Category Archives: John McCain

Election 2008, latest polls, AOL, CNN, Rasmussen, Obama, Clinton, McCain

Barack Obama has slipped in the polls due to his connection with racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. Polling data is always suspect, however, the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll today, March 18, 2008 looks suspect. Here is the Rasmussen data that came out yesterday:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain with a six-percentage point lead over both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by an identical 48% to 42% margin. McCain has a double-digit lead over Clinton among unaffiliated voters and is essentially even with Obama among those same voters. However, McCain makes greater inroads among Democrats with Obama as the nominee.”

The Rasmussen data appears to reflect the reaction of the public to racist comments of pastor Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and mentor. Now look at the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll data:

Obama and Clinton are locked in a dead heat with the Arizona senator. If Obama wins the nomination, he would get 47 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for McCain,  a statistical tie given the poll’s 3 percentage point margin of error. If Clinton wins the nomination, the poll indicates she would get 49 percent compared to McCain’s 47 percent,  also a statistical tie.

“Clinton appears to do a little bit better than Obama among older voters, women, and self-identified Democrats against McCain; Obama’s numbers may be slightly better among younger voters and those who describe themselves as Republicans and Independents,”

Is the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll biased?

Now for the AOL unscientific poll today. Today, March 18 2008 at approx 12:00 PM, here are the results:

Who do you think will be the Democratic presidential nominee?
Hillary Clinton 50% 
Barack Obama 50% 

Total Votes: 83,497

Which candidate would make the best president?
John McCain 48% 
Hillary Clinton 30% 
Barack Obama 22% 

Total Votes: 91,723

Interesting!

Obama slipping in polls? Obama Racist? Racist pastor Jeremiah Wright hurting Obama, Rasmussen poll

Barack Obama’s long time association with pastor Jeremiah Wright is hurting his bid for the democratic nomination. Obama has recently denounced Jeremiah Wright and his racist, anti semitic and anti American rhetoric. The damage has been done. Obama cannot erase years of listening to and remaining silent about pastor Wright’s opinions. Barack Obama is slipping in popularity and in the polls.

My unscientific poll shows more people believe Obama is racist. Here are the results today:

Is Barack Obama a Racist?

Yes            64 %
No             27 %
Not sure     9 %

Below are the latest results from the Rasmussen polling organization:

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain with a six-percentage point lead over both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by an identical 48% to 42% margin. McCain has a double-digit lead over Clinton among unaffiliated voters and is essentially even with Obama among those same voters. However, McCain makes greater inroads among Democrats with Obama as the nominee.”

“The dialogue about Wright’s controversial comments appears to have had at least a short-term impact on public perceptions of Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator is viewed favorably today by just 47% of voters nationwide. That’s down five points since last Thursday (see recent daily results). The number with an unfavorable view of Obama has risen from 44% on Thursday to 50% today. Among White voters, Obama is now viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 54%.”

To read more about the Rasmussen reports click here:

  http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Iraq war, history 101, United Nations, US role, facts, revisionist history

There are 1 or more people commenting on this blog that are purportedly University of Western Florida students. Responding with comments to my posts is ok. Disagreeing with me is ok. Trying to take over this blog is not. If you need a platform for your agenda, start your own blog.

History 101 and the Iraq War

Prerequisites: some fundamental knowledge of 20th century history. Closest analogy to Iraq war in past 100 years, World War II.

Topic 1 – The Iraq war is costing a lot of money. There is a cost of action and a cost of inaction. Assignment: calculate the cost of World War II in today’s dollars. Cost in human lives. What would the dollar cost and human cost have been if we had not entered the war? What would the dollar cost and human cost have been if we had gotten involved 1 year earlier? 2 years earlier?

Now, suppose we had not stopped the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Now suppose we had left Saddam Hussein unchecked. Now factor in Iran and their desire for a nuclear capabability. Don’t believe for 1 minute that Iran has not been pursueing a nuclear program. A friend of mine 25 years ago was married to an Iranian nuclear physicist.

Lesson: there is always a cost for action and a cost for inaction.

Topic 2 – Does the US have a desire to police the world? The answer is no. The United Nations had a clear purpose to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting out of control. The United Nations failed to perform it’s duty. Why? Key members, France, Germany and Russia were “in bed” financially with Saddam Hussein. If my memory is correct, our so called policing was welcome in World War II when the world was going down the toilet and close to Nazi domination.

Lesson: The US is forced into action by the irresponsibility of other nations. Fortunately, the Iraq war was a coalition of many countries including Great Britain and Australia.

Myth: The US is the cause of death and injuries to the Iraqi People. This is an outright lie. The people saying this are liars. Saddam Hussein, remnants of his regime, factional frictions and outside radical Islamic cowards are the cause. And yes, anyone that would attack innocent women and children or ask them to become a weapon, that person is the lowest level of coward. Radical Islamists, if you were real men, you would face American men face to face and not send women and children to do your evil killing.

