Terror Threat From Pakistan Said to Expand

By ELAINE SCIOLINO, New York Times
February 10, 2008

[Source]

This article was reported by Elaine Sciolino, Victoria Burnett and Eric Schmitt, and written by Ms. Sciolino.

BARCELONA, Spain - As the terrorism suspects congregated in the largely Pakistani neighborhood here over the past few months, they were joined by a young man who called himself Asim. He had come from the Pakistani borderlands where the leadership of Al Qaeda is said to have regrouped.

The suspects, he later told Spanish investigators, envisioned a wave of spectacular attacks: Coordinated suicide bombings would start in this city's vast subway system and then sweep through Portugal, Germany, France and Britain if certain demands were not met.

Asim had been sent to Spain to be a suicide bomber, but he also was an informant for French intelligence working in the no man's land of Waziristan in Pakistan. After he got word to his handlers of an impending attack, Spain's military police swooped into the neighborhood of Raval in the early hours of Jan. 19 and arrested 14 men. Now the officials unraveling the case say it demonstrates the growing threat of terrorist activities migrating to Continental Europe from Pakistan.

The largely Pakistani cell formed quickly in Barcelona with support, and perhaps direction, from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the authorities said. According to the arrest warrant in the case, three suicide bombing suspects arrived in Spain within the last four months and the bomb making suspect had recently spent five months in Pakistan.

With Spain preparing for elections next month, the suspected plot was an eerie echo of the March 11, 2004, Madrid transit bombings, which killed 191 people just days before the last election.

In the weeks since the arrests, Spanish officials have backed off their claim that an attack was imminent. They seized evidence like broken timing devices and small quantities of explosives. But they acknowledged that without more evidence of bomb making, they were relying heavily on the testimony of the informant to make their case, which had blown the cover of a rare intelligence source with access to Pakistan's tribal areas.

Even so, in interviews, Spanish, American and other European officials - most speaking on condition of anonymity because the inquiry is not over - said the plot was indicative of the terror threat from Pakistan.

"That these people were ready to go into action as terrorists in Spain - that came as a surprise," said Judge Baltasar Garzón, Spain's highest antiterrorism magistrate. "In my opinion, the jihadi threat from Pakistan is the biggest emerging threat we are facing in Europe. Pakistan is an ideological and training hotbed for jihadists, and they are being exported here."

That threat has been felt elsewhere. Two of four suicide bombers who attacked London's transit system in July 2005 had trained at a camp in Pakistan. Four of the five British men convicted last April in a plot to blow up targets in London using fertilizer bombs were of Pakistani origin and some had trained at a makeshift terrorist camp there.

Last September, when the German authorities broke up what they suspected was a plot to bomb an American Air Force base and the Frankfurt airport, they said three of the suspects, two of them German citizens, had trained at terrorist camps in Pakistan. Officials say the Barcelona case points to a more serious dynamic: Pakistanis with no apparent previous links to Europe who appear to have been sent there on a terrorist mission.

"We had 20 terrorists show up in Spain that had been trained in Pakistan that were going to be suicide bombers, fanning out over Europe," Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Although some of the suspects had in fact been living in Spain, Mr. McConnell's remarks underscored statements by the Spanish authorities that in addition to the 14 suspects who had been arrested, others had eluded arrest.

American officials acknowledged that they had monitored phone calls to Pakistan by some of the suspects, and Mr. McConnell cited the case as a reason that United States intelligence agencies needed to retain electronic surveillance authorities.

Interior Minister Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba of Spain compared the plot to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying: "It looks as if there is an international connection. There appears to be a boss outside."

"Somebody sent this individual to Spain," he added, referring to the informant.

Spain Draws Pakistanis

Spain's Pakistani community has grown from a few thousand residents a decade ago to about 70,000 today, as immigrants have been drawn to Spain by easy entry and to Barcelona's Raval district by cheap rents. They have injected new life into the decrepit neighborhood, opening small businesses, but law enforcement officials say some have engaged in petty crimes like money laundering and credit card fraud. Pakistanis have also sent home millions of dollars through the informal system of money transfers, some of it financing extremist groups there, the officials add.

In late 2004, the police arrested 11 Pakistani men on suspicion of plotting to attack two landmark buildings in Barcelona, financing terrorism and drug trafficking, although only six were convicted, two for document forgery.

The Spanish authorities had long had some of the current Barcelona suspects under surveillance. The police were also monitoring the activities in the Tariq bin Ziad mosque and a small underground prayer room in the Raval neighborhood, both identified with the Tablighi Jamaat, a conservative missionary group that is suspected of being used as a recruiting ground for radicals.

The informant working for the French arrived in Barcelona by train from France on Jan. 16 to join the suspects in the plot, he told the police. Tipped off by French intelligence, Spanish intelligence operatives set Operation Cantata in motion.

The next day, French and Spanish agents, working together, spotted two suspects tossing a plastic bag into the garbage. Inside, the agents found wires, broken timing devices, latex gloves, wire cutters, computer connectors, lead ball bearings, tubes for firework rocket propellers and small traces of a black powder containing potassium perchlorate, an explosives component commonly found in fireworks.

On Jan. 18, as agents continued to watch, one of the men bought a wireless-equipped laptop computer and a camcorder, perhaps, the Spanish authorities assumed, to record suicide tapes or messages containing demands. The suspects prayed together for jihad and sacrifice; they phoned family members, perhaps to say goodbye, Western intelligence officials said.

In the evening, agents watched as the men left the mosque in groups of two. Carrying backpacks, they snaked through the streets of the Raval district as if to elude detection, then reunited at the prayer room.

The informant relayed a series of increasingly panicked messages to his handlers that the attack was getting closer, several Spanish officials said. "We found ourselves in a critical situation and decided to neutralize the threat," said a senior official in the Guardia Civil, Spain's military police. "The risk was so high - not only for Spain but for other countries."

In the early hours of Jan. 19, the police raided the mosque, the prayer room and three apartments, arresting 14 people.

In the prayer room, the police seized four timers, empty pyrotechnic cartridges, multicolored wires, latex and kitchen gloves, batteries of varying voltages, cables that could be used for detonators and a small amount of nitrocellulose, according to an inventory of the searches. But already, four of the men have been released.

"They asked me, 'What is your name? Where do you live? Are you into jihad? Did you see the bomb?'" said Mohamed Imran, a 30-year-old itinerant construction worker who was released after five days. "I said, 'No jihad. No bombs. This is all a lie.'"

