Identify the reasons to Elect a Conservative REPUBLICAN President, House and Senate in 2008

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

It is natural. It’s natural, tonight, to feel some disappointment. But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again.

I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president. And I call on all Americans, as I have often in this campaign, to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.

Americans never quit. We never surrender.

We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America.

~John McCain 11/4/2008

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was elected the nation’s 44th President, riding a reformist message of change and an inspirational exhortation of hope to become the first African American to ascend to the White House.

The Sack Lunches

I want to thank the man telling the below story. I HOPE the voters on Tuesday, know WHO is better able to take care of our brave Soldiers!

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned Seat. It was going to be a long flight. ‘I’m glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,’ I Thought. Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation.

‘Where are you headed?’ I asked the Soldier seated nearest to me.

‘Chicago – to Great Lakes Base. We’ll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we’re being deployed to Iraq.’

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached Chicago, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time. As I reached for my wallet, I overheard a Soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. ‘No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn’t be worth five bucks. I’ll wait
till we get to Chicago.’

His friend agreed. I looked around at the other Soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. ‘Take a lunch to all those Soldiers.’

She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. ‘My son was a Soldier in Iraq; it’s almost like you are
doing it for him.’

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, ‘Which do you like best – beef or chicken?’ ‘Chicken,’ I replied, wondering why she asked.

She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. ‘This is your thanks.’ After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. ‘I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.’ He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, ‘I want to shake your hand.’

Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain’s hand. With a booming voice he said, ‘I was a Soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.’ I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.

When we landed in Chicago I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me,put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Soon entering the terminal, I saw the Soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars.

‘It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.’

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I
whispered a prayer for their safe return. These Soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals. It seemed so little…

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’

That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle.

In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years.

If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today).

Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes and he is quite open about this that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government—and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations.

If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following:

a federal constitutional right to welfare;

a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent;

a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy;

the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants;

ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors;

and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.

We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

Gaffe-prone Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth again yesterday, mistakenly excluding millions of Americans from his running mate’s tax-cut proposal.

The Delaware senator’s latest blunder came while discussing Republican tax policies during a television interview in his hometown of Scranton, Pa.

“What we’re saying is, that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million,”

Biden said.
“It should go to middle-class people, people who make $150,000 a year.”

Actually, Barack Obama has promised to cut taxes on households earning less than $200,000 a year while raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 annually.

During a rally in Hershey, Pa., Sen McCain told supporters the gaffe revealed the Democrats’ true tax-and-spend intentions.

“It’s interesting how their definition of ‘rich’ has a way of creeping down,”

McCain said.

“Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First, he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan.

“Then, this weekend, he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than $200,000 you’ll benefit –

but yesterday right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to ‘middle-class people’ – people making under $150,000 a year.

“At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase.

This is especially TRUE when you factor in NOT continuing the existing Bush Tax Cuts, now scheduled to expire in 2010!

From Dreams of My Father:’ I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.’

From Dreams of My Father : ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.’

From Dreams of My Father:’ There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.’

From Dreams of My Father: ‘It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.’

From Dreams of My Father:’ I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa , that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.’

And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!

From Audacity of Hope:’ I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’

Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.

There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.
Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as “rich.”

Joe the Plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe’s rich too. Under Obama, he won’t be able to hire new employees and grow his business.

Joe’s not alone. Obama says he’ll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you’ll pay 7 percent!

Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut to the middle class.

Baloney!

Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.

Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.

He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.

Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.

Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America more secure.

Another outright lie.

In an age when crazies like Iran’s Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to “destroy” the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” Obama said.

He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more “secure,” Obama plans to disarm us.

In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?

Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.

He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.

But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver’s licenses as a state senator in Illinois.

He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He ALSO opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”

Sen John McCain renewed his bid to paint Barack Obama as a “Socialist” Monday, saying remarks made by his rival in a 2001 interview proved he was hellbent on large-scale redistribution of wealth.

In the 2001 interview, which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend, Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama discussed the failure of the civil rights movement to achieve “redistributive change”—comments seized upon by McCain.

“In a radio interview revealed today, McCain said that one of the Obama quote—‘tragedies’ of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society,”.

“That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else,” he told a crowd of around 2,000 at a sports hall in this key battleground state.

