Saturday, October 18, 2008

Tampa Tribune Endorses John McCain for President

"McCain brings a lifetime of useful experience, including his grueling captivity in Vietnam and long Senate service. He believes in federalism, a strong defense and disciplined self-interest. McCain has been willing to cross party lines to work on tough problems. He co-authored a campaign finance law that failed to fulfill its objective, but he did muster the bipartisan support needed to try to control the buying and selling of public office."

Uncertain Times Require McCain's Tested Vigilance
Tampa Tribune
October 17, 2008

The direction of the nation is at stake in this election. Hard economic times, a disappointing Republican administration and the seductive promises of a master orator are pushing America toward a European-style social democracy.

If you don't want that to happen, vote for Republican Sen. John McCain. First, it must be acknowledged that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama gets a lot of things right, especially when emphasizing what has gone wrong. Studiously unflappable, he is the most inspirational campaigner in memory. McCain, too, has many ideas for improvement, but his ch anges build on what has worked in the past to make our nation the strongest in the world.

McCain understands that U.S. companies must compete worldwide and shouldn't have to pay one of the world's highest corporate tax rates. He knows that federal spending is out of control. He knows that economic growth only comes from hard work and real investment, not through wholesale redistribution of tax dollars as Obama promises.

Obama became a political celebrity by representing the disaffected. He is generating unprecedented enthusiasm among the young and the poor, and their participation is welcome. Yet mainstream voters need to understand that the change these voters want will have historic consequences. Obama's future America is largely unrestrained by many of the traditional values long held by Middle America.

Obama promises a tax cut for 95 percent of households, even though only 62 percent of households pay any income tax now. Taxes would increase sharply for households making more than $250,000 a year a policy that penalizes success. Profitable small businesses would be hardest hit. Obama even has the audacity to promise a tax break for businesses that create jobs, while simultaneously increasing taxes that would force some businesses to cut payrolls.

Last year, Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If elected, he would appoint activist judges capable of finding liberal surprises in the Constitution. He would push for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He would agree to new barriers to trade, which would raise consumer prices.

We urge voters, especially independents and moderate Democrats, to think about where the candidates and their parties are coming from, where they want to go and who the candidates really are.

Obama is a lawyer, a professor, a best-selling author and a winning debater. He is smart and patriotic, but as a leader on the national stage, mostly untested. His short tenur e in the Senate has been unremarkable, other than being consistently partisan.

McCain brings a lifetime of useful experience, including his grueling captivity in Vietnam and long Senate service. He believes in federalism, a strong defense and disciplined self-interest.

McCain has been willing to cross party lines to work on tough problems. He co-authored a campaign finance law that failed to fulfill its objective, but he did muster the bipartisan support needed to try to control the buying and selling of public office.

He is more open-minded on energy reforms than Bush has been. He has an independent nature and passion for public service. He spoke out against torture and strongly criticized Bush's first defense secretary for resisting the surge of troops McCain knew Iraq needed for peace to have a chance.

McCain's biggest challenge is that after eight years of the Bush White House, it's hard to say his party still believes in smaller government. He ha s run an uneven campaign, facing an unfair share of blame for budget deficits, feeble economic growth, costly military interventions, uncontrolled immigration, emergency bailouts of misled corporations, and a diminished world opinion of America.

Yet the record shows blunt-talking McCain would begin to return his party, and the nation, to a more conservative, compassionate and productive path. He is not the candidate preferred in much of Europe and the Middle East, but he would keep us safe and begin to repair America's image worldwide.

A few states could make the difference in this election. Florida is likely to be one, and Tampa Bay will be a key battleground. The McCain-Obama race is a choice that divides families, friendships and even editorial boards.

Obama's vision of hope shines like a rainbow, appealing but just out of reach. McCain's call to freedom and responsibility is less exciting, but you know it works.

The Tribune encourages voters to vo te what they believe, not what they wish were true. The nation needs a stable leader in these unpredictable times.

