My great great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Civil War, my grandfather watched as his friends died in WW II, and my father watched as my friends died in Vietnam

My great great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Civil War, my grandfather watched as his friends died in WW II, and my father watched as my friends died in Vietnam.
None of them died for the Mexican Flag.
Everyone died for the U.S. flag.
In Texas , a student raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole; another student took it down.  Guess who was expelled…the kid who took it down.
Kids in high school in California were sent home this year on Cinco de Mayo because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.
Enough is enough.
The below e-mail message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America .
We’ve bent over to appease the America-haters long enough.
I’m taking a stand.
I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the U.S. flag can’t stand up.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.
Let me make this perfectly clear!
THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
And, because I make This statement
DOES NOT
Mean I’m against immigration!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY!
Welcome! To come through legally:
1. Get a sponsor!
2. Get a place to lay your head!
3. Get a job!
4. Live By OUR Rules!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
And
6. Learn the LANGUAGE like immigrants
have in the past!!!
AND
7. Please don’t demand that we hand over our lifetime
savings of Social Security Funds to you.
If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone,
Then YOU’RE  PART OF THE PROBLEM!
When will AMERICANS STOPgiving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We’ve gone so far the other way…
bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the
AMERICAN CITIZEN
that’s being offended!
WAKE UP America !!!
If  You agree…. Pass this on.
If  You don’t agree.. Delete It!!!

Food Stamps:You Want Fries With That?

Judicial Watch

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII&feature=player_embedded#!

A government entitlement program heavily promoted by the Obama Administration
to eradicate “food insecure households” is doling out so much money that a
growing number of private businesses are competing for a piece of the lucrative
pie.

At stake are nearly $65 billion distributed annually to food-stamp recipients
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The number has skyrocketed in the
last few years (from $28.5 billion in 2005 to $64.7 billion in 2010) in part
because the Obama Administration has spent millions
of dollars to recruit
more participants and reduce the “stigma” associated
with food stamps,even as the number surged without taxpayer-funded publicity
campaigns.

Obama’s Agriculture
Secretary,Tom Vilsack
,claims that increasing
the number of food-stamp recipients actually helps the economy
,strengthens
communities and creates jobs. The USDA has cited some unknown “research” that
shows every $5 in new food-stamp benefits actually generates as much as $9 in
economic activity. The source of the research has never been revealed by the
agency.

Now so many people get food stamps in the U.S. that a growing number
of businesses—including gas stations,dollar discount stores and pharmacies—are
accepting them,according to a national newspaper
report.
Even restaurants,which don’t participate in the program,are fighting
for a piece of the action,according to federal lobbying records cited in the
story….

Read
more
.

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

Obama’s Joint Session Blunder

By Rosslyn
Smith

The controversy over President Obama’s address to a
joint session of Congress underscores his ignorance of history, his lack of
understanding regarding the Constitution, and how lacking he is in political
skills other than speechifying.  Voters seem to instinctively understand which
issues transcend partisan politics and thus are appropriate for a presidential
address before a joint session of Congress.  They also have a history of not
responding well when that venue is misused.  Giving a political stump speech
before a joint session of Congress is simply not being
presidential.

We are most familiar with the annual rite of the
president’s State of the Union address, with its stylized partisanship.  In
addition, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that the electoral
votes for president be counted before a joint session of Congress.  Diplomatic
courtesy has long honored the practice of allowing an important foreign head of
state or government to address the nation by speaking before a joint session of
Congress.  Finally, great Americans — alive and dead alike — may also be
honored by a special joint session of Congress.  These are the acceptable
reasons for Congress to meet in a joint session.  When a president addresses the
nation from inside the U.S.
Capitol
on any other occasion, he is expected to speak on
matters of genuine national importance, not partisan advantage.  This is because
under our Constitution’s system of separation of powers, a president has to be
invited to come to Capitol Hill and speak.

The State of the Union address evolved from the
command in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.

He shall from time to time give to Congress
information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and
expedient.

“Time to time” was quickly interpreted to mean an
annual report.  Many early presidents made this report in writing, but by the
early 20th century, it became standard practice for the president to
speak on the State of the Union before a joint session of Congress.  It is now
also a tradition that in lieu of a State of the Union address, a newly
inaugurated president will address a joint session of Congress shortly after he
assumes office with an outline of his first-term agenda billed as an economic or
budget address.  A far less happy tradition has also developed.  Truman,
Johnson, and Ford each addressed a joint session of Congress after being sworn
in upon the death or resignation of their predecessors.

