McCain's 2003 Advice

The Iraq war officially started on March 19th, 2003 (March 20th in Iraq). According to a November 2003 news report from USAToday, McCain stated that U.S. should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam. McCain also said "The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient force in Iraq to meet our military objectives." McCain had continuously made similar advices since then. The advices were completed ignored. By 2006, the violence in Iraq started to spin out-of-control (See statistics here on the left of the page). Sectarian violence was on the raise and Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was increased its influences. By June 2006, Operation Together Forward was launched in order to reduce violence in Baghdad. It failed. Violence increased regardless. By September 2006, Marine Corps Intelligence believed Anbar province is lost and it was under the influence of AQI. Finally, in year 2007, a military surge is launched with an addition of 20,000+ active military personals, a strategy advocated by McCain. General Petraeus was called to oversee this surge operation – both in increasing military capability and a complete change of the strategy. The surge along with the new counter-insurgency strategy have produced many achievements. Most noticeably, U.S. regained control of Anbar province and AQI was essentially forced out of Anbar. In addition, US and Iraq casualties decreased steadily since then. Recently, Iraq Security Force accomplished several important achievements, such as fighting Shia militia and taking control of Basra. This month, US experienced the lowest casualties since the beginning of the war (See here, here and here). Iraqi civilians also enjoyed a near record low violence. Still, we are far from achieving peace in Iraq or even "turn a corner", but the situation is unquestionably better and there is no reason not to believe the situation CAN get better. Senator McCain has demonstrated his political courage by speaking up and his vast knowledge in national security knowledge by suggesting realistic solutions. I only wish we had heeded his advices earlier.

America's Future

An Obama presidency will lead to a weak America. A country without a strong defense system and weapons that deter rogue nations from attacking. We will become a very vulnerable America.

In stark Contrast-

John McCain has stated : "While working closely with allies who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security, I would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy. I would keep an open mind on all responsible proposals. At the same time, we must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies. But I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments"
John McCain will ensure we become a stronger America.

Going Left and Right To Win

Steven Stark has written an article for RCP –How McCain Can Win

that gives a different “game plan” if you will, for McCain to win in November by running both left and right. Stark believes that if Sen. McCain ditches the coat and tie, and travels to smaller towns on the Straight Talk Express addressing “average American” concerns he will be on a winning path. McCain is also encouraged to take on fall initiatives that will appeal to conservatives like California’s Gay Marriage issue and to firmly question where Obama stands on such issues. Alternative VP choices not currently on the short list are discussed as well.

The most intriguing point is how to counter the Democrats’- “a McCain presidency is another Bush term” argument :

Obama is going to spend the whole campaign trying to tie McCain to George W. Bush. Fair enough, but there is an institution with even less favorable public-opinion numbers than the president: the Democratic Congress. Taking a page from Harry S. Truman's uphill 1948 campaign, McCain should spend the next six months running against Congress and warning that, if the Democrats control both branches of government come January, the country is in for the kind of change it may not want to endorse.

The entire article makes for an interesting read, enjoy!

OBAMA NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON

By Jack Kelly from realclearpolitics.com May 9, 2008
submitted by PalomaInPdx

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.

In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so. When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.

The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.

History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Is Obama dubious or just plain ignorant?

Fox new article today called out on Senator Obama knowledge’s on history including his own families. Speaking in Las Cruces, N.M., on Monday, the Democratic presidential candidate said he did not serve, but comes from a family that did sacrifice for the nation. He was speaking about the many members of the military who suffer post traumatic stress disorder and should be given better care.

In his own words,

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” he said.

However according to Holocaust Memorial Musuem Web site shows that Soviet forces were the first to approach Auschwitz, which was in Poland.

“On Jan. 27, 1945, the Soviet army entered Auschwitz and liberated more than 7,000 remaining prisoners,” the site reads. U.S. forces did liberate several camps, including Ohrdruf Concentration Camp on April 4, 1945; Mittelbau-Dora Concentration Camp on April 11, 1945; Buchenwald on April 12, 1945; Dachau on April 29, 1945; and Mauthausen on May 5, 1945.

Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortion however is raising questions on his judgements and history. However this is not the first time Senator Obama make’s the Auschwitz remarks. He make’s the same claims in his October 02,2002 speech on why he against the Iraq war. In this speech;

"He stated that his grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka."

I have to point out that there is no mention of this 'uncle' in that speech.To me it is really dubious of him to claim that his uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz, when his mom was an only child. I would like to know which Uncle of his family side was it?

Memorial day tribute.

In this Memorial Day weekend, weather you agree or disagree with this war, this is a good time for all of us to remember what those troops are doing, to honor their services and to pray for their safe return home. It’s also a time for us to pray and honor the Fallen Heroes and Veterans who have sacrificed to make Freedom possible for us.

A Prayer for the Troops

Dear Lord,
There's a young man far from home,
called to serve his nation in time of war;
sent to defend our freedom on some distant foreign shore.

We pray You keep him safe,
we pray You keep him strong,
we pray You send him safely home ...
for he's been away so long.

There's a young woman far from home,
serving her nation with pride.
Her step is strong, her step is sure,
there is courage in every stride.

We pray You keep her safe,
we pray You keep her strong,
we pray You send her safely home ...
for she's been away too long.

Bless those who await their safe return.
Bless those who mourn the lost.
Bless those who serve this country well,
no matter what the cost.
God, Bless America!

. .
To honor those who dies in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html


To honor those who dies in Vietnam.

http://www.vietnammemorial.com/vietnam-memorial-list-of-heroes.html

Politicial Courage and Honesty

Democracy is a form of government where the power is vested in the people through a system of representation. Citizens have the power to shape governmental policies. However, this amazing power is meaningless if the decision-makings are based on false information. Unlike other forms of governments, a healthy democracy depends on honest information. The paradox in democracy is that "what people want to hear" is not always the same as "what people need to hear", and consequently "what is good for winning election" may not be the same as "what is good for the country". Due to this paradox, we need political honesty and we need political courage.

In April, Dominic Lawson from The Independent wrote a short and wonderful piece on Senator John McCain's political courage on free trade.

He [John McCain] is absolutely not prepared to pander to protectionism in the manner of his competing Democrat opponents. Not only has he refused to appease such "anti-trade sentiments", he has been courageous in tackling them head on.
This week McCain travelled to recession-hit Youngstown, right in the heart of the old Ohio steel-producing belt – where Clinton and Obama had been most strident in their anti-free trade rhetoric—and told a town hall meeting: "The biggest problem is not free trade, but our inability to adjust to a new world economy. I can't look you in the eye and tell you that I believe those jobs are coming back... [but] protectionism and isolationism have never worked in American history.

In the same month, Barack Obama openly campaigned against free trade policies, while made fun of the anti-trade sentiment at a San Francisco private dinner. This pandering tactic is further demonstrated by a previous incident when an Obama advisor telegraphed to the Canadian government that the Obama's criticism of NAFTA was a purely political move. Obama appears to realize the benefit of trading and the anti-trade sentiment. Instead of advocating what he believes to be true, he campaigned based on what is advantageous to himself. This lack of political courage is damaging for democracy and a disservice for our country. Free trade is good for a country. It allows a country to grow. Yes, some jobs are lost due to free trade, but new jobs also grow because of it. A vibrant economy must goes through this transformation continuously. This is how economy evolves and why our economy makeup is not the same as that of 1950's. The challenge are "how can we adapt the new change?" and "how to train people for the emerging sectors", not "how to we preserve every industries?" As Lawson pointed out:

The true figure – according to the apolitical US Council of Economic Advisors – is that only 3 per cent of US job losses can be attributed to "outsourcing".
Other figures which are never discussed are those measuring the "insourcing" of jobs, when companies from foreign countries have invested in the US. The value of those investments has been staggering – the biggest secret in a debate conducted (at least in the Democrat primaries) at a shocking level of ignorance.

For example, Japanese automobile companies and European pharmaceutical companies have insourced jobs to our country. No modern country prospers based on protectionism policy. This is demonstrated in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was named after its two Republican sponsors, and passed by President Herbert Hoover, who ignored a petition against it signed – remarkably – by 1,028 economists….With shattering predictability, America's trading partners retaliated against the Smoot-Hawley Act with import tariffs against US goods. By 1933 US imports had plunged by two thirds – and exports by a similar amount. The economy of a great trading nation all but vaporised, as a domestic stock-market led recession was transformed into a worldwide Depression.