Denials by the Accused

Of those still in custody, all are either Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, except for one Indian citizen. In questioning by prosecutors, all have denied being part of a terrorist conspiracy, the Spanish authorities said. Two other suspects are being tracked in Barcelona, and another is believed to be hiding in the Netherlands, Spanish officials said.

After the arrests, Judge Ismael Moreno, in his 72-page arrest order, and Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido described the attack as imminent.

But Spanish law enforcement officials were clearly disappointed. There was no hard evidence of a bomb factory, no viable explosive devices or even enough explosive material to assemble bombs.

Investigators are struggling to understand the gap between the informant's version of events and the physical evidence they found.

The informant apparently had seen much more bomb-making material than was seized by the Spanish authorities, according to a Western official with direct knowledge of the case. The extra material had disappeared, apparently with one of the suspects who fled, the official added.

Guardia Civil investigators are operating under the assumption that the group may have been rehearsing an attack.

"We believe they were getting ready for an attack, but it wasn't as imminent as we initially were informed," said Mr. Rubalcaba. Without sufficient physical evidence, Spanish law enforcement officials apparently decided they had to turn France's informant into a protected witness for the prosecution. They gave him the code name "F1."

He told Spanish interrogators that the first bombing in Barcelona would be followed by demands from Al Qaeda through Baitullah Mehsud, a powerful militant commander in the South Waziristan tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. If the demands were not met, there would be a second strike and then a third in Barcelona, followed by attacks elsewhere in Europe.

One senior European official said the demand was to involve the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, although senior Spanish and American officials said they could not confirm that claim.

"If they didn't comply, there would be one in Germany," the informant said, according to a secret transcript of his statements, whose contents were verified by several people with access to the document. "If they didn't comply, France. If they didn't comply, Portugal. If they didn't comply, Britain. There are many people ready there."

While senior Western intelligence officials do not rule out the possibility that Mr. Mehsud or his organization supported the suspects, they are skeptical that he ordered the attack. And they are less certain that the suspects posed a real threat outside of Spain.

The arrest order identified two suspects as the ideological leaders: Maroof Ahmed Mirza, 38, a Pakistani national and legal resident of Spain, and Mohammad Ayub, 63, who is accused of taking part in at least one meeting with explosives experts. According to American intelligence officials, each man was trained in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Mr. Mirza, who teaches at the Tariq bin Ziad mosque and sometimes acted as the prayer leader, was known for his hate-filled sermons and calls for the faithful to join the fight in Iraq, according to the police, who monitored sermons there.

An Unusual Suspect

Mr. Ayub seemed like a strange fit for a suicide bomb plot. A grandfather with a score of grandchildren, he holds Spanish citizenship and had worked in Spain for 24 years as a dishwasher and as a cook before retiring 13 years ago. "We don't understand this big movie plot that they have created," said Mr. Ayub's son Naveed Ayub. "There are 20,000 Pakistanis in this neighborhood who'll tell you my father is innocent."

According to the arrest warrant, three suspects identified by the informant as would-be suicide bombers arrived through other European cities: one from Pakistan via Sweden in October, a second via Germany in November, a third via Portugal in December or January. Hafeez Ahmed, who was to be the bomb maker, spent five months in Pakistan last year, the warrant said.

For all the international intrigue surrounding the suspects, the case has caused diplomatic friction among investigators. Spain's handling of the French informant has enraged officials at France's intelligence agencies and eroded trust between the countries, French and other European officials said. The informant's value as a source was destroyed when he was made a prosecution witness and the contents of his statements were leaked to the news media.

Vicente González Mota, the prosecutor in the case, meanwhile acknowledged that the case may be difficult to prosecute with the current evidence.

"All the information will come out in court," Mr. Mota said, adding, "The problem is - is what we have enough?"

McCain ... Same as the Old Boss

By John LeBoutillier, for Newsmax

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM

Here is how the Republican Party recently picks presidential nominees. The nominee must be the namesake son of a famous man; a spoiled child of privilege; someone who's never been told no; someone who always got away with terrible behavior because of his last name; and someone who always got what he wanted because no one wanted to anger his famous dad.

Then he becomes someone who always gets away with bad behavior(s) because of his last name; he becomes arrogant and condescending; and sees himself as better than anyone else.

It's “his way or the highway”; he treats people like dirt, with arrogance and condescension; he is against the GOP base and wants to give amnesty to illegals; he doesn't want a border fence; he wants to attack and invade countries who haven’t attacked the U.S.; and he has been part of a foreign policy that has ruined America’s reputation around the world.

He apparently can’t see the big picture: our invasion of Iraq has actually made (Shia’a) Iran stronger and destabilized the Middle East; his policy has made America a hated nation around the world; he wants more trade deals that ship American jobs overseas; he loves doing deals with Ted Kennedy; he is not smart but he thinks he is.

Who does this sound like?

This description fits two GOP presidential candidates. In fact, the last two GOP presidential candidates: George W. Bush and John McCain.

The similarities are startling and upsetting.

Because the damage Bush has done to the nation, the military and to the Republican Party will take decades to recover from.

And now the Republicans — barring a miracle between now and the September GOP convention in Minneapolis — have picked yet another candidate with the exact same qualities!

Bush has crippled the Republican Party. We have lost the House, the Senate and many state legislatures around the country.

McCain may finish it off.

Until the Republicans wake up and realize the mistakes they are repeatedly making, they are going to suffer loss after loss after loss.

Maybe a miracle will occur and in the next seven months people will wake up and stop McCain somehow and replace him with a new candidate.

If not, G.W. Bush and John McCain can together take the Republican Party over the cliff.

[Source]

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The Weekly Slant's "Quotes From The Left"

Go HERE for the source.

"Olbermann is just plain nuts!"

"The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counterterrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call that's going through room 641A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month. Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason, sir, but you would be personally and eternally responsible. And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible. Good night and good luck."
–MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Bush’s threat to veto an eavesdropping bill Democrats saddled with liability exposure for telecoms in a “Special Comment” Thursday, Jan. 30 and reported by MRC’s Brad Wilmouth on NewsBusters Feb. 1

*************

DOCUMENTED PROOF: Liberal Media Loses Interest in Iraq when News isn’t All Bad

One of the nation’s biggest success stories of the decade is being virtually ignored by the liberal media -- the success of our troops in Iraq. Proving the point, MRC analysts tracked all coverage of the Iraq war on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through January 31. "We documented a steady decline in TV coverage of Iraq that has coincided with the improving situation in Iraq. Back in September, the three evening newscasts together broadcast 178 stories about the war in Iraq; in January, that number fell to just 47, a nearly fourfold decrease.," they said.
–CyberAlert Feb. 4, Rich Noyes, was posted Friday, with a chart, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters

**************

N.Y. Times Sees No Problem in Denying First Amendment Protection to Opponents of Illegal Immigration

An immigrant rights advocate demands an end to free-speech rights for critics of illegal immigration, and the New York Times can’t see a problem. Citing "vigilantes" like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, the national head of "La Raza" told a National Press Club audience last week that their networks should kick them off the air for "hate speech." MRC’s Clay Waters termed the speech "shocking," and called out the NY Times and their reporter Ariel Alexovich for their seeming lack of concern about denying American journalists their free-speech rights. Quoting Alexovich – "Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech [note the absence of quotation marks around this loaded phrase] should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights" – Waters wrote: "[MRC’s] Times Watch is unable to detect in Alexovich's posting a single raised eyebrow at the thought of [La Raza president] Murguia's frightening dismissal of free speech. It's a particularly bizarre omission coming from someone who works in journalism."

