Two words... KEATING FIVE!! nm
Posted By: huh? on 2008-09-23
In Reply to: Fannie Mae's CEO & Obama - Shelley
x
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
Keating Five
History, it is said, is written by the victors. Or alternatively by John McCain, who has proclaimed that his role in the 1989 Keating Five corruption and racketeering scandal -- which led to the Lincoln Savings and Loan (S&L) bailout, part of the larger United States S&L crisis of the late 1980's and 1990's -- is his "asterisk." Excuse me? His asterisk? This writer begs to differ.
But apparently the American corporate media agrees, judging by its all but collective failure to report on McCain's primary role in the one incident in American history where the exact same catalyst, government deregulation, led to a comparable financial shipwreck, albeit not on the same gargantuan scale as the present, historic economic collapse.
This is not to say that the S&L crisis was not big. To the contrary, the immensity of the Lincoln Savings and Loan collapse, indeed of the entire S&L sector--and John McCain's role in it--is impossible to overstate. At this point, a bit of historical context is in order.
It all began when Charles Keating's American Continental Corporation purchased Lincoln in 1984. In the span of five years, with Keating as chairman -- and with the S&L industry newly deregulated -- Lincoln's assets ballooned from 1.1 billion to 5.5 billion. Much of this booty was the result of using customers' federally insured deposits to engage in high risk, highly speculative real estate and junk bond dealings.
By 1986, Lincoln had $135 million in undisclosed losses, and they had surpassed the newly imposed cautionary 10 percent "direct investment" limit of institutional assets by $600 million dollars. It doesn't take a financial wizard to recognize that this did not bode well for Lincoln's individual depositors -- or for the government's insurance fund, the Federal Depositor Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In 1989, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), growing increasingly alarmed by Lincoln's use of FDIC-insured funds for commercial real estate deals, initiated a probe into Lincoln's free-wheeling investment practices.
Once Keating got wind of the investigation, he decided to capitalize on his political investments, his estimated $1.3 million in campaign contributions to various U. S. Senators. And John McCain, the deregulator's deregulator, was the recipient of the most cash, $112,000 -- which may not seem like much by today's standards, but it was a bundle back in the 1980's.
And that doesn't include the other fringe benefits afforded to McCain, like private jet rides to Keating's opulent Bahamas estate, myriad fund raisers for McCain's House and Senate campaigns, or Cindy McCain's (and her father's) involvement with Keating in a "sweetheart" shopping mall deal in Arizona. As the Feds closed in, Keating decided to call in his markers.
Keating orchestrated at least two April 1987 meetings between several San Francisco FHLBB board members, including its chairman Edwin Gray, and five U. S. Senators -- The Keating Five -- including the good John McCain. In spite of this blatant obstruction of justice, the San Francisco regulators found Lincoln guilty of unsound lending practices and recommended its seizure. The Keating Five exerted pressure and the takeover was delayed for 2 years. Gray was replaced. Meanwhile, Lincoln's customers were steered into extremely risky, uninsured investments, junk bonds held by Keating's American Continental Corporation, which ultimately went belly-up in April 1989. Lincoln was finally seized by the FHLBB that same month.
Meanwhile, more than 21,000 mostly elderly depositors lost their life's savings in the sordid affair, to the tune of $285 million, prompting an approximate $2 billion federal government bail-out. Keating was found guilty of fraud and racketeering and served 50 months of a 12-year prison sentence. McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing and chided for "poor judgment" by the Senate Ethics Committee.
In the two decades since this disgraceful affair, McCain has maintained that he did not knowingly do anything wrong. All the money and graft did not influence his actions.
Not so, according to Keating who is quoted in the 2003 book, Philosophical Dimensions of Public Policy. When asked if his political donations amounted to quid pro quo, Keating reportedly said "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."
