Michael J Fox admits he did not read the Missouri stem cell initiate. sm
Posted By: Brunson on 2006-10-29
In Reply to: Mindboggling that republicans would rather throw the cells in the trash...sm - Democrat
This is exactly what I am talking about. He has no idea what the stem cell initiative says about cloning. But he is *quite sure* he would support it anyway. Frightening.
LINK/URL: MJF Admits to Not reading bill
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
stem cell research
Well, God help you if any of your family gets struck down with a debilitating disease that could be helped with stem cell research
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money. The pendulum has swung so far to the other side. There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos. People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them. That's unfair. So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it. If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
I don't support stem cell research.
It will never see a dime of my money if I can help it.
Stem Cell Research - First Veto...sm
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04
President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.
At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called adopted frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal.
Stem cell research breakthrough
Just read this on Comcast. Thought I would share. Very intesting and exciting stuff!
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/11/20/Stem.Cells/?cvqh=itn_stemcell
Stem cell research has started
I am so glad to see this has started. I know there must be loads of people who suffer maladies including strokes, spinal cord injuries and many, many more who have been waiting to start testing. I am very glad this has been overturned- now to get down to more business!
I'm conflicted about stem cell research.
I'm for it as long as there are limitations with how they get the stem cells - do they come from aborted babies? That I would have a problem with.
I don't have cancer, but there is a genetic background in my family for several different types, as well as muscular dystrophy, so I'm all for stem cell research as long as there are guidelines that are followed and Obama or any other president needs to make those guidelines clear.
Govt backing of stem cell research
I want stem cell research to go forward to help those with devastating illnesses. I do not want the embryos to be thrown away but rather put to good use. I really do not care what people with the opposite position say. This is my position and in my mind and heart and soul it is the right position. I care more for those who are already alive.
In a democracy, the majority rules and the majority of Americans want stem cell research to move forward with government backing. The debate, as far as I am concerned, is over. I am for it, others are not. Whether it is approved within the next two years or when finally a democratic president, who makes judgments and decisions fairly and based on what the people want and not what God has told him/her, it will be a reality within a few years.
Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested. I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor. He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures. His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure. that had to be at least 25 years ago. Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes. So when does it end?
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research
Finally! A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!
July 29, 2005
Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research
WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.
Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>
"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."
His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.
"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."
He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."
Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.
"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."
Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."
The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.
The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.
"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."
But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.
"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."
Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."
Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.
"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."
But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.
Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.
Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.
With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."
Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.
"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.
But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."
On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."
The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.
In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."
Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."
After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."
But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."
Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.
"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."
Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.
I'm not bashing Clinton's Initiate at all. It is
a great thing. It just seems that if McCain had to rush back he would not have time to stop by there and give a little speech, campaigning, since he is suspending his campain.
As to the debate, I think someone below mentioned what she had heard of why not postponing it. I don't remember what she said, but it is posted.
Missouri MT
I just want to say that my prayers are with you and your family - I remember when my son went to basic training in 1990 two months after high school (I am an Air Force mom). It's as if they are babies in your arms and next thing you know, they are all grown up, yet they will always be your baby..I pray for all the families of those who continually sacrifice for this country. I do not support this war in Iraq and never will. I just pray for our sons, daughters, husbands, fathers, uncles, aunts and moms who are there to come home where they belong...
Obama in Missouri
Just finished listening to his speech. There is absolutely no comparison between him and McCain. He actually talked about the problems and solutions. Quite a contrast to McCain/Palin, all they can do is talk about their opononent. No question in my mind who is the better person to take a chance on!!! I'm about ready to vote FOR Obama rather than against McCain!!!!!
Good night.........like Shelly, I'm off to bed.
Please feel free to join in the crow cook-off if I turn out to be wrong. LOL
Missouri MT said her son leaves for
basic training in a week; did you not read that? She needs your prayers and not your critism at this time in her life and her son's too.
Here's the real thing from Missouri
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-
Sorry for the long link, but y'all know how to cut and paste. Some makes sense, some is just freakin scary.
LOL - she admits herself she pretty much a "newbie"
??
the fact that he admits tonight on nightline....
that he did have an affair...he told the woman that his wife's cancer was in remission...like that gives him license to cheat on his wife...he says the baby isn't his, yeah, right....