The continuous assaults on NAFTA are absolutely amazing. Obama and Clinton beat NAFTA like a piñata. Unlike a real piñata, no candy will ever come out by beating NAFTA. It is important to point out the growth of trade deficit between US and its neighbors is largely due to oil and gas import. Canada and Mexico are the number 1 and 3 oil import countries for United States. The two countries alone support 35% of our import oil. Should we really be upset that NAFTA made it easier to purchase oil from these neighboring two countries? We should not dwell on the negative effects without examining the benefits. We should look at the bigger picture, and the bigger picture for NAFTA is advantageous for our economy and national security.

…almost 95 per cent of the growth in that deficit since 2000 is entirely attributable to oil and gas imports. Are they [Clinton and Obama] seriously suggesting that America would be better off buying oil from countries without preferential trade status, such as Chavez's Venezuela or Ahmedinejad's Iran?

People may argue that Obama is more inspirational and more exciting and even more hopeful. Although inspiration, excitement and hope are attractive qualities for a president, they are nothing compare to honesty and courage. Political honesty and courage are the heart and soul for our government.

The New G I Bill

On May 22 the Senate overwhelmingly passed ,with a vote of 75-22, the New G I Bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA. Webb’s enhanced education benefit package was bundled in with the Iraq war funding bill. The New G I Bill has caused quite a bit of controversy and while managing to pass through despite the Senate drama, it still promises an action packed journey through the House. President Bush has vowed to veto this legislation citing Pentagon concerns over retention and the high price tag of an estimated $52 Billion over 10 years paid for through a surtax on individuals with incomes above $500,000. Couples would pay the tax on income exceeding $1 million.

Webb’s plan:

His enhanced GI Bill (S.22) would be available to any member, active or reserve, who has served at least three months on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001. The level of benefits would be tied to length of service. The $1200 member buy-in under the current Montgomery GI Bill would be returned.
The bigger change would be in the value of benefits. Maximum benefits, earned for 36 months' active duty, would cover tuition for up to four years at a level to match tuition at the most expensive in-state public school. The average across states is about $1900 a month. MGIB pays $1100.Webb's bill also would pay a monthly stipend to cover living expenses. The stipend would reflect local housing cost near school on a married E-5 scale.

Sen. McCain has come under fire for not signing on in support of the bill. After taking cues from the Defense Dept, he has crafted along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC and Sen. Richard Burr, R-NC a bill that offers enhanced education benefits with a lower price tag of an estimated $38 Billion over 10 years, financed by an across-the-board cut of a half percent in discretionary spending.

Graham-Burr-McCain Plan:

Graham's bill (S. 2938)would raise fullt ime MGIB benefits to $1500 a month, up from $1101, for all users. That would include veterans and retirees who left service long before the attacks of 9-11.
It also would offer new enticements – including eligibility to transfer benefits to spouse or children -- for current members who meet new MGIB-enhancement thresholds at six and 12 years of service. After six years, members could transfer half of any unused Montgomery GI Bill benefits to family members. After 12 years' service, the monthly benefit would pop up to $2000 a month, and members could transfer 100 percent of any unused portion to spouses or children.
Other attracted features of S 2938 include an extra $500 a year for books and a fresh chance to buy into the MGIB for roughly 5000 members still on active duty who first entered service when the only education benefit offered was the anemic Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP).

Unfortunately the Graham bill was tabled. The measure including Webb's GI Bill now heads to the House, which must approve the war funding portion before it heads to the White House. Republicans believe they can sustain the presidential veto if the measure is sent back to Congress. There are still opportunities to change the Webb version before final passage in the House. Our military veterans need better education funding benefits than the current MGIB offers, but those benefits must go hand in hand with the ability to maintain our volunteer force. If retention numbers drop and the demand for a military presence increases we could be heading towards a draft. Surely the House will wisely consider all options and make the necessary changes that benefit both those that serve and the country they serve.

Senator Tom HarkinGuilty or Ignorant?

By Siti Connery
Post assist by Dan Jacob


On the Des Moines article, Senator Harkin suggested that Senator Mccain is too ‘military’ to be Commander in Chief.

According to Senator Harkin, Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, and he has a hard time thinking beyond that!

In his remarks that, it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.’

He also stated that “I just want to be very clear there’s nothing wrong with a career in the military” and that he has friends who are generals and admirals who have served the country well. (remember John Kerry's remark about choices? Get an education or join the military and be stick in Iraq!!!)

“But now McCain is running for a higher office. He’s running for Commander in Chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian position,” Harkin said. “And in some ways, I think it would be nice if the Commander in Chief had some military background, but I don’t know if they need a whole lot.” (Remember... Harkin is a Senator, like McCain... neither are military positions- is this guy for real?)

Democratic strategist Kristen Powers, a Fox News political analyst, said that Harkin’s comments make it harder for Democrats to claim the moral authority on foreign policy.

‘I think it’s a problem. I don’t know why he would say something like that, and it reinforces this idea of Democrats do not respect military service… it’s a noble calling, and I don’t know why he would say something like that.’

This is the same Tom Harkin who served in the Navy on active duty for five years, and remained in the reserves until 1989. But while running for president in 2004, he was forced to admit that he never did combat air patrols or photo reconnaissance in Vietnam as he had claimed. ( Democratic mispeak?)

While Senator McCain, was a Vietnam War pilot who spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp rather than accept the North Vietnamese offer to release him ahead of his fellow troops because he was the son of an admiral.

However I would like to ask Senator Harkin, "What is his opinions of George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower? Let's also toss in John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan? Were these Fathers unfit to lead us? Somehow according to Senator Harkin, anyone who served in military doesn’t have a good foreign policy to be Commander in Chief? (didn't Harkin seek this position in 1992 as a Populist!) And what is his message to our active military.. It’s okay to be in military for a career but it’s not okay to be a Presidential candidate? This is disrepectful from a Senator to any active or veteran of the armed forces who have fought, died or who are still fighting for a ‘Freedom’ of this country.

I want to leave this article by an opinon written by Senator Joe Liberman, something each and every Democrats and Republicans needs to ponder on.

‘How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced; Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in - a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgements about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, that pledged, ’it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by the outside pressures.’

And this was the Democratic Party of John F Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States must "pay any price, bear and burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor - a morally bankrupt imperialist power, whose militarism and an “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian-ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them... because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved.

In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault. Of course, that leftward lurch by the Democrats did not go unchallenged. Democratic Cold Warriors like Scoop Jackson fought against the tide. But despite their principled efforts, the Democratic Party through the 1970s and 1990s became prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.

Then, beginning in the 1990s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party’s lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Miloseciv and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.


This happy development continued into the 2000 campaign, when the Democratic candidate- Vice President Gore- championed a freedom-focused foreign policy, confident of America’s moral responsibilities in the world, unafraid to use our military power. He pledged to increase the defense budget by $50 billion more than his Republican opponent-and, to the dismay of the Democratic left, made sure that the party’s platform endorsed a national missile defense.

By contrast, in 2000, Gov. George W. Bush promised a “humble foreign policy” and criticized our peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorist shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11th for what it was; a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11. Instead, a debate soon began within the Democratic party about how to respond to Mr Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy- not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush- activists have successfully pulled the Democratic party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right- regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately- the difference between American’s friends and America’s enemies.

There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Sen. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

Sen. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would stregthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.

A great Democratic Secretary of State, Dean Acheson once warned: "No people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Memorial Day Armada, Michigan

A Veteran’s view of this Memorial Day.

Armada Township, the location is in a rural agricultural area about 35 miles North of Detroit, Michigan. Population of nearly 5,000 residents, this sleepy little town, founded in 1833, manages to uphold and celebrate an American tradition with unfounded pride for the fallen Veterans of all wars.


Our cemeteries have graves of Veterans dating back to the Spanish American War in our community. They are marked on the Saturday before Memorial Day by the members of AMVETS Post 93 and young men of Boy Scout Pack 85. The task takes up the greater part of that day to mark nearly 285 deceased Veterans amongst five cemeteries; with occasional moments of prayer and ponder at each site. But what does this Day of Remembrance mean?