And last but not least:

Hillary Finally Tells Us 'Who She Is'

In what felt more like a love-in than an interview, on Nightline Jan. 30, ABC’s Cynthia McFadden asked Hillary Clinton, "When you lie awake at night...what worries you?" MRC then reported that Clinton’s long-winded answer ended with: "to whom much is given, much is required," Then: "McFadden approvingly remarked: ‘Good Methodist girl.’ In turn, Clinton accepted the compliment and asserted: ‘It is, indeed, who I am.’"
–CyberAlert Feb. 4

Get out the barf bucket...

Religion is Fire

By Amil Imani

Fire, arguably, is important to life after air, water, and food. Fire, broadly defined, is energy. And energy runs the world. It fuels the body, operates the mind, heats homes, and runs endless machines and instruments.

When energy is put to good use, it is the boon of mankind. And when it is misused or abused it is the bane of humanity. Therefore, credit or blame rests with the user of energy.

Religion is a special case of energy in the same way that steam is a derivation of fire. Steam engines move mass in physical space. Religion, emotional energy, propels people’s mind in the metaphysical realm.

Civilized societies have rules and regulations, albeit many of them flawed and imperfect, which regulate energy use. The fire of religion must also be contained in such a manner to do whatever good it may be able to do and prevent it from becoming a consuming wildfire.

There are those who have no use for religion. These people have perhaps seen so much burning and scorching by religion that they have abandoned it or have even taken active positions fighting it.

There are also those who don’t seem to be able to make do without a religion of some sort, preferably a “divine” religion. These people value the warmth that the religious fire gives them, the assurance it provides that the cold earth is not their end, and the promise that there is an eternal life of bliss after death. It is only fair that the “fire” that keeps the religionist warm not set ablaze the home of the non-religious.

Some questions for religionists:

* A belief qualifies as “divine” religion because someone claims it is?

* A belief becomes religion because millions believe in it?

* Should religion and state interlace? Which religion? The religion of the majority in any given country?

* Should being a religionist confer the person preferential status over the non-religious?

* Should religionists have complete freedom to practice their belief, even when they infringe on the rights of others?

* Should religionists have the right to vilify as heathen the people of other persuasions and those of no religious belief?

* Should religionists have the right to force their belief on others?

* Should religionists actively engage in the subjugation or elimination of the non-religious?

In civilized societies, it is granted that what is good for one person must also be good for the next. This is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism levels the playing field, where every human being must abide by the same rules of fair play. No one has a claim to special privileges for himself and his group.

With respect to religion, it matters not that someone claims that he is the emissary of the Creator; that he is bringing binding teachings from the Lord. There is no objective way of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the claim. The claimant may be a charlatan, mentally disturbed, or indeed an emissary of the divine. What really matters is that the claimant and his claim serve the cause of the good for all of mankind and completely shun causing contention and strife among people.

The moment a religious founder begins claiming special privileges for himself and his followers, he launches a discriminating totalitarianism. This is indeed the case with Islam. Even a cursory glance at Islam’s past, as well as its present, establishes unequivocally its discriminating totalitarianism nature.

Islam is out of control fire and the jihadists are its arsonists. The generality of Muslims do their part by spreading throughout the world and setting up the conditions that would welcome the arsonists, feed and shelter them, and support them in igniting the Islamic fire.

This is exactly what is happening all over Europe where the naïve natives have deluded themselves into the fraud of multiculturalism. A generous social entitlement system in Europe, well-paying job opportunities, and higher standards of living are magnets to the horde of Muslims fleeing Islamic failed states. Ironically, these same Muslim expatriates quickly forget why they had to leave their miserable plights in their homelands and what the main cause of their misery is.

The culprit is the pathological nihilistic belief of never-mind-this-world and do Allah’s biding for gaining admission to his unimaginably magnificent pleasure paradise of the afterlife.

Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shias. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of governments represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.

But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosive. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in eighteen or so countries, which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

The Islamic fire fueled by immense oil income is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, let-and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture: a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down to Muhammad some 1400 years ago.

Secularists and most non-Muslim religious people respect the legitimate rights of the religionists, whereas Muslims recognize little or no rights for others. You can readily establish the validity of this assertion by looking at some eighteen or so Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.

Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part at falsifying the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic secular system.

Smash & Grab Politics

John McCain and Mike Huckabee have struck what they think is a crushing blow to Mitt Romney.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

I do fear, however, that they have caused some serious damage with their smash & grab tactics (i.e., swinging undecided McCain votes in W. Virginia to Huckabee to effectively spoil Romney’s totals). But the damage I refer to is not to any one individual, certainly not to Mitt Romney, but to the core base, the core ideals, and the credibility of the conservative party.

McCain and Huckabee (hereafter “McHuck”), individually and collectively, are allowing their personal feelings, and now collusion, to get in the way of what is right and proper for the Republican Party, for conservatism and, most importantly, for the American people.

I, and I’m sure many other clear-thinking conservatives, have seen this type of conduct hundred or more times -- always beginning in the same place: the toilets at junior high school, where little alliances were built and schemes were hatched to “trip him” on the track, or “elbow the groin” on the court, or “throw a bean ball” from the mound.

The irony is, every one of those guys who got tripped and groined and beaned went on to win trophies in their respective sports -- some even named Player of the Game, because they refused to cave in to underhanded tactics or bend under the pressure of petty jealousies. They played sports with honor and dignity and never once knelt down to the rats in the rat clubs.

Speaking of rat clubs, where do you think these vermin are now? In politics – where else? Only the Senate building toilets are somewhat cleaner but less soundproof, and you have to tip the attendants.

I woke up this morning and went to Real Clear Politics for primary updates and found in the Readers Articles section an incredibly high volume of anti-Mitt oratories, so many that they outnumber the ton of spam for generic Viagra.