For president, the Tribune endorses Sen. John McCain.
Joe the Plumber

We know him as Joe the Plumber. About a week ago he had a chat with Senator Obama on a rope line. Senator Obama was doing house to house campaigning in Joe’s Toledo, Ohio, neighborhood. Joe thought this would be a great opportunity to ask questions and get answer’s from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Joe has a dream to buy the company he works for. The company makes in the vicinity of $250,000 a year. Joe would buy more equipment and hire more plumbers to work for him. If he couldn’t hire more plumbers at first, then over the course of his ownership he would. Provided of course, that the tax bite wouldn’t prohibit him doing so.

Joe may have influenced the course of the election because of this question. He became the "flavor of the week" and his name was invoked more than a few times during the final debate between Senators McCain and Obama. The press began investigating his personal life and found some things that have become fodder for the liberals. But, that’s not a problem for anyone except Joe. As Joe himself has said, he’s a flash in the pan and will be forgotten in a few days.

You know what the problem really is?

The problem is with the answer that Obama gave Joe. There can be no doubt about just what Obama said because it was caught on tape (it’s on YouTube) and revealed that Obama is a true liberal, if not Socialist. Oh, my goodness! She used the “S” word!! Yep, I did. You see, Obama said that by taxing people who are successful, the money can be used to help those who come behind. Obama thinks it’s “good to spread the wealth around.”

A little history is needed here to explain just why this is Socialism or Marxism, or Communism. They aren’t the same, but are somewhat interchangeable. This is what I found at Wikipedia (the bold is mine):

Karl Marx, father of Marxism said: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed.

Note that last line: regardless of how much they have contributed. So the person who produces more will provide for those who produce less. I think the idea was that the farmer will produce the meat, vegetables, and dairy, the weaver will produce cloth, the carpenter houses and so on. They would share their products and use what they needed. Now that is under ideal conditions when everyone plays according to the rules. How often do you see that happening in today’s world?

But, what about those who contribute more than others, or those who are lazy and contribute little to nothing. We all know people who fit both descriptions. Under a Socialistic society, even the people who contribute little, will get their share, according to their needs. And if anyone notices that one person is getting a share, but they didn’t contribute, or contributed less than others, under a liberal, Socialistic system, they will be told that they should get more because they have less than the others. It has to be fair to all.

I work for local government. I have often said that no one is ever going to get rich working for government, but if you stay at it long enough, and spend less than you earn, you will get to a point where you are doing very nicely for yourself. When I mentioned opportunities, that might included additional job training, or even leaving one job for better opportunities somewhere else.

Back to “spreading the wealth”. Socialism wants to take money from the wage earners and give it to those who aren’t, or who aren’t making as much as the wage earner the money was taken from. It’s to bring one group of people to a higher level and make more things equal. How does it make it equal to give something to one person that another person earned?

About twenty some years ago, my agency decided to adjust the pay grades. I had been working for the agency for three years at the time. Two other women had just started in my office. I had trained them and had to take up the slack until they were able to take up their part of the load. When the new pay grades were announced, we were all being paid at the same rate. The agency had raised their level to mine. Was this fair? Not in my eyes, but it was fine with the two new employees who each had less than six months on the job compared to my three years of experience.

There was nothing equal about our jobs. I had been there longer, I had to train them, and I was producing more work, but we were all paid at the same rate of pay. I was told that my pay rate was used to raise the entry-level pay rate, and it just wasn’t thought completely thought out. I was further told that I should have received a higher pay raise than I got; it was a human error that was eventually corrected.

While I would never consider what happened to me to be anything but a mistake, I realized that it was an example of what would happen under a Socialistic society. I was the one producing, the others were not, and were getting more than they contributed. Yes, later on, the other two women would have been contributing as much as I did, but at first, they weren’t, simply because they couldn’t.

Can’t you see the Democratic controlled Congress deciding to help the poor by taking money from your paycheck and giving it to them in the form of stimulus checks, rebate checks, tax credits? Obama has said that he will give tax cuts to 95% of the American workforce. But, approximately 40% of the American workforce doesn’t pay taxes now. How can you give tax cuts to people who don’t pay taxes? One way is through payroll cuts. Okay, that’s a good one that will hopefully cut my payroll taxes too. You’ve got me on that one.

But, Obama also has a whole bundle of new programs he wants to start. If he cuts taxes where is the money coming from to pay for these programs? The money used to pay for the Iraq war isn’t coming from tax money so it can’t be from there. It has to come from new taxes.And that will be on people and businesses that earn more than $250,000.