No such candor from John McCain. To let the senator from Arizona tell it, he was only helping Keating because he was one of the largest employers in his state. Besides that, Keating's accountants vouched for Lincoln's financial viability. Even Alan Greenspan authored a favorable report commissioned by Keating, McCain routinely deflects. How could anyone blame him for not knowing that Keating was looting Lincoln? (This is kind of like the Bush Administration's circular defense of the massive "intelligence failure" with regard to Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.)
At any rate, that is McCain's story, and he has been sticking to it for almost two decades now. Not that he has had to talk much about it in recent years. He has been too busy straight-talking about ethics and campaign finance reforms, not unlike the burglar who repents and becomes an anti-theft crusader. And lo and behold, so far it has worked. In perhaps the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy, it would seem that McCain has succeeded in making The Keating Five mess his self-proclaimed asterisk. And who can blame him for trying to sanitize this most shameful chapter of his political career? But the so-called Fourth Estate's silence is another story altogether.
It is nothing less that mind-boggling that most of the media establishment, America's supposed "watchdog" is ignoring this crucial chapter of the McCain story. Really, when you think about it, it is obscene; and an objective history will judge them harshly. Particularly when one considers that this is the same media that acted as drum majors in the run-up to the Iraq War, and were enthusiastically embedded with the military in the delusional days of "shock and awe." Or were they in bed with the Bush Administration?
This is the very same media that obsessed over Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes and savaged AL Gore for inconsequential things like visiting a Buddhist temple or kissing his wife too passionately after his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Committee...and who barely made a sound when the Supreme Court basically overturned an American Presidential election. And it is the same media that was basically complicit in the swiftboating of the decorated Vietnam veteran, John Kerry.
The same press corps that has rendered the Democrats spineless and, for the last eight years, afraid to act as a true opposition party (and too fainthearted to raise the Keating Five in this election cycle) lest they too be savaged by the Republicans who, with a wink and a nod, constantly rail against the "liberal media" who have now apparently taken a vow of silence about John McCain's "asterisk."
In a clear-eyed, reasonable, straight-talking society, the Keating Five would be the lead of any John McCain biography, second only to the Hanoi Hilton. Some might even argue that the monumental racketeering scandal should take a back seat to nothing in the story of this man who would be president -- particularly at a time when this nation's economic infrastructure is literally crumbling. Count this writer in that number.
The Keating Scandal
Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.
In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.
But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late ྌs and early ྖs, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.
The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.
And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.
Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:
http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.
It's long (13 minutes) but information every voter should know.
Why don't you ever mention the other 4 in the Keating 5 were....
Democrats? Three of whom were much more than "rebuked." The Keating 5 was a small part of the article. The lead with the pic of the "indicted" guy has been refuted...and Obama also has an "indicted" friend..Rezko. But you did not bring that up either.
Google and look.....for instance the Keating 5....
one of those was also Senator John Glenn of Ohio, a Democrat. Did we see HIS name prominently in the letter? People love John Glenn and NO ONE ever mentions HE was one of the Keating 5. In fact, all the other 4 were Democrats. John Glenn and John McCain were the only 2 that the senate ethics committee said were NOT centrally involved and cleared of impropriety. Both ran for re-election the next year and both were re-elected. And John McCain has apologized for any involvement, said it was poor judgment, and mentioned that again at the Saddleback interview. At least he admits when he is wrong and takes responsibility. Yet another reason I like him.
THAT is what I mean about getting the WHOLE story.
Let's talk about McCain and the Keating Five or his
Let's talk about how he left his wife who waited for him while he was in prison for five years. Then he dumped her because she was disfigured in an accident. Now he has Cindy who makes life wonderful with $100 mil a year. He needs to be president to bring something to the table for HER because his war vet thing is nice but not really as prestigious as PRES and as PRES he could do a lot for rich people like wifey.
And he's related to Charles Keating!
nm
Like JOHN MCCAIN - Keating 5 Scandal
I guess JM is a crook, too
http://www.mahalo.com/Keating_5_Scandal
Keating 5 cost taxpayers $125 billion.
x
McCain has spoke ad nauseam about Keating 5
Get over it already!