These orators (no doubt on loan from Moron.org), and mincing behind McHuck, are having a field day with their diatribes against another Republican – another human being. They, like McHuck, are still in that “toilet” mentality – playing at being in junior high school, hitting the exclamation mark key again and again and again.

Guys, you can bang it a hundred more times and you still won’t achieve penetration. The only thing coming across is just how intellectually impotent you are.

Also, you’re the type who, away from your keyboards, cannot and should not be taken seriously, because if you’re expressing yourself with such viciousness behind the curtain of the Internet in a political campaign, against a fellow party member, there is no way you’re any different in private life. Family, spouses, children, friends, co-workers, and especially superiors are probably also get greased, whacked and spit on in the very same way, maybe more so.

But who am I to say stop? Go ahead and spill your guts, be mean and nasty and bang away at that exclamation mark key. Just bear one thing in mind:

It will be all you Mitt haters who will be the first to whine and cry "SAVE US!" when McHuck opens the borders and there will be an infestation of even more millions of illegal aliens to plunder our city and state treasuries.

It will be your cries and shouts that will be the loudest and the longest after terrorists strike again and our economy hits the rocks -- and only then will you realize the only persons McHuck will care about saving is each other.

WARNING! WARNING !!

From Mitt Romney's campaign manager Beth Myers:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Can't argue with that.

McCain and Huckabee share two things that has fused their campaigns together. First, is a desire for power. McCain and Huckabee have shown that for them the campaign is not about ideas or the interests of the nation, but is about themselves. They desire power over principle and thus the illicit collusion between them has resulted. They have seen that Romney can beat either of them individually and so have tag-teamed Romney at the expense of conservatism.

Second, both have a deeply misguided understanding of economic issues. The real loser in the Republican race is the economy. Huckabee would have actively pit the wage-payer against the wage-earner in a fight to establish a true poverty in this nation. McCain likewise would regulate the nation into poverty with notions like cap-and-trade. Both these candidates have colluded to make the economy the biggest loser in the Republican race.

I hope McCain (Nixon) and Huckabee (Carter) are happy as our economy returns to the 1970's era stagflation and stunted growth.

I'm reminded of what Tom McClintock (who ran against Schwarzenneger) said: "It has to get worse before it gets better."

If the Democrats get their trifecta (handed to them by the big-government Republicans), then the winds will shift once taxes are raised, the economy tanks and everyone is, once again, disgusted.

At least this time they can't blame Bush.

Don't complain later that you, the conservatives, were not fairly warned, that this may become another 1976 debacle resulting in four years of wilderness politics and our economy going over the cliff -- thanks to Jimmy Carter.

McCain Has Voted for Higher Taxes More Than 50 Times

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "We Would Have Had A Much Bigger Tax Cut If It Was Not For John McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "A Conservative Case Against McCain," National Review, article.nationalreview.com, 1/14/08, Accessed 1/18/08)

In His Twenty-Year Senate Career, John McCain Has Voted At Least Fifty-Two Times For Higher Taxes On The American People – That's More Than Twice A Year.*

McCain Was One Of Only Two Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush's 2001 Tax Cuts And One Of Only Three Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 1836, Senate Vote #170, Conference Report Agreed To: 58-33: R 46-2, D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; Lori Nitschke and Wendy Boudreau, "Provisions Of The Tax Law," CQ Weekly, 6/9/01; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay).

And McCain Questioned The "Economic Premises" Of The Bush Tax Cuts. "Nor does McCain spare the rod in rejecting Bush's tax cuts, especially the $1.37 trillion blockbuster Bush pushed through Congress in 2001, criticizing its economic premises and its likely impact. At best, it's a long-term economic stimulus, not the immediate boost the economy needs, McCain said. 'All the predicates for the 2001 tax cuts and all the predictions for its results were absolutely, completely wrong,' he said. And it will worsen the deficit before it ever helps the economy, he added." (John Farmer, Op-Ed, "Maverick McCain Maintains A National Constituency," Newhouse News Service, 2/24/03).

McCain Has Voted At Least Seven Times Against Repealing All Or Part Of Death Tax Through 2002. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, Senate Vote #151, Motion Rejected: 54-44, McCain Voted Nay, 6/12/02; S. 1730, Senate Vote 28, Amendment Agreed To: 56-42, McCain Voted Nay, 2/13/02).

McCain Has Voted Against Capital Gains And Dividends Tax Cuts At Least 5 Times. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43; 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/9/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-49: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1; With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; Alan Ota And Martha Angle, "Senate Clears Tax Cut Package For Bush's Signature," CQ Today, 5/23/03).

McCain Sponsored And Voted For A Bill To Raise Cigarette Tax By $1.10 Per Pack. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Tobacco Bill/Strike $755 Billion Payments," 5/20/98).

IN 2004, MCCAIN SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

In 2004, McCain Said He Would Not Support Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. McCain: "I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04)

* (S. 1920, CQ Vote #403: Agreed To 53-41: R 21-24; D 32-17 12/10/87, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1630, CQ Vote #45: Agreed To 71-26: R 28-17; D 43-9, 3/28/90, McCain Voted Yea; S. 3209, CQ Vote #285: Rejected 49-51: R 12-33; D 37-18, 10/18/90, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 11, CQ Vote #235: Motion Agreed To 56-38: R 28-14; D 28-24, 9/24/92, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #224: Motion Agreed To 53-47: R 44-10; D 9-37, 5/25/95, McCain Voted Nay; S. 949, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 12-42; D 29-16, 6/26/97, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/07/98, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1429, CQ Vote #243: Motion Rejected 58-42: R 13-41; D 44-1; I 1-0, 7/30/99, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #55: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 51-4; D 1-44, 4/05/00, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #69: Adopted 51-49: R 6-49; D 45-0, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #194: Motion Rejected 14-84: R 11-43; D 3-41, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #71: Rejected 47-52: R 1-49; D 46-3, 4/04/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #82: Adopted 54-46: R 5-45; D 49-1, 4/05/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #84: Adopted 53-46: R 4-45; D 49-1, 4/06/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #112: Rejected 44-56: R 2-48; D 42-8, 5/17/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #117: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 3-46; D 45-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #126: Rejected 49-49: R 5-44; D 44-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #127: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 1-48; D 42-8, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #138: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Rejected 50-50: R 4-46; D 46-4, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 49-51: R 49-1; D 0-50, 5/23/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #214: Sustained 57-41: R 7-40; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, McCain Voted Yea; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #62: Adopted 51-48: R 47-4; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/20/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 46-53: R 1-50; D 44-3; I 1-0, 3/21/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/09/03, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/11/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #38: Adopted 51-48: R 4-47; D 46-1; I 1-0, 3/10/04, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 4520, CQ Vote #210: Motion Agreed To 66-14: R 41-3; D 24-11; I 1-0, 10/10/04, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #53: Rejected 50-50: R 5-50; D 44-0; I 1-0, 3/16/05; S. 1932, CQ Vote #283: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 6-49; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/3/05, McCain Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #340: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 6-48; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/17/05, McCain Voted Yea)

What Republicans Need to Know Before They Vote

Dear Fellow Romney Supporters,

We have heard a lot of feedback from Romney supporters all over the country that feel like they are not getting the real picture about Governor Romney’s chances of winning the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Many people say that the information they do receive always paints a picture of Governor Romney as losing this race. You are entitled to know how Governor Romney is truly doing in this race.