Outside the annual State of the Union address and
transitions of power, presidents have pretty much limited their addresses before
a joint session of Congress to major issues of national security.  Examples
include FDR’s A day that shall live in infamy speech after Pearl
Harbor, FDR again on the Yalta Conference in the closing days of WWII, Truman
announcing the Marshall Plan, Carter announcing SALT II, and Reagan’s report on
the Geneva summit.

The man the press has been trying to compare Obama to
as a communicator made only three special joint session addresses to Congress in
eight years.  In addition to the Geneva summit address, Ronald Reagan also spoke
on Central America in April, 1983.  Reagan’s April 1981 speech before a joint
session was billed as an address on the economy, but the real purpose was to
reassure both Congress and the nation that Reagan was capable of fulfilling the
duties of the office after the assassination attempt a month earlier.  That
address is a
minor masterpiece of sound economic policies
,
genuine bipartisanship, and grace under pressure — commodities I suspect will
be in short supply next Thursday night.

George H.W. Bush made two special addresses to
Congress in four years.  One was on the need to go to war to reverse Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, the other announced victory in that war.  Bill Clinton made
only one special address to Congress in eight years.  In September 1993, Clinton
urged the joint session of Congress to pass his health care plan.  Congress
preferred to listen to the voters instead.  The plan failed, Democrats lost
control of Congress, and Clinton decided that he had better ways to move his
agenda forward.  For the rest of his two terms he confined his appearances
before Congress to State of the Union addresses.  George W. Bush also made only
one special address to a joint session of Congress in eight years.  On September
20, 2001 he announced the War on Terror in response to the attacks on September
11.

On September 9, 2009 Barack Obama addressed a joint
session of Congress on health care.  His address was no more successful than
Clinton’s in swaying the voters, but Congress charged ahead anyway.  Less than
two years later, having lost control of the House and with his poll numbers
sinking fast, Obama now plans on speaking again.  As Clinton learned, the track
record of presidents using a special joint session of Congress to promote
domestic policy proposals is not that great.  No one remembers Nixon’s 1971
speech on the economy or Carter’s 1977 address on energy as great moments in
political oration.  Nor does Congress take kindly to being scolded by a guest in
its own chambers.

It is noteworthy that FDR, another president revered
for his ability to sway public opinion, once attempted to do just that.  In 1935
FDR used his first special address to a joint session of Congress as the venue
to deliver his veto of the popular WWI
veteran’s bonus act
.
While the Senate sustained that veto, a few months later Congress sent FDR a
message.  When an almost identical bill passed a second time, a congressman took
the bill, rushed out of the Capitol, hailed a taxi, and hand-delivered it to the
White House, daring a second veto.  That veto was handily overridden, and for
his remaining decade in office, FDR limited his requests to address a special
session of Congress to issues of national security.

It is true that Truman addressed the so-called
“do
nothing” Congress
on
domestic issues in a joint session in July 1948 and then came from behind to win
reelection, but 1948 was one of the most unusual presidential election years in
American history.  Truman had not been elected to the office, and both his style
and his social background were poles apart from those of the man he replaced.
He did not enjoy FDR’s relationship with many in the national press, who often
treated him as a temporary place-keeper until another member of the East Coast
establishment could take over.  The Democrats were badly divided that election,
with not one, but two splinter candidates that year.  Progressive Party
candidate Henry Wallace had been FDR’s vice president before he was replaced by
Truman in 1944, and Strom Thurmond’s candidacy was the Southern Democrat
response to the growing power of Northern Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, who
led the 1948 platform fight on Civil Rights.  The Republicans were incredibly
complacent in the face of this disarray among their opponents.  Thomas Dewey ran
one of the most lackadaisical presidential campaigns in memory, while the
Republican Congress failed to connect with the concerns of many returning GIs.
Several historic bills had been passed by that “do nothing” Congress, but they
were mostly related to the growing Cold War, containing communism, and business
interests.  Domestic matters such as new housing were high on the list of voter
concerns.

What Truman did in his whistle stop campaign was, in
effect, to introduce himself firsthand to voters in America’s heartland in the
age before television.  Many were pleasantly surprised to see that he was very
much one of their own — a plain-spoken Middle-Westerner who hadn’t particularly
sought great ambition but who eagerly accepted the responsibility and who
offered commonsense solutions.