The corrupt ACORN bunch are still at it and Obama is backing them every inch of the way. They are his push into office don't ya know?
You call Keating, Ayers, ACORN et all serious debate?
I don't. How about the economy, the wars, the exploding national debt, unemployment, homelessness. That's the issues I'd like to see discussed and your proposed solutions, not who can sling the most mud. Get it?
Those types of words are unnecessary and actually ARE racist words. sm
Those types of phrases are offensive and are intended to be offensive. This election should not be about race. If it is about race for you, then you are probably one of the ignorant people using those words. Very rude!!
You're right....words are just words...so are Obama's...
...and don't/won't mean anything to many people, myself included.
He is no MLK.
It is a historic moment, of that I have no doubt. And yes, he has come far.
However, one still needs to have strength of character to back the words up for true meaning, and he is sadly lacking in that area.
Nothing but words hon, and we know how Obama's words
nm
Just a few words
For you to even think something like that shows you have it in your brain. I would never post some of the derogatory posts you and your friends from the conservative board have posted to me and to others. Does it bother you that much that I post strong opinions and refuse to be cowed by nasty responses? I have thick skin and I can roll with the punches. Seems to me every time I post you and your friends just have to respond, no matter what I post. By you responding so forcefully shows you are threatened by my ideology and the bigger picture, the liberal/democratic ideology. Be happy with your beliefs and espouse them but stop attacking people for their beliefs..In other words, chill out..you will do your heart a favor. This is a free country, my opinions are mine and I will continue to have them. Nothing you say will change my beliefs..so dont waste your time trying..I also must say, if you want to talk about people sounding like lunatics, re-read some of the conservative posts. A few profess to never attack or call names, yeah right, there is so much back biting and name calling on that board..but hey, its fair game when you are dealing with politics. they are all just words, nothing more. My bigger quest is to help turn this country around to the country I knew and loved through grass roots politics, belonging to the local democratic party and making sure the right ones get in mid year elections and in three years. This is just a politics board, LOL, nothing that gets my blood pressure elevated, that is for sure..The majority of Americans feel we are headed down the wrong track and our priorities are wrong. The latest poll shows the people losing faith and trust in Bush and his credibility is going down. The majority think Iraq was a mistake and worry that attacking Iraq made us less secure and more prone to attacks. Seems to me my opinions and those of most that post on the liberal board (save for the few conservatives who post here to attack and disrupt) are in the mainstream of American thought, fears and concerns. Now, I would hope the attacks will stop, as I will not respond to them anymore. If you want to debate, post the debate and Im sure many will join in but no one wants to be part of a board where crazy accusations such as you and yours have been posting about me keep getting posted.
Yes, among other words. NM
These were your words.
Still on this board!!! Tell me how what you said below is the same as:
As far as Iraq, of course, you twisted that all out of context. Lurker asked if I would go to Iraq to help rebuild and I said yes, if I could I would, but please don't tell the truth and continue to twist because you are twisted.
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all. NM
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Liberals]
Posted By: MT on 2005-08-24,
In Reply to: Ridiculous...I think not - Lurker
There are no words, only
thoughts and prayers. I am so very sorry.
HER words (yet again):
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all.
Not *would* join.... WILL JOIN. WILL GO AGAIN. WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those who believe in telling the truth can easily see the distortion.
The key words are
*announced* and *Bin Laden.*
Clinton announced to AMERICANS that he was specifically targeting Bin Laden. Remember him? HE was the guy responsible for 9/11, and HE is the guy that Bush ignored to instead invade Iraq.
Clinton wasn't targeting average Americans who are trying to pay off their J. C. Penney bills, and Clinton never used intimidating tactics towards American citizens.
Bush doesn't know how to do anything BUT use secrets, intimidation and fear tactics.
Words
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I would choose to have an abortion, or choose to end life (which to me, are still 2 different things). I said that I believe in choice.
