article from john dean
Posted By: saturday evening on 2005-08-27
In Reply to:
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly....
improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment." Interesting that 4 of the 5 were Democrats. Still..John McCain has publically said he was sorry for his part in it, that he was wrong in what he did and has apologized for it. Like I said before, I respect that. Everyone makes mistakes. No everyone is man enough to own up to them and not hide behind Nancy Pelosi and the DNC like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are doing. Now THERE is a pair to draw to.
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Them's strong words Mr Dean!
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x
So does someone's comment at the end of the article, discredit the whole article??
Unbelievable.
Really..John Roberts?
Roberts Disparaged States' Sex-Bias Fight
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 27 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts disparaged state efforts to combat discrimination against women in Reagan-era documents made public Thursday, and wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
John Kerry...sm
He was coined a flip flopper in the 04 election, but he has been saying the same thing ever since and it is making more and more sense every day.
John Edwards as VP?
thoughts?
not even john's first choice
ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.
So the man McSame thought would make the best vice president was vetoed by his fundie base. And he caved.
But he's very Mavericky!
I was always one that said if John McCain ran...sm
I could definitely vote for him. He has so disappointed me during this presidential election. He seemed to have abandoned all his maverickness and has been pandering to the right wing republicans when he is really a moderate. Today, for the first time in a long time, I see that he is being a maverick again and saying, wait, not so fast, it should not be so easy with no oversight, CEOs should not be making millions when their companies are going under. A very confusing time.
John McCain
nm
Go John McCain!!!!
I heard some other stuff that went down in that room, but since the source would be bashed on this board, I'm not saying until it shows up in the media somewhere else.
I doubt it will, though, as McCain and the republicans are too much the gentlmen, to say what actually went on, and what was said by whom at times.
John McCain
I could feel a little sorry for him if he were not so mean and willing to do anything to win. For pete sake, he is 72 years old. he has few years left. He has a lovely family and many great homes. Whey does he not enjoy his final years getting to know his children? He was in Washington and only went home on the weekends. Sometimes we just have to realize that we are not going to achieve a dream. I have accepted I will never be a naturally thin person. It took 30 years, but I know it now. He has been honored for his service and had many years in Washington. he is putting so much wear and tear on his aging body with the physical demands of campaigning. He is doing damage to his cardiovascular system with the seething anger and contempt. If my grandfather at age 72 decided to run for mayor, I would say come on grandpa, that is ridiculous..
John McCain
At 72 he still has quite a few years left, God willing. AND, he has more experience than Obama will ever have. He knows more about foreign policy, war, economy, everything than Obama will ever know. Obama with 143 days experience? He can't even talk without a teleprompter.
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be
Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
We all have to start somewhere. The Senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.
AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?
Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!
It's like John Q. Public. Another way of saying...
average American.
John McCain was a
.
Way to go John - Good job!
Finally spoke up for the American people. Only time will tell if it was soon enough. I hope it was. You showed us all that you care about us. You showed us you don't believe in socialism (redistribution of wealth). You validated our beliefs that you will fight for what is right for all Americans. You pointed out Obama's unfortunate beliefs and the people he associates with, the health care system he plans to socialize, the increased taxes, the slick lawyer talk. You reminded us that Biden was wrong in a lot of his votes and that most of the time Obama didn't even vote (called present). You showed us that despite the many socialist liberals in the country Obama is not the right person for the job.
I don't care what you look like John. I don't care that you can't "slick talk" us all. I don't care that you don't have a full head of hair and that you can't lift your arms above your head. I don't care that you can't play basketball well and look impeccable in a suit. What I do care about are your policies and your beliefs and how that will affect my life. So you may not be the prettiest of the bunch, but I know that a lot of people who say they don't care that Obama is a black man and continue to point out that they are not racists, are the same bunch that will point out that your not nice looking like Obama is.
So knowing that you have the American people's best interest at heart, and you care more about the people than your campaign. You fight to the end (and so does your running mate) for us because you believe it is the right thing to do.
That is why I am voting for you.
Just a little about John McCain
*Voted to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million American workers
*Voted to allow companies to cut and eliminate pensions for their long-term employees.