Traditionally founded as Decoration Day, its holiday history stirs the soul of all Americans. Our nation’s flag experiences a special honor of display at half-staff until noon and full-staff for the remainder of the day. Observance in our little town starts promptly at 10 AM with a Parade of Veterans, followed by the Boy Scouts, business owners and the High School's marching band. Almost a mile marching route originating at the AMVETS Post to the four-corners of town to the ceremonial site in front of the original high school. There, an introduction, raising and lowering to half-staff of the American flag, a prayer by local church Minister, Pastor or Priest, a guest speaker and the Benediction. From there, everyone musters at the Willow Grove Cemetery, march to a selected site in the cemetery, a graveside service is performed with military honors and taps.


As Post Commander of AMVETS Post 93, I have been honored this year to be the guest speaker for the ceremony and the graveside service to Veteran is Raymond Westfall, a World War II with the US Army, the US Coast Guard and a past Commander of AMVETS Post 93. I had also performed this honor in 2006 for my Uncle, Roy Jacob, also World War II Veteran. I observe each and every annual event with pride and detail of Military tradition as the event is executed. This truly honors the fallen Veteran with the most deserving respect that can be rendered. Yes… even the tears of sorrow from the survivors turn to tears of joy, but what else is experienced? I can attest that all in the ceremonies forbear sweating, chills, and an occasional choking, all because of the love for the fallen and their survivors. We are tested by memories of our individual service, the welfare of those comrades we had served with, those that fell and most of all, the ones that serve today to keep us free.

But then, there are those that I wish that we could honor, that rest in a separate community that does not celebrate a Memorial Day celebration; the remote cemetery where my folks and mother’s family rests. The graves of the Veterans are marked so the honor is up to me to give presence after our community program has concluded. At that cemetery, I have two Uncles; both World War II Veterans, one in the Marine’s and the other the Army. One that I love and miss so dearly; my brother Charles and Vietnam Bronze Star recipient, who served in the 3/503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade from 1968-1970. But for now, I am content with the service I gave for him at Easter passing in 1993. I wanted to do something very special for him. What I bestowed was a flagged draped coffin, VFW Military Rifle Team, a sounding of taps and hand salutes rendered by myself in full military dress uniform, accompanied by my son and US Navy SEAL also in dress uniform at the graveside. That remembrance holds close to me ever since, and I hold so dear.

That is the type of honor a fallen Veteran deserves.

On this Memorial Day, I ask each and every American to not only honor the fallen Veterans, but to love them for their service and your freedom. I love you Charlie!




DANIEL O. JACOB
Chief Warrant Officer
US Army, Retired

Stand Up & Take Note: The Amazing Money Machine

How Silicon Valley made Barack Obama this year’s hottest start-up
by Joshua Green

History has a way of prizing timeless qualities like vision and oratory above temporal things like money. So if Barack Obama becomes our nation’s first black president, civics textbooks will probably never note his fund-raising prowess or the financial challenges he had to overcome simply to compete with the likes of Hillary Clinton. But Obama would not be where he is today if he did not possess a preternatural ability to elicit huge sums. Obama prompts an impulse in people to reach for historical antecedents when describing him—as a speaker, Martin Luther King Jr.; as an inspiration to young voters, Robert F. Kennedy. No one I’m aware of has suggested an apt comparison for Obama, the mighty fund-raiser. But whenever I think about the quarter billion dollars he has raised so far, the image that leaps to mind is Scrooge McDuck diving joyously into his piles of gold.

The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA.

Here’s another thing: he is doing it almost effortlessly. That is to say, in an era when the imperative for campaign dollars demands more and more of a politician’s time and lurks behind so many recent scandals (including the auctioning-off of the Lincoln Bedroom), Obama has raised more money than anybody else without plumbing ethical gray areas or even spending much of his own time soliciting donations. During the month of February, for example, his campaign raised a record-setting $55 million—$45 million of it over the Internet—without the candidate himself hosting a single fund-raiser. The money just came rolling in.

Obama’s campaign is admired by insiders of both parties for its functional beauty—not just admired but gawked at, like some futuristic concept car leaking rocket vapor at an auto show. Obama’s campaign has made a similar leap in how it has applied technology to the practices of raising money and organizing, and it is already the clear model for everyone else.

To get a better sense of why it has succeeded, I opted to undergo the full tech immersion while reporting this piece, and soon had Obama ring tones on my phone, new networks of online “friends,” text-message updates from the campaign, and regular e-mails from its manager, all gently encouraging me to give money, volunteer time, bring in new friends, and generally reorient my life in ways that were made to seem hip and fun—and inexorably aimed at the greater glory of Barack Obama. How Obama arrived at this new model for campaigning is a tale of foresight and circumstance, his campaign’s enterprise and his opponent’s shortsightedness, and it has as much to do with Silicon Valley as it does with Washington politics.

Obama is a gifted politician by anyone’s measure, but what distinguishes him from earlier insurgents is his ability to fully harness the excitement that his candidacy has created, in votes and in dollars. Three forces had to come together for this to happen: the effect of campaign-finance laws in broadening the number and types of people who fund the political process; the emergence of Northern California as one of the biggest sources of Democratic money; and the recognition by a few Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists that the technology and business practices they had developed in their day jobs could have a transformative effect on national politics.

A few days after Obama announced his $55 million figure, I went to Silicon Valley to meet some of these people, and to find out how they saw the future coming and got there first.

To read the full story. Click here.

Special thanks to Rowena for bringing this to light. It is worth a special look, because as in any political race, Cash is King.

In My Own Words...

James, a DJ for HMTalkandRock.com, recently challenged McCain supporters to post to his blog with their reasons for supporting the Senator in his run for President. While I read alot of "Yes we can!" from the Obama crowd (without explaining why they support him), and a couple of posts from the Hillary fans, I saw nothing from McCain fans. So, I took up the gauntlet and became the first McCain supporter on his blog.

Here are my words:

I'm a McCain supporter simply because, as a Social Conservative, McCain best fits my personal values and would be the perfect person to lead this country in the trying times we have now and in the future. Our Islamist enemies will not stop their Jihad just because we ask to sit down nicely around a table and have a discussion over coffee and scones.

Obama is inexperienced, consistently displays poor judgment, has played the race-card since his campaign started in the South, and can't back his rhetoric with fact. "Hope and change" don't put food on tables in America. "Yes we can!" doesn't protect us from those who would love to bring the Jihad to our front doorsteps. "No vote" on important issues is not taking a stand on hard issues that demand a stand. Obama says what his handlers tell him to say in order to get the votes of naive, idealistic voters. As a committee member who cannot attend meetings, nor be to meetings on time and then distract them with questions answered had he NOT been late, and a sub-committee member who has yet to hold a meeting regarding Afghanistan, I fail to see how such "experience" can be anything more than one huge mistake if this false prophet were to be elected. He consistently embellishes his record to make him look good. No thanks - that's not the "hope and change that transcends politics" that I want sitting in the Oval Office.

Senator Clinton cannot claim 8 years in the White House as First Lady as Presidential experience. While others argue that she had the President's ear, she - in my opinion - greatly overstepped her bounds as First Lady when she started interjecting herself into areas where she held no cabinet or Secretary position. The health care debacle of the 1990's greatly hurt her. Senator Clinton has her own baggage, as well, that she would bring to the Office of President. I admire her determination in running her campaign. I feel that, for a first-time run, she has done rather well; however, while I dislike Obama's embellishing his record in order to make himself look good, I do not like the times that Senator Clinton has done the same things. Such embellishments tend to backfire badly - as she has found out.

Senator McCain has served honorable and truthfully for his entire time in the Senate. Not once has his name come up in some ethical scandal. Not once has he done anything to warrant public humiliation - unlike some of our other Senators. He is routinely slammed by those "he's not conservative enough for me" tunnel-visioned folks who fail to look at his entire record and voting background. Simply because the Senator recognizes the need for bipartisan politics, which have somehow become dirty words, he is accused of "handing the Party over to the Dems". What these right-wingers forget is that we - the American people - send these people to Washington to do a job. Not to sit with their arms crossed, huffing in indignation and refusing to do the work for which they were sent to do because they don't like a Democrat.