I have two words for you. SM
Walid Shoebat. I am willing to bet he knows way more than your professor about the Middle East and he doesn't agree with either one of you.
Wow! In her own words no less. I do not want any
.
Two words
There is a word spelled choose and a word spelled chose. They certainly are confused a lot these days.
Choose is present tense and chose is past tense. They are pronounced differently.
I'm not picking on the poster; just making a general observation about a term many people misuse.
what a way with words . . .
guffaw.
WOW, you use BIG words, just like O!
I am so happy for you!
In their own words
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
I'd love to know why I should have to bail out anyone. If my husband and I overextended ourselves and spent like drunken sailors we'd have nobody to blame but ourselves. So in that same concept we should turn to someone and essentially hand the bill for it over to him/her?
Also, as a Texan, we'll now be on the hook for billions (per the radio) from Ike. My husband and I don't HAVE a billion here, a billion there. They throw around million, billion, and trillion like it's petty cash!
In your own words. sm
The middle class disappears...money at the very top, and that's it. The middle class and the lower class become the same. Can you not see that is what has happened already in America?
your words
"and this notion that the democrats ruined everything since they took over - excuse me, we are not supposed to have 1 party in total power, remember that one? when you get all sides represented and respected, you have more freedom." Those are your words. What do you think we will have if Obama wins?? A democrat for president and a democratic congress. That would be one party in power, and that is not a pretty picture at all.
In other words........... sm
everything except his experience.
He was not addressing all the issues you listed in the video. Did you even WATCH it?
Yes, he might have known the words, but
But, you are supposed to repeat the oath given to you,word for word, and this would have been the "wrong" oath, so the justice had to correct himself, so the right oath was administered.
Do the words......(sm)
great depression and new deal ring a bell? I guess Econ 101 was too much for ya, so let's go back to high school American history. 
In other words....(sm)
there are no facts to support your claim. You guys just spout out anything...LOL.
In other words....(sm)
They don't want to admit that they get their info from Fox. They seem to be very anxious to spread all the crap that Fox comes up with, but when they are confronted to show facts they seem to be embarrassed about their source (assuming there is one)......Hmmmm...
So in other words
UAW = good. Insurance companies = bad?
The key words here are.............. sm
OPPORTUNITY versus REQUIREMENT.
I will use you as an example since you have said that you and your husband were married before a JP.
You have, in your scenario, met the qualifications of being able to have the benefits of marriage in terms of taxes, etc. You have the OPPORTUNITY to be married in a religious ceremoy if you so choose (which will be highly unlikely given that you and your husband are both atheists).
Conversely, my husband and I who were married in a religious ceremony would be REQUIRED to obtain a union in order to have the same benefits that you and your husband hold.
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree with everything you said.
I think that lumping people together and making gross inaccurate generalizations does nothing but prevent any intelligent discourse from occurring, and that's very sad because these issues are very serious. Our very ability to keep BREATHING may be in jeopardy, particularly if we don't start concentrating on our own safety. Bush has made Iraq much less safe place to be, and he hasn't done much to make the United States a safe place to be. If we truly NEED our military someday to protect US in a homeland attack, where will they all be?
What also worries me is that our enemies might consider this a bilateral "religious" war. They already believe it is, yelling and effecting "Jihad." But the current focus on one particular brand of Christianity in this country -- not religion in general, but one particular BRAND of Christianity -- makes me wonder if Bush himself doesn't think this is a religious war. The fact that he might think so is what scares me the most, as history tell us they are the most deadly, bloody wars of all. I personally don't want the U.S. to be known as a "Christian" nation. One of the things I love the most about this country is the freedom that we're SUPPOSED to have to worship freely, and I will personally oppose anyone who tries to take that away from us.
It's sad that tolerance and respect aren't in more people's hearts and souls.
So in other words, God offends you.
/
They were just using one of your favorite words
or do you own the copyright of the word liar?