*Voted to weaken OSHA and workplace regulations designed to prevent injuries on the job.
* Voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R.800) 6/26/07.
*Voted for a National-Right-To-Work (for less) Act (S.1788) 7/10/96
*Voted to allow employers to hire permanent replacements during a strike (S.55) 7/13/94.
*Voted against granting collective bargaining rights for state and local police andfirefighters (H.R. 3061) 11/6/01.
*Voted against granting collective b argaining rights for TSA screeners (S.4) 3/7/07.
*Keating-5: Federal regulators wanted to seize control of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan Association but McCain intervented to try to prevent that from happening.
*McCain claims he paid for the Keating for the flights to his private home in the Bahamas, but he conveniently could not produce the receipts. Keating donated $112,000 to McCain's campaigns for the House and then the Senate.
*His current campaign for president is essentially run by lobbyists with close ties to big oil companies, Fannie Mae, UBS and Blackwater. FedEx Corp, founder and CEO, Fred Smith is a close friend who Mccain views as a perfect candidate for U.S. Secretary of Defense.
*McCain voted to give tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas. He voted against overtime pay, against Davis-Bacon protections and against extending unemployment insurance.
* "I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed," McCain said on Meet the Press onJune 15, 2005. "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement nad support of President Bush."
*McCain mirrors Bush in another important way: his indifference to the plight of Americans who fall victim to disaster. He voted twice against creating a commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina--and later he said he voted for every investigation into Katrina's aftermath.
*McCain is the staunchest advocate fo free trade in the U.S. Senate. He voted for every disastrous free-trade agreement since NAFTA. He strongly supports a trade deal with Colombia. He's a leader in the effort to open the border to dangerous trucks from Mexico.
Just a note about Palin's Wasilla Police Department. Their employees voted 29-9 to join the Teamsters Local 959 by a vote of 29-9. The election was recently certified.
....................
How any serious middle class American worker can vote for this man is beyond me.
To John McCain:
Hey Johnny, where was Joe today? Pretty funny thing when you're holding a rally and call your little campaign mascot up there with you, and he's not even there! Sucks to be stood up in front of all those people!! I guess his newfound fame is more important! LOL Now that's loyalty.
And you believe John McCain?
Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions but I would hope that we would all base our opinions on FACTS without preconceived prejudices.
John McCain
I am referring to the following "post."
McCain's body language just is not right.
McCain always comes across as poisonous, ready to explode. His eyes were almost popping out of his head.
His body language just is not right!
I guess your body language would not be right either if you had every bone broken in your body in a concentration camp as he has had every bone broken in his body. I guess if his facial features and eyes are not to your liking, maybe you should be shut in a chamber and tortured and have every bone in your body broken. Not only that, but pulled up on a rope and have your legs tied behind you and around your arms so that your ribs start cracking, and you are hung suspended like that. I guess maybe your obama boy, smooth talking, prancing candidate could come and save you.... Maybe he could have a rally for you so Bruce can be there screeching "born in the USA, but love communism. Yeh, maybe they could do that for you.
An American hero and you say things like that. How sad for you. How very sad.
Where does John Mccain Fit In
Just something else to ponder. Is there a place for him in the admin? What is his special area of expertise?
I'm not thinking the cabinet, but just any position where he could do a good job?
John Stossel-What do you think about him?
He has a special tonight. It will be on too late for me to watch it, but he was on The View today and they questioned him on his views for MediCare and SS.
Now, for those young 'uns, I can see where he is coming from, but he made me furious. He thinks the elderly should fend for themselves because there won't be anything left by the time he's ready to retire. If they don't have savings, that's their problem, then they need to go to charities.
What he doesn't understand is that a lot of people of my generation and before did not have the money to save up like everyone can do now. We had families to raise on piddlin' little income and the same bills everyone has today...taxes, insurances, mortgages, car payments, etc.
There were no IRAs. Sure, there were pensions, but if the company went belly up, so did the pension. All we had were savings accounts. There were a lot of other reasons we could not save a lot of money, but now he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to get MediCare and SS even though we paid into it for over 40-45 years? 