Senator McCain has upheld the values of conservatives; he just does not please the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd 100% of the time, and for that, they will dislike him and call the Senator a "liberal". Their logic is extremely flawed, and I challenge them to find a candidate that is 100% conservative, 100% of the time, and liked by 100% of Republicans and Independents with Republican leanings. Senator McCain examines issues completely before taking a stand. What some view as "liberal", McCain supporters recognize as the willingness to work for the American people - not a small segment of the Party who demands no quarter be given to anything sponsored by a Democrat. His record of honesty, personal integrity, and honor cannot be matched in today's Congress. He is not afraid to make tough decisions. He is not afraid to explain to the American public - without the false rhetoric - why he made such decisions. He is not afraid to apologize when he is wrong, as he did after the unexpected backlash of Americans (and I was one of them) who spoke out against the recently-failed "immigration reform bill" that would've provided amnesty to thousands of illegals. What I commend the Senator for even more is his willingness to not only apologize, but to explain that he felt the entire issue (a very complicated one at best) needed a starting point. He noted that both sides of the aisle worked long and hard to try and come up with an agreement. Yet, because he was a co-author/sponsor, he takes the heat for being "liberal" and "giving away our country". Those are, quite simply, the rantings of a small base of the GOP who sees it's power slipping now that Bush is leaving office and the Religious Right/Moral Majority won't have the control it once had.

Senator McCain has been able to bring back Republicans to the party who had left it when the Religious Right took over. Those of us who do not hold the same beliefs as the far right-wing of the party were literally pushed out, called "libs", and insulted by those who felt that they had some God-given right to the GOP and the rest of us sinners could go over to the Dems. That resulted in the burgeoning movement that started up the Independent Party, although the party has just as many disenfranchised Democrats as it does disenfranchised Republicans. Senator McCain has been able to make us welcome back in our party once again.

Quite simply, he was - and is - the only candidate for me.

Obama sidekick has mob ties

There’s an old term ‘if you scratch my back, I will scratch yours!'

In this case it works for Senator Obama. In year 2006, Barack Obama was using his political influence for several candidates running for office in Illinois that year. He has made an expensive TV commercial endorsing a young candidate in the state treasurer's race. Obama is the narrator in a new TV spot that launches a million-dollar-plus statewide ad campaign, financed in large part by Giannoulias's wealthy family which owns the Broadway Bank in Chicago, where Alexi's a vice president and contributes a lot of money to a lot of candidates, including Obama.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3939317

According to Charles Hurt at the New York Post,

"Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator's Oval Office bid. Alexi Giannoulias who has long been dogged by charges that the bank his family owns helped finance a Chicago crime figure will host a Windy City fund-raiser in 2007 for Obama."

But before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled "Jaws" Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution. The fundraiser of course was closed for journalist and was held at the restaurant in Chicago's Greektown community. Reference: Chicago Sun-Times

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help. Obama and Giannoulias reportedly met on the basketball court "...in the late 1990s ... at the East Bank Club, a luxurious spot in downtown Chicago," according to Jodi Kantor wrote June 1, 2007, in a New York Times article in June, 2007. Other regular gym mates include the president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, the director of the Illinois Department of Public Health and several investment bankers who were early and energetic fund-raisers.

To reiterate, Giannoulias has NOT been charged with any crimes and being associated with those who do is not itself a crime, but these connections are highly suspicious for a candidate for U.S President, who must have known about those associations since they have been reported often in local newspapers in Chicago. To maintain a close association to Giannoulias…a situation which under scrutiny could prove embarrassing at the very least -- and it would also raise doubt about Obama’s judgment.

A part of judgments that Obama’s fail to disclose were contributions by Tony Rezko. And to this extent, Tony Rezko was being sued for more than $10 million by a Chicago man who says he helped Rezko secure a $1 million loan from the Broadway Bank, whose vice president is Democratic State treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.

This is the same Tony Rezko who is Obama’s fundraiser and helped Obama in his property deals. The same Tony Rezko who is on trial for money laundering, aiding bribe, fraud and attempted extortion.

Only in Chicago does crime TRULY pay.

Obama Guilt by association

We have heard about Obama’s Rev Wright and we have heard about Ayers and Louis Farrakhan but we haven’t heard about Jodie Evans. While I was surfing through the web I found this article by Melanie Brown http://www.melaniemorgan.com/content/view/744/2

Who Is Jodie Evans? Jodie Evans is a radical activist and Democratic fundraiser best known as the co-founder -- along with Diane Wilson, Global Exchange's Medea Benjamin, and a Wiccan calling herself Starhawk -- of Code Pink for Peace. Evans also works closely with Leslie Cagan, the pro-Castro leader of United For Peace and Justice.

From 1973 to 1982, Evans worked in administrative capacities in the political campaigns of Jerry Brown, who during those years served as California's Secretary of State and then Governor. She also held a cabinet post as Governor Brown's Director of Administration.

From 1985 and 1990, Evans headed the Hereditary Disease Foundation and founded the Grief Recovery Center after the death of her daughter. During this period, she held various positions with the Women's Campaign Fund, the Women's Political Committee, and the Hollywood Women's Political Committee. She also worked as a fundraiser for out-of-state female candidates for federal offices, and for the pro-abortion organizations CARAL (the Californial subsidiary of NARAL Pro-Choice America) and Voters for Choice. Evans also co-founded Environmental Media Association.

In 1990 Evans partnered with Tom Hayden and Cathryn Tiddens to open an environmental department store, Terra Verde,in Santa Monica California.

In 1991 Evans ran Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. She also produced the radio program We the People with Jerry Brown, a daily leftwing talk show. From 1994 to 1998, she produced the documentary film Stripped and Teased: Tales of Las Vegas Women.

Evans rose to public prominence via her leadership role with Code Pink for Peace, a self-described "grassroots peace and social justice movement" formed in 2002 to organize public protests against America's impending war in Iraq. Evans and Code Pink also condemn the racism, sexism, poverty, corporate corruption, and environmental degradation they claim are rampant in the U.S.

For four months from late 2002 through early 2003 (shortly prior to the looming U.S. invasion of Iraq), Evans led Code Pink members in staging all-day antiwar vigils outside the White House. She initiated a campaign that involved presenting pink slips (women's lingerie) to President Bush and other pro-war officials -- a metaphor for pink slips of the paper variety, which are traditionally given to employees whose jobs are being terminated. These unique tactics brought Evans and her group considerable national news coverage and many talk-show invitations.

After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Evans led a delegation of fifteen Code Pink women to Baghdad, where they met with Iraqi women for the purpose of "creat[ing] the understanding that the people of Iraq are no different than you and me." "We who cherish children will not consent to their murder," said Evans. "Nor do we consent to the murder of their mothers, grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, or to the deaths of our own sons and daughters in a war for oil."

While in Baghdad, Evans repeatedly and publicly painted America as an unprovoked aggressor, and Iraqis as noble defenders of their invaded homeland. "Iraqis continue to resist the occupation in their own way," said Evans and Code Pink. Contending that the U.S. taxpayer dollars funding the war in Iraq would be better spent on social welfare programs, Evans and Code Pink lamented in 2006 that "in the United States of America, many of our elders … now must choose whether to buy their prescriptiondrugs, or food. Our children's education is eroded. The air they breathe and the water they drink are polluted. Vast numbers of women and children live in poverty."
The threat of distant terrorists, claim Evans and Code Pink, is insignificant when compared to the "real threats" we face every day: "the illness or ordinary accident that could plunge us into poverty, the violence on our own streets, the corporate corruption that can result in the loss of our jobs, our pensions, our security."

In addition to her Code Pink duties, Jodie Evans also sits on the Advisory Board of Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW). Her fellow IOW officials include Leslie Cagan; Medea Benjamin; Rania Masri of the Iraq Action Coalition, Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and the American Civil Liberties Union; Maria Luisa Mendonca of the World Social Forum; Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation; Milan Rai of Voices in the Wilderness; Pratap Chatterjee of Berkeley's Pacifica radio station KPFA; and Stanford University professor Joel Beinin.

Evans was a key fundraiser for her longtime friend and political ally, former California Governor Gray Davis. Evans' ex-husband, financier Max Palevsky, actually appointed Davis to his first political job as a fundraiser for Tom Bradley's 1973 Los Angeles mayoral campaign. Shortly thereafter, Evans and Davis worked closely together during the latter's stint as chief of staff to then-Governor Jerry Brown.

