkans, and hypocritically support the independence of a Muslim Kosovo, but oppose the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Both want to increase and expand our current quagmire in the Middle East.
Abortion, I am told, is where the important difference lies between John McCain and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is famously tolerant of all abortions, any time, any where. McCain, on the other hand, currently claims to be pro-life, and promises to select judges that are "strict constructionists," implying that he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, if given the chance. But John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue, like so many others in his political career, several times. He has made statements in recent years that he does not want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. Also, McCain's role in promoting justice David Souter, the currently important role of Warren Rudman in McCain's campaign, and his voting record for past nominations in the Senate, is an indication of what kind of Supreme Court justices we really would get under a McCain presidency; they are not likely to be justices that would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
John McCain has repeatedly stated his support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and has even implied that it should be increased.
McCain shows no tendencies to stop the over $1 billion of Federal funds that go to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America every year, and under a McCain presidency, funding for this and other abortion "services" would likely increase, as it has under the Bush Administration. Until those of us who are pro-life get away from the distraction of the fight for the Supreme Court, and trying to Federalize laws against a certain kind of murder, and instead focus on the right of a state to protect the lives of its citizens without Federal interference, and, more importantly, insist that those politicians who call themselves pro-life do all they can within their sphere to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and pro-abortion propaganda, we will never make any political ground against the Culture of Death. It's easy to call oneself pro-life, but it's another thing to stand for life consistently.
Although conservatives today have chosen to support nearly all wars waged by the Federal government, and believe any and all justifications for these wars, unjust and needless wars are also the taking of innocent lives. In other words, it is state-sponsored mass murder. Why do we rightly speak out against the evil slaughter of millions of babies through abortion, but tolerate and even support the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies in other countries in wars that are based on government falsehoods and flimsy justifications?
Claim: McCain has better character.
Others will admit that there is no essential difference between the politics of McCain and Obama, but that Obama is a man of bad character, and associates with bad eggs, while McCain is a war hero.
While I, too, am very disturbed by Obama's personal and political associations, and do think his character is a relevant and important topic, I am equally disturbed by the associations of John McCain. Disturbingly, there is even some overlap in the nefarious associations of the two men. In the interest of space, I will leave it to the reader to investigate for themselves the following partial list of associations with John McCain: The regime in Libya, the regime in Georgia (the country, not the state), mob boss Joe "Bananas" Bonano, Charles Keating (how can we forget that?), George Soros, and Juan Hernandez (McCain's Director of Hispanic Outreach).
As for the designation of John McCain as a war hero, it is indisputable that he was shot down on a bombing raid, and that he spent over 5 years as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam. However, what happened to him as a POW is disputed. Many Vietnam veterans, including some of his fellow POWs, claim that McCain cooperated with his communist captors without undergoing the torture he claims was administered. They claim that he was given special treatment by the North Vietnamese, because of his special status as the son of an Admiral, and because of his willingness to cooperate in producing propaganda with them.
These men who make these claims are also veterans, and were also held captive by the enemy as POWs, so there is no reason to automatically discount their claims, or to say they are less credible than McCain because of McCain's status as a war hero. Two things give credence to their claims, in my view. One is the frequency with which John McCain lies today (he has been caught in too many blatant and public lies to itemize here), proving that the truth is not something he finds to be important. Secondly, John McCain, as a US Senator, has doggedly stonewalled attempted investigations into the fate of the many POWs and MIAs left in Southeast Asia. The surviving loved ones of the many missing US Servicemen have been publicly belittled by McCain, and have been the recipients of displays of his famous violent temper, for simply wanting to know the truth about the fate of their missing family members. Further, McCain stated that no POWs in Vietnam were interrogated by Soviet agents. We now know through evidence and testimony that has since come to public light that this statement is not true, and also that McCain had to have known it was not true, based on his seat in the Senate. The demeanor of McCain toward these surviving family members of POWs and MIAs and their advocates, and his tireless efforts (teaming up with Senator John Kerry) to block their searches for answers, seems incongruous with his claims regarding his years as a POW.
John McCain's military career before being shot down in Vietnam was spotty, at best. He was known as a party animal, and lost five aircraft, including the one shot down over North Vietnam. Only two of these crashes could be considered combat-related, including a fiery explosion on an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors.
While I'm writing about character, I will mention the fact that McCain left his first wife after she was in a car wreck that left her confined to a wheelchair, for a younger, much richer woman who has better political connections. He may repudiate the foolishness of his youth, and one need not be perfect to advocate virtue, but the abandonment of his first wife does understandably cast doubt on his character, and does not put him on strong moral ground to advocate family values.
Claim: McCain's no good, but his VP pick is:
Some argue that I should vote for John McCain because of his running mate, Sarah Palin. They agree that there is no difference in the character or policy views of McCain and Obama, but that McCain is old, and may die in office, and the true conservative Palin will take his place. But leaving aside doubts of the stories about her fighting corruption within the GOP in Alaska, and whether her professed feminism is good or bad for her family and our society, Sarah Palin shows her true colors by even being willing to be the running mate of John McCain, and being willing to promote him and his politics. She has embraced McCain's politics, and has already been willing to compromise her past views. If she is half the woman her supporters think she is, she will be somehow removed by the current corrupt GOP leaders, or she will remove herself.
In conclusion, I believe that a John McCain presidency would be at least as bad for our nation and our families as an Obama presidency, and perhaps even worse, since he would be falsely viewed as the conservative choice of the voters, though he would run the country in no appreciably different way than would Barack Hussein Obama. (I use the phrase "run the country" because thanks to the Congresses and the Administrations of the last 20 years, the President of the United States is for all practical purposes a dictator.) As we have seen with George W Bush, a Republican President gets support from much of the conservative portion of the population when he does things that would incite near riot by the same people if he were a Democrat. Therefore, perhaps it is better for a Democrat to hold that obscenely powerful position for now, with the hope for some popular resistance to his actions, and some unity in the opposition among conservatives.
Each election, conservatives reluctantly vote for someone for President who is more progressive, more socialistic, and less Constitutional than the candidate in the previous election. When will it end? When will we say "no more?"
I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party. I urge all Americans who are tired of the lawlessness, corruption, and increasing totalitarianism of our current government to vote with me for Chuck Baldwin, or to vote for another Third Party, or to write in someone else, or to not vote for President at all. Don't throw away your vote! Why choose between drowning and hanging? Why choose between Benito Mussolini and Vladimir Lenin? This election, let's not give these nihilistic demagogues our consent to govern us. Just say no to Ocain and Mcbama!
Thanks for reading...
Dan Jacobson
Hit F5 and look at what was added to the title. :->
You tell him! The Moron.
My dear FRiend, sometimes I think we’re living in bizarro world. Please stop by for a quick “hello” at catechism to help restore my sanity.
I see you must not have put much time into studying up on Hussein - The Kenyan Marxist.
Damn shame!
You’re being too kind most idiots can be gainfully employed and are at least smart enough to operate a keyboard responsibly.
I prefer to refer this sort of cretin as politically challenged.
Let's start with Abortion why don't we.
McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I've been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That's not appropriate to do.
Q: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
McCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. They should be judged on their qualifications. I will find the best people in America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.
Q: Even if it was someone who had a history of being for abortion rights?
McCAIN: I would consider anyone on their qualifications. Someone who has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
OBAMA: If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. There was a bill that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it. With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception
In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade" because it would force women to undergo illegal operations. He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America", and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
A: I think the respect and commitment to the rights of the unborn is something I've fought for, and it has a lot to do with national security. Because it says very much what kind of a country we are and our respect for human life, whether it be here in the US or anyplace else in the world. So I think it is connected.
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.
McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.
ROMNEY: Absolutely.
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
HUNTER: Yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.
Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
A bill to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
My suggestion to you is to sit home and not vote at all, then to vote for someone who has 0.000001 percent chance of getting elected
Oh crap! I forgot totally about it. I’ll see you tonight before my Kroger run.
We’ve been fighting “The crud” in our house for three weeks, so shopping is becoming an emergency situation!
By the way, is this the same Chuck Baldwin that wants to use the government to “break up multi-national corporations” and use government to ensure that businesses are “regulated to put America first”.. yea, free Capitalism there.
Compared to the crud stuck in my boots, you aren’t very bright.
Congratulations. It's quite an achievement.
FF, you might want to ping your list and head to this thread. Be sure and check what Jimrob added to the title. He pretty much wants the crap kicked out of this long term poster!
Liar ... another barackanista trying to pass his stench off as a ‘parfume’
Anyone who “disputes” McCain's POW experience is an absolute barking moonbat with NO HONOR, who is, as you said “spitting in the face of the soldiers and fellow POWs who served with McCain who defend his story”.
You are right, check out his profile comment.
In a written sort of way.
Every single day, leftists and third party hacks make me feel less and less bad about casting an early vote for McCain and fire me up more and more to hand them a defeat.
FF, you might want to ping your list and head to this thread. Be sure and check what Jimrob added to the title. He pretty much wants the crap kicked out of this long term poster!
What say you, folks?
Jim, I found your site in 97 or 98, when it was a place where people came together and posted items they found that were often ignored by the mainstream media, mostly, as I recall, regarding the corruption of the Clinton Administration. I contributed many items myself, and had a lot of great discussions on here. I contributed key information to the Clinton Legacy list, and posted an article by this same author which examined all of the crashes of various aircraft carrying liabilities to Bill Clinton.
This site is a sad example of what has happened to America over the last decade. It doesn't have much interesting to offer anymore, as it has become a frothing, thoughtless, enraged mob. Very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.