Any questions, class?

Bush impeachment, Arrest, Iraq war, 1984, George Orwell, Minnesota, Liberal Democrats

I just received this comment from someone that is apparently associated with Minneapolis Minnesota and many left wing liberal groups. They actively promote ideas of impeaching President Bush, arresting Bush and that the president’s administration is involved in illegal activities such as wiretapping and torture. I would expect this kind of thought process in Minnesota just as I would in Vermont. Maybe the cold weather and indoor life affects their brains.

I went to one of their websites, and after scanning through their ridiculous comments, I came to the bottom where this appeared:
“I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”
-Bush, June 18, 2002

“War is Peace”
-Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984

The real irony of this is that the democratic party, especially the left wing liberal segment, uses the tactics of Big Brother regularly. They constantly tell lies and distortions of truth that become reality to their cohorts. They are masters of doublespeak. Let’s address torture. The Iraq war is much more analogous to World war II than the Vietnam conflict. Real torture took place in World War II. The Japanese were masters of inflicting pain. Don’t whine to me about water boarding, you spineless wimps. World War II veterans are dying daily all around us. You insult them with your comments. If any of you have any thoughts of aggression toward President Bush, I suggest you come to NC, where the majority of the population will help you see the error of your way.

Here is the comment that was posted in it’s entirety:

Resolution on Impeachment of Bush and Cheney Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney: 1. deliberately misled the nation and doctored intelligence, as described in the Downing Street minutes, http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html about the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war of aggression and an occupation of Iraq, as further described in House resolution H. Res. 333 http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdfand as listed in House Resolution H. Res. 635 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr109-635 2. committed crimes against peace by initiating war against Iraq in violation of the UN Charter http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/; 3. committed crimes against humanity in their conduct of the occupation of Iraq in which they killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created millions of refugees http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html and http://edition.cnn.com/2 006/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.main/index.html; 4. killed over 3700 American soldiers and severely wounded nearly 30,000 more in the pursuit of an illegal, immoral, and unjust occupation of Iraq. While Bush and Cheney have stated no truthful noble cause for the war, one of the central purposes appears to be to take control of Iraq’s immense oil reserves to financially benefit private corporate interests. See Bush’s benchmark listing fact sheet released the same day Bush announced the “surge” that expressly called on the Iraq parliament to “enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment . . . ” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html and http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672/; 5. committed further crimes against peace by threatening Iran in violation of the UN Charter, as described in House resolution H. Res. 333 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333: and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6649053.stm; 6. detained thousands of prisoners without charges and without providing the ability to confront their accusers at a fair trial http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of- America; 7. condoned the torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the US anti-torture statute of 1994, the US War Crimes Act of 1996, and the oath of office http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm and http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America and http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/. Bush’s refusal to faithfully execute the laws prohibiting torture and his declaration on February 7, 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners in Afghanistan and in Guantanamoset the stage for torture there http://hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/2.htm. The Rumsfeld approved Guantanamo torture techniques were then imported to Iraq in August 2003, where the International Committee of the Red Cross found “systemic” mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in several facilities and where the Schlesinger Report confirmed in August 2004 that abuses were “widespread” and “serious both in number and in effect,” and that there is both “institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels;”
Page 2
8. approved at least two different illegal electronic surveillance programs of American citizens without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and repeatedly lied to the American people by stating that no surveillance was taking place without a court order. The first program includes intercepting phone and email conversations without warrants and was exposed by the NY Times on December 16, 2005 http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/NYT_15cnd-program.html. After that programwas exposed Bush said the program was carefully targeted to just include international calls and suspected members of Al Qaeda. Then, the second program was exposed by USA Today on May 11, 2006. It provides a wholesale attack on the fourth amendment by recording call identification information of tens of millions of purely domestic calls as well as international calls http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm; 9. attacked basic human rights protections in the constitution including habeas corpus, fifth amendment freedom from loss of life, liberty and property without due process of law, eighth amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and fourth amendment freedom fromunreasonable search and seizure; 10. attacked the separation of powers in an effort to consolidate power in the executive; 11. attacked the messenger who revealed that Bush “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqithreat.” Just as Nixon retaliated against former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg, according to papers filed in court by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in April 2006, there was “concerted action” by “multiple people in the White House” to “discredit, punish or seek revenge against” former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for his July 6, 2003 NY Times op ed piece http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007 that ripped the cover off of Bush’s false assertions in his 2003 state of the union address that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa for building a nuclear bomb. In retaliation, and to silence other would-be critics, the White House collected information about Wilson and disclosed to reporters that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert agent in the CIA counterinsurgency division, putting her life, and the lives of her contacts, at risk in violation of a US law protecting intelligence personnel (The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman); 12. as the sole person under the Federal Stafford Act with responsibility and authority to issue emergency orders to mobilize the military and any federal resources needed to aid and assist in a disaster (see Failure of Initiative, February 2006 report of the House Select Bipartisan Committee to investigate the Preparations for and the Response to Hurricane Katrina http://katrina.house.gov/), Bush failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, violated the public trust, and demonstrated reckless and inexcusable indifference to human life before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. Bush knew but did not act until too late, and then he lied about it on national TV. Footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 demonstrate that Bush was personally told well in advance of the “unprecedented strength” of the hurricane, the “devastating damage expected,” and that “water shortages will make human suffering incredible,” according to highly accurate predictions by the National Weather Service. The Associated Press reported that “in dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelmrescuers, according to confidential video footage,” http://www.truthout.org/cgi- bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18079. Yet Bush failed to muster resources to evacuate residents in advance and failed to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina hit. Then three days
Page 3
later Bush told Good Morning America, “I don’t think that anybody anticipated a breach of the levees.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202130.html In years before the storm Bush demonstrated inexcusable criminal negligence and violated the public trust by cutting the budget for hurricane defense, though the high probability of the breaching of the levees and the enormous risk to human life from a major hurricane hitting New Orleans were predicted and well known for years before the hurricane hit http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/index.html; 13. failed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed by issuing signing statements that claim the authority to disobey laws based on the president’s own interpretation of their constitutionality, and then by taking action in violation of these laws, including the US law making torture a crime, laws regarding Congressional oversight that require providing information to Congress, laws regarding domestic spying, laws regarding civil liberties, and laws strengthening whistle blower protection, thereby expanding the president’s own power by stepping into the legislative and judicial functions at the expense of Congress and the courts, upsetting the balance among the three branches of government, and moving us away fromthe rule of law toward vastly increased executive power; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_l aws/ and http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/; 14. converted the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican Party by firing meritorious federal prosecutors who refused to base decisions on whom to prosecute on political considerations–to help Republicans win election, an offense James Madison discussed in a speech to the Senate on June 17, 1789, in which Madison said, ” The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own hightrust.” http://www.gwu.edu/ffcp/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=fc11904http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/113/print/; 15. condoned criminal conduct and obstructed justice by commuting the sentence of convicted perjurer Scooter Libby to keep him silent and to demonstrate that Bush and Cheney will not allow high officials in the administration to be held accountable for their criminal acts;16. obstructed congressional investigations of these and other acts by the administration by defying subpoenas from Senate and House committees seeking documents and testimony under oath by administration officials and former administration officials; and Whereas the constitution requires the president to take the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;” and Whereas the constitution provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed;” and
Page 4
Whereas the constitution mandates that “the President, Vice President and all civil Officers ofthe United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors;” and Whereas impeachment was so important to our founding fathers that it is mentioned six times in five different sections of the constitution; and Whereas George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that impeachment was the single most important part of the entire document. “Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” http://gunstonhall.org/georgemason/constitution.html July 20, 1787; and Whereas “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a term of art that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government, or an abuse of public trust. (See Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment: Report of the House Judiciary Committee, 1974, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm, articles by Elizabeth Holzman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon in 1974 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman; and http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070212&s=holtzman, and the book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman) Whereas each of the above listed acts meets or exceeds that standard; andWhereas impeachment is the only constitutional method to protect Americans from a president intent on abusing power, violating the constitution, violating the laws, and breaching public trust; and Whereas Bush and Cheney threaten further crimes, including launching a war of aggression against Iran, and whereas sufficient time remains in their term of office for them to commit thosecrimes so allowing either or both of them to remain in office for that remaining time will facilitate these crimes, and whereas pretexts for attacking Iran have been issued, as described by a former CIA Middle East field officer and current Time Magazine columnist http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1654188,00.html; and Whereas failing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable not only condones their crimes but facilitates a future president committing similar or greater crimes; and Whereas members of Congress swear an oath to “support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and no part of this oath permits exception for partisan advantage, the next election, political expediency, whether it is distracting from other issues, or how much time they have left in office; and Whereas failure by Congress to initiate the one remedy–impeachment–provided by our founding fathers to protect the constitution from such serious abuses has put that constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties, our democratic form of government, the separation of powers, the lives of our men and women in uniform, and the lives of countless civilians at severe risk; and Whereas citizen pressure led the Vermont State Senate and 87 cities and towns around the nation to pass impeachment resolutions; and
Page 5
Whereas a poll conducted by http://www.americanresearchgroup.com on July 5, 2007 found that 54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachmentproceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney while only 40% oppose, and whereas the poll also found that 45% are in favor of the same thing for President George W. Bush while 46% oppose; and Whereas in view Congress’ ongoing complicity with the war, the torture, the lies, the warrantless wiretapping, and the imprisonment without trial, and its failure to protect rights and civil liberties, it is up to the people themselves to defend the constitution and our civil liberties by building larger grassroots movements, including a movement for impeachment; Therefore be it resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls upon the U.S. House of Representatives to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings, to investigate the charges, andif the investigation supports the charges, to vote to impeach George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney as provided in the Constitution of the United States of America; and Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will establish an NLG Impeachment Committee open to all members to coordinate action by the NLG in support of impeachment, to work with national and grassroots impeachment organizations, and to provide legal assistance for those efforts to strengthen the national campaign for impeachment; and Be it further resolved that the NLG Impeachment Committee will help organize and coordinate events at the local, state, and national level to build public participation in the campaign to initiate impeachment investigation, impeachment, and removal of Bush and Cheney from office without further delay; and Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on NLG members to ask their respective member of Congress to support H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney and to introduce or support other impeachment resolutions; and Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild calls on all other state and national bar associations, state and local government bodies, community organizations, labor unions, and all other citizen associations to adopt similar resolutions and to use all their resources to build the campaign demanding that Congress initiate impeachment investigation, impeach, and remove Bush and Cheney from office without further delay; and Be it further resolved that the National Lawyers Guild will forward a copy of this resolution to the Speaker and the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, to Representative John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to the various state and federal bar associations, to other peace and justice organizations, and to the news media. Implementation: By the NLG Impeachment Committee established by this resolution, by interested local chapters, and by national officers. Submitted by: James Marc Leas, jolly39@juno.comThe resolution cosponsors are: Audrey Bomse, Marjorie Cohn, Laura Safer Espinoza, John Wheat Gibson , Eileen Hansen, Larry Hildes, Jim Klimaski, Jordan Kushner, Jim Lafferty, James Marc Leas, Kerry McLean, Bill Monning, Dorinda Moreno, Michael Ratner, Susan Scott, Jennifer Van Bergen, Aaron Varhola, Karen Weill