In the weeks preceding California's 2003 gubernatorial recall election, Evans was instrumental in convincing several women to come forward and tell the Los Angeles Times their sexual-harassment allegations about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Evans also helped organize picketing sessions in front of Schwarzenegger's campaign headquarters.

In January 2006, Evans traveled to Venezuela with Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin for a friendly meeting with President Hugo Chavez.

In August 2006, Evans was one of a dozen activists (among whom were also Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan, and Tom Hayden) who participated in a Code Pink-sponsored trip to meet Iraqi "political leaders" in Baghdad. Team member Geoffrey Millard referred to this trip as a "diplomatic communication." As such, it may have violated the legal prohibition against private U.S. citizens conducting their own foreign policy. Among the Iraqi parliamentarians with whom Evans and her cadre met were:

• Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi, who once declared that foreign-born jihadists killing U.S. soldiers were "very brave" heroes who were "guaranteed Paradise "; Al-Kubaysi also is said to have given militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr $50 million.


• Saleh al-Mutlaq, the trip's prime sponsor, who chided Americans for trying "to brand as terrorists the honorable national resistance movements."

Shortly after that 2006 trip, Evans spoke highly of the conditions that had existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein: "Let's go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone. That system didn't belong to Saddam it belonged to the Iraqi, it belonged to years of creating what a civilization needed. If your parents didn't send you to school they could be put in jail."

Over the years, Evans has supported such activist groups as Citizen Action, Neighbor to Neighbor, the Earth Island Institute, the Interfaith Task Force on Central America, the International Overseas Education Fund, and the Los Angeles Women's Foundation.
Evans is currently a Board of Directors member for the Rainforest Action Network

According to Huffingtonpost, Jodie Evans has contributed $2,300 individually To Senator Bill Richardson, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Dennis Kucinich, Senator John Edwards and $13,000 to DNC.

According to Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, Evans has bundled “at least $50,000” in donations for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. “Bundling” is a process in which people turn over a large number of “individual” political contributions as a group, in the hope of exerting greater influence if their candidate is elected.
According to Human Events reporter Catherine Moy, “Evans and her son, a studentwho lives at her Southern California address, each also gave the maximum individual allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama’s campaign.”

An independent grassroots group comprised of veterans, military families and other patriotic Americans, is urging Senator Barack Obama to renounce a $2300 contribution to his presidential campaign by terrorist supporter Jodie Evans of Venice, California. You can read more here.

And according to free republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002247/posts Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's first Hollywood fundraiser was co-hosted by a supporter of the terrorists in Iraq. The Hollywood bible Variety reported that Code Pink's Jodie Evans co-hosted the Obama event with her ex-husband Max Palevsky and Dreamworks partners Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen in February 2007.

In 2005 while attending the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul, Evans gushed approvingly of the terrorists in Iraq in a statement originally published on the Code Pink website:

"We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies."(AlterNet, June 26, 2005)

Code Pink endorsed the findings of the World Tribunal on Iraq that expressed unqualified support for the terrorists in Iraq.

You decide, how guilty is that association and Ben Johnson of Front page magazine is right on his quote; -IF THE MEDIA WERE COMPETENT, THE NAME JODIE EVANS WOULD BE AS WELL-KNOWN as JEREMIAH WRIGHT

Question of Judgment: Part 2

Aside from God or the Courts, Judgment is defined as:

1. The act of judging; the operation of the mind, involving comparison and discrimination, by which a knowledge of the values and relations of things, whether of moral qualities, intellectual concepts, logical propositions, or material facts, is obtained; as, by careful judgment he avoided the peril; by a series of wrong judgments he forfeited confidence. I oughte deme, of skilful jugement, That in the salte sea my wife is deed. (Chaucer)

2. The power or faculty of performing such operations (see 1); especially, when unqualified, the faculty of judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely; good sense; as, a man of judgment; a politician without judgment. He shall judge thy people with righteousness and thy poor withjudgment. (Ps. Lxxii. 2) Hernia. I would my father look'd but with my eyes. Theseus. Rather your eyes must with his judgment look. (Shak)


In my last article I touched on Sen. Obama’s incredibly poor judgment, now I want to focus on Sen. McCain & how he should be measured on his judgment. Starting very early on in John McCain’s life, he was a very humble man that had leadership in his blood. I am not sure whether a man can be born a leader or just become extraordinary based on his situation. In a recent interview, one of John McCain’s heroes & friends Ret. Col. George “Bud” Day had this to say & I think it speaks volumes on Sen. McCain’s judgment.








Sen. McCain knew he would be used as a tool for propaganda, so he made a choice that I doubt very few of us could make. In an interview with Sean Hannity on Sunday, March 16, 2008, Sen. McCain explained:


HANNITY: Well, now one story that maybe people don't know is, because of the rank of your father, who was an admiral, as was your grandfather--

MCCAIN: Yes.

HANNITY: -- they offered to give you personal release, and you declined the offer. And then you were beaten for one straight week afterwards.

MCCAIN: Because our Code of Conduct says that everybody goes home in order of their capture. Also, and far more importantly than that, I knew that it would be used as a propaganda tool.The Vietnamese made it very clear. Ho Chi Minh made it very clear that they would win the war not on the battlefields of South Vietnam. They never won a battle in South Vietnam, but in the streets of Washington, San Francisco, et cetera. So, I knew that it would be not only propaganda, but also they would call in my fellow prisoners and say, see, the admiral's son goes home and you stay.

HANNITY: And it would be used against you.

MCCAIN: Yes.

HANNITY: You know --

MCCAIN: Could I also finally say, I'm glad I didn't know the war was going to last a few years longer.

HANNITY: You might have had a different opinion. Well, maybe that's honest.You know, I was surprised in one of our earliest interviews -- and I know there's been a lot of highlighting the differences that conservatives have with you, but I know that it is universal that people respect and honor your heroism and your service to your country. You know that, and we've had a relationship over the years where we've agreed on times and we've disagreed at times.

MCCAIN: But could I also mention I think people are grateful for your past service, but I think you know very well, and so do our viewers, that they want to know what you're going to do for them, not what you have done for them.

HANNITY: I agree. I think in light of the anniversary, though, this is a day for you, and also for the country. And I think it gives you an opportunity to tell a story that maybe some people don't know about you.

I'll never forget one of the first times I interviewed, and I was talking -- maybe it was when your book first came out -- and you had actually said -- because you signed statements that you confessed to be a war criminal. And you said to me -- and we had gone through all the torture you had been through, all the beatings, all the broken bones, the five and a half years. You didn't take the opportunity to get out when they gave you the opportunity. And you said, "I failed myself, my fellow prisoners, and my family, and my country."How could you possibly be that hard on yourself?

MCCAIN: I think that I thought that I was unbreakable. You know? I was -- I was a pilot, a Navy pilot, carrier pilot. And I thought that I would never show those traits.But I also want to point out, leaders like Colonel Bud Day and Jim Stockdale and Robbie Reisner and Bill Lawrence and so many others, they said, look, you failed, go back at it again. All of us are human. Go back and do better the next time.And that's the way their leadership inspired us. They knew that we might fail, but they wanted us to go back into the fight.

HANNITY: But you'd have broken arms, and they'd hang you from your arms for hours.I mean, look, I know Sean Hannity, I'd tell them whatever they wanted to hear. And I think most Americans would.

MCCAIN: Sean, you say that. You say that, but it's not true. It's not true.You love your country. You know what's right. They are the enemy.

HANNITY: Even when you're tortured, huh?

MCCAIN: I can't tell you -- but I can't tell you -- I could never do it. Look, I'm just a human being.

I have touched on only a copy of instances that helps contrast the judgment of both Sen. Obama & Sen. McCain. I recall watching the interview with great pride & admiration for Sen. McCain. I think he has been tested in war and in politics. He hasn't wavered from his beliefs & he has proven his metal as a man. John McCain isn't driven by politic, he is continuing to serve his country, because that is the only thing he has ever known. Judgment, the operation of the mind, involving comparison and discrimination, by which a knowledge of the values and relations of things, whether of moral qualities, intellectual concepts, logical propositions, or material facts, is obtained.

My Love Affair with John McCain

Paloma In PDX is a new contributor to www.macpac08.com and herein expresses why she supports John McCain.