If anything, Obama’s situation is almost the opposite
of Truman’s.  Obama has long dwelt inside the cocoon of Ivy League-educated
experts bereft of common sense, and if anything, he has been massively
overexposed in the media.  Since 2004, the press has been extolling Obama’s
intelligence, wisdom, and first-rate temperament at every opportunity.  Many
voters took Obama at the media’s estimation of his skills in 2008.  The record
increasingly suggests that in fact, Obama possess none of these traits.  The
patented Obama partisan speech with its straw men, false choices,
blame-shifting, and self-aggrandizement in the very heart of representative
democracy is likely to only make more people realize what a terrible mistake
they made in 2008.

Spending Cuts

Salary of the US President ……………….$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ………….$180,000
Salary of House/Senate ……………………$174,0​00
Salary of Speaker of the House …………..$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders …….. .$193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made ! If you agree…RE-POST

Open letter to Sen John McCain

Senator McCain,

My husband
worked and paid into Social Security from 1952 to 1998. That’s 46 years. I paid
into it from 1953, on and off for 8 years. My job was to stay home and raise
two sons.

Tell me why
it’s called entitlement. Because of reckless decisions and spending in
Washington we have not had a cost of living raise since 2009. Our cost have
gone up like everybody else’s, but you voted to give these benefits to illegals
who have not put in one penny. WHY?

Please, be the
Conservative Representative we hoped you were when we voted for you. Perhaps
you’ve been in Washington too long and made too many friends across the aisle.
Is that it?

Our Country and
our National Reputation are being stolen out from under us. I’m 78 years old
and have seen a lot of different people come to represent me, but at this time
I do not have a voice in Washington.

William
Spencer, my Great Granddad, removed nine times, was one of the Founders of
Jamestown. He came here in 1607 on the Susan Constant. The people on the three
ships met at Cape Henry, Virginia and raised a 7 foot wooden cross and
consecrated the land to God. I mention this because our [present] President
says we are not a Christian nation. He didn’t even come here until he was grown
and I am not that sure that he was ever an American. I’ve read his wife’s
thesis and certainly she’s not proud to be an American.

We are in need
of Proud, Conservative, Fearless, Patriotic and Godly people to save our country.
Please, stand up and be that person. Never before do I remember a voice in
Washington from the Oval Office being so ready to criticize our USA.

Bettye Simmons

Tempe, AZ

Bad omen for Obama; Locked out of White House

Bad omen for Obama; Locked out of White House

Jeannie DeAngelis

 

Other
than spending quality time in Rio
de Janeiro
, Barack Obama
has had a rough couple of weeks. First, there was the promise of no
boots
on the ground in
Libya immediately followed the potential for boots on the ground in Libya. Then
the exotically titled “Operation Odyssey
Dawn
” got the lowest
public
approval rating of
any military operation in recent history. Obama’s “kinetic” endeavor seems to be surrounded by
confusion and inconsistency, as well as humiliating “return the
Peace
Prize
” buzz.  By all
definitions, Obama is in the process being
slammed by a force generated by his own outstanding competency at being
outstandingly incompetent.

Vowing to never give up the Nobel
Peace Prize, the President, after being
upstaged
by French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, returned
early
from a “five-day”
trip to Latin America and nonchalantly “strolled up” to the French doors of the
Oval Office only to find them locked. Anxious for solace behind the Resolute
Desk
and far from the
dissonance of world events, Obama shook the handle to no avail.

Hearing about
the President’s dilemma brought back a distinct childhood memory.   Locked out
of the house, my 4′ 11” Sicilian grandmother located and dragged two milk
crates alongside the Brooklyn domicile, balanced one on top of the other,
shimmied through a very highly situated kitchen window and slid head first into
the sink before jumping from the counter to the floor.

After realizing the door to the Oval
Office was locked, Obama also managed to gain entry.  The President “appeared to
be whistling” as he made his way down from the secured entrance “to another set
of doors that” that swung open and warmly welcomed the returning
Commander-in-Chief.

Grandma Josephine was resourceful,
fiercely independent and fully assured that despite being locked out of the
house the situation in no way indicated she was no longer welcome on the
premises.  On the other hand, based on the sequence of events, public opinion,
and circumstances surrounding anything even remotely involving Barack Obama of
late, he probably wondered at least for a second or two whether the universe was
conveying a message that paralleled his recent words to Eliot
Engel.

Congressman Eliot
Engel (D-NY) said, “Everything that the President has indicated to me [about
Libya] is that we expect to be ‘in
and out
‘ very quickly.”