John Feehery, Repug pundit, admits
on Hardball with Chris Mathews that Obama DID NOT call Palin a pig! Of course, I knew that, but there's the proof.
Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
Looks like the game is up.
Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?
Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.
In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.
Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.
But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.
This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen.
There's a larger point here, though. The central anecdote of the GOP's prime-time response to President Obama's speech, intended to illustrate the threat of excessive government regulation, turns out to have been made up.
Maybe it's time to rethink the premise.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php?ref=fp1
Bush admits to directing cheney to discredit Joe Wilson.
At the time, officials told said that Plame's outing resulted in *severe* damage to her team and *significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.* I guess personal kindergarten style paybacks are more important to Bush. Just remember Bush's role in all this when he declares yet another war on Iran.
Bush Told Prosecutors He Directed Cheney to Discredit Joe Wilson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
George W. Bush, 9/30/2003:
I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.
12/13/2005
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.
I'm confident the president knows who the source is, Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. I'd be amazed if he doesn't.
So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.'
07/03/2006
Reports: Plame Was Monitoring Iran Nukes When Outed
By E&P Staff
Published: May 02, 2006 10:55 AM ET
NEW YORK What was Valerie Plame working on at the CIA when she was outed by administration officials and columnist Robert Novak? MSNBC's David Schuster on Monday said he had confirmed an earlier report that she was helping to keep track of Iran's nuclear activity--not a front and center issue for the White House.
Earlier this year, Larisa Alexandrovna of the Web site RawStory.com, reported that Plame, whose covert status was compromised in the leak, was monitoring weapons proliferation in Iran. At the time, officials told her that Plame's outing resulted in severe damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.
On last night's Hardball, MSNBC correspondent Shuster reported that intelligence sources told him thatr Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources asserted, he said, that when here Wilson's cover was blown, the administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426164
Washington Post: Commission admits they thought they were being deceived.sm
After C Span aired the 911 Scholars Symposium in LA for 3 days, the questions and information has started to flow. Looks like some are starting to do some CYA. There are articles in the NYT, Vanity Fair, and even the Washington Post. For a change, they are not calling skeptics names. It is only a baby step, but this has made my day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
Is the new legislature talking about stem cells of aborted fetuses?...sm
Because I am a pro-life liberal. I don't rattle any cages about what other people chose to do with their bodies because I believe 90% of the time a person who choses to abort will not be a good parent anyway and will probably do worse to the child once outside the womb. Yes, I do believe a horid life can be worse than death before full development. The child will more than likely be in abject poverty, social and mental deprivation, and on and on. But more importantly, I think people should be more responsible to not get pregnant in the first place when they don't want kids.
Having said all that we do live in an age where abortion is legal, and like I said if they are going to dispose of the fetus anyway, why not use the stem cells to give hope to a Christopher Reeves of the world.
Now, when you talk about cloning and reproducing parts and such I'm not agreeing with that. That's taking it too far IMHO.
Liar, liar - Sen. Dodd Admits Adding Bonus Provision to Stimulus Package
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/100days/
Michael J. Fox. sm
I read that he did not take his medication deliberately so that people could see the full effects of his disease. That's just a tad manipulative, if you ask me. At any rate, I don't believe, and will never support, stem cell initiatives. There is much much more to these programs than is being presented to the public.
Michael J. Fox. sm
IT IS MANIPULATIVE. I believe capitals were warranted in this occasion and it IS about MJF and his ad. The MJF we have seen through the years is not the MJF in the video. I have seen it, have you? There is no guarantee that stem cell research will do anything for him. It is manipulative to the extreme. I believe Rush has apologized. But of course, the left never accepts apologies of any kind.
Aw, too bad. But, now Michael Jackson...
...is in the Middle East doing consulting about theme parks??? Did I hear that right, what's up with that?
Michael Rupert.
THE INCOMING REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA'S 4th congressional district is the outspoken Cynthia McKinney. She is a Democrat, she is 49 years old, and she has held the job before. She held it for a decade, in fact, from 1992, when she became the first black woman elected to Congress from Georgia, to 2002--when, she says, the hostile corporate media, allied with Republicans, repeated falsehoods about her, distorted her positions, and drove her from my seat.