And we come back to Joe the Plumber and people like him who either have small businesses or have a dream to own one. If they are taxed more, they will not be able to hire more people, buy more inventory, or expand their businesses. They may even have to close their business because they can’t pay the taxes.

And how does that help anyone?
Obama's Awful High Tax Policies

Our Country Deserves Better
Are you "Joe the Plumber?"

Who is Joe the Plumber?

His name is Joe Wurzelbacher and he is a plumber from Ohio. Last night in the Presidential Debate, Joe the Plumber became a symbol of the economic troubles crippling the United States. Joe encountered Senator Obama while he was campaigning in Toledo, Ohio earlier this week. Joe wants to buy the company he works for, but purchasing it would make him a target of the Democrat's plan to tax the "wealthy." Joe told Senator Obama about his frustrations with Obama's plans to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and the Illinois senator replied that it was important to "spread the wealth around."

Spread the Wealth?

Yes, Senator Barack Obama said he wants to "sprea d the wealth around." That means that he wants to take Joe's, and countless other small business owners', hard earned money. Senator Obama wants to raise their taxes so he can pay for his government mandated healthcare system and other big government programs. He wants to punish small business owners who are successful and about to climb the next step on the economic ladder by spreading their "wealth."

It's No Surprise that Obama Wants to "Spread the Wealth Around"

It's no surprise that Senator Obama wants to spread Joe the Plumbers "wealth." He voted for higher taxes 94 times in four years in the United States Senate. And, he requested nearly $1 billion dollars of your money for wasteful pork barrel spending. Imagine what he will do as the most powerful man in the United States. Obama's rhetoric sounds nice now, but it will feel like a painful sucker punch if he is elected and his plans to raise taxes are implemented.

Senator McCain will Fight for Every Joe the Plumber

John McCain consistently voted against tax increases and never once took a wasteful pork barrel project. As a result he was given an "A" rating by the National Taxpayers Union and has received awards from the Citizens Against Government Waste for being a good steward of taxpayer money. John McCain wants to lower your taxes and reduce government spending and has the record to back up his rhetoric.

Received from the Florida McCain-Palin campaign.

And more from the campaign:

If you are a small business owner and don't want the government to spread your wealth, let us know. Join our "Joe the Plumber" coalition by sending your story to or by calling our "Joe the Plumber" hotline at 850-391-3304. Tell us how raising taxes and "spreading the wealth around" will hurt your business. It's important we stop these socialist-like plans to take your money and redistribute it.
During this political season let's be reminded of these wise words from a great American

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character & courage by taking away people's initiative & independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could & should do for themselves

- Abraham Lincoln

Friday, October 17, 2008

Biden's Four Letter Word

Okay, it's not what you thought, so get your mind out of the gutter. Just something to giggle about.

Paging Dan Quayle! Dan Quayle to the podium please!
Obama's Wrong Values

McCain Speaking at Alfred E Smith Memorial Dinner

Part 1

Part 2

McCain showing his sense of humor. We don't see it enough and many who know him says he has a wicked sense of humor. I know that politicians use writers for when they need to be scripted, but writers can't script timing. McCain has a great sense of comedic timing.

I realized today that McCain bears something of a resemblance to my late father. That may explain part of why I prefer him over Obama, but not all.
Obama’s Plan for Illegal Driver’s Licenses Attacked
Friday, October 17, 2008 2:27 PM
By: David Patten and Newsmax Staff

VIDEO: NRTP: Obama Wants Driver’s Licenses for Illegals

Back during the heated days of the Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama made a crucial decision to appeal to his party’s most liberal base: He embraced the idea of giving driver’s licenses to any illegal immigrant who wanted one.

Hillary Clinton decided to oppose such a concept. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, warned her she could not win the general election taking such a position.

Now, if a Republican group has its way, Obama will suffer defeat at the polls for supporting such a program.

The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (NRTrust PAC) has launched a new TV ad hitting Obama on the issue of licenses for illegals, linking his position to the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11.

“Nineteen terrorists infiltrate the U.S.,” the 30-second NRTrust ad begins.

“Thirteen get driver’s licenses. The 9/11 plot depended on easy-to-get licenses,” a women narrator reveals as images of a burning World Trade Center are juxtaposed with a mock up of Mohammed Atta’s Florida driver’s license. Atta was fingered as the ringleader of the 9/11 terror attacks.