The truth is this: Governor Romney can and should win the Republican nomination for President of the United States. This is a two-man race between Governor Romney and John McCain and Governor Romney is literally only a few points/delegates behind! Senator McCain would like everyone to believe that somehow Governor Romney is too far behind to ever catch up. That is NOT true. We need to rally behind Governor Romney, because only a slight increase in support among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Governor Romney and conservative change.

People shouldn’t think that McCain has this wrapped up, and need to understand the tremendous support that Governor Romney already has.

Consider the following:

1) Governor Romney has led for most of this race and is still positioned well to win the nomination. Until recently Governor Romney has handily led the delegate count. Though he is currently in second place in the delegate count since the Florida Primary, by CNN’s count Governor Romney has 6% of the support he needs to win and John McCain has only 8%.
Translation = Governor Romney is not trailing far behind; in reality, he is right on McCain’s heels and is well-positioned to succeed in the upcoming primaries because he is the true conservative.

2) Governor Romney is the true conservative in this race. Governor Romney supported the Bush tax cuts and supports making them permanent. Governor Romney supports appointing conservative judges and justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Governor Romney will confront and defeat radical Islamic Jihad. Governor Romney can end our energy dependence on foreign oil, curb federal spending, and sustain traditional American values.
3) True conservative thinkers all support Governor Romney. For a small sampling, consider the following sources:

- Michael Reagan, son of President Ronal Reagan: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelReagan/2008/01/31/john_mccain_hates_me

- Mark Levin: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=


- Sean Hannity: "I'll tell you right now, and I've not announced this, but I will be voting for Mitt Romney in this campaign. It's the first time I've stated it publicly. I'll state it now." ("Sean Hannity Radio Show," 1/31/08.)

- Laura Ingraham: "All right, I'm going to see your endorsement and raise you an announcement: February 12th is the big D.C. primary, I'm pulling the lever for Mitt Romney. No doubt about it. No hesitation." ("The Laura Ingraham Show," 2/1/08)

- Lars Larson: "It's time for the GOP to pick a real Republican standard bearer. I've been keeping my powder dry on this question for months till I had the chance to talk to all of the potential nominees. I've done that now, and I'm left with only one conclusion. Governor Mitt Romney is the best choice for 2008." ("The Lars Larson Show," 2/1/08)

4) Governor Romney has national support: Listed at the bottom of this email are just some of the additional names of the endorsements of Governor Romney from elected officials, national figures and several publications and newspapers.

5) Governor Romney has tremendous financial support from people just like you. Not including any of his personal contributions to his campaign, Governor Romney’s campaign has raised more money than any candidate in the history of the Republican Party. He has raised roughly $20 million more than John McCain thus far. And that financial support remains strong; in fact, the day after placing second in the New Hampshire primary—what some were calling a “big loss” to McCain—Governor Romney held a fundraiser and raised $5 million in one day. By comparison, the democrat winner in NH, Hillary Clinton, also held a fundraiser that day and raised only $700,000. This relates directly to his ability to stay the course and beat the Democrat nominee in November.

6) Governor Romney is the most electable Republican, because he can fight the fight. I just mentioned monies raised. Money will mean a lot in the coming months. John McCain is currently spending as much money as he brings in and is $4.5 million in debt. The Democrats have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and if Senator McCain becomes the nominee, he will have no money with which to compete with the Democrats. The Democrats will bury him with the sheer size of their war chests. He cannot compete with them financially.

7) Senator McCain cannot beat the Democrats by acting like a Democrat. John McCain has sided with the Democrats on issues from supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, attacking the First Amendment with campaign finance reform, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and he voted, not once, but twice against the Bush tax cuts. John McCain was reported to have considered running as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.

We need the man who talks as well as behaves like a true Republican leader. That man is clearly not John McCain -- it is Mitt Romney.

For those who believe in a strong military, a strong economy and strong family values, we need to unite now behind Governor Romney.


Best regards,

Trent Christensen
Romney for President, Inc.
(o) 857.288.6398
(f) 857.288.6588
tchristensen@mittromney.com

Governor Romney Endorsements:

Governor Matt Blunt (Mo.)
Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (Idaho)
Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Mikolajcik
Fmr. Governor Kenny Guinn (Nev.)
Fmr.Gov. Robert Ehrlich (Maine)
Gary Marx - Dir. Judicial Confirmation Network
James Bopp Jr. - Legal counsel for the National Right to Life Committee
Jay Sekulow - Chief Counsel American Center for Law and Justice
Joe Earle - Director of Outreach Iowa Christian Alliance
Attorney General John Suthers (Col.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (Calif.)
Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)
Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (Ill.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Howard McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Jim McCrery (La.)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Mich.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Kay Granger (Texas)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Ron Lewis (Ky.)
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.)
Rep. Tom Petri (Wis.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.)
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah)
Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
Dorothy Bush Koch - sister of Jeb & President George Bush (Tex.)
Neil Bush - brother of the President
Dr. John Wilke - Chair Right to Life Committee
The National Review
The Daily Nonpareil (IA)
The Times-Republican (IA)
Sioux City Journal (IA)
The Grand Rapids Press (MI)
The Oakland Press (MI)
Las Vegas Review Journal (NV)
Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)
Elko Daily Free Press (NV)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
Hartford Courant (CT)
Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Trent Christensen (MA)

Stop! Before you pull the lever for McCain...

Information accumulated and assembled by ANDRU BLONQUIST
Greenville, South Carolina

* * * * * *

Before you pull the lever for John McCain on Super Tuesday, please consider the following information first.