That is McKinney's explanation for her 2002 primary defeat, and she is sticking to it. But there are other explanations. Her father, Georgia state legislator Billy McKinney, shared his version with an Atlanta television reporter on August 19, 2002, the night before she lost. The reporter had asked Billy McKinney about his daughter's use of a years-old, moth-balled endorsement from former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. Such endorsements were worthless, the elder McKinney replied, because Jews have bought everybody. Jews. In case the reporter didn't understand, he spelled the word: J-E-W-S. (A few weeks later, in a runoff against a political neophyte, Billy McKinney became a former Georgia state legislator.)
The actual reason why Cynthia McKinney left Congress in 2002 was that, for once, she couldn't outrun her mouth. She had walked along the cutting edge of progressive politics for years--appearing with Louis Farrakhan, calling globalization a cruel hoax, advocating for Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe--but then, in a March 25, 2002, interview on KPFA Pacifica radio, she suddenly fell off.
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11, McKinney said that day. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide? McKinney thought she knew the answer. What is undeniable, she explained, is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th.
It was all downhill from there. On April 12, 2002, a synopsis of the interview appeared in the Washington Post. Democrats began distancing themselves from McKinney. She released a statement admitting she was not aware of any evidence proving President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11, but a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. Then again, it might not. For that matter, McKinney might have had no idea what she was talking about.
Appearing in print just months after the September 11 attacks, McKinney's charges couldn't be excused. Nor could her list of campaign donors, which included both terrorist sympathizers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and apparent actual terrorists like former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Nor could her October 12, 2001, letter to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, in which she rebuked New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for returning the prince's post-9/11 gift of $10 million and urged bin Talal to donate the funds to charities outside the mayor's control, especially those that dealt with poor blacks who sleep on the street in the shadows of our nation's Capitol. Giuliani had returned the Saudi's money because it came with the implicit condition that America address some of the issues that led to such a criminal [9/11] attack, among them its policies in the Middle East, where our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek. To Giuliani, such a statement made excuses for terrorism. This wasn't a problem for McKinney.
And why should it have been? Her bent for conspiracy theories and racebaiting had never cost her politically. When she said in 1996 that we need to get the government out of the drug business, she was not talking about a possible prescription drug benefit. Whether it was the time she told USA Today that My impression of modern-day black Republicans is they have to pass a litmus test in which all black blood is extracted, or the time she accused Al Gore of having a low Negro tolerance level, she emerged unscathed from the ensuing kerfuffles. Facing a tough race in 1996, McKinney said Georgia Republicans like her opponent John Mitnick were neo-Confederates remaindered from Civil War days. Amazingly, McKinney ignored the fact that Mitnick was Jewish.
Her father did not. Over and over again, Billy McKinney called Mitnick a racist Jew. As Slate's Chris Suellentrop noticed, when the New York Times asked Billy McKinney to elaborate on his comments, he simply repeated that Mitnick is a racist Jew, that's what he is, isn't he? The controversy over Billy McKinney's comments lasted weeks. Disgraced, he resigned from his daughter's campaign. That year, Cynthia McKinney won 58 percent of the vote.
In 2002, though, thanks to McKinney's interview with Pacifica radio, the tiny streams of anti-McKinney criticism that had been collecting in pools for years turned into a flood. The September 11 attacks were vibrant and terrifying memories when McKinney accused the president of profiting from them. Remember, too, that when McKinney accused the president of being a calculating war profiteer, his approval rating was over 75 percent.
But times change. Two years later, McKinney is still her old self, while the world has become a lot more accommodating to loony theories about President Bush. Apparently her own district is no exception. The 4th District this year was an open seat; Denise Majette, who defeated McKinney in 2002, decided to run for the Senate instead, but McKinney still faced five opponents in last summer's Democratic primary and dispatched them all without a runoff. And while she avoided making any controversial statements, and politely deflected criticism of things she had said in the past, her conspiracism and racialism were still there beneath the surface.
Occasionally they would bubble up. McKinney is defensive about the Pacifica interview, and there are links on her campaign website to two articles by the left-wing BBC journalist Greg Palast that attempt to absolve her of conspiracy-mongering. One of these articles is entitled The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney. The other is entitled Re-lynching Cynthia McKinney. Palast writes that McKinney has never actually said President Bush had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Which is true. She hasn't. She's just implied it repeatedly.
What's striking about McKinney's website is that, even as it attempts to debunk a variety of misinformation about her, it also takes great pains to claim vindication for that same misinformation. There is a link, for example, to Exposed: The Carlyle Group, a 48-minute documentary that purports to reveal the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government. There is a link to an article in the South DeKalb County CrossRoads News entitled Where is Cynthia McKinney During 9/11 Hearings? in which the author describes being enraged that McKinney was not included in the public hearings of the 9/11 Commission, since she was the only elected official who had the guts to bring President Bush's war profiting scheme to the light.
A few links more, and you wind up at McKinney's speech Democracy Is Under Attack--Let's take it Back. The speech is a sort of lodestone for McKinniacs. It is a rambling series of remarks delivered at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem in July 2003. It is an angry speech. I can't be calm when I drive through sections of Atlanta that look more like Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, than America, McKinney explains. Yet the speech is notable mainly for the way in which it references McKinney's conspiracy theorist guru, a man named Michael Ruppert.
Michael Ruppert is a former LAPD detective who is best known for his theories on CIA drug trafficking. Those theories--namely, that the CIA was behind the crack cocaine epidemic in America's inner cities--briefly made headlines in mainstream newspapers in 1996, and Ruppert is hoping for a sequel. Since 9/11, he has toured the country discussing how the Bush administration, Enron, Israeli intelligence, the Pakistani ISI, the Saudis, and Osama bin Laden were behind the terrorist attacks. Ruppert's theories are lucrative. Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracism as a senior analyst at Public Research Associates, a progressive group, told me that Ruppert speaks regularly to sold-out crowds.
As you may know, I'm involved with Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness, McKinney says in her Democracy Is Under Attack speech. From the Wilderness is the title of Ruppert's newsletter and website. McKinney probably got the idea that the USS Abraham Lincoln was really in San Diego harbor when Bush landed on it in May 2003 from Ruppert. So, too, her idea that Bush and his friends stood to profit from the 9/11 attacks, which she expands upon in another manifesto, the March 2002 Thoughts on Our War Against Terrorism:
Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Such ideas figure prominently in The Truth and Lies of 9/11, a videotaped lecture that Ruppert delivered at Portland State University on November 28, 2001. The lecture is 135 minutes long. It feels much longer. In it, Ruppert talks about the CIA, the Bush administration, the Carlyle Group, UNOCAL oil pipelines in Afghanistan, the Mossad, and--go figure--orange juice. The bottom line is that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and allowed them to happen for profit. Also, the world financial system is on the brink of collapse.
In its apocalyptic overtones, in its internationalist plot, in its view that apparent enemies are secretly collaborating, Ruppert's The Truth and Lies of 9/11 is a textbook conspiracy theory. It is also a vehicle for Cynthia McKinney. She utters the penultimate line, and it's a doozy. The American people, she says, might have a criminal syndicate running their government.
It's a sinkhole, said Chip Berlet, when I first asked him about these conspiracy theories. He sounded a note of regret about McKinney. A lot of McKinney's complaints about the government are standard progressive fare.
But which ones? Her conspiracy theories, or her hard-left politics? In truth, the line between the two is increasingly difficult to discern. I bought my copy of The Truth and Lies of 9/11 last June, at the Take Back America conference for progressive and Democratic activists in Washington, D.C. In a ballroom nearby, in earshot of the bookstand where Ruppert's video was being sold, Hillary Clinton and George Soros delivered keynote speeches. A few weeks after the conference, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which glibly hints at possible government foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks, was screened for the Senate Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in Washington. The film received a standing ovation.
Maybe all of this helps explain why Cynthia McKinney got her seat back. Maybe when McKinney shared her disturbing theories about President Bush in 2002, she was not so much falling off the edge of progressive politics as anticipating it. And she shows no signs of slowing down. I will probably get in trouble for what I've said to you tonight, McKinney told her audience at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 2003. But it won't be the first time I get in trouble for telling the truth. And I'll continue to tell the truth. As I have said before, I won't sit down and I won't shut up. Too bad.