The vision of
President Obama encountering a locked door and having to search for another way
to access the “seat
of power
” drips with
ironic
imagery
.  Could it be that,
without milk crates, ingenuity and self-determination, the same type of speedy
timeframe threatens to befall Strolling Doorknob Jiggler Barack Obama’s
Washington DC tenure?

The Oval Office lock out could be
dress rehearsal for what lies ahead for Barack in the coming year. For President
“in and out very quickly” Obama, the impenetrable, dead-bolted entryway may be a
prophetic message to a man whose abysmal domestic and foreign policy skills tend
to indicate that after the 2012 election, Barry’s house keys will no longer fit
the door.

Author’s content:
www.jeannie-ology.com

Our Only Answer is Bankruptcy

Our Only Answer is Bankruptcy

January 18th, 2011

Thomas Sowell, Investors Business Daily


(Thomas Sowell discusses abolishing the Fed on
Judge Napolitano’s show.
)
Government budget crises can be painful, but the political rhetoric
accompanying these crises can also be fascinating and revealing.
Perhaps the most famous American budget crisis was New York City’s, back
during the 1970s. When President Gerald Ford was unwilling to bail them out, the
famous headline in the New York Daily News read, “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”
President Ford caved and bailed them out, after all. The rhetoric worked.
That is why so many other cities and states — not to mention the federal
government — have continued on with irresponsible spending, and are now facing
new budget crises, with no end in sight.
What would have happened if Ford had stuck to his guns and not set the
dangerous precedent of bailing out local irresponsibility with the taxpayers’
money? New York would have gone bankrupt. But millions of individuals and
organizations go bankrupt without dropping dead.
Bankruptcy conveys the plain facts that political rhetoric tries to conceal.
It tells people who depended on the bankrupt government that they can no longer
depend on that bankrupt government. It tells the voters who elected that
bankrupt government, with its big spending promises, that they made a bad
mistake that they would be wise to avoid making again in the future.
Legally, bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, whose
extravagant pay and pension contracts are bleeding municipal and state
governments dry. Is putting an end to political irresponsibility and legalized
union racketeering dropping dead?
Politics being what it is, we are sure to hear all sorts of doomsday rhetoric
at the thought of cutbacks in government spending. The poor will be starving in
the streets, to hear the politicians and the media tell it.
Party On
But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the
streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding
unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the
taxpayers blind.
Letting armies of government employees retire in their 50s, to live for
decades on pensions larger than they were making when they were working, costs a
lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.
Pouring the taxpayers’ money down a thousand bottomless pits of public and
private boondoggles costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the
streets.
Bankruptcy says: “We just don’t have the money.” End of discussion.
Read
more
.

NEVER-BEFORE RELEASED VIDEO OF McCAIN AND CONVICTED FELON FUNDRAISER DISCOVERED

NEVER-BEFORE RELEASED VIDEO OF McCAIN AND CONVICTED FELON FUNDRAISER DISCOVERED

Phoenix, AZ (JULY 1) - Sen. John McCain is caught on tape at two Florida fundraisers hosted by a convicted felon – who will spend the rest of his life in prison for a Ponzi scheme that helped finance McCain’s 2008 Presidential campaign – who raised more money for McCain than anyone else – and who McCain now says he “can’t pick out of a lineup.”

“One recently discovered and never-before released video shows the two men giving each other a ‘man-hug’, shaking hands, and slapping backs in a bar while felon Scott Rothstein puffs on a cigar. Another tape shows McCain at Rothstein’s home with supporters,” said Mark Sanders, spokesman for U.S. Senate Candidate J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ).

Watch the video by clicking HERE.

After Rothstein gives McCain a glowing introduction at one event, Rothstein is heard on the tape saying “I’m plugging for some kind of position with the White House” if McCain wins.

Rothstein raised $1.1 million for McCain’s failed Presidential campaign in 2008 while running an elaborate Ponzi scheme that swindled investors out of billions of dollars. Much of the money Rothstein stole ended up in McCain’s campaign accounts.

Last month Rothstein was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

When confronted with the connection between McCain and Rothstein, McCain’s spokesman said “John McCain couldn’t pick him (Rothstein) out of a line up.”

“The tapes don’t lie, McCain does,” Sanders said. “These men were friends, good friends. In fact, in one segment of the tape, McCain thanks Rothstein for his ‘friendship and tremendous support.’”

The Hayworth campaign has called on McCain to admit he knows Rothstein, to no avail; to donate the money he took from Rothstein to a fund to help the victims of the Ponzi scheme, to no avail; and to name and denounce the other Ponzi scheme con-artists who gave McCain money; to no avail.