“Obama is the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the Democratic Party,” Scott Wheeler, executive director of the NRTrust, told Newsmax. “The driver’s license is just one of many issues that proves it.”

His Web site [] cites a 2007 Rasmussen poll showing that 77 percent of voters oppose granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.

A recent Newsmax/Zogby poll on the question found that 46 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Obama if he backed the idea of driver’s licenses for illegals. (Thirty-eight percent of voters said they were “much less” likely to vote for him under those circumstances.)

The Zogby data suggests the issue could hurt Obama across party lines. Almost 20 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents said they would be less likely to vote for him if he backed such a license plan.

Though white voters strongly opposed Obama’s plan (50 percent), core Democratic groups also were negative on the issue, with 29 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of blacks saying they would be less likely to vote for him with such a plan.

Wheeler’s group quotes political strategist Dick Morris as praising NRTrust as “a very effective organization” and saying the driver’s license issue could “make a huge difference on Election Day."

Wheeler says his group has raised $500,000 and has close to 10,000 donors. He has raised his organizations profile by advertising on conservative Web sites, including ads on Newsmax, Human Events, GOPusa, and other sites. His organization said it is rolling its first ad in key swing states this weekend.

Hillary vs. Obama on Driver’s Licenses

The controversy over driver’s licenses for illegals was touched off in September 2007 when then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer ordered state officials to grant them licenses.

The issue drew more attention during the October 2007 Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, when Sen. Hillary Clinton fumbled a question from the late Tim Russert over whether she supported Spitzer’s plan.

“It makes a lot of sense,” Clinton said. “What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed. And George Bush has failed . . . We should have passed immigration reform.”

Obama jumped on Clinton’s answer as unclear, saying he still couldn’t tell whether she supported granting driver’s licenses to illegals. But Obama left little doubt where he stood on the issue.

“I think that it is the right idea,” Obama declared, adding that licensing and insuring illegals is “a public safety concern.”

“We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer,” he said. “That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.”

In the days that followed the Drexel debate, critics blasted Spitzer’s proposal. Polls showed that the issue was sinking Spitzer’s approval ratings even in heavily Democratic New York.

Critics warned that giving illegal immigrants licenses would be a security nightmare, allowing terrorists to travel on planes, rent trucks and vans, and move about the country with ease, and without detection or scrutiny.

In October 2007, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called Spitzer to voice concerns that New York’s initiative could undermine federal plans to enhance security and improve documentation.

In the aftermath of 9/11, authorities reported that the 19 terrorists involved in the attacks had obtained 13 driver’s licenses, plus 21 federal or state-issued ID cards.

The Wall Street Journal reported that eight of the 9/11 terrorists were registered to vote.

About two weeks after the call from Chertoff, Spitzer announced he would drop his proposal.

The political fireworks in the Democratic primary were just beginning, however. The day Spitzer withdrew his driver’s license plan, Clinton released a statement saying, “I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal.

“As president,” she continued, “I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people, and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”

During the November Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the issue again, asking Obama whether he supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Obama began by recounting that he had vigorously promoted the concept in the Illinois State Senate, where he said he voted to train, license, and insure illegals to operate motor vehicles, to “protect public safety.”

Not satisfied with that response, Blitzer asked again whether Obama supported granting licenses to illegals. This time, it was Obama who appeared to waffle.

“This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes-or-no answer,” Blitzer responded, drawing laughter from the audience.

Asked a third time whether he supported licenses for illegals, Obama eventually answered: “Yes,” but quickly added that he would fight for comprehensive immigration reform to address larger issues.

Wheeler argues that Obama’s position in support of licenses to help public safety is ludicrous.

“Imagine if a potential terrorist enters the U.S. but has no history of previous terror activity or has changed their identity,” Wheeler says, adding, “How does Obama weed such dangerous people out before giving them a driver’s license? You can’t.”

Sen. John McCain has stated he opposes driver’s licenses for illegals. He also has stated his opposition to any benefits for those who “have come here illegally and broke our law.”

In a February 2007 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain said, “It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Presidential Character

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams

In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.

However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy's national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, "ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country."