She gets by with it the same way Michael Moore gets by with it...
he has said some pretty hateful things himself. And here is a pretty hateful personal attack from AL Franken: *I said that Sean Hannity took residence up
Newt Gingrich's butt from 94 to 98. I got
that from British intelligence. It turns out
he only took up residence in 95* but you did not see that reported in the media with conservatives running backward and screeching. That is a hateful tasteless personal attack. Here is another: Republicans are shameless d**ks. No, that's not fair. Republican politicians are shameless d**ks. Lovely, eh? And another one: Minnesota Republican Norman Coleman is one of the administration's leading butt boys. Classless, tasteless.
So you see what I am saying...the left accepts crap from Al Franken but will not accept crap from Ann Coulter. Crap is crap in my opinion.
I think Michael Moore
is a brave patriot, but that would feed into the conspiracy theory. I would be happy with any of recognized Sunday interview programs to start with.
Michael Moore
I've seen some of his movies, not all. I happen to also agree with his documentary on 9/11. There is evil afoot in our government and it's been going on for a very long time. Neither party is exempt from blame which is why I am independent. I would vote for (and have done so)a republican in a New York minute if I felt they had the best agenda for REAL change. I will admit that I probably lean more toward Democrats than Republicans as I feel they get their riches more from the middle class (i.e. labor) and the Republicans get their's from big business but please do not get busy calling me a DEMOCRAT!!!!! I have a brain that I use for reasoning and I don't support EITHER party as a whole.
Actually....Michael Moore did just that...
in his move. He went around the world and asked about healthcare. He also took Americans who could not afford medications here in the US to other countries with universal health care and guess what? They were actually treated! You might want to go to Blockbuster and check that one out....LOL.
Michael Steele. I really like this guy.
nm
Michael Steele....(sm)
As noted by someone on SNL (I think).....You do know it doesn't work with just any black guy? ROFL.
Michael Jackson did it
practically overnight!
I am not a fan of Michael Savage...
but certainly don't think he should be banned from the U.S. As far as Britain, I really don't care who they ban. There is a reason we declared our independence--this is pretty much it. We certainly should not emulate them. As far as Michael Savage goes, I am very conservative and I listen to conservative talk radio. I turn it off when Savage comes on. It's a great place we live in where Michael Savage can be on the radio saying whatever he wants to say and I am free to turn it off.
Stem Cells - I can't think of one reason why they should throw the extra cells away, rather than sav
x
and don't forget Michael Moore!
Michael Moore Message
My response:
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand. Gee thanks, Mike, but I am not in a funk. I know in whom I believe and it is not a political party and not you. As to things left undone...yer pal Bill left many things undone also...terrorists running amuck free to plot and plan 9-11 because he was too busy in the cigar bidness with Monica Lewinsky to react decisively to them, too busy lying to a grand jury, too busy obstructing justice, too busy taking care of Vince Foster (though I believe Hillary had more to do with that than Bill did)....as AG said: pot, kettle, pot kettle.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you. Oh, yeah, you cannot imagine how jazzed we are that YOU and the Democrats are in charge now. Whoopeee. ROFL. You value us as fellow Americans? What a load of hooey. Oh I know what you plan to do TO us...I believe it is calling hosing. For us? Nada.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us. You should look up respect in your Funk and Wagnall's, Mikey. You have never shown it...how could you? You have no clue what respect means. You were called unpatriotic because it is unpatriotic to criticize publicly your country and its leadership in a time of war. Look up patriotic in your Funk and Wagnall's.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift. Umm, down there where you say you will respect (again, you need to look that one up!) our beliefs...well this one flies in the face of that. But...oh....your moral compass went wonky years ago. Might want to look up morality while you are in the dictionary. Look, Mike....what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them, but do not expect us to agree that it is right and it is not wrong, because we are not going to do it. If they are sure they are right, they should not need our blessing. I am not telling them that they cannot do it...I am telling them I will not, cannot condone it. Period, end of sentence. What next? Stealing will be okay because you have not and and you want to have? And then what?
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you. Oh, that's rich, coming from you. The tax and spend group. You want to spend our grandchildren's money on programs that keep people enslaved to your philosophy so they will keep voting for you. You actually think we don't know that?
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie. You are so full of it, Mikey. When are you going to stop beating that dead horse?
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too. And when the quality of that care tanks and it takes months and years to get treatment, if America is so deluded as to go down that road...you with all the bucks will be fine. These poor and downtrodden you want to champion will get the short end of the stick...you know it and I know it, trouble is, THEY don't know it. You have got the wool pulled snugly down around their toes. Shame on you.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you drive? How many times a month do you fly? How much have you PERSONALLY done about any of those things? Gimme a break.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you. HA! That is the biggest lie of all. It was when your boys were in charge that terrorism escalated to unimaginable heights. Your boy Bill could have put bin Laden in the slammer BEFORE 3000 people were killed. You protect us??? The fox is in the hen house, Mikey. You couldn't protect a flea in Fort Knox.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. Thanks for nothing! Flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 was terrible, but you are condoning mass murder on a grand scale of the most innocent among us. Millions. What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Morally bankrupt. That aptly describes the liberal view espoused here.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours. Thank you but no thank you. I will protect my own children. I wouldn't trust you to protect a gerbil.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too. Then why do you and your ilk keep going to Canada to do your movies, etc., where you don't have to pay American Union wages and can do it cheaper? You are so full of crap. Don't know how you are still able to talk.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. We do put them into practice. You hate it when we do, when we call wrong, wrong. Like abortion...like same sex marriage....like.....you are the most intolerant of the intolerant. Why people cannot see through your facade is beyond me. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, seeking to keep them poor and under your thumb is not helping the poor) Blessed are the peacemakers (we do believe in peace, but we do not believe in letting those who DO NOT come here and kill us), Love your enemies (when you get that one down pat, call me), It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (yep, if you worship money above God, it is, hellooo Mike) brothers of mine, you did for me.(sorry, but hearing you quote scripture is really hard for me when I know you don't believe a word of it...and these are not RADICAL beliefs. Chopping off your head if you don't agree is radical, you goof. Saying convert or we will kill you is radical. We just call what is wrong wrong. We agree to disagree). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world. You would not know a good example if it bit you on your rather large rear end. I believe you are wrong about God blessing everyone. Yes, he does not want even one to perish, that is why Christians try to get the word out. We would like everyone to have eternal life. EVERYONE. But we don't chop off dissenters' heads. It is a free choice, Mikey. You come to Him or you don't. YOUR choice. Not MINE. Which is probably what chaps you so much. Because you are so fond of telling people what they should do, and to do it YOUR way. Look up intolerance while you are in your F&W. Fits the liberal view much more than the conservative view.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition. We will not tolerate corrupt politicians. Oh, boy, that is rich!! I can hardly type through tears of hysterical laughter. Bill - felony perjury and obstruction of justice; Bill and Hill...convicted of several things back in home state...and still have yet to explain dead Vince Foster--- Murtha, unindicted co-conspirator--Harry Reid, all kinds of shady deals....pullleezzzzeeee. Pot kettle pot kettle.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Wow, I bet you had to grit your teeth while you wrote that one. But I see through ya, Mikey. You are going to try the get more bees with honey because your true colors during the last Presidential election didn't work, did they big guy? You are so transparent. Just wish those who hang on your every word realized it. You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your rather large head.
Ya know, Mikey, conservatives don't hate liberals. We don't hate you. We are afraid for them and you and afraid for ourselves with you in control..but we don't hate you. I pray for them. I pray for you. I hope one day the light will really come on and you will know the truth. I pray it happens before you take us all down with you. I pray it happens before the radical Muslims start blowing up children in our malls, when cars are no longer safe and we do not feel safe even in our homes. I sincerely pray that it happens before that. Yes, we should all sink or swim as one, but if we hold onto the guidebook, the Bible, as one, our chances are much greater to swim.
God bless!
Observer
Signed,
Michael Moore
Michael Moore a patriot? sm
in WHAT alternate universe? Investigate? He wouldn't know a true investigation if it bit him on his very large butt. During the last election when he called Americans in general and Democrats in particular stupid...well I guess he loves the country but holds the people in contempt...particularly liberals as that is what he said...a patriot? Well the founding fathers would spin in their graves on that one. LOL...omg. Michael Moore a patriot. LOL.
MIchael Moore should be grateful
to live in America - a place where he can get rich off of blasting everything that is American. I believe everyone has a right to thier opinion, but to honestly say that one party is responsible for the way the economy is going right now is reprehensible.
You really think that it's the government's fault about the housing crisis? Sure, they set the plans in motion (plans that were started by the Clinton administration so that lower income people could get a home loan - Bush's mistake was to keep those plans going - this crisis has been coming on for a long time and everyone ignored it), but what about the people that actually went ahead and got those loans, knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to carry that mortgage out?
We all need to stop pointing the fingers at Washington and take a little of the responsibility ourselves. We're a nation that became very comfortable in our easy lifestyle and the more we could get, the more we would take. Now we want our government to give us more?
Left to his own devices, Michael Moore would probably declare himself dictator and rename our country Mooreland or something crazy like that. Gotta disagree with you on this one, gourdpainter; check out some of his movies and articles and I think you may find that you agree with him maybe 32%.
Michael Savage interview
When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview. His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio
Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)
P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question. Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother. The one who raised him. Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids? It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters.
it is a term that Michael Savage came up with. But then he may not be the only one. sm
Michael Savage uses the term in talking about people who follow in a group blindly, just like sheep in a flock. He uses it a lot when referring to people who don't think for themselves and just follow the crowd along repeating what the crowd wants them to. And he uses it as a bipartisan term.
Michael Steele, chairman of Rep.
Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, has asked the entire staff to resign, FOX News has confirmed.
The move signals Steele's plan to reshape the party, which was trounced at the polls in 2006 and 2008.
As a black man from Maryland, a traditionally Democratic state, Steele has already brought a new face to the party.
The RNC has about 100 staff members, many of whom have been told that their last day on the job will be Feb. 15, a Republican source told Politico, which reported the story Thursday morning.
Some aides may stay on, the source said, but several senior aides who were expecting the changes voluntarily submitted their resignations soon after Steele's election last week.
President Obama's new team made a similar request at the Democratic National Committee.
Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, won the chairmanship last Friday. In his first speech as chairman, he pledged to bring change in an effort to re-establish the GOP presence in the Northeast and win elections in regions across the country.
"It's time for something completely different, and we're gonna bring it to them," he said in his acceptance speech. "Get ready, baby. It's time to turn it on."
Michael Steele..Does he even know what he believes? (sm)
By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM
In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.
Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.
In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."
In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that
should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
Huh?
The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele
Michael Moore is disgusting any way you look
nm
Why would you do that to poor widdle Michael
He wouldn't survive a visit with Sarah Palin. She knows how to field-dress a moose, remember. She'd get that bag of lard in her sights and shortly the world would be a better, sweeter place.
Michael Savage -- Priceless...LOL (sm)
So, now Savage wants Hillary to help him get out of the British ban.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5326181/Shock-Jock-Michael-Savage-seeks-Hillary-Clintons-help-over-UK-ban.html
Now here's the funny part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILylcOIQhg
I would bet that she hasn't returned his calls yet....ROFL.
Michael moore only cares about two things....
Michael Moore and his checkbook.
Only thing missing is Michael Jackson....way
So you'd believe Michael Savage (of all people) over a court of law?
No offense, but using something that Michael Savage read isn't really proof of anything, but the fact that Michael Savage can form words and speak them.
There is a picture of the birth announcement (along with all kids of very level, logical information) here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html).
But given the fact that (a) there was a birth announcement, (b) Obama has a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii (that I am SURE, if forged, would have been looked into by a number of people who have access to birth records in Hawaii), and (c) that a huge network of people would have had be a part of this vast conspiracy theory, from the moment Barack Obama was born, it's a pretty far-flung accusation and one that really just resembles clinging to insanity so as not to have to deal with a distasteful reality.
Savage endorses McCain - Way to go Michael!
Way to go Michael Savage - way to go!
“You may say, oh, who listens to that guy Savage? What does an endorsement from him mean?
“It means more than you may imagine.
Savage said his endorsement means more than the backing of a dozen newspapers he mentioned, including the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, Chicago Tribune and New York Post, because his “daily circulation is larger than any one of these newspapers.
“I have millions of listeners,” he continued, “most of whom, by the way, are independents. In case you don’t know it, they’re not all conservatives. Most of my audience are independents and they have been waiting for some kind of a signal…
“I have put my own ego aside and I have to say what’s best for America.
“I’ll take my chances with the old war horse and even with Sarah Palin, who I’m not really a big fan of, by the way, over this naked Marxist revolutionary, because I don’t want to see what the next Pol Pot’s liable to do to the world.”
Link below
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/savage_endorses_mccain/2008/10/28/144993.html
|