Many have tried to understand John McCain, and many more have tried to dissect him, sometimes with great disdain bordering on dishonesty. Having always been attracted to independent, strong men I was fascinated by John McCain’s honesty and his steadfast determination to do the right thing.Maverick that he was; he was a man after my own heart! His story has been told numerous times, in various ways with bits and pieces and snippets.

I recently started reading a book Sen. McCain wrote with Mark Salter entitled Character is Destiny – Inspiring stories every young person should know and every adult should remember
These are stories of historical people and lesser-known heroes whose stories exemplify the best of the human spirit.Among them:Pat Tillman, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Thomas More, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, and many more.

In my efforts to teach and guide my 12 year old son towards becoming the young man I know him to be, I couldn’t think of a better opportunity to introduce him to the principles John McCain holds close and to keep his mind open to the world outside of middle school! My quest has been met with some trepidation on my son’s part; but he loves and trusts his mother and will give me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what I feel is important for him to learn.

The following excerpts are from the introduction of ‘Character is Destiny’. I found them to be very telling to the core of John McCain’s heart and soul…his parents and their influence upon his life.

Your happiness is at stake in every difficult decision you must make about what kind of person you will be: honest or deceitful; responsible or unreliable; brave or cowardly; kind or cruel.

The best I can claim for my own character is that it is still, even at this late date, a work in progress.

One of the most often quoted passages in English literature and the theme for countless graduation speeches and self-help essays comes from Hamlet. A character named Polonius tells his son, Laertes: “This above all: to thine ownself be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou cannot then be false to any man.”

Many people remember only the first part on the line, to thine ownself be true, and they interpret it to mean we should do whatever we want to do, whatever feels good to us. But I’ve always interpreted it to mean we must be true to our conscience, and to do that, you cannot be false to any man. In other words, being true to our conscience, being honest with ourselves, will determine the character of our relations with others. That is a concise definition of integrity.

My mother was raised to be a strong, determined woman who thoroughly enjoyed life, and always tried to make the most of her opportunities. She was encouraged to accept, graciously and with good humor, the responsibilities and sacrifices her choices have required of her. I am grateful to her for the strengths she taught me by example, even if I have not possessed them as well and as comfortably as she does.

Among her greatest qualities is her endless curiosity about the world, about natural history and, even more so, about human history. The joy of her life is learning about people and places, and coming to know them as well as she can; she never loses the desire to know them better. She has a remarkable capacity for delight. Life, all its adventures and many interests, thrills her as much in her late years as it did in her childhood. It is the main source of her charm, which anyone who knows her can assure you she has in great abundance. Her delight is infectious, and becomes in her company, yours. She has a great gift, and it is all the greater for the ease and happiness with which she shares it.

My mother was a stickler for courtesy and good manners. She once read a story about a time in my life when I was physically mistreated by bad men who, for a while, kept me in prison. The story quoted me calling my captors some very bad names. The words I had used were not appropriate for polite company, and I wouldn’t like to hear my children use such language. But I thought my behavior, if not all that is should have been, was understandable in the awful circumstances I found myself in. My mother was less forgiving. She immediately called me to tell me she had read the article, which included vivid descriptions of the mistreatment I had suffered, and had been deeply offended by the language I had chosen to express my resentment of the abuse. “But, Mother, “ I argued, “they were very bad men.” “That doesn’t matter, “ she replied, “I never taught you to use that kind of language, and I have half a mind to wash your mouth out with soap.” I was over sixty years old when I received this rebuke from my mother, a fact that only added to my embarrassment. And, I’m further embarrassed to admit, she felt it necessary many time since to rebuke me for forgetting the good manners she has taught me never to discard.

My father was an admiral in the navy, as was his father before him. He was often at sea, and absent from our home. But his children felt his influence as strongly as if he had been In our company every day of our lives. He was honest, hardworking, loyal, and one of the bravest men I’ve ever known. He had his flaws. Neither I nor he would ever pretend otherwise. But I don’t believe he ever told a lie or refused to do his duty or acted in any way that he considered dishonorable.

He believed dishonesty was a personal disgrace, and the very thought of being deceitful, even in small, inconsequential matters, upset him. Once, my mother jokingly accused him of cheating at cards. He shot up from the table, in great distress, and begged her never, ever to doubt or even pretend to doubt his honesty. This was an excessive and unnecessary response to what was, after all, just a little harmless teasing by his wife. She knew he was an honest man, and he knew she knew it. But it gives you an idea of how extraordinarily important his honest was to him. He simply couldn’t bear the idea of being deceitful or being accused, wrongly, of deceiving anyone.

At times like that, perhaps, his virtues, as admirable as they were, made him too proud. He lived a code of honor that he had learned from his father, the man whom he admired above all others. The memory of his father, and his father’s honesty and courage and sense of duty, was so important to him that he believed that he must behave at all times in ways that honored his father’s name.

Sometimes, I think he forgot that the only person who must believe in your integrity is yourself. Many good people mistake their reputation for their character. But sometimes, through no fault of our own, it is not. And although it hurts when people think less well of us than we deserve, our integrity, our self-respect, and our happiness do not ultimately depend upon the opinion of others. They depend upon our own conscience. We must be true to ourselves. And we must be true to others, whether they believe we are or not.

He fought in three wars, and in his last war, Vietnam, he commanded all our country’s forces in the Pacific, including those who fought in Vietnam. I am his oldest son and namesake, and I fought under his command. For several years I was held as a prisoner of war in the enemy’s capitol, the city of Hanoi. When the President of the United States and his advisors decided to try to shorten the war by bombing Hanoi, it was my father’s duty to order it done.

The planes that flew to Hanoi on his orders were B-52’s. They were the largest bombers in the air force. They could carry the largest and the most bombs. They flew at high altitudes, but unlike those aircraft used by our air force today, they did not have the technology to be very accurate in their targeting. The pilots knew Americans were being held captive near their targets. So did the man who commanded them, my father. He knew where I was, and he loved me. He prayed on his knees every day for my safe return. Whenever he visited his soldiers in Vietnam, he would end his day by walking to the northern end of the base and standing quietly alone, looking toward the place where his son was held. But his conscience required him to do his duty, and his duty required him to risk his son’s life. And so he did.

That is a very hard decision for a father to make. Few of us will ever have to face such a difficult choice. Even fewer of us would have the character to make the right decision. But he did. The memory of him and the example he set for me helped to form my own conscience, and shame me when I disobey it. I don’t think there is anything greater a parent can do for you.

Many good people have suffered for their principles. Some have died for them. But however cruel their end, they were surely comforted by the knowledge that they had made the right choice, and they had had the character to live a good life. Whether anyone knew how great their courage had been would not matter as much to them as the knowledge that they had chosen well, that their cause had been just, and their character worthy of its demands. They did not submit to an inevitable destiny. They believed their values were the power that directs our lives, and light the world in which we burn our little candle, before our work is done and we take our rest. I don’t believe in destiny. I believe in character.

In my humble opinion, a leader should inspire a person to be better than they currently are; to seek out the best in other people; to lead by humble example. Leadership, for power’s sake, is dishonest. Leadership, from passion of the heart, is love.

John McCain loves America and has proven it time and again with selfless sacrifice. I am more than willing to overlook a few short comings to see the greater man; the man our country sorely needs at this point in our history; a man who loves us more than he can fully express in words so he chooses to do so in humble service. I am in love with the prospect of what John McCain can do for our future as the 44th president of the United States of America. I am in love with a man I do not know personally, but have no doubt he loves me as evidenced by his 5 ½ years of hell.

Now he’s willing to go into the fire again; not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of our, and our children’s, future. I do not question my faith in John McCain as a leader; I support him fully and whole heartedly. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

The Value of a Mom

Mother's Day is Sunday and I thought I would share how valuable mothers really are. Mothers have to be the most overworked people in the world. They all have jobs that start early each morning and don’t end until late night. A recent study by Salary.com, a Waltham, Mass.-based firm that studies workplace compensation says that stay at home mother’s would earn $117,000 . They determined that figure by studying pay levels for 10 job titles with duties that a typical mom performs, ranging from housekeeper and day care center teacher to van driver, psychologist and CEO. A mother that works would receive $68,405 annually for motherly duties. These figures do not include over time pay which would be astronomical because mothers are on call 24/7. And as evidenced by Roberta McCain while stumping with her son on the campaign trail, mothers continue to be on duty long after their children have left home. Some would say the value of a mom is priceless.