As a Mitt Romney supporter, I would prefer to convince people why they should vote for my candidate, rather than against John McCain. I’ve tried this approach for the past 18 months, but people haven’t been able to get past his religion or the false impression that he’s a flip-flopper. As governor, Romney never contradicted a position he campaigned for in 2002 and while he did change his stance on abortion, he upheld his campaign promises throughout the end of his term. You can trust that the stances he is taking for America (which are decidedly different than the needs of Massachusetts in 2002), will be consistently adhered to while he is in office.

McCain on the other hand consistently changes positions, or blatantly lies about his record. As accounts continue to surface about his private dealings with fellow legislators, staffers, and other private individuals, it is abundantly clear that John McCain is concerned about the one thing he’s always been concerned about—himself.

Perhaps you’ve resigned yourself to the “electability” argument, and believe that John McCain is the only Republican who could win in November. McCain will be the first one to tell you not to trust polls that come out 6 months before an election.

Additionally, you give the Democrats too much credit. As the economy and budget deficit worsens, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama have any credibility to solve this impending crisis. On this issue alone, John McCain would be much easier to beat since he can’t run effectively on the economy. If we nominate John McCain, it will be like nominating Bob Dole all over again.

For all you know, everything I have just said could simply be made up charges for political reasons. So I ask you to take a look at the whole picture of John McCain’s life and his accelerated advancement through the naval ranks—in spite of his poor record and actions unbecoming of a Naval officer. As you read the following story of McCain’s Naval record, compare this with Mitt Romney and answer the following questions:

• Both had influential fathers, what did this give them in life?
• Both were accepted to prestigious universities, what did they do with that opportunity?
• Both had careers that ended in high-profile positions. How did they get there?
• How do their personal and family lives compare?
• What kind of people do they associate themselves with?
• What have these two candidate shown that they are good at?

McCain Navy Record:

John Sidney McCain III entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in 1954. Young McCain wanted to become an admiral. He planned to be the "first son and grandson of four star admirals" to achieve such a distinction. But that was not to be. McCain III possessed none of the innate character and discipline traits that helped mold his father and grandfather into great military leaders.

His father, John S. "Junior" McCain, and grandfather, John S. McCain, Sr., were famous four-star Admirals in the U.S. Navy. His father commanded U.S. forces in Europe before becoming commander of American forces fighting in Vietnam. His grandfather commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. Both men became highly influential in U.S. Navy operations.

At the Academy, aside being known as a "rowdy, raunchy, underachiever" who resented authority, Cadet McCain became infamous as a leader among his fellow midshipmen for organizing "off-Yard activities" and hard drinking parties. Robert Timberg wrote in his book, The Nightingale's Song, that "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck."

McCain's grades were "marginal." He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958. Despite his low "class standing," and no doubt because of the influence of his family of famous Admirals, McCain was leap-frogged ahead of more qualified applicants and granted a coveted slot to be trained as a navy pilot.

Good Party Animal - Bad Pilot:

He spent the next two and a half years as a "naval aviator in training" at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas, flying A-1 Skyraiders.

While a pilot trainee, McCain continued to party hard. He drove a Corvette and dated an exotic dancer named "Marie the Flame of Florida." Timberg wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft:

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

In 1964 McCain became involved with Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he had met at Annapolis. They were married in Philadelphia on July 3, 1965.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.

The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.

Post-POW Years: Political Ambition and a New, Young, Rich Wife:

Upon his release from North Vietnam and return to the United States in 1973, McCain reunited with his wife, Carol, who had been permanently crippled in a car accident while he was a POW.

Still yearning to become an admiral, McCain enrolled in the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. and underwent physical therapy in order to fly again. The Navy excused his permanent disabilities and reinstated him to flight status, effectively positioning him for promotion.

Timberg described McCain's advancement: "in the fall of 1974, McCain was transferred to Jacksonville as the executive officer of Replacement Air Group 174, the long-sought flying billet at last a reality. A few months later, he assumed command of the RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. The assignment was controversial, some calling it favoritism, a sop to the famous son of a famous father and grandfather, since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path."

While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs."

This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates. But, as with all his other past behaviors, McCain was never penalized; instead he always got away with his transgressions.

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, true or not, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."

In early 1977, Admiral Jim Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations promoted McCain to captain and transferred him from his command position "to Washington as the number-two man in the Navy's Senate liaison office. McCain was promptly given total control of the office. It wasn't long before the "fun loving and irreverent" McCain had turned the liaison office into a "late-afternoon gathering spot where senators and staffers, usually from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, would drop in for a drink and the chance to unwind."

In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, who was the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

He resigned from the Navy in 1981 and went to work for his father-in-law in Phoenix; where he used the opportunity to make powerful and wealthy friends in Arizona including banker Charles Keating and Duke Tully, the editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic. Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and Tully was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism.

McCain ran for Arizona's First Congressional District in 1982. McCain won the congressional seat. In 1987 McCain was elected to the US Senate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961665/posts (see the comments section below)

Addtionally…

“… But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about -- his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.“

*************

John McCain has a life-long record of bad decisions, with one good decision getting far too much weight. As a prisoner in Vietnam he was given the choice to get out due to the high-profile position his father held in the US Navy. John McCain decided to stay and follow the “first-in, first-out” rule for prisoner conduct. That was a good decision. It showed loyalty to his fellow servicemen—whether prisoners or not, and it has garnered him the title of hero. But doing heroic things doesn’t mean you have a heroic character. Did this decision change John McCain? Did he become a loyal, altruistic, and selfless person? No.

• He was not loyal to his first wife
• He has not been loyal to the Republican Party
• He has not been loyal to conservative principles
• He has not been loyal to constitutional principles
• He has not been loyal to conservative voters

The traits that we associate with John McCain the war hero are not the traits that John McCain the person possesses. Please consider this when you vote on Super Tuesday. This is the last chance we have to salvage the conservative coalition by selecting a conservative to represent our party. And with the challenges we face as a country, we need a proven problem-solver and not a hero in name only.

If you consider yourself a conservative, forward this to at least 10 people. The clock is ticking.

John McCain Hates Me

By Michael Reagan

January 31, 2008

Until last night, when I watched the Republican debate, I had no idea how much John McCain dislikes me and just about everybody else but Rudy Giuliani, who, if you believe The New York Times, is a pretty good hater himself.

As I watched McCain and Governor Romney go at it during the debate at the Reagan Library, I was struck by the huge gap that separates McCain -- whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious -- and my dad, Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but the deepest affection and respect for the American people.

The feeling is mutual between McCain and me. I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him. He seems to be saying, "I was a war hero, and you had damn well better treat me as your superior."

He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them, despite such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts which got the economy rolling again, and his campaign finance bill which skewed the political process and attacked free speech.

I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners when he flat-out lies and expects them to believe what he says even when the truth is staring them in the face.

A prime example cited by columnist Robert Novak was McCain's denial that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, insisting that he recalled saying no such thing, adding that Alito was a "magnificent" choice.

"In fact," wrote Novak, "multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago."

In last night's debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for withdrawing troops," Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "...sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb enough to allow him to get away with claiming he's one of them. This is from a man who opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and who twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts and sponsored the campaign-finance reform legislation that Romney claimed "took a whack at the First Amendment."

In John McCain's eyes, conservatives are the Viet Cong of this generation, and he treats us as such. It's either his way or no way.

I despise his habit of talking down to us, like a wise father to an idiot son. He's just at a loss to understand why everybody doesn't grovel at his feet and accept his every word as wisdom handed down from his lofty perch atop Mt. Olympus.

I can't help it. I know in my heart he hates me, and every conservative. If he gets the nomination. the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket.

Bob Novak Confirm's McCain's Alito Comment

By Kyle Hampton

Robert Novak confirms what John Fund said last week: McCain has serious reservations about conservative jurists like Justice Alito. Novak writes:

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other.

As I said last week in response to Fund’s assertion:

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provacative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the aisle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters says this:

This actually makes it slightly worse. The Fund quote implied that McCain wouldn't appoint an Alito because he thought Alito was too overtly conservative. Novak's report shows that it wasn't Alito's overtness, but his conservatism that McCain found unattractive. That won't help convince conservatives to trust McCain on judicial nominations.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/31/2008 10:22:00 AM

The Encyclopedia Mittanica

Here's a laundry list of lies, fabrications, breaches of ethics, etc., etc., etc., committed by John McCain... and it's only the tip of the iceberg.


By Mike Laub

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/McCain

Economics
Mccain uses class class warfare. Class warfare is bad.
Mccain does not understand the economy.

Leadership
Mccain has had not executive experience.

Hypocrisy
Mccain is a hypocrite.
Mccain supported the same kind of benchmarks that Romney did.

Lies
Mccain lied about Romney.

Democrats
Mccain is the Democrats' favorite Republican.
John Mccain has more democrat friends that republican.
John Mccain is not a very good republican.
Mccain is friends with Hillary.
Mccain is friends with John Kerry.
Mccain is friends with Ted Kennedy.

General
John Mccain is not the best republican candidate.

Anger
McCain does not have the diplomacy skills necessary to be a president.
McCain has an anger problem.
McCain has made a lot of enemies.
McCain is mean.
McCain has problems with self control.
McCain is arrogant.
McCain holds grudges.
McCain is in denial with regard to his anger problem.
McCain personally attacks anyone who disagrees with his policies.
Anger is a problem.
Mccain uses personal attacks instead of talking issues.

Flip-Flops
McCain flip-flops.
Mccain changed on Jerry Falwell.
Mccain flip-flopped on Abortion.
McCain flip-floped on Bush tax cuts.
McCain flip-flopped on torture.
McCain flip-flopped on Kyoto.
McCain flip-flopped on gay marriage.
McCain flip-flopped on ethanol.
McCain flip-flopped on the confederate flag.
McCain flip-flopped on the Iraq War.
McCain flip-flopped on immigration.
Mccain flip-flopped on taxes.
McCain flip-flopped on ethics reform.
Mccain flip-flopped on Mcccain-Kennedy.
Mccain flip-flopped on the bush tax cuts.

Women
McCain will have a problem getting female voters, especially against Hillary.

Senate
Few people like Mccain in the Senate.

Issues
John McCain is not very good on taxes.
John McCain is not very good on the economy.
John McCain is stubborn.
John McCain will loose to the dems.
John McCain will hurt the republican party more than Bush.


If we don't stand for issues, then we're just a party of personalities and will have nothing.


Jan 26, 2008; Research Briefing: "She And John McCain Are Very Close"
Jan 26, 2008; MCCAIN: "LEADING THE CHARGE ON THE OTHER SIDE"
Jan 23, 2008; Straight Talk Detour: Sen. McCain: "I Would Clearly Support Not Extending Those Tax Cuts..."

Two Mistakes Made by the Florida Voters

By Kyle Hampton

From the results of the Florida primary, there appears to be two distinct mistakes being made by supporters of John McCain:

The first mistake is that voters have mistaken McCain for General Petraeus. McCain is correct in identifying himself as one of the chief advocates for a change in military strategy. It is one thing, though, to have been an advocate for change and the actual accomplishment of it.

It is not McCain that has been implementing strategic and tactical decisions. That post has been occupied by David Petraeus. To equate or conflate the two is to seriously misunderstand McCain’s role in the success in Iraq. McCain was an important voice, but that is all we can credit him for. McCain would have us not distinguish between the advisory role that he has played for the last 25 years in the Senate and the executives (Petraeus, Reagan, etc.) who have actually brought about the real changes McCain has only talked about.

The second mistake being made is the diminution of the role that the economy plays in our individual and national liberty. The principle and lasting accomplishment of Reagan’s tenure was a rethinking of the economy. Through the reorientation of the economy, Reagan was able to not only end the stagflation of the 1970’s, but was able to win the Cold War.

It was through economic dominance that the United States beat the Soviets. It was not the result of superior battle strategies (given that there weren't any military engagements as such), but through prosperity brought about through a strong economy.

Likewise, today our ability to defeat our foes (i.e., al Qaeda) abroad and compete with rivals (i.e., China) depends on the health of our economy. Reagan’s use of the economy to defeat the Soviets is one of the underappreciated truths of our time.

Milton Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom, notes the relationship between a free and prosperous economy and individual freedom:

On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on.

Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Thus, our economic freedom has a close relationship to our political freedom. Increasing regulation of our economic freedoms (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman) are essentially assaults on our political freedom. Our tax burden (votes against the Bush tax cuts) likewise limits our political freedom.

These are not old positions that McCain has learned from, but are currently held positions where McCain seeks to limit our freedom. By doing so he diminishes our political freedom and our ability, as discussed above, to fight our foes and compete with our rivals.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/30/2008 07:03:00 PM

A McCain Monarchy? Heaven Forbid.

The facts and stats are simple and straight: according to CNN's Election Center 2008, McCain did not win amongst Republicans -- and that loss was by a wide margin.

Despite the urgency of certain issues affecting our country, particularly the present delicateness of our economy, moderates and liberals persist in helping McCain win delegates.