Mar 7, 2:44 AM — Brattleboro VT, Bush Cheney impeachment, indictment, arrest, Vermont, provide proof

John McCain, network coverage, liberal bias, Brit Hume, Fox news, Grapevine

Liberal bias in the press is a reality. The press has a bad reputation in the US going back to the American Revolution. John and Abigail Adams, nearly saints in their dedication to this country, complained about the unfair treatment they received in the press. Now, John McCain, a hero and honorable man, is being treated unfairly by the likes of the NY Times and network news. Brit Hume, of Fox News, addressed liberal bias of the network news in his March 4 2008 Grapevine segment. Here is an excerpt:

Going Negative

“A study of the three broadcast network evening news programs indicates John McCain’s media fortunes have taken a dramatic turn south since early January. The Center for Media and Public Affairs says the percentage of McCain coverage it deemed positive was 46 percent from mid-December through mid-February. But look at the contrast between his 97 percent positive number before the New Hampshire primary on January eighth — and just 30 percent positive since.”

You can read the rest of the story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335030,00.html

Hillary Clinton and John McCain win Rhode Island primary

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are projected winners of the Rhode Island primary.

John McCain wins enough delegates for Republican Nomination

John McCain has won enough delegates for the Republican Nomination.

CBS News Projects Obama And McCain Will Win In Vermont

CBS News Projects Obama And McCain Will Win In Vermont .

Barack Obama, John McCain win in Vermont.

I just feel dirty, republican voted for democrat in Texas primary

I just read an interesting post about a republican that voted for a democrat in the Texas Democrat Primary. His decision was made prior to the statement by Rush Limbaugh. Here is an excerpt:

“I voted Democrat today for the first time in my life. And I feel absolutely horrible about it.  Since I voted Democrat today, I’ll think like a Dem and blame the system.  My reasoning, which pre-dated Rush’s call for Texans to vote Hillary, was solid. If Hillary and Obama remained locked after today, the Democrats wouldn’t be able to lock their nomination till late August in Denver. That means the Democratic nominee would only have six weeks to launch a national convention.”

Read the rest of the post here:

http://thinktankers.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/i-just-feel-dirty/

John McCain born in Panama, Is McCain eligible for presidency? NY Times article

Here we go again. Is John McCain eligible to be president of the United States? Once again, the NY Times has an article about John McCain that attempts to disparage him. Apparently this question was answered some time ago. Is the NY Times trying to damage the campaign of John McCain or is it desperately trying to generate income or both? You decide. Here are some excerpts from the NY Times:

“McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out”

 “The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.”

So, why did the Times run the article now?