“Obama believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity.”

“Obama still wants to ‘redistribute’ our tax dollars and ‘spread the wealth around,’ giving money to people who don’t pay taxes rather than growing our economy for everybody.”

For 20 years Barack Obama followed a preacher of hate and said nothing is Wright raged against our country.

[Rev. Wright:] “Not God Bless America, God Damn America!”

[Quote of Obama] “I don’t think my church is particularly controversial.”

He built his power base in Wright’s church.

Wright was his mentor, adviser and close friend.

For 20 years Obama never complained until he ran for President.

Barack Obama. Too radical. Too risky!

We have an election coming up in a very few days. It’s been one of the longest campaigns I can remember, probably because it’s such an important election. No, not because of who is going to raise taxes or who is going to cut them. Not because of who is going to fix the economy and who is going to stiffel it. It’s something much more central to whether we prosper as a nation or not. But more on that in a minute.

I think it was Mark Twain who said, “The man who does not read the newspaper is uninformed. The man who does read the newspaper is misinformed.” The national media has a purpose but their definition of that purpose is not what you and I think it is. It’s not to report the news. That’s what we’re led to believe. Instead, their role as they see it is to shape the views of the public. That’s quite a bit different than just reporting.

When I say to you the name President George W Bush, what comes to mind? Many people will say he’s a moron, the worst, a joke. Many will say he has had us in a war that is costing too much money and killing too many soldiers for nothing. A war that we never should have been involved in, a war that was a mistake, can’t win it anyway. If that describes you then I hope you’ll read the rest of this with an open mind because I’m going to say some things that might make you mad. They might rub you wrong. Not because what I’m going to say isn’t true, but because what I’m going to say goes against what you’ve been programmed to believe. If you do not feel this way about President Bush, then please keep reading too. My point is not about whether this administration is good or bad, smart or dumb, strong or weak. It’s about why we believe some of the things we believe.

If I asked you when the war on terror began, most likely you’ll say after September 11, 2001. That’s because of obvious reasons but also because that is when the media began to call it the war on terror. It is also when we launched the war on terror, Operation Enduring Freedom, October 7, 2001. Would it shock you if I said that from October 7, 2001 to April 5, 2008 that the total number of service personnel killed in Operation Enduring Freedom was only 292? It’s true. But think for a moment about what I’m telling you. Operation Enduring Freedom is the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

But for a moment there, you thought I was either off my rocker or making it up, right? The news media has a way of showing you selected bits of information. They do not say that the total number of service men and women killed in hostile action has reached 4,000 or 5,000 or whatever the number is today. They report the number of deaths in the military during the Bush Administration. Here’s a statistic I’ll bet you never heard on the nightly news. January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001, that was the term of the Clinton Administration. Do you know what the Congressional Research Service shows as the number of military deaths during those years? Not 2,000. Not 3,000. Not even 4,000. There were 7,500 military deaths during the Clinton Administration. I don’t remember ever hearing the media say anything about that number, ever. And we weren’t at war. Yet, these numbers are taken directly from the CRS, not from some internet website, not YouTube, and not from some email.

What you probably never thought about but could reason intuitively is that every year in the military, service men and women are killed or die from accidents, suicides, or other mishaps that have nothing to do with being in theater, being in battle. So it’s easy to work the numbers to make them say what you want them to say and the media has been doing this for years.

Now, consider this. You think the war on terror started in 2001 probably, right? Do you know when the first time was that we sent the Navy to fight Islamic terrorists? Would you believe May, 1801? In May of 1801 The Pasha of Tripoli declares war on the United States and President Thomas Jefferson, on May 20, sends a naval squadron to the area. In 1804, Stephen Decatur rescues American seamen held in the Bay of Tripoli on their captured ship, the Philadelphia. The naval war ends shortly thereafter. In actuality, we’ve been fighting “Islam” for over 200 years.

In the past 30 years, up to and including 9/11/01, there have been about 10,000 American civilian deaths due directly to Islamic terrorists. What you may not know is that since October 2001, there have not been any. Since President Bush took action and said in effect, “enough is enough, radical Islam has been killing innocent civilians for decades and we’ve done nothing about it. They want a fight? We’ll give ‘em a fight.” And since the war on terror began, this waste of taxpayer money as the media calls it, not one US citizen has died as a result of terrorist attacks. I don’t know about you, but to me, one of the jobs of the Commander of our Military is to protect US citizens.