Non-Republicans once again took the win away from Mitt Romney (the only candidate of either party capable of harnessing and controlling our economic instabilities, as well as standing nose to nose to our enemies) and handed it to John McCain, who has little or no experience in the financial arena (proven by his evasive answers to clear and direct questions asked of him at the January 24, 2008 debate in Boca Raton on how he would -- or could -- provide a list, or at least suggestions, of practical remedies and/or solutions).

In a January 30, 2008 Time article, writer Michael Scherer makes clear: "McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together. " And this is from a liberal mainstream journalist.

As we all know, Florida is a take-all state with open voting. Fred Thompson dropped out in the middle after absentees were sent out and the Florida governor (who loves McCain's immigration stance) was behind McCain.

Despite all the shmoozy liberal media coverage given to him, McCain still did not get a majority of the state ... and the "conservatives in the know" are betting they were not the majority of conservative votes.

In "McCain: Shifting American Politics to the Left -- MSM Loving It!", the author provides serious information and irrefutable points of view. This is a must read for conservatives who consider McCain's candidacy only fanciful -- and that kind of thinking will only serve to sink the Republican Party.

Which leads me to ask: Are conservatives deaf, dumb and blind? Don't they see what is happening? Yes, McCain is the "chosen" darling of the liberal media (as are all of the other Democrat candidates). But if McCain gets the nomination -- with the help, of course, of the mainstream media -- then the only candidates left standing will be two liberal Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and one liberal Republican (McCain). And then it wouldn't matter which of those three would succeed to the Presidency, because their dynamics would shift the entire United States of America to the left, away from conservatism, possibly for the next 20 years.

Columnists such as John LeBoutillier and Ronald Kessler are in agreement about John McCain, and are unafraid to state the truth, that McCain is not the man best able to control the White House on the basis that he is psychologically unsound. Think about this: Remember the Iranian speed boats confronting our naval task force? If it were President McCain in that moment, he, with his uncontrollable temper, probably would've given our Navy commanders the order to shred the speed boats and hence initiate World War III. And then the U.S. economy would take a death dive (as it nearly did directly after 9/11, from which we're still trying to recover).

Florida's gift to McCain is a hard pill to swallow, but remember: the RNC still has a large number of votes that they pulled back from states that moved their primaries -- and McCain has ticked off many members of the RNC.

Mitt Romney is still in this race, and he's made it clear he won't quit. In light of his determination, no true conservative should rest his or her efforts on Mitt's behalf, because, as Yogi Berra said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Thereafter, the new conservative motto will be: "It ain't over 'til WE say it's over."

McCain to Kerry: "I want to join the 2004 Democratic Ticket"

If you thought you knew the real John McCain -- foul mouth and all -- then you're mistaken.

Back in the 2004 Presidential race, McCain approached John Kerry and told him he wanted to cross over to the Democrats, because he wanted the Vice Presidency.

If you doubt this, here is the interview, print and audio.

THIS IS NOT ALTERNATE HISTORY:

John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004

by Jonathan Singer

Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST

Note: You can now read the rest of the interview with Senator Kerry here.

On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...

If you're having trouble with the Odeo player you can download the .mp3 file here.

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.

John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]

As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.

For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense.

But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.

Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.)

That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain, whose campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination is already noticeably foundering.

McCain's Desperate Dishonesty

Originally posted by Kyle Hampton at http://www.mymanmitt.com/:

There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:

Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.

Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.

Additionally:

John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:

“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”

Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”

Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.

Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.

The Media's Calculated Contrivances

We're all familiar with the fact that the mainstream media makes a pig's breakfast out of Presidential Primaries. They deliberately pick and choose which candidate or candidates should be favored over others when it comes to press coverage.

Searching Google News for the winner of each primary or caucus, we used the following specific terms to gather data:

The first number inside the parentheses is the approximate number of results found. For comparison, the second figure is the number of delegates won by the candidate (according to CNN).

Huckabee won in Iowa (2,365 - 17)

Romney won in Wyoming (270 - 8)

McCain won in New Hampshire (5,145 - 7)

Romney won in Michigan (1,239 - 24)

Romney won in Nevada (1,173 - 18)

McCain won in South Carolina (3,806 - 19)

Of the three states he was declared the winner, Mitt Romney received the most coverage for his win in Michigan, about 1,239 stories, where he earned 24 delegates.

By contrast, John McCain earned only 7 delegates in his New Hampshire win but enjoyed the publicity from 5,145 news stories.

To look at this another way, the most stories written about any of Romney's three wins was 1,239 for Michigan while the fewest stories written about any of his opponents' wins was 2,365 for Huckabee's win in Iowa.

If Mitt Romney, who has gained more delegates than any other Republican candidate, were to receive the same coverage for his primary/caucus wins, it's reasonable to believe he might be enjoying the frontrunner status that too many in the myopic mainstream press are giving to McCain today.

This is just another example of the MSM reporting only what they want "We, the People" to see, hear, and know.

What's worse, if voters accept everything the press delivers and swallow it whole and elect the wrong man, the People will end up choking on it ... and by that time it will be too late.

We should pity people like these ... or not

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk

Newsmax.com

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday
January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
By: Newsmax Staff

A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer confronted the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk and its battle group in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a tense 28-hour standoff that brought both sides to a battle-ready position.

The American ships were heading to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a scheduled Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong when they encountered the Chinese vessels, according to the Navy Times, which cited a report in a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan.

The Times reported that the encounter caused the carrier group “to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation.”

The encounter ended without incident, however, and the U.S. ships continued on to Japan. The two Chinese vessels were also headed for a port call in Japan.

The Chinese destroyer, Shenzhen, is armed with anti-ship missiles, while the Song-class attack sub is equipped with anti-ship missiles and a variety of torpedoes.

China has expressed “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait, the Times notes. Beijing claims Taiwan is Chinese territory.

But Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters Tuesday: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”

Shortly before the Kitty Hawk battle group was denied entry to Hong Kong, China had refused safe harbor for two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm.

As Newsmax has reported, some U.S. politicians have rung alarm bells about China's increased military spending and technological revamping of its armed forces.

China’s military budget had an average annual growth rate of nearly 16 percent from 1994 to 2004, and China's reported 2006 military budget is about $35 billion, according to Beijing.
But Pentagon sources have said these numbers fail to demonstrate the true scope of the growth, and the real 2006 figure could be as much as $105 billion.

In recent years China has upgraded its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles; bought state-of-the-art warships, fighter planes and submarines from Russia; and begun development of a number of so-called "asymmetrical" weapons, including informational warfare and anti-satellite systems.

In November, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda warned that China’s continuing military buildup could eventually pose a “major threat” if the Chinese government decides to exercise its power.