In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?

Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.

This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)

When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, "the Party left me," has never been more true than today.

For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.

Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.

Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we're told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes." This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.

Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation's legacy of liberty and equality.

That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame."

For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let's return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic's Constitution.

Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.

John Adams: "Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. ... If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. ... We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."

Samuel Adams: "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. ... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. ... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. ... No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. ... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ... The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. ... An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

George Washington: "No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. ...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. ... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Sound familiar?

In No. 10, Madison cautions, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm," and insisted in No. 57, "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
Madison's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.
In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!"

We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.

As Adams understood, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, "Freedom is ... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time."

So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?

On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, let's hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.

Let's put country first.

For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.
Patriot Candidate Profile: John McCain
Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 08 No. 04; Published 25 January 2008

"In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution." --Alexander Hamilton

Time for some "straight talk" about John McCain, who posts a solid "7" in our ratings. That is to the right of center, between
Ronald Reagan and the ignoble ranks of "useful idiots.", Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas -- essentially, advocates for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

Indeed, Sen. McCain has come a long way since his unfortunate performance in the
2000 Presidential Primary.

For his part, McCain now says, "I seek the nomination of our Party, because I am as confident today as I was when I first entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution that the principles of the Republican Party -- our confidence in the good sense and resourcefulness of free people -- are always in America's best interests. In war and peace, in good times and challenging ones, we have always known that the first responsibility of government is to keep this country safe from its enemies, and the American people free of a heavy-handed government that spends too much of their money, and tries to do for them what they are better able to do for themselves."

OK, sounds good.

He continues, "We want government to do its job, not your job; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes to us and not make promises it will not keep. We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, and then get out of the way so that the most industrious, ingenious, and enterprising people in the world can do what they have always done: build an even greater country than the one they inherited."

That's the talk, but how about the walk?

McCain's Congressional record is extensive and well documented, but his history prior to being elected to Congress is certainly worth a review.

John Sidney McCain III was born 29 August 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama within the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone. He was the son of John S. McCain, Jr. and Roberta McCain. His father and grandfather were the first pair of father/son full admirals in the United States Navy.

John and his older sister Sandy and younger brother Joe moved with their parents to their father's naval postings in the United States and the Pacific, attended more than a dozen schools before his parents settled in Northern Virginia, where McCain attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria. He was a good student and excelled in wrestling before graduating in 1954.

As his father and grandfather before him, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy where he was well liked, and demonstrated leadership abilities. He also became a lightweight boxer. He graduated from Annapolis in 1958 and became a naval aviator. Flying mission into Vietnam, his first brush with death was in 1967, when he narrowly escaped death after ordnance explosions on the USS Forrestal.

On his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam later that year, he was shot down. He suffered severe injuries was captured by the North Vietnamese. He spent five and a half years as a POW and like others, suffered severe torture at the hands o fhis captors before being released in accordance with the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

McCain retired from the Navy in 1981. His service awards include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross and the National Order of Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam).

He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona's 1st congressional district in 1982, and after two terms, he was elected to the U.S. Senate
in 1986, winning reelection in 1992, 1998, and 2004. As the Senior Senator from Arizona, McCain has a well-earned reputation as a political maverick.

John McCain has considerable "insider" support from highly-rated conservatives
Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, both of whom know McCain well. He also has the support of a broad cross section of Congress, including many Reagan foot soldiers like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Sam Brownback, and broad grassroots support of many fellow Patriots such as Vietnam veteran and former POW Roger Ingvalson, who was profiled in a Patriot Veterans Day edition.

To his credit, and deficit, McCain has a substantial legislative record on national issues -- which is why one can find voters who like him, and those who loathe him, on both ends of the political spectrum.

McCain's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 83, comparable to Thompson's 86. It is worth noting that the ACU does not rate voting records on how they comport with the Constitution, but how they comport with contemporaneous Republican mandates -- which are not always one and the same.

He has been ranked favorably by other conservative organizations: National Federation of Independent Business -- 100 percent; Concerned Women for America -- 100 percent; Family Research Council -- 100 percent; National Tax Limitation Committee -- 94 percent; Citizens Against Government Waste -- 91 percent; and the National Taxpayers Union -- 88 percent.