Your exact words....
(quote)Believe me, If Scarborough is upset with Bush, there's a reason. He's always supported Bush.(unquote)
Actions vs words.
Bush cannot recommend a constitutional amendment defining marriage as taking place between a man and a woman without a healthy respect for the Constitution itself. One does not merely walk into Iraq on the basis of a **** piece of paper. This story is a year and a half old. The publication who broke this story is about as far left as one can get. If the reputable publications from both sides of the fence felt it was a real story, they would have certainly run with it. They didn't. That' s my take on it after examining it.
Yes, they are very fine words..
written by some very fine minds. Ghandi says much the same. I think I'll stick with the great minds. Cat bites and scratches dangerous ?...sometimes...people who mistreat animals or wish them harm dangerous ?...always.
Those are really fine words.
However, if the cat is harming human life, and everyone knows how toxic a cat scratch or bite can be, and the owner refuses to maintain her animal, what is the solution? Maybe a new home.
Words of this century...sm
Stay the course.
It's hard work.
Liberate the Iraqis.
I'm a patriot (and you're not).
Did I mention *it's hard work, staying the course to liberate the Iraqis because I'm a patriot (and you're not).*
Any ring to those words? Boy, if Peewee were still in the playhouse now.
Anywho, the point is and you said it yourself, Fox is a conservative leaning network. And the liberal guests can debate, you may feel they can't because they are double teamed by the anchor/pundit and the conservative guests.
You know my game? You don't even know your own words.
I responded directly to your post and quoted your own name calling words, but you don't know what I'm talking about?!
The words out of context...sm
Were the words he spoke himself on NBC Nightly News. His words were not altered. They were followed by an opinion with which he does not agree, but that does not make the documentary a LIE.
The words out of context
When you twist someone's words and give an opinion following that cannot be contested by the speaker, fully intending that your opinion be attributed to the speaker as truth...that, my friend, is a lie. And it is not the only lie in that mocumentary. Michael Moore never has had taste (Bowling for Columbine) and he never will. The fact that people buy into his anger and hatred and gloss it over as a documentary still boggles the mind.
I used those words to describe...
supporting the effort in Afghanistan but not supporting the effort in Iraq. Perhaps I should have said abandoned rather than thrown to the dogs. Means the same to me. As to Sheehan, this is the Sheehan family statement:
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:
The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Interesting words from the OTB
Here are a few paragraphs from a write-up on Outside the Beltway in regards to yesterday's caucus by Joyner.
So, it’s Morning in America. But, as his co-blogger Andrew Sullivan noted just minutes earlier, it’s a dark day for the Republican Party.
Tonight was in many ways devastating news for the GOP. Twice as many people turned out for the Democrats than the Republicans. Clearly independents prefer the Dems.
Now look at how the caucus-goers defined themselves in the entrance polls. Among the Dems: Very Liberal: 18 percent; Somewhat Liberal: 36 percent; Moderate: 40 percent; Conservative: 6 percent. Now check out the Republicans: Very Conservative: 45 percent; Somewhat Conservative: 43 percent; Moderate: 11 percent; Liberal: 1 percent.
One is a national party; the other is on its way to being an ideological church. The damage Bush and Rove have done - revealed in 2006 - is now inescapable.
Somewhere in between lies the truth.
What it Means for the Parties
The Democrats have three candidates that the base could ultimately rally around, two of whom could well attract strong support from moderates. The third, Hillary Clinton, remains the favorite, I should think, to take the nomination. If any sense of "inevitability" still attached to her prior to last night’s vote, however, it’s now gone. Obama is easily the bigger obstacle in her path.
A Huckabee nomination could conceivably destroy the party. Not only would he be lucky to break 40 percent in the general election against any of the plausible Democratic nominees but many fiscal conservatives and Chamber of Commerce Republicans would bolt. When Ronald Reagan and others mobilized rural Christian conservatives in the 1980s, they never expected that they would take such a prominent role in the party. Gradually, though, they took it over at the grass roots level in much of rural America.