This is where our country is headed? Where is the respect for hard workers? Just because we were told we could rely on SS by the government growing up, now what? That nitwit!
He's going to get a letter from me, that's for sure.
More on Sen. John Ensign ....(sm)
Interestingly, not only did this guy have an affair, but he had an affair with an employee of his. During the time of the affair her salary doubled, and her 19-year-old son also managed to get on the payroll. When the affair ended, her salary went back to the normal rate. That little increase was paid for by you and me via tax dollars.
So, how do you guys feel about paying for his affair? Isn't there a word for it when sexual favors are bought? LOL.
It has now been reported that he's coming clean about the affair because the girl he was having an affair with and her husband (also an employee) threatened blackmail. But that was yesterday. Now there is a new little twist. See link.
Exactly!. What about someone like gool ole John
nm
Add John Edwards to the list...
he voted to send the troops too. But let's be honest about this...Bush in and of himself did not send troops. Congress did. Did Clinton have blood on his hands for the American soldiers who died in Kosovo or died in Somalia? How about the one they dragged bhind a jeep in Somalia? Is his blood on Clinton's hands? Clinton was in office when my husband was sent to Somalia. What was that blood for? Where were you when that was happening? Were you on this board panning Clinton? Or do you have to have a certain number of bodies before you get angry? When I saw that man being dragged behind a Jeep while people cheered, you bet your life I got angry!! I got mad as he**. But I didn't get mad at Bill Clinton...I got mad at the AL Qaeda funded terrorists who were doing it. I was not then and am not now a fan of Bill Clinton's, but I did have the objectivity to see that Bill Clinton was not directly responsible for what was happening. However, his decision to pull out of Somalia pre-emptively is one of the reasons we are having to fight Al Qaeda yet again in Iraq...we should have crushed them there when we had the chance. Just like he should have taken bin Laden when the Sudan offered him...before 9-11. But, we cannot turn back time. Although the ability of liberals to erase/ignore certain things from one person and highlight them in another boggles my mind!
And...where may I ask is all that oil that we went to war for? Sorry, but that is a goofy statement. If we had gone after oil we would be protecting the oil fields and trying to get them producing oil again...RIGHT? I don't see how anyone, no matter how much they hate George Bush...can buy that theory. I mean no offense by that. I do not agree with a lot of things George Bush is for; however, I do agree with taking the fight to them to discourage them from bringing the fight to us. I would prefer not to see a car bombing or suicide bombing on the evening news somewhere in the US every day. I would prefer not to see school bombings. I would prefer not to see a dirty bomb exploded in NY or LA. And taking the fight to them, I believe, is what is helping keep them from doing those very things. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that there are people out there who hate us and our way of life and have made it their goal in life to turn us to their way or destroy us. Either or. No in between. And even 9-11 cannot convince some of you. What will take..? I shudder to think.
If John Edwards was not important...
The Clintonites are now saying that John Edwards nomination is not that important. (what???)
If that is true then why did she campaign so hard to try to get him to endorse her? Why did she immediately after he dropped out of the race change her tone and try to mimick him. You know for a fact if he endorsed her she would be making this out to be the greatest victory in America.
The fact is this IS an important endorsement. As important as AL Gore's will be and as important as Bush's endorsement to the republicans.
She's just upset that it took away the limelight of her win in W.Virginia, which I believe was not as big as a win in Iowa, Washington State, Maine and other bigger states. Now they said that because Obama didn't win WV there is no way he'll win the election in November?....yeah right. Funny how they are completely missing all his big wins. Of course they are trying to spin it as if all of his wins are not important...only the ones she won. Brother give me a break!
The sooner she is out of the race the more I can breath a sigh of relief!
one word John Edwards
touche.
JOhn McCain on the issues...
