Service like an Audie Murphy’s was truly heroic.
Service like that of a John McCain was much more as that of a helpless very unlucky victim.

MB4 on January 2, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Wow. I’m speechless.

The reason that shamnesty Democrats want this is so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them. Many of them probably also want to do this for the same reason that shamnesty Republicans do too.

Does anyone think that many of these shamnesty politicians really care one wit otherwise for the illegals.

Does anyone think that any of the shamnesty politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs?

Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants?

Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants?

Invite them to their cocktail parties?

Introduce them to their daughters?

The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant light-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.

So the shamnesty politicians like John McCain are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.

If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.

John McCain’s truly heroic service during the Vietnam War.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 8:59 PM

Service like an Audie Murphy’s was truly heroic.
Service like that of a John McCain was much more as that of a helpless very unlucky victim.

Yet again, with Juan McShamnasty’s anti-Americanism as amply demonstrated by his pro plantation owner, pro serf, anti-American worker and tax payer, I don’t give a rat’s posterior if he lost a dozen planes and was in an NVA prison camp for 60 years.

You are free to re-read my arguments for John McCain today. If you do, I think that you can understand why I support John McCain. I should add that he is the only Republican in whom I have confidence can beat the Democrats in 2008, and whether it is Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, what you get is an anti-military socialist who will nominate left wing judges to the federal bench.

“[W]hat is so great about Romney on the subject of immigration? John McCain has been for months and is quite clear that law enforcement must come first. Even Rush has applauded McCain’s answer on immigration. Let’s keep in mind that the current problem stems from the 1980’s legislation signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The problem with that legislation was not the provisions themselves, but with the failure of the law enforcement provisions to be enforced. What John McCain sought more recently, along with President Bush, was legislation that was not on its face amnesty assuming that the law enforcement provisions were enforced. As John McCain concedes now, however, the American people simply do not believe that law enforcement provisions would be enforced.”

Repeating, as you do, that McCain supported amnesty does not respond to my points that the legislation supported by McCain was not on its face amnesty (which McCain denied it was amnesty), just as the 1980’s law signed into law by President Reagan was not amnesty on its face, that the problem with the 1980’s law was that the law enforcement provisions were not enforced, which is what created the present problem, and that the verdict as to this last year’s bill was that the American people did not believe its law enforcement provisions would be enforced either — hence, law enforcement must come first, a verdict that McCain has accepted.

By purporting to deal with only one of five issues you raised and to which I responded in my 1:19 PM post by not dealing with any of the challenges I raised with you in my 1:19 PM post, I take it that you have no responses as to the other four issues raised by you and none of the challenges I raised with you.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Okay. How about this? John McCain supported AMNESTY for Illlegal Aliens along with his friend and colleague…Ted Kennedy. Is that posiive enough?

You’d have an easier time fighting your #1 nemesis’ adherents, those of Rudy.

Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Plantation McShamnasty appears to be the greater threat to the Republic at this moment of action, so all batteries are directed at his coordinates.

MB4, God is not on your side.

Entelechy on January 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM

I always have taken his not unleashing lightning bolts my way to be his way of showing his implicit approval.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM

You seem to have a single minded fixation with your version of “The military credential” to the exclusion of all else.

That is not healthy.

BTW, the renowned strategist General Lieberman endorsing your hero McShamnesty – LOL!!!

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM

You’re right. Newt’s book, God in America is also a great reminder of all this.

I still disagree with you that McCain is better qualified.

On a very serious note, we should, and do appreciate/respect Messrs McCain/MB4’s, and others’, including the ladies’, service to his country. That, however, is not an exclusive requirement/entitlement to the presidency.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote a private letter to a congregation of Baptists in Connecticut reassuring them about their religious freedom. At the time, Connecticut had an established Church, the Congregational Church. How was that so after the First Amendment? Because the First Amendment was not yet held apply to the states and woulld not be until the mid-20th century concerning the religion clause. There were established churches at the state level in the United States in the early 1800’s. But Jefferson was a believer in the what the First Amendment stated on religion: that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor abridge the free exercise thereof. Note there is no language about the wall of separation between Church and State. What Jefferson did in writing the Connecticut Baptists was to assure them that the American conception of freedom of religion guaranateed the freedom of individual religious conscience and that accordingly there was a wall of separation existed between Church and State. Jefferson was using metaphorical terms to express the First Amendment’s anti-establishment clause. Jefferson was not adjudicating a court case, was not making an official presidential pronouncement and was not purporting to put an official gloss on the language of the First Amendment. Nor did Jefferson with hs words mean to keep religion out of the public square. In fact, it is clear that Jefferson did not use his language to mean keeping religion out of the public square because as President he ordered the Marine Band to play at Church services then held at the Capitol Building and would walk around carrying a Bible in what may be called an act of ceremonial theism. Jefferson was a very atypical free thinker in contrast to the dominant orthodox Christianity of the day, and in any event, what Jefferson meant is not what should dictate today the interpretation of the anti-establishment/free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The words of the First Amendment are the starting point supplemented by what was intended by those who actually passed the First Amendment — the First Congress that also approved congressional chaplains. Reagan’s “evil empire” speech contained a good discussion of basic points about how the First Amendment on religion should be read.

Even with two more quotations, mb4 is of course still woefully incomplete, especially since Adams at one point did call America a Christain nation.

But all this beside the point of my posts today defending John McCain.

but that bit that MB4 quoted from Jon Meacham is a shockingly incomplete summary of what role religion, and specifically Christianity (or Judeo-Christianity) played in our founding.

Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM

You are right, it was incomplete.

Here’s a little more:

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- Thomas Jefferson

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
- James Madison

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson

Jon Meacham forgot to consider George Washington’s words in the Farewell Adress about religion and morality being indispensable pillars of the American republic and the number of times other founders such as John Adams referred to America as a Christian nation.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM

The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams, 2nd US President

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.
- Thomas Jefferson

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Once again, I don’t agree with you about McCain and the Presidency, but that bit that MB4 quoted from Jon Meacham is a shockingly incomplete summary of what role religion, and specifically Christianity (or Judeo-Christianity) played in our founding.

I also read something interesting today about Jefferson that I had not thought of before. When Jefferson speaks of the “wall of separation between church and state” that is not at all the same thing as saying that the same wall should exist to separate all religion from the state.

The word church implies a specific endorsement of a specific religion.

It’s somewhere in here, but I don’t have the energy to find it right now!

Here is a good review of the book, Faith and the Presidency from George Washington to George W. Bush.

Phil Byler on January 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

How on Earth does any of that extrania from almost forty years ago make him the best choice for President?

Or even a barley acceptable choice?

Answer – IT DOES NOT!!!

Just how long did you think that he could milk that as a get-out-of-jail-card for all the crap he has done since?

Answer – IT IS WAY PAST IT’S EXPIRATION DATE!

Listen, I don’t care if the man has 10 sons and 5 daughters who are in the military, got shot down 25 times and spent 600 years in an NVA prison camp.

None of that would change the fact that he is an anti-American water boy for the serf master plantation owners and La Raza.

Was that un-glib enough for you?

Jon Meacham forgot to consider George Washington’s words in the Farewell Adress about religion and morality being indispensable pillars of the American republic and the number of times other founders such as John Adams referred to America as a Christian nation.

That, however, does not make me think he’d be a good president.

Also: to say that “McCain isn’t as conservative as Romney” is a bit silly – neither one of them is all that conservative. In fact, Romney’s liberalism is second only to Guliani’s. The only think the NR’s endorsement did for me, was to make me aware just how far from right the NR has moved over the last several years.

What John McCain and his fellow naval aviators did during the Vietnam War was to take off from carriers and fly jet aircraft on bombing missions in North Vietnam, which had one of the better air defense systems in military history. On the day that John McCain was shot down, he took off from a carrier, flew over Hanoi, North Vietnam, bombed a Hanoi power plant that was the target that day and then was shot down by a surface-to-air missle. He survived bailing out of his aircraft but was very badly injured; he then endured six years of captivity in North Vietnam and was subjected to real torture. John McCain may joke now about being shot down, but no one should question for a second the courage and character involved in John McCain’s wartime service. But you, mb4, have; why should we take anything you write seriously?