Huckabee’s mobilization of fervent evangelicals, many of whom doubtless had never shown up for a caucus prior to last night, scares the **** out of mainstream Republicans. My strong hunch is that they’ll rally around someone else — probably McCain but possibly Romney or Giuliani — in Michigan and New Hampshire.
What it Means for the Country
Ultimately, I side with Optimistic Sullivan on this one. Democracy is a frustrating thing for elites, who have always feared mob rule. Still, it’s a remarkable thing that a black man with a Muslim name managed to beat out the Establishment-backed wife of a former president in one of the whitest states in the country. Adam Nagourney:
Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest.
That Obama was able to do this partly on the basis of inspiring young people, traditionally one of the weakest voting blocks, is also a positive sign.
The elite disappointment with Huckabee’s easy win is palpable. Iowa’s format allows a fervent few to dominate; that structure isn’t in place in most of the states that follow. Still, the fact that a guy that was off the radar screen of even most political junkies a few months ago can stand next to much more famous and better financed men, state his case to the voters, and earn their support is the very ideal of our system.
We have a presidential, not a parliamentary, system in this country. Whereas the latter rewards political experience and working one’s way through the ranks, the former gives more weight to personality and an ability to connect with the people. There’s still a long, long way to go, though, before we face the prospect of a President Huckabee or President Obama.
Okay....in your own words, then, not the dictionary...
liberal to the core...why? What are your values, your ideas? Yours? You say those old men with old ideas, so out of touch. What are your ideas? What makes you so happy you are a liberal Democrat, and why is Obama not one? Thanks!
I did not put words in your mouth....
if you are pro choice, and if you had to vote on the issue you would vote for it I assume...that means you support abortion. That is the plain and simple fact. There is no law now which states when an abortion has to occur. They can do it any time they get good and ready, beyond three months.
My dear kam, my "religion" does not tell me that a baby has a soul before it is born, my sense of morality and my heart tell me that. And just because you say a baby does not have a soul before it is born, that also does not make it so. If I am going to err, I most certainly would want to err on the side of the child. But that is just me.
Yes, I want state to state decisions to be made. That is what democracy is about. You hawk about choice, choice, choice. Every American should have the right to vote on this question. You want to allow a woman a choice to kill her baby, you don't want to allow me a choice to vote on the matter. Talk about hypocritical. Sheesh.
As you have stated ad nauseam, if a woman wants an abortion, she is going to get one, and I don't think having to travel to another state is going to stop her. Might be a little inconvenient, but I am sure those as liberal pro-choicers could set up buses, etc., to haul those women who want to have their babies killed to wherever they are killing babies.
You say you are not pro abortion...that must mean on some level personally you think it is wrong. That comes from your personal sense of morality, and since you are obviously not a "religious" person it does not come from God (although I do not believe that, but that is neither here nor there and not a discussion for this board). There are many people who are pro life who are not, as you say, "religious." They just believe that killing babies is wrong. The National Right to Life Committee is comprised of many non-"religious" people as well as "religious people." Believe it or not, there are people out there who just believe killing babies is wrong.
As to the SCHIP thing...that has nothing to do with the moral right or wrong of abortion. Why are you so concerned about health care of those children, and not concerned about the millions aborted every year? 98% of which have nothing to do with the health of the mother, rape, or incest? Why not limit abortion to rape, incest, or life of mother in danger? Why use it as a form of birth control? Because that is what 98% of abortions are. And if that is okay with you, so be it. I have a right to be against it, just as you have a right to be for it.
And, by the way, I also have a right to my "religion." Guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States of America. Just like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...there is no proviso "unless you are an inconvenient fetus, then all bets are off."
Have a nice day.
It's their own words, not yours or mine. nm
Sam, you give closed-minded people way too much of your time! Oh well. It's your call.
|