“The Senator thinks he is above the law, but he will have to explain his ignorance of who his friends are and apologize to the people of Arizona in the upcoming debates for letting them down by consorting with criminals,” Sanders said.

The Real McCain Record

The Real McCain Record 
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.
by Mark Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold - the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo

McCain-Kennedy - the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history. 

McCain-Lieberman - the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry – through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases – in American history. 

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards - the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs - a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link). 

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric - tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts. 

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies. 

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved intoMcCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU - the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons – despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war – when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host

FEDS INVESTIGATING McCAIN DONORS AS HIS CAMPAIGN LIES TO MEDIA ABOUT RETURNING DIRTY MONEY FROM CROOKED LAW FIRM

McCain with BFF Scott Rothstein


FEDS INVESTIGATING McCAIN DONORS AS HIS CAMPAIGN LIES TO MEDIA ABOUT RETURNING DIRTY MONEY FROM CROOKED LAW FIRM

Phoenix, AZ (JUNE 10) – Sen. John McCain must personally and publicly explain why he allowed his staff to lie to the media about returning all $1.1 million given to his presidential campaign by a convicted felon; if he accepted even more from the felon’s law partners; and why he has not donated all the dirty money to charity as his campaign claimed.
 
Federal authorities have been investigating 30 lawyers who worked in the now-defunct firm of Scott Rothstein, who yesterday was sentenced to 50 years in prison for running an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
 
According to his lawyer and media reports, the convicted felon is giving up the names of people involved and has even gone “undercover” which will likely lead to the arrest of lawyers, business associates and perhaps even politicians.
 
Tomorrow, Rothstein’s chief operating officer, who personally gave McCain’s political committees at least $30,000, is scheduled to plead guilty to assorted criminal activity.
 
The lawyers, along with 15 other Rothstein employees, made about $2.2 million in state and federal campaign contributions while he was running the Ponzi scheme from 2005 to 2009.
 
“McCain is knee-deep in this scandal and he needs to come clean,” said Mark Sanders, spokesman for U.S. Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). “He first lied to the media when his campaign said the entire $1.1 million Rothstein collected was given to charity and it was old news. Then he tried to cover it up by saying he gave back the few thousand dollars Rothstein and his wife gave directly.”
 
Federal officials are examining Rothstein’s use of money from his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to pay salaries and give huge bonuses to senior attorneys on the condition that they donate generously to his favorite politicians, including McCain.
 
“Rothstein and his wife Kimberly held fundraisers for McCain,” Sanders said. “His partner Stuart Rosenfeldt and his wife Susanne gave to McCain and to others, including Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.
 
“McCain likes to say character matters, but he is displaying his lack of it by keeping the $1.1 million and returning to Rothstein two small individual contributions,” Sanders said.
 
One employee close to Rothstein, chief operating officer Debra Villegas, donated about $46,000 to McCain, other politicians and political committees in Florida. They gave the dirty money back, while McCain kept his million.
 
“Everybody seems to get it but McCain,” Sanders said. “He needs to fully account for the distribution of the money he collected from everyone at this corrupt firm and explain to Arizona voters why accepting and keeping money gained from a criminal activity makes him worthy to serve in any public office.”
 
The racketeering charges against Rothstein allege that the firm’s donations to politicians and campaign committees were largely illegal because they were funded with money from the now-disbarred lawyer’s illegal Ponzi scheme.
 
“According to media reports, agents for the FBI and the IRS are investigating campaign records to determine how Rothstein used his investment scam to fund the political donations,” Sanders said. “Their next stop needs to be in Phoenix to interview McCain. If he didn’t know how his top contributor was making money he should have. Ignorance is not a defense when this contributor is the number one donor to the ‘McCain Victory 2008′ fund and the ‘McCain-Palin Victory 2008′ fund.”
 
Sanders said McCain should not try to hide behind his spokesman when it comes to answering these questions.
 
“McCain’s mouthpiece is the same guy who lied to the media in the first place and prior to joining the Senator’s campaign  was the research director for Al Gore while Gore was trying to convince everyone that planet Earth was about to turn into a fireball because of global warming,” Sanders said. “It’s time for Mr. McCain to step up and personally disavow his acceptance of more than a million dollars he took from a convicted felon.”

 
For more information, please visit http://www.JDforSenate.com or contact info@jdforsenate.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers