From: Dr. John Tisdale
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dear Friends,
>
> As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched
> in horror as Barack Obama made the statement with pride. .
> .'we are no longer a Christian nation; we are now a
> nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . .' As
> with so many other statements I've heard him (and his
> wife) make, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd
> hear something like that from a presidential candidate in
> this nation. To think our forefathers fought and died for
> the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to
> have this man say with pride that we are no longer that. How
> far this nation has come from what our founding fathers
> intended it to be.
>
> I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing
> now--send your concerns, written simply and sincerely, to
> the Christians on your email list. With God's help, and
> He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can
> show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed,
> still a Christian nation!
>
> Please pray for our nation!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama and Infanticide
Obama and Infanticide
by Robert George & Yuval Levin
October 16, 2008 Printer Friendly
Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was ''unnecessary'' because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won't fly.
In last night's presidential debate, Sen. John McCain finally found an opportunity to confront Sen. Barack Obama on his vote against protecting children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama's response followed the pattern of his approach to this subject throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue. He said:
''There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. 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.''
But the facts of the born-alive debate tell a different story.
A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.
The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved legislators to act at both the state and federal levels. In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to enact similar measures. In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass ''Born-Alive'' legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state. Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack Obama.
Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.
Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate's Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.
''As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.'' This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ''burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.''
To address the concern of Obama and others who believed in a sweeping right to abortion, Illinois legislators in 2003 amended the bill in Obama's committee, inserting language clarifying that the bill would in no way affect the legal status of a human being before birth. It applied only to a child born alive. Identical ''neutrality'' language in the federal version of the bill had persuaded every single pro-choice legislator in Congress to support the measure. But Obama opposed the bill anyway, and his fellow Democrats followed their chairman's lead, killing the legislation in committee.
When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn't have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of ''lying.'' But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record. Now he really had some explaining to do.
But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.
Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Yuval Levin is a Fellow and Director of the Program on Bioethics and American Democracy of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and senior editor of The New Atlantis.
Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
by Robert George & Yuval Levin
October 16, 2008 Printer Friendly
Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was ''unnecessary'' because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won't fly.
In last night's presidential debate, Sen. John McCain finally found an opportunity to confront Sen. Barack Obama on his vote against protecting children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama's response followed the pattern of his approach to this subject throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue. He said:
''There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. 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.''
But the facts of the born-alive debate tell a different story.
A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.
The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved legislators to act at both the state and federal levels. In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to enact similar measures. In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass ''Born-Alive'' legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state. Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack Obama.
Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.
Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate's Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.
''As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.'' This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ''burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.''
To address the concern of Obama and others who believed in a sweeping right to abortion, Illinois legislators in 2003 amended the bill in Obama's committee, inserting language clarifying that the bill would in no way affect the legal status of a human being before birth. It applied only to a child born alive. Identical ''neutrality'' language in the federal version of the bill had persuaded every single pro-choice legislator in Congress to support the measure. But Obama opposed the bill anyway, and his fellow Democrats followed their chairman's lead, killing the legislation in committee.
When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn't have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of ''lying.'' But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record. Now he really had some explaining to do.
But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.
Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Yuval Levin is a Fellow and Director of the Program on Bioethics and American Democracy of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and senior editor of The New Atlantis.
Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Obama's Abortion Extremism
(borrowed from The Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good.
Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
October 14, 2008 Printer Friendly
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Issue in Focus:
Abortion
Robert P. George:
Obama's Abortion Extremism
Michael New
Pro-Life Laws Work
Gerard V. Bradley
Pro-Life Voters and
Pro-Choice Candidates
Issue in Focus:
Financial Crisis
Harold James
Thinking About Greed
John Haldane
Forward to the Past
Kevin Jackson
The Scandal Beneath the Crisis
Gabriel Schoenfeld
Thinking About Thinking
About Greed
Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
October 14, 2008 Printer Friendly
Sen. Barack Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice."
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being "pro-abortion" and being "pro-choice." Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called "pro-choice," then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons." In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a "punishment" that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and previously served on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
Issue in Focus:
Abortion
Robert P. George:
Obama's Abortion Extremism
Michael New
Pro-Life Laws Work
Gerard V. Bradley
Pro-Life Voters and
Pro-Choice Candidates
Issue in Focus:
Financial Crisis
Harold James
Thinking About Greed
John Haldane
Forward to the Past
Kevin Jackson
The Scandal Beneath the Crisis
Gabriel Schoenfeld
Thinking About Thinking
About Greed
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Another TV Interview from Ormond Beach Rally
John McCain was very ELECTRIFYING and the crowd was electric. Advice for anyone attending a rally..... Be there an hour prior to the doors opening!!!
Ormond Beach Rally TV Interviews with.... Me!!
Here is 1 link to a TV station that interviewed me at the Ormond Beach McCain rally today. It was AWESOME! Senator McCain looks GREAT and FIT! He has PASSION and EFFERVESCENCE in his voice and eyes! his supporters actually talk with reason, knowledge and common sense. In case you are wondering.... I am the very handsome man in the American Flag and Eagle shirt!!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Wisdom Of An 8 Year Old!
THE WISDOM OF AN 8 YEAR OLD
I was talking to the 8 year-old daughter of a friend of mine, and she said
she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal
Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were
President what's the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
"Wow - what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until
you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the
grass, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take
you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can
give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause after all she's only 8.
And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and
asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work himself, and
you can just pay him the $50?"
And I said, "Welcome to the Republican
Party."
Her folks still aren't talking to me.
I was talking to the 8 year-old daughter of a friend of mine, and she said
she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal
Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were
President what's the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
"Wow - what a worthy goal," I told her. "But you don't have to wait until
you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the
grass, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take
you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can
give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, 'cause after all she's only 8.
And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and
asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work himself, and
you can just pay him the $50?"
And I said, "Welcome to the Republican
Party."
Her folks still aren't talking to me.
John McCain: Always Putting Country First
John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service. First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona in 1982, John has led the fight for reforming Washington, eliminating wasteful government spending, and strengthening our nation's armed forces.
John McCain's reform agenda to reduce federal spending and lower taxes quickly elevated him to statewide office and he was elected to the United States Senate in 1986, after serving two terms in the U.S. House.
In the Senate, John continued to demand that Congress put an end to loopholes for special interests and fix the broken system in Washington that too often allows lobbyists to write legislation and members of Congress to waste taxpayer money. In November 2004, Senator McCain was overwhelmingly reelected with nearly 77 percent of the vote.
As the son and grandson of distinguished Navy admirals, John McCain deeply values duty, honor and service of country. John attended college at the United States Naval Academy, and launched a 22-year career as a naval aviator upon his graduation. He continued the McCain tradition of service to country passed down to him from his father and grandfather when he asked to serve in the Vietnam War.
On July 29 1967, John narrowly survived the first of many near-death experiences during his lifetime while preparing to take off on a bombing mission over North Vietnam from his ship, the USS Forrestal. A missile accidentally fired from a nearby plane struck the fuel tanks on John's plane and created a deadly inferno aboard the ship. John barely escaped the fiery disaster that killed 134 men, injured hundreds more and destroyed 20 planes.
Instead of taking the option to return home after the Forrestal disaster, Senator McCain volunteered for more combat duty - a fateful decision that stopped the clock on his life and separated him from his family, and country, for five and a half years.
During his 23rd bombing mission on October 26, 1967, a missile struck John's plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. John was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous "Hanoi Hilton," where he was denied necessary medical treatment and often beaten by the North Vietnamese. John spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John continued his service by regaining his naval flight status.
Senator McCain's last Navy duty assignment was to serve as the naval liaison to the United States Senate. John retired from the Navy in 1981. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Senator McCain has seven children and four grandchildren, and currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife Cindy.
John McCain's reform agenda to reduce federal spending and lower taxes quickly elevated him to statewide office and he was elected to the United States Senate in 1986, after serving two terms in the U.S. House.
In the Senate, John continued to demand that Congress put an end to loopholes for special interests and fix the broken system in Washington that too often allows lobbyists to write legislation and members of Congress to waste taxpayer money. In November 2004, Senator McCain was overwhelmingly reelected with nearly 77 percent of the vote.
As the son and grandson of distinguished Navy admirals, John McCain deeply values duty, honor and service of country. John attended college at the United States Naval Academy, and launched a 22-year career as a naval aviator upon his graduation. He continued the McCain tradition of service to country passed down to him from his father and grandfather when he asked to serve in the Vietnam War.
On July 29 1967, John narrowly survived the first of many near-death experiences during his lifetime while preparing to take off on a bombing mission over North Vietnam from his ship, the USS Forrestal. A missile accidentally fired from a nearby plane struck the fuel tanks on John's plane and created a deadly inferno aboard the ship. John barely escaped the fiery disaster that killed 134 men, injured hundreds more and destroyed 20 planes.
Instead of taking the option to return home after the Forrestal disaster, Senator McCain volunteered for more combat duty - a fateful decision that stopped the clock on his life and separated him from his family, and country, for five and a half years.
During his 23rd bombing mission on October 26, 1967, a missile struck John's plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. John was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous "Hanoi Hilton," where he was denied necessary medical treatment and often beaten by the North Vietnamese. John spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John continued his service by regaining his naval flight status.
Senator McCain's last Navy duty assignment was to serve as the naval liaison to the United States Senate. John retired from the Navy in 1981. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Senator McCain has seven children and four grandchildren, and currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife Cindy.
Strategy for Victory in Iraq
The Importance of Succeeding
John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.
Support the Successful Counterinsurgency Strategy
John McCain has been a leading advocate of the “surge” and the counterinsurgency strategy carried out by General David Petraeus. At the end of 2006, four years of a badly conceived military strategy that concentrated American troops on large bases brought us near to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive. Entire provinces were under extremists’ control and were deemed all but lost. At that critical moment, John McCain supported sending reinforcements to Iraq to implement a classic counterinsurgency strategy of securing the population.
That strategy has paid off. From June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent. This has opened the way for a return to something that approaches normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. The "Sons of Iraq" and Awakening movements, where former Sunni insurgents have now joined in the fight against Al Qaeda, continue to grow.
Those gains would be lost if we were to follow the policy advocated by Senator Barack Obama to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind only a small “strike force” to battle terrorists. That is, in essence, the same strategy of withdrawing from Iraq’s streets that failed in 2006. John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.
Push for Political Reconciliation and Good Government
Thanks to the success of the surge, Iraq's political order is evolving in positive and hopeful ways. Four out of the six laws cited as benchmarks by the U.S. have been passed by the Iraqi legislature. A law on amnesty and a law rolling back some of the harsher restrictions against former employees of the Iraqi government have made it possible for Iraqis to move toward genuine reconciliation. The legislature has devolved greater power to local and provincial authorities, where much of the real work of rebuilding Iraq is taking place.
More progress is necessary. The government must improve its ability to serve all Iraqis. A key test for the Iraqi government will be finding jobs in the security services and the civilian sector for the “Sons of Iraq” who have risked so much to battle terrorists.
Iraq will conduct two landmark elections in the near future – one for provincial governments in late 2008 and the other for the national government in 2009. John McCain believes we should welcome a larger United Nations role in supporting the elections. The key condition for successful elections is for American troops to continue to work with brave Iraqis to allow the voting to take place in relative freedom and security. Iraqis need to know that the U.S. will not abandon them, but will continue to press their politicians to show the necessary leadership to help develop their country.
Get Iraq's Economy Back on its Feet
John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. Markets that were once silent and deserted have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.
The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. As these efforts begin to take hold in Iraq, the private sector, as always, will create the jobs and propel the growth that will end reliance on outside aid. Iraq’s government needs support to better deliver basic services—clean water, garbage collection, abundant electricity, and, above all, a basic level of security—that create a climate where the Iraqi economy creation can flourish.
Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.
The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.
Level with the American People
John McCain believes it is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal.
Many Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of failure in Iraq. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always easy. But it is necessary.
John McCain on the Road Ahead
“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “
“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.” –John McCain
John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.
The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.
Support the Successful Counterinsurgency Strategy
John McCain has been a leading advocate of the “surge” and the counterinsurgency strategy carried out by General David Petraeus. At the end of 2006, four years of a badly conceived military strategy that concentrated American troops on large bases brought us near to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive. Entire provinces were under extremists’ control and were deemed all but lost. At that critical moment, John McCain supported sending reinforcements to Iraq to implement a classic counterinsurgency strategy of securing the population.
That strategy has paid off. From June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent. This has opened the way for a return to something that approaches normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. The "Sons of Iraq" and Awakening movements, where former Sunni insurgents have now joined in the fight against Al Qaeda, continue to grow.
Those gains would be lost if we were to follow the policy advocated by Senator Barack Obama to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind only a small “strike force” to battle terrorists. That is, in essence, the same strategy of withdrawing from Iraq’s streets that failed in 2006. John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.
Push for Political Reconciliation and Good Government
Thanks to the success of the surge, Iraq's political order is evolving in positive and hopeful ways. Four out of the six laws cited as benchmarks by the U.S. have been passed by the Iraqi legislature. A law on amnesty and a law rolling back some of the harsher restrictions against former employees of the Iraqi government have made it possible for Iraqis to move toward genuine reconciliation. The legislature has devolved greater power to local and provincial authorities, where much of the real work of rebuilding Iraq is taking place.
More progress is necessary. The government must improve its ability to serve all Iraqis. A key test for the Iraqi government will be finding jobs in the security services and the civilian sector for the “Sons of Iraq” who have risked so much to battle terrorists.
Iraq will conduct two landmark elections in the near future – one for provincial governments in late 2008 and the other for the national government in 2009. John McCain believes we should welcome a larger United Nations role in supporting the elections. The key condition for successful elections is for American troops to continue to work with brave Iraqis to allow the voting to take place in relative freedom and security. Iraqis need to know that the U.S. will not abandon them, but will continue to press their politicians to show the necessary leadership to help develop their country.
Get Iraq's Economy Back on its Feet
John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. Markets that were once silent and deserted have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.
The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. As these efforts begin to take hold in Iraq, the private sector, as always, will create the jobs and propel the growth that will end reliance on outside aid. Iraq’s government needs support to better deliver basic services—clean water, garbage collection, abundant electricity, and, above all, a basic level of security—that create a climate where the Iraqi economy creation can flourish.
Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating within its territory. Iran has been providing the most extreme and violent Shia militias with training, weapons, and technology that kill American and Iraqi troops. American military spokesmen have also said there is evidence that Iran has provided aid to Sunni insurgents.
The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.
Level with the American People
John McCain believes it is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain, and of the grave consequences of a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal.
Many Americans have given their lives so that America does not suffer the worst consequences of failure in Iraq. Doing the right thing in the heat of a political campaign is not always easy. But it is necessary.
John McCain on the Road Ahead
“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “
“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.” –John McCain
National Security
A Strong Military in a Dangerous World
In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.
John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.
The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.
John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.
As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics
The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.
America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.
In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.
As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.
He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.
John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.
As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.
Effective Missile Defense
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.
John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.
Increasing the Size of the American Military
The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.
Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.
John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.
John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it.
Modernizing the Armed Services
Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives. It also requires addressing force protection needs to make sure that America's combat personnel have the best safety and survivability equipment available.
Modernizing the armed forces also means adapting our doctrine, training, and tactics for the kind of conflicts we are most likely to face. Today, American forces are engaged in dangerous operations throughout the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and the Philippines, American forces are fighting the battles of the 21st century against terrorists and insurgents. These asymmetric conflicts require a very different force structure than the one we used to fight and win the Cold War.
The missions of the 21st century will not center on traditional territorial defense or mass armor engagements. Instead, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will be engaged in, among other things, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, missile defense, counter proliferation and information warfare. This calls not just for a larger and more capable military, but for a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.
Smarter Defense Spending
John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.
John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.
Taking Care of Our Military Personnel and their Families
Our military personnel and their families deserve the nation's unfailing gratitude, respect, and support. As a former naval officer with a distinguished record of military service, John McCain understands the profound sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in the uniform of our country and their families.
He believes one of America's most solemn obligations is to treat our military personnel with the same sense of devotion and duty as they demonstrate in rendering their service to the nation. John McCain has fought for improved military pay and benefits, and an improved quality of life for military families.
America's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan rely heavily on Reserve and National Guard forces. John McCain has worked hard to ensure that benefits for deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen are brought in line with our active-duty military forces.
As president, he will make sure that just as we are always proud of our military personnel for what they do for the country, the country can be proud of what we do for them.
Honoring our Nation's Commitments to Veterans and Military Retirees
John McCain has worked tirelessly to protect increased benefits for America's veterans. He understands that our country has a duty to care for veterans who have honorably served. John McCain will continue to look out for the men and women who have answered our nation's call.
America must never leave its military retirees in any doubt that it will keep its commitments to them for their many years of faithful service. John McCain has been a champion of military retirees in the Senate and believes that it is especially important to ensure retired service personnel enjoy full health care and benefits comparable to that received by retired federal employees. John McCain understands that a key to recruiting and retaining a new generation of American military personnel is demonstrating that our government keeps its promises to retired service members. He will remain an unwavering champion for the rights of military retirees and their families.
Click here to learn more about John McCain on security in the Middle East
Click here to learn more about John McCain on nuclear security.
In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.
John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth - and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.
The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.
John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.
As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics
The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.
America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.
In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.
As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.
He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.
John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.
As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.
Effective Missile Defense
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.
John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.
Increasing the Size of the American Military
The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops.
Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time.
John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today.
John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it.
Modernizing the Armed Services
Modernizing American armed forces involves procuring advanced weapons systems that will help rapidly and decisively defeat any adversary and protect American lives. It also requires addressing force protection needs to make sure that America's combat personnel have the best safety and survivability equipment available.
Modernizing the armed forces also means adapting our doctrine, training, and tactics for the kind of conflicts we are most likely to face. Today, American forces are engaged in dangerous operations throughout the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and the Philippines, American forces are fighting the battles of the 21st century against terrorists and insurgents. These asymmetric conflicts require a very different force structure than the one we used to fight and win the Cold War.
The missions of the 21st century will not center on traditional territorial defense or mass armor engagements. Instead, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will be engaged in, among other things, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, missile defense, counter proliferation and information warfare. This calls not just for a larger and more capable military, but for a new mix of military forces, including civil affairs, special operations, and highly mobile forces capable of fighting and prevailing in the conflicts America faces.
Smarter Defense Spending
John McCain has worked aggressively to reform the defense budgeting process to ensure that America enjoys the best military at the best cost. This includes reforming defense procurement to ensure the faithful and efficient expenditure of taxpayer dollars that are made available for defense acquisition. Too often, parochial interests - rather than the national interest - have guided our spending decisions. John McCain supports significant reform in our defense acquisition process to ensure that dollars spent actually contribute to U.S. security.
John McCain also feels strongly that our nation's military spending, except in time of genuine emergency, must be funded by the regular appropriations process, not by "emergency" supplementals that allow defense to be funded outside the normal budget cycle. This process gives Congressional committees less ability to closely scrutinize defense budget requests to ensure military funding is being budgeted wisely. It makes possible Congressional pork-barrel spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial home-state interests. And it allows the administration to add spending above that set by budget caps, bloating the federal deficit. Budgeting annually through emergency supplemental appropriation bills encourages pork barrel spending. The American taxpayer has a right to expect us to get the most out of each and every defense dollar, especially at a time when those dollars are so critical. Throughout his career, John McCain has fought pork-barrel defense spending that diverts scarce defense resources to parochial, home-state projects rather than addressing the needs of service personnel. He believes that unauthorized earmarks drain our precious defense resources and adversely affect our national security. John McCain will continue to fight pork-barrel spending to ensure that military funds are spent where they are needed most - in support of our military personnel and our national defense.
Taking Care of Our Military Personnel and their Families
Our military personnel and their families deserve the nation's unfailing gratitude, respect, and support. As a former naval officer with a distinguished record of military service, John McCain understands the profound sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in the uniform of our country and their families.
He believes one of America's most solemn obligations is to treat our military personnel with the same sense of devotion and duty as they demonstrate in rendering their service to the nation. John McCain has fought for improved military pay and benefits, and an improved quality of life for military families.
America's deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan rely heavily on Reserve and National Guard forces. John McCain has worked hard to ensure that benefits for deployed Reservists and National Guardsmen are brought in line with our active-duty military forces.
As president, he will make sure that just as we are always proud of our military personnel for what they do for the country, the country can be proud of what we do for them.
Honoring our Nation's Commitments to Veterans and Military Retirees
John McCain has worked tirelessly to protect increased benefits for America's veterans. He understands that our country has a duty to care for veterans who have honorably served. John McCain will continue to look out for the men and women who have answered our nation's call.
America must never leave its military retirees in any doubt that it will keep its commitments to them for their many years of faithful service. John McCain has been a champion of military retirees in the Senate and believes that it is especially important to ensure retired service personnel enjoy full health care and benefits comparable to that received by retired federal employees. John McCain understands that a key to recruiting and retaining a new generation of American military personnel is demonstrating that our government keeps its promises to retired service members. He will remain an unwavering champion for the rights of military retirees and their families.
Click here to learn more about John McCain on security in the Middle East
Click here to learn more about John McCain on nuclear security.
Taxes: Simpler, Fair, Pro-Growth and Competitive
Pro-Growth Tax Policy
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker.
Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.
Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments: American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.
Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D: This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the United States, and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
Innovation Tax Policy
Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.
Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes.
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker.
Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.
Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments: American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.
Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D: This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the United States, and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
Innovation Tax Policy
Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.
Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes.
Health Care Reforms: Better Care, Lower Cost for every American
Reforms To Reduce The Rate Of Health Care Inflation
John McCain proposes a number of initiatives that can lower health care costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses.
Cheaper Drugs: John McCain will look to bring greater affordability and competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.
Chronic Disease: Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can significantly reduce these costs. We should dedicate more federal research to treating and curing chronic disease.
Coordinated Care: Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care for the patient - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.
Greater Access And Convenience: Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.
Information Technology: John McCain will promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology to improve patient safety, enhance quality and lower costs.
Medicaid And Medicare: John McCain will reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement. We also need to implement a zero tolerance policy towards Medicare and Medicaid fraud that is increasingly stripping away resources from the sick and the elderly.
Smoking: John McCain will promote the availability of smoking cessation programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with businesses and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce associated chronic diseases through smoking cessation programs.
Tort Reform: John McCain will lead the fight for medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to proven safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an open invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone and make the practice of medicine unaffordable for good doctors everywhere.
Transparency: John McCain believes we must make information on treatment options and doctor records more public, and require greater transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and evaluating treatments and outcomes.
Reforms To Make Health Insurance Innovative, Portable And Affordable
Health Care Costs: John McCain will reform health care making it easier for individuals and families to obtain insurance. Americans are working harder and longer, yet the amount workers take home in their paychecks is not keeping pace because of rising health care costs. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and promote portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.
Making the Tax Subsidy Fair: By making the tax code more equitable and transparent, John McCain will give every family a refundable tax credit - cash towards insurance - of $5,000 (Individuals receive $2,500). Every family in America, regardless of the source of their insurance or how much they make will get the same help. Families will be able to stay with their current plan, or choose the insurance provider that suits them best and have the money sent directly to the insurance provider.
Making Insurance More Portable: Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. Too many job decisions today are controlled by a fear of losing health care. Americans want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the children. John McCain will lead the reform for portable insurance.
John McCain proposes a number of initiatives that can lower health care costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses.
Cheaper Drugs: John McCain will look to bring greater affordability and competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.
Chronic Disease: Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can significantly reduce these costs. We should dedicate more federal research to treating and curing chronic disease.
Coordinated Care: Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care for the patient - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.
Greater Access And Convenience: Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.
Information Technology: John McCain will promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology to improve patient safety, enhance quality and lower costs.
Medicaid And Medicare: John McCain will reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement. We also need to implement a zero tolerance policy towards Medicare and Medicaid fraud that is increasingly stripping away resources from the sick and the elderly.
Smoking: John McCain will promote the availability of smoking cessation programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with businesses and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce associated chronic diseases through smoking cessation programs.
Tort Reform: John McCain will lead the fight for medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to proven safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an open invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone and make the practice of medicine unaffordable for good doctors everywhere.
Transparency: John McCain believes we must make information on treatment options and doctor records more public, and require greater transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and evaluating treatments and outcomes.
Reforms To Make Health Insurance Innovative, Portable And Affordable
Health Care Costs: John McCain will reform health care making it easier for individuals and families to obtain insurance. Americans are working harder and longer, yet the amount workers take home in their paychecks is not keeping pace because of rising health care costs. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and promote portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.
Making the Tax Subsidy Fair: By making the tax code more equitable and transparent, John McCain will give every family a refundable tax credit - cash towards insurance - of $5,000 (Individuals receive $2,500). Every family in America, regardless of the source of their insurance or how much they make will get the same help. Families will be able to stay with their current plan, or choose the insurance provider that suits them best and have the money sent directly to the insurance provider.
Making Insurance More Portable: Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. Too many job decisions today are controlled by a fear of losing health care. Americans want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the children. John McCain will lead the reform for portable insurance.
Cheap, Clean, Secure Energy for America
Transform Electricity
Nuclear Power: Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use. John McCain will put our country on track to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants.
It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans. The development of new nuclear plants will re-create a U.S. industry that has disappeared: manufacturing components of nuclear power plants, as well as assembling and operating the plants. A rough estimate is that 45 new nuclear power plants will create roughly 700,000 jobs - jobs in construction, engineering, operation and maintenance.
Coal: John McCain will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.
The development of clean coal technology will revitalize coal mining and return jobs to some of America's most economically disadvantaged areas. The demonstration projects alone will employ over 30,000 Americans.
Renewables: John McCain will encourage the market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro and solar power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continues its double-digit annual growth rate in 2008. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even- handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive with conventional energy sources.
Expand Domestic Production
Of Oil And Gas
John McCain will commit our country to expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and work with states to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities.
We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41 percent of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.
Estimates from the Minerals Management Service indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. John McCain believes in promoting and expanding the use of our domestic supplies of oil and natural gas when people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food and other necessities, and when our manufacturing businesses are increasingly hampered by the high cost of natural gas.
Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil
John McCain believes we must understand the role speculation is playing in our soaring energy prices. Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.
Transform Transportation
The only way America can break its strategic dependence on foreign oil is to change how we power our automobiles and rejuvenate our automotive industry. The Lexington Project will help do that through a comprehensive plan.
Battery Technology: John McCain will propose a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.
Clean Car Challenge: John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs): In just three years, Brazil went from new cars sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs. American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.
Alternative Fuels: John McCain believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers' choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. Unfortunately, today isolationist tariffs and wasteful special interest subsidies are not moving us toward an energy solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
CAFE Standards: John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.
Nuclear Power: Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use. John McCain will put our country on track to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants.
It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans. The development of new nuclear plants will re-create a U.S. industry that has disappeared: manufacturing components of nuclear power plants, as well as assembling and operating the plants. A rough estimate is that 45 new nuclear power plants will create roughly 700,000 jobs - jobs in construction, engineering, operation and maintenance.
Coal: John McCain will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.
The development of clean coal technology will revitalize coal mining and return jobs to some of America's most economically disadvantaged areas. The demonstration projects alone will employ over 30,000 Americans.
Renewables: John McCain will encourage the market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro and solar power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continues its double-digit annual growth rate in 2008. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even- handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive with conventional energy sources.
Expand Domestic Production
Of Oil And Gas
John McCain will commit our country to expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and work with states to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities.
We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41 percent of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.
Estimates from the Minerals Management Service indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. John McCain believes in promoting and expanding the use of our domestic supplies of oil and natural gas when people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food and other necessities, and when our manufacturing businesses are increasingly hampered by the high cost of natural gas.
Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil
John McCain believes we must understand the role speculation is playing in our soaring energy prices. Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.
Transform Transportation
The only way America can break its strategic dependence on foreign oil is to change how we power our automobiles and rejuvenate our automotive industry. The Lexington Project will help do that through a comprehensive plan.
Battery Technology: John McCain will propose a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.
Clean Car Challenge: John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.
Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs): In just three years, Brazil went from new cars sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs. American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.
Alternative Fuels: John McCain believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers' choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. Unfortunately, today isolationist tariffs and wasteful special interest subsidies are not moving us toward an energy solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.
CAFE Standards: John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.
Supporting Small Businesses
Lower Energy Costs
John McCain's Lexington Project will address the rising costs of energy that are hurting small businesses. He strongly supports increased domestic exploration of oil and natural gas. This will send a strong signal to oil markets that future supplies will be more plentiful, countering the rise in oil prices. The market for natural gas is less internationally integrated than that of oil - increased domestic production will lower the cost of this key energy source.
The Project will transform electricity generation. John McCain has set the goal of building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 - creating 700,000 jobs and providing cheap electricity. It will provide incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources. Finally, the Lexington Project will devote $2 billion annually to research that will allow the clean use of our most plentiful and low-cost energy source: coal.
Controlling Health Care Costs
John McCain has a comprehensive health care reform plan that will reduce the spiraling cost of health care - a major burden for those small businesses that offer health insurance and a major impediment for those who cannot. He will provide $5,000 for health insurance to every American family - supporting small businesses that seek to offer insurance. John McCain opposes costly mandates or "pay or play" requirements that would raise the financial burden on small business, cut the ability to hire, expand, or raise payrolls.
John McCain's opponent would burden small businesses with roughly $5,000 to $12,000 of extra cost for every employee through his "pay or play" health care mandates. This will stifle new job creation, and it will require small businesses either to cut employees' pay in order to finance this mandate or fire them.
Taxes: Simpler, Fair, Pro-Growth, And Competitive
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. John McCain's opponent wants to increase the marginal income tax rate which applies to the nation's 23 million small business owners who pay their taxes under the individual tax rate system.
Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.
Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments: American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.
Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D: This reform will greatly simplify the tax code, reward activity in the United States, and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
Allow Families To Keep Their Businesses: John McCain proposes reducing the Estate Tax rate to 15 percent and permit a generous $10 million exemption
John McCain's Lexington Project will address the rising costs of energy that are hurting small businesses. He strongly supports increased domestic exploration of oil and natural gas. This will send a strong signal to oil markets that future supplies will be more plentiful, countering the rise in oil prices. The market for natural gas is less internationally integrated than that of oil - increased domestic production will lower the cost of this key energy source.
The Project will transform electricity generation. John McCain has set the goal of building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 - creating 700,000 jobs and providing cheap electricity. It will provide incentives for the production of electricity from renewable sources. Finally, the Lexington Project will devote $2 billion annually to research that will allow the clean use of our most plentiful and low-cost energy source: coal.
Controlling Health Care Costs
John McCain has a comprehensive health care reform plan that will reduce the spiraling cost of health care - a major burden for those small businesses that offer health insurance and a major impediment for those who cannot. He will provide $5,000 for health insurance to every American family - supporting small businesses that seek to offer insurance. John McCain opposes costly mandates or "pay or play" requirements that would raise the financial burden on small business, cut the ability to hire, expand, or raise payrolls.
John McCain's opponent would burden small businesses with roughly $5,000 to $12,000 of extra cost for every employee through his "pay or play" health care mandates. This will stifle new job creation, and it will require small businesses either to cut employees' pay in order to finance this mandate or fire them.
Taxes: Simpler, Fair, Pro-Growth, And Competitive
Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. John McCain's opponent wants to increase the marginal income tax rate which applies to the nation's 23 million small business owners who pay their taxes under the individual tax rate system.
Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.
Allow First-Year Deduction, Or "Expensing", Of Equipment And Technology Investments: American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies.
Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D: This reform will greatly simplify the tax code, reward activity in the United States, and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.
Allow Families To Keep Their Businesses: John McCain proposes reducing the Estate Tax rate to 15 percent and permit a generous $10 million exemption
Reforming Washington to Regain the Trust of Taxpayers
Bring The Budget
To Balance By 2013
John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The near-term path to balance is built on three principles:
Reasonable economic growth. Growth is an imperative - historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.
Comprehensive spending controls. Bringing the budget to balance will require across-the-board scrutiny of spending and making tough choices on new spending proposals.
Bi-partisanship in budget efforts. Much as the late 1990s witnessed bipartisan efforts to put the fiscal house in order, bi-partisan efforts will be the key to undoing the recent spending binge.
In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
McCain Policies Will Support Reasonable Economic Growth: Small business is the key to job growth. Small business will benefit from:
Low individual tax rates - sole-proprietorships, partnerships, landlords and others are taxed under the individual income tax.
Access to capital from low tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Minimizing expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check.
Enhancing international competitiveness to keep jobs here; not abroad.
A lower corporate tax rate.
Improved investment and research incentives to ensure that workers have the most modern technology.
Bringing the budget to balance, reducing federal borrowing, and controlling spending to reduce the burden on the economy.
Comprehensive Spending Controls: John McCain will institute broad reforms to control spending:
The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.
Take back earmark funds. The McCain Administration will reclaim billions of add-on spending from earmarks and add-ons in FY 2007 and 2008.
Bi-partisan Fiscal Discipline: A McCain Administration will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint equivalent to that in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement between a GOP Congress and a Democratic President. In 1997, President Clinton and the GOP Congress agreed to balance the budget by restraining the growth in spending and cutting taxes over a ten-year period.
With the same bipartisan effort today, with the federal budget that is now 70 percent larger, we could keep taxes low and still balance the budget by holding overall spending growth to 2.4 percent. Unlike Congress and the Executive branch in recent years, a McCain Administration will enforce the spending restraint to balance the budget and keep it balanced.
A McCain Administration would perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, and then propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs. McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote.
A McCain Administration will review all special spending provisions to end subsidies to high-income individuals and corporations
Eliminating Wasteful Spending
Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets.
Leadership, Courage And Choices: Reducing spending means making choices. John McCain will provide the courageous leadership necessary to control spending, including:
Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform.
Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.
Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.
To Balance By 2013
John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term. The near-term path to balance is built on three principles:
Reasonable economic growth. Growth is an imperative - historically the greatest success in reducing deficits (late 1980s; late 1990s) took place in the context of economic growth.
Comprehensive spending controls. Bringing the budget to balance will require across-the-board scrutiny of spending and making tough choices on new spending proposals.
Bi-partisanship in budget efforts. Much as the late 1990s witnessed bipartisan efforts to put the fiscal house in order, bi-partisan efforts will be the key to undoing the recent spending binge.
In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
McCain Policies Will Support Reasonable Economic Growth: Small business is the key to job growth. Small business will benefit from:
Low individual tax rates - sole-proprietorships, partnerships, landlords and others are taxed under the individual income tax.
Access to capital from low tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Minimizing expensive mandates - such as those for health insurance and pro-union initiatives like card check.
Enhancing international competitiveness to keep jobs here; not abroad.
A lower corporate tax rate.
Improved investment and research incentives to ensure that workers have the most modern technology.
Bringing the budget to balance, reducing federal borrowing, and controlling spending to reduce the burden on the economy.
Comprehensive Spending Controls: John McCain will institute broad reforms to control spending:
The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.
Take back earmark funds. The McCain Administration will reclaim billions of add-on spending from earmarks and add-ons in FY 2007 and 2008.
Bi-partisan Fiscal Discipline: A McCain Administration will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint equivalent to that in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement between a GOP Congress and a Democratic President. In 1997, President Clinton and the GOP Congress agreed to balance the budget by restraining the growth in spending and cutting taxes over a ten-year period.
With the same bipartisan effort today, with the federal budget that is now 70 percent larger, we could keep taxes low and still balance the budget by holding overall spending growth to 2.4 percent. Unlike Congress and the Executive branch in recent years, a McCain Administration will enforce the spending restraint to balance the budget and keep it balanced.
A McCain Administration would perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, and then propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs. McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote.
A McCain Administration will review all special spending provisions to end subsidies to high-income individuals and corporations
Eliminating Wasteful Spending
Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets.
Leadership, Courage And Choices: Reducing spending means making choices. John McCain will provide the courageous leadership necessary to control spending, including:
Eliminate broken government programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform.
Reform our civil service system to promote accountability and good performance in our federal workforce.
Reform procurement programs and cut wasteful spending in defense and non-defense programs.
home Plan
John McCain believes there is nothing more important than keeping alive the American dream of owning a home. Priority number one is to keep well-meaning, deserving home owners who are facing foreclosure in their homes.
John McCain's approach to helping sub-prime or other financially strapped mortgage borrowers is built on sound principles:
No taxpayer money should bail out real estate speculators or financial market participants who failed to perform due diligence in assessing credit risks. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners and any government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk.
Any policy of financial assistance should be accompanied by reforms that promote greater transparency and accountability to ensure we never face this problem again.
John McCain has proposed a new "HOME Plan" to provide robust, timely and targeted help to those hurt by the housing crisis. Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value.
Eligibility: Holders of a sub-prime mortgage taken after 2005 who live in their home (primary residence only); can prove creditworthiness at the time of the original loan; are either delinquent, in arrears on payments, facing a reset or otherwise demonstrate that they will be unable to continue to meet their mortgage obligations; and can meet the terms of a new 30 year fixed-rate mortgage on the existing home.
John McCain's HOME Plan Will Keep 200,000 To 400,000 Families From Losing Their Homes. "But at the same time, McCain is calling for aggressive federal action to help keep 200,000 to 400,000 families from losing their homes. That plan has many of the elements of a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., requiring participating lenders to forgive part of the loan principal and then write a new loan that would be backed by the federal government through the Federal Housing Administration." (Tom Raum, "Everyone's Invited: McCain Economic Plan Draws From Both Parties," Tucson Citizen, 4/17/08)
How It Works: Individuals pick up a form at any Post Office or download the form over the Internet and apply for a HOME loan. The FHA HOME Office certifies that the individual is qualified, and contacts the individual's mortgage servicer. The mortgage servicer writes down and retires the existing loan, which is replaced by an FHA guaranteed HOME loan from a lender.
John McCain will bolster groups like Neighborworks America that provide mortgage assistance to homeowners in their communities.
John McCain's approach to helping sub-prime or other financially strapped mortgage borrowers is built on sound principles:
No taxpayer money should bail out real estate speculators or financial market participants who failed to perform due diligence in assessing credit risks. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners and any government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk.
Any policy of financial assistance should be accompanied by reforms that promote greater transparency and accountability to ensure we never face this problem again.
John McCain has proposed a new "HOME Plan" to provide robust, timely and targeted help to those hurt by the housing crisis. Under his HOME Plan, every deserving American family or homeowner will be afforded the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects their home's market value.
Eligibility: Holders of a sub-prime mortgage taken after 2005 who live in their home (primary residence only); can prove creditworthiness at the time of the original loan; are either delinquent, in arrears on payments, facing a reset or otherwise demonstrate that they will be unable to continue to meet their mortgage obligations; and can meet the terms of a new 30 year fixed-rate mortgage on the existing home.
John McCain's HOME Plan Will Keep 200,000 To 400,000 Families From Losing Their Homes. "But at the same time, McCain is calling for aggressive federal action to help keep 200,000 to 400,000 families from losing their homes. That plan has many of the elements of a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., requiring participating lenders to forgive part of the loan principal and then write a new loan that would be backed by the federal government through the Federal Housing Administration." (Tom Raum, "Everyone's Invited: McCain Economic Plan Draws From Both Parties," Tucson Citizen, 4/17/08)
How It Works: Individuals pick up a form at any Post Office or download the form over the Internet and apply for a HOME loan. The FHA HOME Office certifies that the individual is qualified, and contacts the individual's mortgage servicer. The mortgage servicer writes down and retires the existing loan, which is replaced by an FHA guaranteed HOME loan from a lender.
John McCain will bolster groups like Neighborworks America that provide mortgage assistance to homeowners in their communities.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Immediate Relief for American families
Immediate Relief
for American Families
Gas and Food Prices
John McCain will help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
John McCain's policies will increase the value of the dollar and thus reduce the price of oil. In recent years, the declining value of the dollar has added to the cost of imported oil. This will change. Americans will have a stronger economy, a stronger dollar and greater purchasing power for oil, gas and food.
John McCain believes we should institute a summer gas tax holiday. Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain called on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Reuters: Gas Tax Holiday "Of Most Immediate Effect To Consumers." "Of most immediate effect to consumers was his appeal to the U.S. Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day at the end of May to Labor Day in early September." (Steve Holland, "McCain Proposes Tax Cuts And Lashes Democrats," Reuters, 4/15/08)
USA Today: "A USA TODAY Analysis Showed That McCain's Gas-Tax Proposal Could Save Motorists $6.8 Billion In Taxes During The Summer." (Kathy Kiely, "Gas-Tax Holiday Among McCain's Plans For Economy," USA Today, 4/16/08)
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of gasoline at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
for American Families
Gas and Food Prices
John McCain will help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices.
John McCain believes we should send a strong message to world markets. Under his plan, the United States will be telling oil producing countries and oil speculators that our dependence on foreign oil will come to an end - and the impact will be lower prices at the pump.
John McCain's policies will increase the value of the dollar and thus reduce the price of oil. In recent years, the declining value of the dollar has added to the cost of imported oil. This will change. Americans will have a stronger economy, a stronger dollar and greater purchasing power for oil, gas and food.
John McCain believes we should institute a summer gas tax holiday. Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain called on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Reuters: Gas Tax Holiday "Of Most Immediate Effect To Consumers." "Of most immediate effect to consumers was his appeal to the U.S. Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day at the end of May to Labor Day in early September." (Steve Holland, "McCain Proposes Tax Cuts And Lashes Democrats," Reuters, 4/15/08)
USA Today: "A USA TODAY Analysis Showed That McCain's Gas-Tax Proposal Could Save Motorists $6.8 Billion In Taxes During The Summer." (Kathy Kiely, "Gas-Tax Holiday Among McCain's Plans For Economy," USA Today, 4/16/08)
John McCain will repeal the 54 cents per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, increasing competition, and lowering prices of gasoline at the pump.
John McCain will roll back corn-based ethanol mandates, which are contributing to the rising cost of food.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Mrs Obama Decides Enough Is Enough
Mrs Obama Decides Enough Is Enough
Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API.
Posted by africanpress on October 15, 2008
Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API's help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man's name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.
When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: "African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," and she went to state that, "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API."
This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.
The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama's hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya.
When API asked Mrs Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya's Prime Minister Mr Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi's arrest, she got irritated and and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.
When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.
On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of muslim faith if he became the president, adding "even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?; Mrs Obama asked.
Mrs Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the innoguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year.
Recordings and information leading to recent API story on Michelle Obama's telephone call is now being cleared for release
Posted by africanpress on October 17, 2008
API is disturbed by the way many have reacted to the story on Mrs Obama's call. Many have shown us by the way they have behaved towards API that they only think of their own interests because they have demanded that the audio recordings should be released immediately. We understand that the tapes should be released, but those who have demanded the release of the tapes seem not take into account that API may become a suing target.
The Recordings:
API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she ask", on a direct telephone to API) , and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public. In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realised that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days.
Due to enormous reactions received, API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.
Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.
The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.
The US Media Outlets:
Since the release of Mrs Obama story, many US media outlets have insisted that API should release the recordings made when Mrs Obama spoke with API. We understand the importance of the recordings in our possession and yet the first thing we are thinking of is not simply to make them public because groups are pressurising API to do so. The release of the information will be done, because we know we have Mrs Obama on tape, but API must do it in a way that does not put API in an embarrassing legal situation.
Die-hard Obama supporters:
A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they email us. They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama's chances to become the next US President. API does not have a direct interest in the US Presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.
The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady.
Die-hard Mcain supporters:
Those who do not support Obama are actively pushing for the release of the recordings also, and we understand them very well. In many telephone conversations with them we, however, get disturbed when we realise that most of them want the recordings to be released because they want to use it to stop Senator Obama from being elected President. They state clearly that if the story is true and released now, the contents will safe America from a constitutional crisis that may come if things come out after the elections that proves Obama was adopted by a foreigner, thus, disqualifying him from the Presidency.
Some readers:
Some have questioned why API has its base in Norway. Online News Media can be based anywhere in the world. With the Internet age, a news network can have people anywhere in the world. API's news correspondents - 19 of them are real and based in the African Continent. API is a solid Daily Online News Channel and this Obama story will not change that.
Questioning API on being based in Norway:
There is nothing wrong having African Press International based in Norway and the channel run by Africans from the African Continent. Even Kenya's present Prime Minister Raila Odinga lived in Norway for some time before joining the Kenya government.
API has also been accused because of the timing to release Mrs Obama story. Some even discus small issues as to why API telephone number starts with 00, and spellings in the article. This to us in API sounds ridiculous.
The important thing to be concerned about is how API obtained the story and how genuine it is. The second thing is to exercise understanding and to respect why there is a delay in releasing the recordings. API is not saying there are no recordings, but it is important to take serious API's concerns on a possible suit if the tapes are not handled carefully.
API is not out to convince the American public of anything. We do not want to influence the outcome of the US Presidential elections. API got a true story and published it. The fact that the story has caused a stir was unexpected, but that does not mean API must rush in a manner that will cause problems to itself, just to satisfy those who want the audio tapes so badly.
When the legal concerns are cleared, which is happening in a short while, API will make public all the recordings available. This will also include comments, not yet published, which will most certainly put the Obama Campaign spokesperson who had dismissed the story off balance.
Even if our recordings or any other recordings had surfaced after the elections and if the contents were damaging to the elected person that still could have caused any elected president to vacate the White House. We all know that the tapes released in the US in 1974 forced President Richard Nixon out of office. The truth is the truth. The tapes during Nixon time did not lie.
The same here. The recordings that API will release soon will not lie to the American people. Most probably, it will change the political landscape, something the Americans should start getting prepared to face.
Published by Chief Editor Korir
African Press International - API
Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks", on a direct telephone to API.
Posted by africanpress on October 15, 2008
Accusing API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, Mrs Obama said she decided to call API because of what she termed, API's help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man's name, saying she hopes African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with.
When API told her that our online news media was only relaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: "African press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view," and she went to state that, "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API."
This is a very interesting turn of events. The American man Dr Corsi was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi.
The question now is why he was arrested and who ordered his arrest. Was Obama's hand in this in any way? We will never know the truth but what is clear is that Dr Corsi was seen as a threat while in Kenya.
When API asked Mrs Obama to comment on why Dr Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya's Prime Minister Mr Raila Odinga was involved in Dr Corsi's arrest, she got irritated and and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency.
When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy.
On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr Farakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of muslim faith if he became the president, adding "even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?; Mrs Obama asked.
Mrs Obama asked API to write a good story about her husband and that will earn API an invitation to the innoguration ceremony when, as she put it , her husband will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year.
Recordings and information leading to recent API story on Michelle Obama's telephone call is now being cleared for release
Posted by africanpress on October 17, 2008
API is disturbed by the way many have reacted to the story on Mrs Obama's call. Many have shown us by the way they have behaved towards API that they only think of their own interests because they have demanded that the audio recordings should be released immediately. We understand that the tapes should be released, but those who have demanded the release of the tapes seem not take into account that API may become a suing target.
The Recordings:
API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: "My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she ask", on a direct telephone to API) , and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public. In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realised that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days.
Due to enormous reactions received, API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.
Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.
The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.
The US Media Outlets:
Since the release of Mrs Obama story, many US media outlets have insisted that API should release the recordings made when Mrs Obama spoke with API. We understand the importance of the recordings in our possession and yet the first thing we are thinking of is not simply to make them public because groups are pressurising API to do so. The release of the information will be done, because we know we have Mrs Obama on tape, but API must do it in a way that does not put API in an embarrassing legal situation.
Die-hard Obama supporters:
A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they email us. They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama's chances to become the next US President. API does not have a direct interest in the US Presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.
The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady.
Die-hard Mcain supporters:
Those who do not support Obama are actively pushing for the release of the recordings also, and we understand them very well. In many telephone conversations with them we, however, get disturbed when we realise that most of them want the recordings to be released because they want to use it to stop Senator Obama from being elected President. They state clearly that if the story is true and released now, the contents will safe America from a constitutional crisis that may come if things come out after the elections that proves Obama was adopted by a foreigner, thus, disqualifying him from the Presidency.
Some readers:
Some have questioned why API has its base in Norway. Online News Media can be based anywhere in the world. With the Internet age, a news network can have people anywhere in the world. API's news correspondents - 19 of them are real and based in the African Continent. API is a solid Daily Online News Channel and this Obama story will not change that.
Questioning API on being based in Norway:
There is nothing wrong having African Press International based in Norway and the channel run by Africans from the African Continent. Even Kenya's present Prime Minister Raila Odinga lived in Norway for some time before joining the Kenya government.
API has also been accused because of the timing to release Mrs Obama story. Some even discus small issues as to why API telephone number starts with 00, and spellings in the article. This to us in API sounds ridiculous.
The important thing to be concerned about is how API obtained the story and how genuine it is. The second thing is to exercise understanding and to respect why there is a delay in releasing the recordings. API is not saying there are no recordings, but it is important to take serious API's concerns on a possible suit if the tapes are not handled carefully.
API is not out to convince the American public of anything. We do not want to influence the outcome of the US Presidential elections. API got a true story and published it. The fact that the story has caused a stir was unexpected, but that does not mean API must rush in a manner that will cause problems to itself, just to satisfy those who want the audio tapes so badly.
When the legal concerns are cleared, which is happening in a short while, API will make public all the recordings available. This will also include comments, not yet published, which will most certainly put the Obama Campaign spokesperson who had dismissed the story off balance.
Even if our recordings or any other recordings had surfaced after the elections and if the contents were damaging to the elected person that still could have caused any elected president to vacate the White House. We all know that the tapes released in the US in 1974 forced President Richard Nixon out of office. The truth is the truth. The tapes during Nixon time did not lie.
The same here. The recordings that API will release soon will not lie to the American people. Most probably, it will change the political landscape, something the Americans should start getting prepared to face.
Published by Chief Editor Korir
African Press International - API
Ron Savarese for President - 2008 Election Coverage
Ron Savarese for President - 2008 Election Coverage: "Video: Ron Savarese for President!"
2008 Election Shocker: Mysterious Nominee Takes Nation By Storm!
2008 Election Shocker: Mysterious Nominee Takes Nation By Storm!
Could Ron Savarese really be President?
Forget Obama and McCain... Ron Savarese is Coming on Strong!
A long list of hopefuls have dreamed of the top government offices this election year. Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee have all been left in the dust. And coming down the stretch it's Barack Obama and Joe Biden vs. John McCain and Sarah Palin.
But wait... there's another hot contender who might come close to winning without even knowing about it, and it's not "Joe the Plumber."
Two weeks ago, a caller to an online talk show complained about the limited political choices. After lamenting about having to vote for the "lesser of two evils," the caller said you could probably pick someone at random who'd be a better choice for President. A short time later, another caller said, "I've got this friend, Ron Savarese who'd be perfect as president... sharp, level-headed, and a great decision maker!"
Things have exploded since then, thanks to the power of the Internet. People embraced the idea of picking a political outsider at random, and they began calling it the "Savarese Factor." In more than half-a-dozen metro areas, signs are going up, all promoting Ron Savarese for President.
Unfortunately, no one knows who it was who suggested this random nominee... and no one is sure where Ron Savarese is. Several groups have hired private researchers to find the real Ron Savarese. It's going to get interesting!
Could Ron Savarese really be President?
Forget Obama and McCain... Ron Savarese is Coming on Strong!
A long list of hopefuls have dreamed of the top government offices this election year. Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee have all been left in the dust. And coming down the stretch it's Barack Obama and Joe Biden vs. John McCain and Sarah Palin.
But wait... there's another hot contender who might come close to winning without even knowing about it, and it's not "Joe the Plumber."
Two weeks ago, a caller to an online talk show complained about the limited political choices. After lamenting about having to vote for the "lesser of two evils," the caller said you could probably pick someone at random who'd be a better choice for President. A short time later, another caller said, "I've got this friend, Ron Savarese who'd be perfect as president... sharp, level-headed, and a great decision maker!"
Things have exploded since then, thanks to the power of the Internet. People embraced the idea of picking a political outsider at random, and they began calling it the "Savarese Factor." In more than half-a-dozen metro areas, signs are going up, all promoting Ron Savarese for President.
Unfortunately, no one knows who it was who suggested this random nominee... and no one is sure where Ron Savarese is. Several groups have hired private researchers to find the real Ron Savarese. It's going to get interesting!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama Camp Scraps National Anthem
Obama Camp Scraps National Anthem
Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:06 AM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
The Obama campaign asked Zach Bencal of Londonderry, New Hampshire to sing the National Anthem at an Obama rally there Friday and then told him to forget about it -- they had scratched the National Anthem from the program.
According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Obama people dumped the Star Spangled Banner to make room for another speaker.
"We regret the miscommunication with Zach about today's event, but we are pleased that several other New Hampshire residents were able to speak at today's event where thousands of voters in both parties gathered to hear Sen. Obama discuss his plan to bring the change we need to Washington," Sandra Abrevaya, communications director for the Obama campaign's Manchester office told the Union Leader.
Bencal, who the Union Leader explained sings the anthem for a number of school events and is actively involved in local community theater, had been contacted by the Obama campaign to sing the anthem. He agreed to do so, then was told later in the evening the anthem had been scratched from the program. Bencal said he was told by the campaign the decision was a simple programming change to make room for another speaker.
"I guess it just wasn't meant to be," Bencal said.
Commenting on the incident, Union Leader reader Jean Holden of Manchester N.H. wrote to the newspaper: "That says a lot about what Obama does not stand for and that's 'America.' John McCain is 'proud' to be an 'American' and has shown it in many ways while Obama refuses to say the Pledge and have our nation's anthem sung at his rallies."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:06 AM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
The Obama campaign asked Zach Bencal of Londonderry, New Hampshire to sing the National Anthem at an Obama rally there Friday and then told him to forget about it -- they had scratched the National Anthem from the program.
According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Obama people dumped the Star Spangled Banner to make room for another speaker.
"We regret the miscommunication with Zach about today's event, but we are pleased that several other New Hampshire residents were able to speak at today's event where thousands of voters in both parties gathered to hear Sen. Obama discuss his plan to bring the change we need to Washington," Sandra Abrevaya, communications director for the Obama campaign's Manchester office told the Union Leader.
Bencal, who the Union Leader explained sings the anthem for a number of school events and is actively involved in local community theater, had been contacted by the Obama campaign to sing the anthem. He agreed to do so, then was told later in the evening the anthem had been scratched from the program. Bencal said he was told by the campaign the decision was a simple programming change to make room for another speaker.
"I guess it just wasn't meant to be," Bencal said.
Commenting on the incident, Union Leader reader Jean Holden of Manchester N.H. wrote to the newspaper: "That says a lot about what Obama does not stand for and that's 'America.' John McCain is 'proud' to be an 'American' and has shown it in many ways while Obama refuses to say the Pledge and have our nation's anthem sung at his rallies."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
McCain Slams Obama's Donation 'Scandal'
McCain Slams Obama's Donation 'Scandal'
Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:06 PM
Article Font Size
John McCain complained bitterly on "Fox News Sunday" that Barack Obama “broke his word to me and the American people” by rejecting public financing for his campaign.
He also questioned the suspicious number of Obama donors who have given the campaign less than $200 and whose names and addresses have never been disclosed by Obama's campaign.
McCain specifically mentioned the more than $200 million in unitemized campaign contributions – a story that Newsmax broke in September – that have flowed into Obama's campaign coffers.
The Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to disclose the names of donors who have donated more than $200. [See: Secret, Foreign Money Floods into Obama Campaign. Go here now.]
McCain said Obama's refusal to disclose the origin of that money will “cause a scandal” that a future Congress will have to fix with new legislation.
“Senator Obama raised $150 million in — I understand, during the month of September, completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control,” McCain said.
Obama “broke his word to me and the American people when he signed a piece of paper when he was a long-shot candidate that he would take public financing if I would,” McCain said.
“Then, twice on national television he looked into the camera with Senator Clinton sitting there and said, ‘I'll sit down and talk to John McCain before I make a decision on public financing or not.’ He didn't tell the truth.”
McCain argued that Obama’s refusal to disclose donors who had contributed less to $200 to his campaign – a story Newsmax first revealed and has been following closely – makes no sense in our computerized era, where data base software can easily report donor information to the FEC and to the public. McCain has released the names of all donors to the public, including those under $200.
“The American people should know where every penny came from. They know where every penny of my campaign contributions came from,” McCain said.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:06 PM
Article Font Size
John McCain complained bitterly on "Fox News Sunday" that Barack Obama “broke his word to me and the American people” by rejecting public financing for his campaign.
He also questioned the suspicious number of Obama donors who have given the campaign less than $200 and whose names and addresses have never been disclosed by Obama's campaign.
McCain specifically mentioned the more than $200 million in unitemized campaign contributions – a story that Newsmax broke in September – that have flowed into Obama's campaign coffers.
The Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to disclose the names of donors who have donated more than $200. [See: Secret, Foreign Money Floods into Obama Campaign. Go here now.]
McCain said Obama's refusal to disclose the origin of that money will “cause a scandal” that a future Congress will have to fix with new legislation.
“Senator Obama raised $150 million in — I understand, during the month of September, completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control,” McCain said.
Obama “broke his word to me and the American people when he signed a piece of paper when he was a long-shot candidate that he would take public financing if I would,” McCain said.
“Then, twice on national television he looked into the camera with Senator Clinton sitting there and said, ‘I'll sit down and talk to John McCain before I make a decision on public financing or not.’ He didn't tell the truth.”
McCain argued that Obama’s refusal to disclose donors who had contributed less to $200 to his campaign – a story Newsmax first revealed and has been following closely – makes no sense in our computerized era, where data base software can easily report donor information to the FEC and to the public. McCain has released the names of all donors to the public, including those under $200.
“The American people should know where every penny came from. They know where every penny of my campaign contributions came from,” McCain said.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama’s Plan for Illegal Driver’s Licenses Attacked
Obama’s Plan for Illegal Driver’s Licenses Attacked
Friday, October 17, 2008 2:27 PM
By: David Patten and Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Back during the heated days of the Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama made a crucial decision to appeal to his party’s most liberal base: He embraced the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one.
Hillary Clinton decided to oppose such a concept. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, warned her she could not win the general election taking such a position.
Now, if a Republican group has its way, Obama will suffer defeat at the polls for supporting such a program.
The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (NRTrust PAC) has launched a new TV ad hitting Obama on the issue of licenses for illegals, linking his position to the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11.
VIDEO: NRTP: Obama Wants Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
“Nineteen terrorists infiltrate the U.S.,” the 30-second NRTrust ad begins.
“Thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.
“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”
His Web site [www.nationalrepublicantrust.com] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
A recent Newsmax/Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)
The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.
Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.
Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."
Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. He has raised his organizations profile by advertising on conservative Web sites, including ads on Newsmax, Human Events, GOPusa, and other sites. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.
Hillary vs. Obama on Driver’s Licenses
The controversy over driver’s licenses for illegals was touched off in September 2007 when then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer ordered state officials to grant them licenses.
The issue drew more attention during the October 2007 Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, when Sen. Hillary Clinton fumbled a question from the late Tim Russert over whether she supported Spitzer’s plan.
“It makes a lot of sense,” Clinton said. “What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed. And George Bush has failed . . . We should have passed immigration reform.”
Obama jumped on Clinton’s answer as unclear, saying he still couldn’t tell whether she supported granting driver’s licenses to illegals. But Obama left little doubt where he stood on the issue.
“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”
“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”
In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.
Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.
In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.
In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.
The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote.
About two weeks after the call from Chertoff, Spitzer announced he would drop his proposal.
The political fireworks in the Democratic primary were just beginning, however. The day Spitzer withdrew his driver’s license plan, Clinton released a statement saying, “I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal.
“As president,” she continued, “I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people, and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”
During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”
Not satisfied with that response, Blitzer asked again whether Obama supported granting licenses to illegals. This time, it was Obama who appeared to waffle.
“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes-or-no answer,” Blitzer responded, drawing laughter from the audience.
Asked a third time whether he supported licenses for illegals, Obama eventually answered: “Yes,” but quickly added that he would fight for comprehensive immigration reform to address larger issues.
Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.
“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”
Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”
In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, October 17, 2008 2:27 PM
By: David Patten and Newsmax Staff Article Font Size
Back during the heated days of the Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama made a crucial decision to appeal to his party’s most liberal base: He embraced the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one.
Hillary Clinton decided to oppose such a concept. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, warned her she could not win the general election taking such a position.
Now, if a Republican group has its way, Obama will suffer defeat at the polls for supporting such a program.
The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (NRTrust PAC) has launched a new TV ad hitting Obama on the issue of licenses for illegals, linking his position to the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11.
VIDEO: NRTP: Obama Wants Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
“Nineteen terrorists infiltrate the U.S.,” the 30-second NRTrust ad begins.
“Thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.
“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”
His Web site [www.nationalrepublicantrust.com] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
A recent Newsmax/Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)
The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.
Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.
Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."
Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. He has raised his organizations profile by advertising on conservative Web sites, including ads on Newsmax, Human Events, GOPusa, and other sites. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.
Hillary vs. Obama on Driver’s Licenses
The controversy over driver’s licenses for illegals was touched off in September 2007 when then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer ordered state officials to grant them licenses.
The issue drew more attention during the October 2007 Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, when Sen. Hillary Clinton fumbled a question from the late Tim Russert over whether she supported Spitzer’s plan.
“It makes a lot of sense,” Clinton said. “What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed. And George Bush has failed . . . We should have passed immigration reform.”
Obama jumped on Clinton’s answer as unclear, saying he still couldn’t tell whether she supported granting driver’s licenses to illegals. But Obama left little doubt where he stood on the issue.
“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”
“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”
In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.
Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.
In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.
In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.
The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote.
About two weeks after the call from Chertoff, Spitzer announced he would drop his proposal.
The political fireworks in the Democratic primary were just beginning, however. The day Spitzer withdrew his driver’s license plan, Clinton released a statement saying, “I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal.
“As president,” she continued, “I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people, and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”
During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”
Not satisfied with that response, Blitzer asked again whether Obama supported granting licenses to illegals. This time, it was Obama who appeared to waffle.
“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes-or-no answer,” Blitzer responded, drawing laughter from the audience.
Asked a third time whether he supported licenses for illegals, Obama eventually answered: “Yes,” but quickly added that he would fight for comprehensive immigration reform to address larger issues.
Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.
“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”
Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”
In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Powell is wrong about Obama's Muslim past
Powell Is Wrong about Obama's Muslim Past
Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:09 PM
Article Font Size
Appearing on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Colin Powell claimed one reason he is endorsing Barack Obama is that fellow Republicans are spreading falsehoods about him.
Specifically, Powell claimed Republicans are spreading the claim that Obama is a "Muslim."
"I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim,'" Powell said.
He quickly continued: "Well, the correct answer is: He is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian."
But Powell's statement is wrong. By Obama's own admission he was not always a Christian. By his account, he became a Christian in his late 20s after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. in Chicago.
Obama was also raised, at least, partially as a Muslim during his childhood.
The facts are indisputable on this score.
Barack Hussein Obama was born to a Muslim father with the same name from Kenya.
After his father divorced his mother, a secular humanist, remarried, this time to a Muslim man from Indonesia. The couple moved from Hawaii to Indonesia.
While there Obama attended two separate schools and was registered at both as a Muslim student.
As such, he studied the Koran and prayed with Muslim students. According to family members, he attended mosque with his father, albeit infrequently.
[Details of Obama's Muslim upbringing were first detailed by the Los Angeles Times and republished by the Baltimore Sun -- Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.]
Since announcing for president, Obama has denied any ties to the Muslim faith and claims these are part of a smear campaign against him.
Mideast expert and scholar Daniel Pipes says Obama is simply "lying" about his Muslim past. [See: Pipes: Obama 'Lying' about Muslim Past.]
During his "Meet the Press" appearance, Powell, despite making the unequivocal and inaccurate claim that Obama was never a Muslim, then seemed to cover himself.
"But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be president?
Of course, Powell is right, any American of any faith should be able to become president or hold any position the U.S. government has to offer.
But the issue raised by many thoughtful Republicans and others is not whether Obama is a Muslim -- but why Obama feels it necessary to hide his past ties to the Muslim faith and, as Pipes claim, to "lie" about his past association with it.
Considering the media went to great lengths to make Mitt Romney's Mormon faith an issue in the GOP primaries, and Sarah Palin's faith has been heavily scrutinized, thinking Americans want to know why Obama's past and faith are off limits?
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:09 PM
Article Font Size
Appearing on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Colin Powell claimed one reason he is endorsing Barack Obama is that fellow Republicans are spreading falsehoods about him.
Specifically, Powell claimed Republicans are spreading the claim that Obama is a "Muslim."
"I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: 'Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim,'" Powell said.
He quickly continued: "Well, the correct answer is: He is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian."
But Powell's statement is wrong. By Obama's own admission he was not always a Christian. By his account, he became a Christian in his late 20s after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. in Chicago.
Obama was also raised, at least, partially as a Muslim during his childhood.
The facts are indisputable on this score.
Barack Hussein Obama was born to a Muslim father with the same name from Kenya.
After his father divorced his mother, a secular humanist, remarried, this time to a Muslim man from Indonesia. The couple moved from Hawaii to Indonesia.
While there Obama attended two separate schools and was registered at both as a Muslim student.
As such, he studied the Koran and prayed with Muslim students. According to family members, he attended mosque with his father, albeit infrequently.
[Details of Obama's Muslim upbringing were first detailed by the Los Angeles Times and republished by the Baltimore Sun -- Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.]
Since announcing for president, Obama has denied any ties to the Muslim faith and claims these are part of a smear campaign against him.
Mideast expert and scholar Daniel Pipes says Obama is simply "lying" about his Muslim past. [See: Pipes: Obama 'Lying' about Muslim Past.]
During his "Meet the Press" appearance, Powell, despite making the unequivocal and inaccurate claim that Obama was never a Muslim, then seemed to cover himself.
"But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be president?
Of course, Powell is right, any American of any faith should be able to become president or hold any position the U.S. government has to offer.
But the issue raised by many thoughtful Republicans and others is not whether Obama is a Muslim -- but why Obama feels it necessary to hide his past ties to the Muslim faith and, as Pipes claim, to "lie" about his past association with it.
Considering the media went to great lengths to make Mitt Romney's Mormon faith an issue in the GOP primaries, and Sarah Palin's faith has been heavily scrutinized, thinking Americans want to know why Obama's past and faith are off limits?
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
Obama’s Secret Campaign Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:28 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:28 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.
For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.
Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about -- either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission -- “will be returned.”
“Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions,” LaBolt said. “And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary.”
But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had “never” been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.
In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.
Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.
The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.
But there’s one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn’t remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.
“At the end, I was making monthly payments,” he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.
Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.
John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.
Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions -- for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 -- added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.
In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.
Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.
One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.
“Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors -- and even small donors -- are in even dollar amounts,” he told Newsmax. “Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers.”
Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.
“There’s always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare,” he said.
Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.
“I’ve never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates,” he said. “The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions -- contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal.”
Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be “pretty unusual.”
“You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it’s pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored.”
LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online “Obama store,” which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.
“Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts,” he said.
But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.
The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for “accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals,” which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.
“Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late,” RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.
The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.
Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.
As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC -- money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama’s finance team, who won’t take calls from the press.
While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.
The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.
If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.
However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.
Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Meet Senator Joe Lieberman
Please join
Senator Joe Lieberman
at the
Duval County Florida Victory Office
and help kick off Early Voting in FL
Monday, October 20, 2008
9:00 AM
4963 Beach Blvd
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904-398-1446
No RSVP necessary
Senator Joe Lieberman
at the
Duval County Florida Victory Office
and help kick off Early Voting in FL
Monday, October 20, 2008
9:00 AM
4963 Beach Blvd
Jacksonville, FL 32207
904-398-1446
No RSVP necessary
Are you "Joe the Plumber"?
Are you "Joe the Plumber?"
Who is Joe the Plumber?
His name is Joe Wurzelbacher and he is a plumber from Ohio. Last night in the Presidential Debate, Joe the Plumber became a symbol of the economic troubles crippling the United States. Joe encountered Senator Obama while he was campaigning in Toledo, Ohio earlier this week. Joe wants to buy the company he works for, but purchasing it would make him a target of the Democrat's plan to tax the "wealthy." Joe told Senator Obama about his frustrations with Obama's plans to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and the Illinois senator replied that it was important to "spread the wealth around."
Spread the Wealth?
Yes, Senator Barack Obama said he wants to "sprea d the wealth around." That means that he wants to take Joe's, and countless other small business owners', hard earned money. Senator Obama wants to raise their taxes so he can pay for his government mandated healthcare system and other big government programs. He wants to punish small business owners who are successful and about to climb the next step on the economic ladder by spreading their "wealth."
It's No Surprise that Obama Wants to "Spread the Wealth Around"
It's no surprise that Senator Obama wants to spread Joe the Plumbers "wealth." He voted for higher taxes 94 times in four years in the United States Senate. And, he requested nearly $1 billion dollars of your money for wasteful pork barrel spending. Imagine what he will do as the most powerful man in the United States. Obama's rhetoric sounds nice now, but it will feel like a painful sucker punch if he is elected and his plans to raise taxes are implemented.
Senator McCain will Fight for Every Joe the Plumber
John McCain consistently voted against tax increases and never once took a wasteful pork barrel project. As a result he was given an "A" rating by the National Taxpayers Union and has received awards from the Citizens Against Government Waste for being a good steward of taxpayer money. John McCain wants to lower your taxes and reduce government spending and has the record to back up his rhetoric.
Every "Joe the Plumber" Must Fight Against Senator Obama Before It's Too Late
If you are a small business owner and don't want the government to spread your wealth, let us know. Join our "Joe the Plumber" coalition by sending your story to FLJoethePlumber@JohnMcCain.com or by calling our "Joe the Plumber" hotline at 850-391-3304. Tell us how raising taxes and "spreading the wealth around" will hurt your business. It's important we stop these socialist-like plans to take your money and redistribute it.
Please be sure to include the following information:
Name
Business
Phone
City
County
Who is Joe the Plumber?
His name is Joe Wurzelbacher and he is a plumber from Ohio. Last night in the Presidential Debate, Joe the Plumber became a symbol of the economic troubles crippling the United States. Joe encountered Senator Obama while he was campaigning in Toledo, Ohio earlier this week. Joe wants to buy the company he works for, but purchasing it would make him a target of the Democrat's plan to tax the "wealthy." Joe told Senator Obama about his frustrations with Obama's plans to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and the Illinois senator replied that it was important to "spread the wealth around."
Spread the Wealth?
Yes, Senator Barack Obama said he wants to "sprea d the wealth around." That means that he wants to take Joe's, and countless other small business owners', hard earned money. Senator Obama wants to raise their taxes so he can pay for his government mandated healthcare system and other big government programs. He wants to punish small business owners who are successful and about to climb the next step on the economic ladder by spreading their "wealth."
It's No Surprise that Obama Wants to "Spread the Wealth Around"
It's no surprise that Senator Obama wants to spread Joe the Plumbers "wealth." He voted for higher taxes 94 times in four years in the United States Senate. And, he requested nearly $1 billion dollars of your money for wasteful pork barrel spending. Imagine what he will do as the most powerful man in the United States. Obama's rhetoric sounds nice now, but it will feel like a painful sucker punch if he is elected and his plans to raise taxes are implemented.
Senator McCain will Fight for Every Joe the Plumber
John McCain consistently voted against tax increases and never once took a wasteful pork barrel project. As a result he was given an "A" rating by the National Taxpayers Union and has received awards from the Citizens Against Government Waste for being a good steward of taxpayer money. John McCain wants to lower your taxes and reduce government spending and has the record to back up his rhetoric.
Every "Joe the Plumber" Must Fight Against Senator Obama Before It's Too Late
If you are a small business owner and don't want the government to spread your wealth, let us know. Join our "Joe the Plumber" coalition by sending your story to FLJoethePlumber@JohnMcCain.com or by calling our "Joe the Plumber" hotline at 850-391-3304. Tell us how raising taxes and "spreading the wealth around" will hurt your business. It's important we stop these socialist-like plans to take your money and redistribute it.
Please be sure to include the following information:
Name
Business
Phone
City
County
Saturday, October 18, 2008
American Family Association vs. PBS Poll
American Family Association vs PBS Poll
Poll question: Is Obama qualified?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 10/17/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-family organization says it's had an overwhelming negative response to a poll that asks the question: "Do you think Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president of the United States?"
The American Family Association (AFA) created the online poll in response to PBS, which is running a taxpayer-funded poll that asks a similar question regarding the Republican vice-presidential nominee: "Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as vice-president of the United States?" Dr. Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of AFA, further explains the situation.
"I mean, if they're going to run a poll one way, we run a poll the other way. Well over 300,000 people have voted in our poll that [Obama] is not qualified [to be president]. I think [several thousand have] voted that he is qualified," he says. "The poll was a comeback [to the] PBS [poll]."
Wildmon adds while AFA has published how many respondents they have had to their poll, PBS has not. He says it is interesting that the PBS survey has been stuck on 49 percent for and 49 percent against Palin being qualified for vice president.
"Some people [responding to the PBS poll] are saying now that they're getting the message that computers are down, and it's not working," he contends. "It could be that they're afraid to put it up, because she might, you know, be winning the thing."
As of press time, more than 400,000 people had voted in AFA's poll, with statistics showing roughly five percent believe Obama is qualified to be America's president, 95 percent do not believe he is qualified, and less than one percent are unsure.
Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates OneNewsNow.com.
Poll question: Is Obama qualified?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 10/17/2008 6:00:00 AM
A pro-family organization says it's had an overwhelming negative response to a poll that asks the question: "Do you think Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president of the United States?"
The American Family Association (AFA) created the online poll in response to PBS, which is running a taxpayer-funded poll that asks a similar question regarding the Republican vice-presidential nominee: "Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as vice-president of the United States?" Dr. Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of AFA, further explains the situation.
"I mean, if they're going to run a poll one way, we run a poll the other way. Well over 300,000 people have voted in our poll that [Obama] is not qualified [to be president]. I think [several thousand have] voted that he is qualified," he says. "The poll was a comeback [to the] PBS [poll]."
Wildmon adds while AFA has published how many respondents they have had to their poll, PBS has not. He says it is interesting that the PBS survey has been stuck on 49 percent for and 49 percent against Palin being qualified for vice president.
"Some people [responding to the PBS poll] are saying now that they're getting the message that computers are down, and it's not working," he contends. "It could be that they're afraid to put it up, because she might, you know, be winning the thing."
As of press time, more than 400,000 people had voted in AFA's poll, with statistics showing roughly five percent believe Obama is qualified to be America's president, 95 percent do not believe he is qualified, and less than one percent are unsure.
Editor's Note: The American Family Association is the parent organization of the American Family News Network, which operates OneNewsNow.com.
Friday, October 17, 2008
666,000 Newly Registered Ohioan Voters
Ohio elections chief appeals court ruling
By Associated Press
POSTED: 08:58 a.m. EDT, Oct 16, 2008
COLUMBUS: Ohio's top elections chief has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over whether the state is required to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility, a spokesman for her office said Thursday.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, filed an appeal the high court late Wednesday, said spokesman Jeff Ortega.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers don't match records in other government databases.
The GOP contends the information for counties will help prevent fraud.
At least 200,000 newly registered voters have mismatched data, according to an initial review by Brunner's office.
Brunner's office said Wednesday that she would comply with the lower court's ruling. Ortega said the office would release a statement later Thursday on why she chose to file an appeal.
Brunner has called the issue a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters and said other checks exist to help determine eligibility.
Ohio Republicans issued a statement calling the situation a shameful mess and criticized her for initially saying she would comply with the earlier court ruling.
About 666,000 Ohioans have registered to vote since January, with many doing so before the contested Democratic presidential primary election between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in March.
By Associated Press
POSTED: 08:58 a.m. EDT, Oct 16, 2008
COLUMBUS: Ohio's top elections chief has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over whether the state is required to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility, a spokesman for her office said Thursday.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, filed an appeal the high court late Wednesday, said spokesman Jeff Ortega.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers don't match records in other government databases.
The GOP contends the information for counties will help prevent fraud.
At least 200,000 newly registered voters have mismatched data, according to an initial review by Brunner's office.
Brunner's office said Wednesday that she would comply with the lower court's ruling. Ortega said the office would release a statement later Thursday on why she chose to file an appeal.
Brunner has called the issue a veiled attempt at disenfranchising voters and said other checks exist to help determine eligibility.
Ohio Republicans issued a statement calling the situation a shameful mess and criticized her for initially saying she would comply with the earlier court ruling.
About 666,000 Ohioans have registered to vote since January, with many doing so before the contested Democratic presidential primary election between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in March.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Wednesday Debate Strategy
Here is what McCain should do at about five minutes into the debate.
Ok, follow my lead and see what you think:
McCain: "Ok Obama, you say you can 'change' America, HOW and WITH WHO"? Because this is who I will use:
Romney, Guilliani, Huckabee, Lieberman and Palin.
(If he wants to expand on what their jobs/tasks will be, then go for it.)
Obama: "Uhhh, uhhh, Biden, Ayers, uhh, Oh yeah, I will 'Change America' I will uhhh, uhhhh.
McCain: "See America, I have the leadership, the skills, the relationships, etc.. I have what it takes. Obama has,"uhhh, uhhhh".
Ok, follow my lead and see what you think:
McCain: "Ok Obama, you say you can 'change' America, HOW and WITH WHO"? Because this is who I will use:
Romney, Guilliani, Huckabee, Lieberman and Palin.
(If he wants to expand on what their jobs/tasks will be, then go for it.)
Obama: "Uhhh, uhhh, Biden, Ayers, uhh, Oh yeah, I will 'Change America' I will uhhh, uhhhh.
McCain: "See America, I have the leadership, the skills, the relationships, etc.. I have what it takes. Obama has,"uhhh, uhhhh".
Monday, October 13, 2008
Election Thoughts
This is very well written and I recommend everyone take a little time to read this entire write-up. You won't be disappointed!
Dear Friends:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change.'
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America, they say.
In what way? I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment.
Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected.
Political experience: Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent.
Achievements? Name one.
Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take.
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.
Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough. ' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain
Sincerely,
Joe Porter
Dear Friends:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't considerable myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change.'
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America, they say.
In what way? I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment.
Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected.
Political experience: Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent.
Achievements? Name one.
Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take.
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.
Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough. ' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain
Sincerely,
Joe Porter
Thursday, October 9, 2008
A Biblical thought?
"For by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
- (Colossians 1:16 NKJV)
"dominions or principalities or powers." If you and I believe, pray and trust the RIGHT team that SHOULD lead this country will win...... then they should win. Forget "bible thumping" or "Jesus freak" or any traditional stereotypes.
Bottom line, there is a God, He made us, He helps us and He wants this country and all it's people to enjoy the life He gave us and the peace of mind to be able to thank Him and to praise Him and to accept His grace....
Amen, the end! What do y'all think???
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
- (Colossians 1:16 NKJV)
"dominions or principalities or powers." If you and I believe, pray and trust the RIGHT team that SHOULD lead this country will win...... then they should win. Forget "bible thumping" or "Jesus freak" or any traditional stereotypes.
Bottom line, there is a God, He made us, He helps us and He wants this country and all it's people to enjoy the life He gave us and the peace of mind to be able to thank Him and to praise Him and to accept His grace....
Amen, the end! What do y'all think???
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Nice message from a fellow McCain supporter
MissArthur from McCainSpace sent you this message:
Your first blog was the first blog I have read on McCainSpace. I haven't written anything yet. Not sure why I joined except I thought it would be nice to read blogs that were written by people I have something in common with as opposed to the nasty and mean comments by those on far left. I totally agree with every word you wrote. I have very strong feelings about this race between Obama and Senator McCain and believe it goes far beyond politics... more along the lines of good vs. evil. I have been praying very hard for Senator McCain and Governor Palin for physical strength and also spiritual strength, that they would listen to the Lord and that they would not compromise what is right in order to get votes. It didn't look good for President Bush, and Gore would have won if it weren't for that trouble with chads; however, I like to believe that was the Lord at work and perhaps also His sense of humor. I also like to believe that the polls don't really matter now, and, if the Lord wills it, Senator McCain will become President. I, personally, cannot imagine anything worse than an Obama presidency! Congrats on your first blog!
Your first blog was the first blog I have read on McCainSpace. I haven't written anything yet. Not sure why I joined except I thought it would be nice to read blogs that were written by people I have something in common with as opposed to the nasty and mean comments by those on far left. I totally agree with every word you wrote. I have very strong feelings about this race between Obama and Senator McCain and believe it goes far beyond politics... more along the lines of good vs. evil. I have been praying very hard for Senator McCain and Governor Palin for physical strength and also spiritual strength, that they would listen to the Lord and that they would not compromise what is right in order to get votes. It didn't look good for President Bush, and Gore would have won if it weren't for that trouble with chads; however, I like to believe that was the Lord at work and perhaps also His sense of humor. I also like to believe that the polls don't really matter now, and, if the Lord wills it, Senator McCain will become President. I, personally, cannot imagine anything worse than an Obama presidency! Congrats on your first blog!
John McCain says,"Home ownership in crisis. We need relief now!"
My Friends,
Millions of Americans on Main Street are feeling the effects of our current economic crisis largely brought on by corruption and greed at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street. Our next president must come into office with a plan to address the very root the failing housing market.
Last night, during my debate with Senator Obama, I announced my plan to fix the root of our problem and I'd like to share a little more with you today.
If elected president, I will direct my Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis.
America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage.
For those that cannot make inflated payments or their mortgage exceeds the value of their home, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages.
This Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes.
By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.
I am ready to lead our country out of this financial crisis and I am ready to work with anyone and everyone who will help. Together, I know we can work together to find solutions for these challenging times. Please do your part today and spread the word about my new plan by forwarding this email on to your neighbors, friends, family and coworkers. Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. Homeownership represents the very core of our American economic system. This is not the time for politics. We must move aggressively to provide relief and stability for all Americans.
Millions of Americans on Main Street are feeling the effects of our current economic crisis largely brought on by corruption and greed at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street. Our next president must come into office with a plan to address the very root the failing housing market.
Last night, during my debate with Senator Obama, I announced my plan to fix the root of our problem and I'd like to share a little more with you today.
If elected president, I will direct my Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis.
America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage.
For those that cannot make inflated payments or their mortgage exceeds the value of their home, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages.
This Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes.
By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.
I am ready to lead our country out of this financial crisis and I am ready to work with anyone and everyone who will help. Together, I know we can work together to find solutions for these challenging times. Please do your part today and spread the word about my new plan by forwarding this email on to your neighbors, friends, family and coworkers. Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
John McCain
P.S. Homeownership represents the very core of our American economic system. This is not the time for politics. We must move aggressively to provide relief and stability for all Americans.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
This is Borrowed from a McCain supporter named Psalm 144.. Heartfelt!!!
John McCain and I share many of the same views on which direction this precious country of ours should be taking. I am a devout Christian and have great faith in the Lord. Although the Lord will not be personally voting, I believe He expects all Christians to vote Senator McCain. How much further can our country fall into liberalism? I do not believe in Gay Marriages or abortions. I want a President who knows what God he serves. I want a President like McCain who has my values. I want a President that I am proud of, especially that of his past record of leadership. I appreciate Sen. McCain's record of serving our country through the Armed Forces. The ability to be a P.O.W. and not break. It upset me to no end when President Clinton was elected - It was uncomforatable for me to watch Clinton as he would salute the military...He had no right to raise his hand and salute. Our military men and women deserve a Military Man - Someone who has stood in their shoes and knows what they are going through. I cannot believe B.O. would be able to effectively lead our forces and I know that is part of the reason he wants to lower our military forces. Yeah, that's a great idea...let's make our country so weak that any third world country could cause us physical harm. Wasn't 9/11 enough for everyone to realize that we should be spending our money on protection? I want stronger borders and illegal aliens paying taxes if they are going to remain in this country. 12 million individuals not paying their fare shares and receiving free medical services. I worked at a hospital for many years, I know how many people had to wait in line behind those who had no insurance. Many beds taken away from those who deserved them, because they paid for their insurance. We all have choses to make when we graduate from high school. If your parents make less money, you have a greater chance to obtain grants and loans to attend college and leave with a degree and a career with insurance benefits. I want less government, not more. My good friend from Nova Scotia, Canada lost his mom from a brain tumor. The Canadian doctor knew she had a neurological problem, but the govenment took 6 months to approve her MRI. They performed her autopsy a week before her scheduled procedure...How horrible to be diagnosed through an autopsy, instead of a scan that would have saved her life. Our government is busy enough, big enough, they don't need to be taking care of our medical issues too. Where is that money suppose to come from? You might think doctors are making a lot of money. Well, probably those who are Plastic Surgeons, but the doctors I worked for all indicated they didn't want their children to become Physician's because the money is not there. The Medical Insurance Companies dictate how much they make. In the countries with Socialized Medicine, the government dictates how much a Dr. should make. We already have less doctors entering medical school...You have to ask yourself why? Why are the sick from Canada and England coming to the States to have their medical services performed here? They are coming because of the quality of our current physicians and that they can actually schedule a procedure to be done.
I believe in McCain & Palin. I want Christians running the government. I want to return to the times of our Forefathers who wanted God To Bless America.
God Bless McCain - God Bless Palin - God Bless America 2008
I believe in McCain & Palin. I want Christians running the government. I want to return to the times of our Forefathers who wanted God To Bless America.
God Bless McCain - God Bless Palin - God Bless America 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
McCain-Palin Joint Fundraising Commitee
Dear Supporter,
In the weeks since I joined John McCain as his running mate, the Obama-Biden Democrats have used their allies in the liberal media to paint us negatively, all in an attempt to sway undecided voters. Tonight's debate gave me the opportunity to bypass the biased media filter and communicate our shared values of reform directly to the voters.
I know millions were watching as I went toe-to-toe against Senator Biden to explain our plans. Reform Republicans will strengthen the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure our nation from the threat of Islamic extremism.
As we head into the final month of the campaign, I'm asking you to ensure we have the resources necessary to compete with the Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal media allies in races across the country. You can help today by giving your financial support right now.
The stakes are extremely high and voters are already casting their ballots for the general election. You may have heard the media reports out of Ohio about same-day registration and voting. The Obama-Biden Democrats and their allies are exploiting loopholes in Ohio election laws that we fear may result in unqualified voters casting ballots. They're also hoping our voters will be so confused, that they will throw up their hands in frustration and stay at home instead of voting. That's why it's important to re-double our efforts.
The Democratic Secretary of State in Ohio even tried to disqualify thousands of Republican absentee ballot applications. She enlisted the help of liberal partisan friends and special interest groups when we challenged this in court. Thankfully, we were successful in taking the case all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court and won the right to reinstate these absentee ballot applications. The Obama-Biden Democrats will likely try this shameful, partisan tactic in other targeted states. They'll do anything to win this election.
We're heading into the critical weeks when many undecided voters will make their choice. Our team needs to get our message out to these crucial voters who can tip the scales in our favor. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $75, $150, $250, $500 or more will help our team reach these voters.
You donation to McCain-Palin Victory 2008 funds our critical get-out-the-vote efforts in states all across the country. These efforts will be critical in defeating the shameful tactics the Obama-Biden Democrats are employing. Will you help get-out-the-vote for our entire team by making a donation right now?
I want to sincerely thank you for your generosity. Anything you can do to help today will go a long way to securing Victory on November 4th.
Sincerely,
Governor Sarah Palin
P.S. The Obama-Biden Democrats will do anything to win. Their allies are already hard at work employing shameful election tactics in Ohio and they won't stop there. We're in the final stretch of the campaign and need your immediate financial support to elect our ticket from top to bottom on Election Day. Please join our team for victory today!
In the weeks since I joined John McCain as his running mate, the Obama-Biden Democrats have used their allies in the liberal media to paint us negatively, all in an attempt to sway undecided voters. Tonight's debate gave me the opportunity to bypass the biased media filter and communicate our shared values of reform directly to the voters.
I know millions were watching as I went toe-to-toe against Senator Biden to explain our plans. Reform Republicans will strengthen the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and secure our nation from the threat of Islamic extremism.
As we head into the final month of the campaign, I'm asking you to ensure we have the resources necessary to compete with the Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal media allies in races across the country. You can help today by giving your financial support right now.
The stakes are extremely high and voters are already casting their ballots for the general election. You may have heard the media reports out of Ohio about same-day registration and voting. The Obama-Biden Democrats and their allies are exploiting loopholes in Ohio election laws that we fear may result in unqualified voters casting ballots. They're also hoping our voters will be so confused, that they will throw up their hands in frustration and stay at home instead of voting. That's why it's important to re-double our efforts.
The Democratic Secretary of State in Ohio even tried to disqualify thousands of Republican absentee ballot applications. She enlisted the help of liberal partisan friends and special interest groups when we challenged this in court. Thankfully, we were successful in taking the case all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court and won the right to reinstate these absentee ballot applications. The Obama-Biden Democrats will likely try this shameful, partisan tactic in other targeted states. They'll do anything to win this election.
We're heading into the critical weeks when many undecided voters will make their choice. Our team needs to get our message out to these crucial voters who can tip the scales in our favor. Your generous contribution of $25, $50, $75, $150, $250, $500 or more will help our team reach these voters.
You donation to McCain-Palin Victory 2008 funds our critical get-out-the-vote efforts in states all across the country. These efforts will be critical in defeating the shameful tactics the Obama-Biden Democrats are employing. Will you help get-out-the-vote for our entire team by making a donation right now?
I want to sincerely thank you for your generosity. Anything you can do to help today will go a long way to securing Victory on November 4th.
Sincerely,
Governor Sarah Palin
P.S. The Obama-Biden Democrats will do anything to win. Their allies are already hard at work employing shameful election tactics in Ohio and they won't stop there. We're in the final stretch of the campaign and need your immediate financial support to elect our ticket from top to bottom on Election Day. Please join our team for victory today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