Regardless of what you think about Bush, I think it’s shameful that the media not only gets away with but would even believe that what they’re doing is a benefit. Their mission of “shaping the views” of America instead of reporting is their role. That hiding the facts or distorting some facts and highlighting others contributes to the good of the country. I don’t believe it is. We no longer have any respect for government and so many are disillusioned to the point they don’t want to even vote. And why are they so disillusioned? Because of what they see and hear in the media, which is exactly why the media does what it, does.

Their goal is to create an image for your mind to conceptualize about what is happening in the world today. If they give you half truths and propaganda, and do it long enough, you will “see” that image as being real. In this way, they can and do shape your view of the world to fit the way they want it seen. The fewer of us who go out and vote because we’re so disillusioned, the better and easier it is for the media and special interests to get what they desire. After all, that’s why they call it Tel-a-vision.

Now, what about this election, huh? As I started this rant saying, it’s not about who is going to fix anything or end the war or raise taxes. All that is nothing but rouge and lipstick. The REAL issue this election is about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. It also is about all the other Justices who will be appointed to lower courts in states all across America. In the recent past, we’ve had courts including the 9th Circuit who have started making law instead of interpreting it. Some of the most bizarre things coming out of the 9th circuit, for example, include:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” because that is hate speech and could scare workers.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant couldn’t be convicted of aggravated identity theft under federal law in the absence of proof that he knew he was using a means of identification that belonged to another person.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ claim that they have the exclusive right to tell their children about sex.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court ‘declares parenthood unconstitutional’.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling makes it illegal to fire illegal alien workers who use fake Social Security numbers.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accounted for both 30 percent of the cases and 30 percent of the reversals the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. According to Federal judicial appointment history, the Ninth Circuit has the highest percentage of active judges appointed by Democrat presidents, with 59%.
Alex Kolinsky, Chief Judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed to the L.A. Times that he had posted sexually explicit photos on his website and only blocked public access when the reporter came asking about it.

The list goes on. We voters go to the ballots and passing a measure we say, “We don’t want to pay for illegals to get free medical care” and the court says, “Yes, you do.” We go to the ballots and say, “We have the right to determine what and when our children are taught about sex” and the court says, “No, you don’t”. The more we ignore the fact that our vote for President will determine who is appointed to the bench, the more our rights are eroded every time we cast our votes.

Remember this when you’re voting. The appointment of these judges who are more and more liberal, who instead of interpreting the Constitution are instead legislating, making new laws, and typically in opposition to the majority, means that regardless of your political affiliation you better look at how your candidate has voted on other nominations to the courts.

Military issues now decided by the courts, environmental issues, education issues, (the Supreme Court has said it is the “Super board of Education” for every school district in the nation—and you thought you elected a local school board!), we have even had judges order tax increases on states when the voters, voted them down.

Joseph Nicholson, early Member of Congress, successfully managed the impeachment of multiple early federal judges: “Give [judges] the powers and the independence now contended for and . . . your government becomes despotism and they become your rulers. They are to decide upon the lives, the liberties, and the property of your citizens; they have an absolute veto upon your laws by declaring them null and void at pleasure; they are to introduce at will the laws of a foreign country…after being clothed with this arbitrary power, they are beyond the control of the nation. . . . If all this be true – if this doctrine be established in the extent which is now contended for – the Constitution is not worth the time we are now spending on it. It is – as it has been called by its enemies – mere parchment. For these judges, thus rendered omnipotent, may overleap the Constitution and trample on your laws.”

And more recently, former Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork said, “When a judge assumes the power to decide which distinctions made in a statute are legitimate and which are not, he assumes the power to disapprove of any and all legislation, because all legislation makes distinctions.”

Here are links to votesmart.org for each candidate and how they voted on various nominations and appointments.

If we continue to apply disinterest and ignore the impact that these judicial appointments have on our nation and our culture, we will never again see our country prosper as it has in our past.