However, all Patriots should take pause at McCain's C+ rating from the National Rifle Association, and his lack of
clear support for the Second Amendment, the "palladium of all other rights."

Also, take pause at his Demo-memo comments about why he did not support the Bush tax cuts: "I cannot in good conscience, support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Stupefying.

Fortunately, McCain has some key advisors who are fiscal conservatives, namely Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and supply-side economist Arthur Laffer.

In an effort to make amends on the tax issue, McCain now paints himself a tax reformer. When asked recently by former Clintonista George Stephanopoulos, "Are you a 'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" McCain responded, "No new fact, I could see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT. There's a lot of things that I would think we should do to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code."

Despite his initial lack of support for the Bush tax cuts, to his credit McCain has voted for virtually every measure to cut "porkmarks" from the federal budget.

McCain has a commendable record when it comes to the primary constitutional responsibility of the executive branch: national security. His position on
Operation Iraqi Freedom has been clear, consistent and politically courageous.

His support for
border security and comprehensive immigration reform are also notable, though tag-teaming with Teddy Kennedy (McCain-Kennedy) on this issue undermines McCain's credibility. (Call it "amnesty" if you must, but the nescient evocation of this term short circuits a clear evaluation of a very complicated issue.)

Regarding immigration reform, McCain says, "I've listened and learned. No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English."

Regarding constitutional constructionists, McCain strongly supported the Supreme Court confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and he aggressively supported the Reagan nomination of Judge Robert Bork.

Perhaps the most important domestic policy issue the next president will undertake is the nomination of one or two Justices to the Supreme Court. McCain has stated admirably, that he is committed to nominating constitutional constructionists: "[T]he duties and boundaries of the Constitution are not just a set of helpful suggestions. They are not just guidelines to be observed when it's convenient and loosely interpreted when it isn't. In federal and state courts ... there are still men and women who understand the proper role of our judiciary and I intend to find them and promote them.... My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power."

In contrast, his principle opponent,
Barack Hussein Obama, says of his nominees, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

His McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation, however, is an abomination and an outright affront to the First Amendment.

Equally deserving of outright contempt from all objective scientific observers is McCain's white flag on the issue of "
global warming" -- not so much whether the planet is warming, but why. He also supports the dubious cap-and-trade carbon emissions program, and does not support oil exploration in ANWR.

As noted by my colleague, George Will, "When McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation empowering Congress to comprehensively regulate U.S. industries' emissions of greenhouse gases in order to 'prevent catastrophic global warming,' they co-authored an op-ed column that radiated McCainian intolerance of disagreement. It said that a U.N. panel's report 'puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.' Concerning the question of whether human activity is causing catastrophic warming, they said, 'the debate has ended'."

Will added, "Interesting, is it not, that no one considers it necessary to insist that 'the debate has ended' about whether the Earth is round. People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues."

When profiling McCain, one is obliged to mention those billion-dollar savings and loan Senatorial skeletons, who, along with McCain, comprised the Keating Five: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI). Note, four Democrats and one Republican? In doing so, however, we must also note that Robert Bennett, Chief Counsel to the Democrats during the investigation, said that McCain should not be included in the investigation and that their was not evidence of any wrongdoing by Senator McCain.

Perhaps the most injurious "straight talk" on McCain is the endorsement he received from The New York Times (along with its endorsement of Hillary Clinton), which proclaimed, "There is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

So, we are no longer "the vast, right-wing conspiracy" but the "small, angry fringe"?

The bottom line with McCain: There's more to like than dislike, but until further policy clarification, he only gets a midland Patriot rating. John McCain is only a marginal Reagan conservative, but fortunately, he is no Clinton/Obama liberal either.

(Publisher's Note: The Patriot's editors have provided
Presidential Candidate Ratings on our Patriot Policy Papers page. These ratings are based on comprehensive analysis of many factors, including each candidate's record, experience, capability, character, leadership qualifications and, of course, demonstrated ability to grasp the plain language of our Constitution -- and promote it accordingly.)

Find it here
Joe the Plumbers of the World Unite
by Dan Proft

It wasn’t exactly a Red Dawn moment but it is as close as John McCain has come to date.

McCain finally put the face-paint on and sounded the alarm for America’s productive, play-by-the-rules class that Barack Obama and his spread-the-wealth, leftist guerillas are advancing.