Amazingly mothers only expect to be compensated with unconditional love. To those who can-Have you hugged or called your Mother today?

PESPECTIVE VIEW OF AN IMMIGRANT.

In 2005 I was looking forward migrating to the USA. I heard how great life is in the US and you can seek your greatest dream in this country. My perception on US was indeed changed after I’m migrating here and I’m still undecided whether it's good or bad. Let me be clear, my hometown (Singapore) has different laws. Aspects of Singapore law are perceived to be harsh. Certain laws such as the Internal Security Act[3] (which authorizes detention without trial in certain circumstances) and the Societies Act[4] (which regulates the formation of associations) that were enacted during British rule in Singapore remain in the statute book, and both corporal and capital punishment are still in use.

Unlike in the US we don’t have Freedom of speech, rights to bear arms and so on. In fact, we don’t have any guns at all. You can walk down the streets without being gunned down. Remember the American kid by the name Micheal Fay was canned in Singapore for Vandalism in 1994. I will not wrote more about that episode but you can read it at http://www.corpun.com/awfay9405.htm.

Life were really tough in Singapore, owning a car is considered a privilege, but our government taught us to be independent and responsible for each of our actions. Even chewing gum was banned in Singapore and after a 12 years banning, it was lifted. But getting a pack won't be a hassle free. Wrigley’s Orbit gum has just started appearing in pharmacies along with several other brands. Before Singaporeans even think about unwrapping a pack, they must submit their names and ID card numbers. If they don’t, pharmacists who sell them gum could be jailed up to two years and fined $2,940. Think about that!





Bear in mind, it was not that totally bad back home, we do have a good health plan. Bryan Caplan of EconLog has an interesting blog post on Singapore’s Health Care System. In the post, he reviews Ghesquiere’s “Singapore’s Success,” analyzing Singapore’s health care system. And we do have a good economy for a small country. Manufacturing and services are the two main features of the modern Singaporean economy, but the economy's main economic engine is its seaport, one of the world's busiest. Singapore also has one of the largest commercial shipping registers in the world.

We do also have a good CPF system. It's about the same as your social security. Instead of becoming a welfare state, Singapore introduced CPF in 1955 as a compulsory savings scheme so as to allow workers to benefit in their retirement, 10 years after the end of the Japanese Occupation when people were struggling to make ends meet. Working Singaporeans and their employers make monthly contributions to the CPF and these contributions go into three accounts:

1. Ordinary Account - for housing, pay for insurance, investment and education.

2. Special Account - for investment in retirement-related financial products.

3. Medisave Account - for hospitalisation and approved medical insurance.
Schooling children will have their outstanding funds in their Edusave account deposited into their CPF account when they enter the workforce.

Lets get back to the United States. It was really hard to get a job when I arrived. My husband was without a job for six months after retirement. He was rejected by the Prison Department as they consider him to be old! What does that mean? I thought the US doesn’t have age discrimination on jobs, but I guess I must be mistaken. My husband was lucky that he got a job after that and we never looked back since. And now, I hear how people want unemployement checks and different kind of benefits from the government. I remember we don’t have those similar policies in Singapore. Our government does help, but they will supply some foods (Rice, sugar and few can foods] and give you a $100 each month... and that’s it! They wont pay for your bills. Sometimes I find how fortunate Americans are but I won't envy them. Each day I hear people complaining that it is not good enough and they want more. Sometimes I wonder when will it be enough!

It is a political season now... that’s what I call it and I never seen this so much excitement. Oh we do have election but we have the same party elected since the beginning. I guess each one of us feel secured of what our government has done so majority don’t complain. Among all the candidates, Senator Mccain was the most appealing for me. He is handsome! Being the Commander in Chief is hard work and I know Senator McCain will be able to prevail. This country needs him more than ever before; no offence to Senator Clinton. But in my opinion, even though Senator McCain has his flaws, no one is perfect in this world, even my own country. His issues on health care were well received a had good reviews by CNN. Even with his Maverick label, he demonstrated time and time again that he can be bi-partisan for Americans. Conservatives might not like Senator McCain because of his friendships with Democrats and especially with Senator Clinton.

According to Mr. Bill Clinton, and I quote:

"She and John McCain are very close." Clinton said, "They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other."

Senator's McCain and Clinton last met publicly at ABC debate early January 2008 and they were both seen exchanging pleasantries, and Senator Mccain asked that she said hello to Mr Clinton on his behalf.

Issues like immigration might not appeal to Americans but to me it does make sense. Senator Mccain is a co-sponsor of the measure that would meld stronger border security with a guest worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for more than 12 millions immigrants or more in the country illegally. Senator Mccain was right in saying:

"We have 12 million people. We don't know where they are or what they're doing."

In Missisipi, two illegals immigrants were captured, one of them was Eyptian and the other a Palestian. What will happen if they were actually a potential terrorist? I will not discuss it further as it might cause a riot. But I will say this, I do have a misgiving on Illegal Immigrants at the beginning and I wrote to Senator Mccain about that issues and it was a surprised when he wrote back and explains. In that letter he made me understand his opinion and thought. A honorable man he is.

To some of Veterans he was uncompassionate about refusing to sign the new GI bills. His stances on this issues is truly amazing.Its not that he doesn’t care at all but if we look closely at the bills, every Americans will take advantages of this bill just for educations not for our country. I will wrote a small quote from ABC on 14/07 news on the new GI bills.

Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

And while that might be great for the individual troop, it could be bad for the military, which is already under stress after more than five years fighting two wars.

On his campaign plane this afternoon, McCain said he and allies in the Senate are working on an alternative to the bill, but would only support something that included incentives to stay in the military.

"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain said, "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military. I've talked a lot about veterans health care, so we'll continue to talk about those issues and how to care for vets. I know I can do that, having been one."

He wrote an article on Foreign Affairs in November/December 07 that’s said:

"The next U.S. President must be ready to lead, ready to show America and the world that this country's best days are yet to come, and ready to establish an enduring peace based on freedom that can safeguard American security for the rest of the twenty-first century. I am ready"

More of the articles can be read at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p0/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html

Before I end this... here’s a thought. Would USA be better with someone who really is good at rhetoric but did not have any records to prove? The USA has fought many battles for the sake of our Freedom. We shouldn’t in a million years take it for granted or it will be our own undoing. And this is not about popularity contest. We can change but it doesn’t start with the government, it’s starts with us. Let’s take a first step and elect Senator Mccain and take our own responsibilities to build a better future for our children. My Minister and mentor Lee said the best about Senator Mccain during an interview:

"Of all the candidates who will inherit the problem, I prefer John McCain. He will see this thing through."

You can read the rest of the interview at:

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2008/02/08/interview_lee_kuan_yew_--_part_1/1475/

Obama's Weaknesses Among the Democrat Party

Given that Senator Obama defeated Senator Clinton by 14 points in North Carolina and that Clinton barely squeezed by a 2 point victory in Indiana, Obama will increase his delegate lead and he will get a very good news coverage today. Clinton can win the rest of the races by 10 points and convince 2/3rd of the super delegates to side with her, and Obama will still win the nomination. Therefore, it is interesting to see what a McCain-Obama match will be like if the election is to be held today.

Gallup released a very nice poll on Clinton's and Obama's strengths against Senator McCain. Relatively to Obama, Clinton's strongest advantage is among the low income voters and no college education voters. Obama's greatest relative strengths are among blacks and wealthy voters. In other words, it will be extremely difficult for McCain to pull Blacks voters off from Obama and Obama can go toe-to-toe against McCain among wealthy voters. The good news is that Obama is relatively weak among low income voters and no college education voters. These are the base for the so called Reagan-Democrats. In a head to head match up, Clinton will lead McCain by 7 points among voters with no college degree, but McCain will lead Obama by 7 points. Another interesting group is the senior, McCain and Clinton are essentially tie among the seniors, but McCain will beat Obama by more than 12 points among this group.

President of CURE Gives McCain a Gold Star on Health Care Plan

Star Parker, President of CURE-the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education, has written a nice article that gives McCain the thumbs up when it comes to health care plans.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama can't grasp that our perverse health care economics result from over-centralization and bureaucratization, so they propose even more. They put more responsibility on employers and give government an even stronger role to define what health care is and how much it should cost. They propose to lower costs through subsidies financed by massive tax increases.

McCain's approach will use markets and consumer power to drive down costs and open the door to innovation in health care products and delivery.

To read the full article: McCain is straightforward, practical and right on health care issue

It's a Question of Judgment!

You all know I am not one to pick on Sen. Obama, but I want to bring up his judgment. I know Oprah is admired & respected by women around the world. If she were running for President, she may have a good shot at it. Women value her views & judgment, as well they should. Oprah had endorsed Obama some time back, now on her judgment. Oprah went to the same church as Obama, but she decided in the 90's (after attending the church off & on for several years) that Wright didn't represent her views, so she left. Obama stayed & it wasn't until his political life was on the line that he denounced Wright. Does Obama have the judgment to be President, we know Oprah does, but what about Obama? I know you are asking yourself about Oprah's judgment for endorsing Obama, but I give her a pass on that one, because she endorsed him early on. He was a nobody, but with her influence she helped lift him up before anyone knew about his questionably poor judgment.



Let’s put aside the flag lapel pin, his wife never being proud to be an American in her adult life, not wanting to site the pledge & other questions of patriotism. I am talking about judgment & the company we keep. If a pattern starts to develop, maybe we should take note. I am talking about Sen. Obama’s relationship with William Ayers. I know what you are thinking, but Ayers is standing on the American flag. We have already established that patriotism isn’t high in the Obama circle, but remember we are talking about judgment.



“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was an American radical left group formed in 1969 by leaders and members who split from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). They took their name from a lyric in the Bob Dylan song "Subterranean Homesick Blues","You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," which they used as the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18th, 1969, as part of a special edition of New Left Notes. The Weathermen were initially part of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) within the SDS, splitting from the RYM's Maoists by claiming there was no time to build a vanguard party and that revolutionary war against the United States government and the capitalist system should begin immediately.

Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation.[1][2] Nevertheless, their activities have often been characterized as domestic terror.
Their founding document, signed by 11 people, including Mark Rudd, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Bill Ayers, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Karen Ashley, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, and Steve Tappis, called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements,[3] to achieve the goal of "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world Communism."[4] The statement noted, "A revolution is a war; when the movement in this country can defend itself militarily against total repression it will be a part of the revolutionary war."[4] The group's first public demonstration was the "Days of Rage," an October 8, 1969 rally in Chicago that was coordinated with the trial of the Chicago Eight.[5]
In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO), and members adopted fake identities and pursued covert activities. They carried out a campaign consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots. Their attacks were mostly bombings of government buildings between 1969 and 1975, including the United States Capitol (two bombs on March 1, 1970), The Pentagon (May 19, 1972), and the Harry S Truman Building housing the United States Department of State (on January 29, 1975), along with several banks, police department headquarters and precincts, state and federal courthouses, and state prison administrative offices.[6][7] The Weathermen largely disintegrated shortly after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973 and the conquest of South Vietnam by the communist North in 1975, which saw the general decline of the New Left. Members of the group participated in the Brinks robbery of 1981, in which two police officers and a security guard were killed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

But Obama’s relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides.

In one sense, Obama’s journey toward the cultural and political center is not unusual among national politicians. But its velocity is.

Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.

On the other side of the political spectrum, many in the generation before hers shifted dramatically on civil rights. John McCain voted against creating a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and later called that a mistake.

The relationship with Ayers gives context to his recent past in Hyde Park politics. It’s milieu in which a former violent radical was a stalwart of the local scene, not especially controversial.

It’s also a scene whose liberal ideological features — while taken for granted by the Chicago press corps that knows Obama best — provides a jarring contrast with Obama’s current, anti-ideological stance. This contrast between past and present — not least the Ayers connection — is virtually certain to be a subject Republican operatives will warm to if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The tension between the present and recent Chicago past is also evident in some of his positions on major national issues. Many national politicians, including Clinton, have moved toward the center over time. But Obama’s transitions are still quite fresh.

A questionnaire from his 1996 campaign indicated more blanket opposition to the death penalty, and support of abortion rights, than he currently espouses. He spoke in support of single-payer health care as recently as 2003.

Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.

But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

And their rehabilitation in establishment circles, even in Hyde Park, has its limits.

Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.

“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.

But the couple has been embraced, by and large, in the liberal circles dominating Hyde Park politics.

“Bill Ayers is one of my heroes in life,” said Sam Ackerman, a longtime local activist. “I knew Tony Rezko, and he ain’t no Rezko.”

But others in Hyde Park, whose intellectual and political life revolves around the University of Chicago, view the couple with ambivalence.
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html)

We won't forget about Obama's judgment when it came to Tony Rezko, but we will save that for a follow up piece.

John McCain's Mentor

Ken Ringle over at the Weekly Standard has written an article discussing William B. Ravenel, a teacher who had a profound impact on John McCain's life.

McCain has spoken often of Ravenel, and keeps a photograph of him hanging on the wall of his Senate office. In Faith of My Fathers he says the teacher's "influence over my life ... was more important and more benevolent than that of any other person save members of my family." Last month, during the "biography tour" of his campaign, he returned to Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia, the once all-male boarding school we both attended in the 1950s. He used most of his speech there to praise Ravenel as "one of the best men I have ever known," who "enriched my life at EHS beyond measure."

It was not simply Ravenel's academic influence that was so profound, McCain told his audience: "He helped teach me to be a man, and to believe in the possibility that we are not captive to the worst parts of our nature."

In "Faith of My Fathers" John McCain goes on at length about the importance of Ravenel in his life. The following passage is perhaps the most revealing:

"..when I came home from Vietnam, Mr. Ravenel was the only person outside of my family whom I wanted to see. I felt he was someone to whom I could explain what had happened to me, and who would understand. That is a high tribute to Mr. Ravenel. For I have never met a prisoner of war who felt he could explain the experience to anyone who had not shared it."

From teachers and mentors such as Mr. Ravenel, the character worthy of Presidents is formed.

Barack Obama - Mr. Disingenuous

The whole Jeremiah Wright controversy over the past week has illustrated just how disingenious Barack Obama can be. I'm not going to belabor any of Rev Wrights comments -- plenty of others have been doing that for a number of weeks.

Heres a collection of links to articles and videos of his comments, if you can stomach them.

But what is striking about this whole affair is how Obama has proven himself the prototypical politician, talking out of both sides of his mouth and saying ANYTHING to advance his campaign. Lets look at a few highlights from the week:
On Sunday, McCain spoke out for the first time about the Wright controversy:

But Mr. McCain took a different approach at a news conference here when he criticized Mr. Wright for, as the senator paraphrased him, "comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our Savior, I mean being involved in that" and for "saying that Al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags."

"So I can understand, I can understand why people are upset about this," said Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. "I can understand why Americans, when viewing these kinds of comments, are angry and upset."

In keeping with the respectful tone of his campaign, McCain drew a distinction between Wright and Obama during the same interview:

"Mr. McCain said that he did not believe that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, shared those views and that he was still against the advertisement in North Carolina. But he suggested that Mr. Obama had made the subject fair play by declaring in an interview shown over the weekend on "Fox News Sunday" that questions about Mr. Wright were "a legitimate political issue."
"If he believes that," Mr. McCain said, "then it will probably be a political issue."

The Obama campaign immediately launched an attack on McCain:

"The Obama campaign accused Mr. McCain of breaking his promise to run a respectful campaign.
"By sinking to a level that he specifically said he’d avoid," said an Obama campaign spokesman, Hari Sevugan, "John McCain has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign."

I guess the message here is: Don't Attack Our Friends Before We Attack Them First

On Monday, The Obama campaign sent out an email solicitation, offering contributors a DVD copy of Obamas Philadelphia speech defending his relationship with Rev Wright.

The Message: Before We Throw Our Friend, Pastor and Mentor Under the Bus, We Want To Profit From Defending Him

Finally, on Tuesday, Obama repudiated Wright's comments and defended his previous position

Asked whether the matter should raise questions about his judgment, Mr. Obama did not directly answer, saying: "I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency."

"What particularly angered me is his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks was somehow political posturing," Mr. Obama said. "Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I’m about knows that I’m about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting take on the situation:

Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

The more we see of Sen Obama, the more we realize just how disingenuous he has become.