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
John McCain's Adultery
For a guy campaigning on family values, John McCain has broken up a lot of marriages. When he met his first wife (a swimsuit model), she was married to another man. After breaking that marriage up, she stuck by him loyally as he went off to war and was a prisoner for 5 and a half years. When he returned to America, though, he found out that she had been in a car wreck and wasn't as pretty. So he had a series of affairs, by his own admission, and dumped his wife and adopted family for a younger, very rich blond (now Cindy McCain.) Cindy, the daughter of a wealthy Budweiser beer distributor, was addicted to prescription narcotics and even stole hard drugs from a medical charity that she ran. In February, 2008, the New York Times ran a big article about the unusually close relationship between John McCain and a young telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman (who looks uncannily like Cindy McCain did when SHE was 25). They became so close that his staff, convinced they were having an affair, confronted both McCain and Iseman, telling them to back off. Now, a lot of people have criticized the Times for hinting without actually saying that McCain had sexual relations with that woman. But really, it doesn't matter. It's a matter of record that he accepted money and favors from her, spent a lot of time for her, and did favors for her clients. Among other things, McCain wrote two letters -- from a draft provided by Vicki Iseman -- to the head of the Federal Communications Commission -- which was way out of line, since McCain headed the Senate Commmerce Committee, which controls the FCC. McCain's pressure was so outrageous that, even though McCain was in charge of funding his commission, the FCC commissioner wrote a letter back rebuking him for his interference, at the height of McCain's "ethics in government" campaign.
So, was McCain sleeping with her, hoping to sleep with her, or being subconsciously manipulated by a cute young woman? It doesn't really matter. He was being led by his groin into ethical violations. Let's face it, he was 64 at the time and is 72 now. Whether he is still cheating or not, he seems to be led by his dick; witness the videos of McCain checking out Sarah Palin's butt during the speech where he introduced her.
My post was about John McCain
not Bill Clinton. Our economy almost crashed last week and it may still. Things have not been this bad since the depression. Anyone who is planning on voting for John McCain should understand how deregulation (which he has supported throughout his politcal career) played a role in what happened last week. They also should understand what his involvement in the Keating Five scandal was and how that relates.
71.54% match with John McCain
42.86% Obama.
John McCain also said he is a good man and there is no..sm
reason to be afraid if he is president. Selective hearing?
LOL !!! Time for shuffleboard, John.
john mccain said this homeslice....
"The problem... is that most members of Congress don't pay attention to what's going on."
Does John McCain "kill you," too?
I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. (John McCain, October 21, 2007, describing how he's ready to lead on day one, before selecting his running mate who was a mayor for a short period of time and a governor for a short period of time).
John McCain has given a plan.
John McCain believes our schools can and should compete to be the most innovative, flexible and student-centered - not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. He believes we should let them compete for the most effective, character-building teachers, hire them, and reward them.
If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.
As president, John McCain will pursue reforms that address the underlying cultural problems in our education system - a system that still seeks to avoid genuine accountability and responsibility for producing well-educated children.
John McCain will place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children. He believes all federal financial support must be predicated on providing parents the ability to move their children, and the dollars associated with them, from failing school.
I am voting for John McCain because
he is for smaller government and less government spending. He has more experience with foreign policy. He has been in the military and knows first hand what our troops go through. He won't raise taxes during an economic crisis. He won't tax businesses more which will help them survive and be successful therefore creating more jobs for Americans. He wants alternative energy sources which (once you get the crazy freaks who are environmentalists to shut up) will create even more jobs for Americans and keep money here in the USA instead of giving it to people who want us dead. I also in good conscience cannot vote for Obama because of his beliefs when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. I also believe that when it comes to party politics, John McCain will stand up to his own party if he doesn't see eye to eye with them and I just feel that is something Obama will not do.
This is excluding other feelings I have about Obama, particularly his associations that people refuse to see and acknowledge. One radical association is one thing, but Obama has many and I've always been raised to believe that birds of a feather flock together.
John McCain's future
After seeing Cindy smooching some biker dude, maybe John should check in at home more often.
You just described John Kerry and Ted Kennedy!! LOLOL
On CNN this morning, John McCain picked...sm
Sarah Palin because of her ideology. She was never veted. Investigators are in Alaska now doing so. Smart move John.
John McCain knew when he announced
SP as VP, although he first lied and said he didn't know that she is pregnant. Once a liar always a liar.
Biden on Barack : John McCain
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hF7Q0ghdTn4
|