McCain’s Manifesto in Wednesday night’s final Presidential debate: Joe the Plumbers of the World Unite!

McCain capitalized on Comrade Obama’s unintentional moment of candor earlier in the week wherein he told Joe the Plumber from Holland, Ohio, an aspiring small business owner, that the Obama plan is to “spread the wealth”. In so doing, McCain for the first time framed the choice Americans have in this race between his pro-growth tax policies and Obama’s virulent brand of wealth redistribution for its own sake.

Watching Obama sell the need for so-called fairness in our tax system, I was reminded of the infomercial hucksters hawking no money down real estate schemes.

Fairness is the problem when the top 5% of income earners in America pay 60% of the total federal incomes taxes collected and the bottom 35% pay no federal incomes tax at all?

In the name of fairness we should inhibit capital formation by increasing the capital gains tax; we should close markets to American goods by discarding free trade agreements; and we should prevent would-be small business owners like Joe the Plumber from ever getting there by imposing additional tax burdens on businesses that already pay the second high corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

McCain effectively stripped away Obama’s flowery, Platonic rhetoric and exposed the component parts of the grand Fairness Regime that Senator Government (a well-timed Freudian slip by McCain) seeks to inflict upon our nation.

If McCain ruthlessly prosecutes the fault lines he exposed last evening and defiantly stands up for job-creators and risk-takers, then McCain, and America for that matter, will indeed have been mistakenly written off once again.
A Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs, Pro-Energy Independence Agenda For Congress

Instead of $300 billion in new liabilities for the American taxpayers, Congress should take action on the following:

Zero capital gains tax - Countries without taxes on capital gains, such as China, Singapore, and Taiwan, are magnets for global investment. Economists like Alan Greenspan have called for removing capital gains in order to see increased economic growth and American competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment and international corporations.

Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley - After the devastating crash of Enron and WorldCom, Congress rushed to pass a law to alleviate panic. Instead of enacting reform measures that would reasonably prevent fraud, they passed a burdensome, accounting mess. Sarbanes-Oxley is a disproportionate burden for small businesses and start-ups, and has forced many companies to move from New York to London.

Allow 100% annual expensing for small businesses - Small businesses create 7 out of 10 new jobs in America and account for more than half of the output of our economy. One hundred percent annual expensing would give small business more money to invest in new technologies, like computers and machinery, to improve worker productivity. Likewise, it would allow business to hire more employees.

Move to break up and privatize Freddie and Fannie - Corporate greed at Freddie and Fannie fueled subprime mortgage loans. Because subprime mortgages carried higher risk, they also offered a higher interest yield that gave executives an increased profit share. Given the government sponsored enterprise, they had lower capital requirements, and were implicitly backed by taxpayer dollars in the case that these assets should crumble. These institutions should be prevented from offering more subprime mortgages, and we should move towards privatizing them.

Provide a comprehensive plan to keep Americans in their homes - The summer's housing bailout bill gave $300 billion to renegotiate mortgages with homeowners, but forced lending institutions to take an immediate 10% cut in profit, giving little incentive for lending institutions to participate. The government could instead offer a no-interest loan to homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments and work with their lending institution to renegotiate their mortgages into a 6% fixed interest, 30-year loan. We should help those homeowners who have acted in good faith keep the keys to their homes.

Move towards long term investment strategies - Congress should look to investing in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to foster innovation and make America the most competitive market for research and development.

Develop an all-of-the-above energy policy - Imagine if we invested a fraction of the billion dollar bailout into developing, for example, more nuclear power and coal-to-synthetic natural gas technologies and infrastructure. We should continue to advance clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar, hydrogen, and natural gas technologies. Further, we should increase exploration and development of our own resources offshore and in oil shale, so that we are not defenseless against any energy cartels.

We should repeal all congressional money given to ACORN - ACORN is under investigation in a dozen states for voter fraud. We cannot afford to be subsidizing an organization that operates under the fa├žade of providing community development and low-income housing, while it has a record of fraudulent activity. See this CNN report about ACORN voter registration fraud in Indiana, where ACORN provided 5,000 new voter registration cards. Indiana authorities started reviewing them and found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent.