I stumbled on this interesting article by Ann Coulter and liked it so much I decided to post it here in its entirety. There is so much nonsense about how wonderful Barack Obama is! How he will unite the races! How he will save the poor white folk who are simply scared of black men!
What a load of crap!
Sorry … Folks! There is absolutely no possible way that Barack Hussein Obama was an active member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ congregation for over twenty years, claimed to be his friend, and even claimed he was mentored by the good Rev. Wright; without knowing about and hearing the good Reverend’s venom filled, racist, anti-American views about whites and this country! Jeremiah Wright even performed the wedding ceremony for Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their children!
How stupid does he think Americans are? He stayed there … and listen … and “Amen’d” …. for twenty-plus years … be real folks! Now I ask you … would you stay for twenty-plus years in a church you disagreed with what the pastor was preaching? Can you answer that honestly? Are are you simply enslaved by Barack Obama’s RockStar charismatic personality?
If you actually swallowed that story you, my friend, are an idiot!! And … sadly, as stupid as Obama thinks you are ….
I am not a racist … unless calling a black racist a racist qualifies me as one. But … I am also not a white apologist. My family never owned slaves, my ancestors fought to free slaves, and I grew up with friends of many races and religions.
I treat all people equally based on who they are as person … and I certainly do make judgments about who I will like and dislike, accept or reject as a friend, or … even who I would defend and who I consider an enemy! But that judgment is not based on race, religion, or creed. It is based on that individual person’s moral character, integrity, and how they view and treat other people.
Morality, judgment, character, good, and evil … while they might have some gray fringes … they are certainly not relative and they are not outdated concepts.
Obama’s Dimestore ‘Mein Kampf’
Posted 04/02/2008 ET
Updated 04/09/2008 ETIf characters from “The Hills” were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.”
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read “Mein Kampf” …
Nearly every page — save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life — is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was … in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a “black party.” Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead “made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor.”
But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because “they kept smiling a lot.” And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South … they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!
So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.
In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: “You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties … being the only black guys and all.”
And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend’s perfectly lovely remark was: “A part of me wanted to punch him right there.”
Listen, I don’t want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” line.
Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by “the white man’s rules.” (One rule he missed was: “Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.”)
Obama’s gaseous disquisition on the “white man’s rules” leads to this charming crescendo: “Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger.”
For those of you in the “When is Obama gonna play the ‘N-word’ card?” pool, the winner is … Page 85! Congratulations!
When his mother expresses concern about Obama’s high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother’s hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama’s entire presidential campaign. But moreover — he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.” Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s “easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.”
Here’s a little inside scoop about white people: We’re not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad’s 1902 classic, “Heart of Darkness”: “I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate.”
By contrast, Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to Obama. One line in particular “stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright — Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.
I hear ya … Ann!
D.C. Gilbert 
I can’t say I am a fan of Ann Coulter by and large, but this was an interesting essay. I was disturbed by Obama’s use of the word “cracker” in his book, which just should not come so easily to a man who wants to claim he is a unifier. Personally, I find cracker to be an offensive term. Maybe Obama has internalized racism: raised by white grandparents he resents his blackness. I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t want him to be president, because he has no policies that mean anything!
There are so many damning words that come directly from that man’s mouth, but it is as if his base doesn’t hear them, or worse, too many self-flagellating whites are ready to agree.
When you have a so-called mainstream Christian minister ready to endorse a man who favors partial birth abortion (it might set the idea in folk’s mind that the “fetus” is a person), then I can only sit back with dread. The ‘people’ are surely lost.
http://tinyurl.com/3mwfz6
PNAC is the closest thing I have ever seen to Mein Kampf . PNAC is the think tank whose members include Cheney and Rumsfeld.
(hi Dumbblonde)
Thats really sad, gasdocpal,
Maybe you should expand your horizons just a bit.
Darren
Expanding horizons is good but first lets talk about PNAC a little.
Sure … I am willing to discuss anything … well almost anything.
Darren
PNAC HAS A WEBSITE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD GOOGLE.
The openning words on the home page sound wholesome and humanitarian enough.
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
Wholesome and humanitarian enough until you realize that it is really a plan for the USA becoming the undisputed superpower in the 21st century as is stated in its title Project for the New American Century
If you click on Statement of Principles on the upper right screen you will see a lot of familiar names: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, L. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, John Bolton, basically all of GW Bush’s top “advisors” at the onset of the Iraq war.
At a time when the USA was spending more on our military than the next six countries in the world combined PNAC stated that we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our “global responsibilities’ today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
At the time, the top 7 counties in military spending were as follows in billions per year:
USA 282
China 89
Japan 43
France 39
UK 37
Russia 35
Germany 32
Is that huge disparity necessary for “defense” or did the members of PNAC have something else in mind?
In going through the various articles, you will read how we need to build up our military and adopt an agressive foreign policy NOW while the oppotunity exists before some other country, say China, gets into a position to be able to challenge us.
MOST CHILLING OF ALL, if you click on Defense and National Security on the left side of the screen then click on 2000 and scroll down to an article entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” written in August 2000 by Donald Kagan . In the chapter “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force” on page 51 you can read in the paragraph that starts out ” Further ,the process of transformation ,even if it brings about revolutionary change is liable to be a long one absent some catastrophic catalyzing event- a new Pearl Harbor.
Does 9/11 qualify as a “New Pearl Harbor” ? There is no doubt who profited the most from 9/11. GW Bush’s stock soared and the PNAC agenda moved ahead.
If you consder direct testomony from such insiders as: Paul O’Neill, Treasury Secretary; Richard A. Clark, Counter Terrorism Czar under GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush (yes ,he was kept on by both two GOP and one Democrat administration), Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff you can see a seamless explaination of how and why we were lied into the Iraq fiasco. For the short version, you can google those men and while you are at it , google also Downing Street Memo, which by it self is not as convincing as when it is considered with the rest.
Please tell me why I am wrong. Is all this just my imagination.
There are some other factors here … have you considered them.
1. The reason the EU is as successful as it is is because it knows it can rely on the U.S.’s military power should thing go awry. There is a symbiotic relationship between the U.S. and Europe; they can spend as little as they do on
defense because we spend as much as we do. The EU prefers the carrots because they know they can count on us for the stick. And in fact,it is partly this relationship that causes some of the discord in U.S. / European relations … they cannot carry out their “carrot” negotiations with the rest of the world without our stick … and that irks them something terribly.
2. Russia and China’s defense spending should be viewed as a combined threat when looking at our defense spending. They are two adversarial nations who also have a strong desire for super power status. China is building super carriers and Russia is again flying “exercises” along NATO borders. And … we must still factor in the very real radical Islamic terrorist threat the Middle East presents.
We may also find that, because of recent events in Europe, European countries may begin to increase their defense spending just a bit.
3. Everyone likes to blame Rumsfeld for our troops going to war in Iraq without vehicle armor and flack vests. Well, politically uncorrect or unpopular as it might have been, Rumsfeld was right when he stated that … you have to go to war with the army you have … not the army you wish you had.
I served in the military … and saw first hand the reasons we went to war without being properly prepared … dangerously irresponsible cuts in defense spending during the Carter era that Reagan tried, with some success, to reverse.
4. George Washington said that the best way to insure peace is to be prepared for war. That means being prepared to defeat those determined to attack you. That entails spending enough on defense to be STRONGER than they are. Relying on the “good will” of the Russian or Chinese governments, or of Osama bin Laden and his henchman to insure your safety is suicidal nonsense.
There were more Amerians killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor So … Yes … it certainly qualifies. It was a murderous, horrific, senseless attack on innocent people from many nations. It simply cannot be justified despite the efforts of some home-grown, self-loathing American apologists.
Donald Kagan did not plan 9/11! Sorry! I also do not put much faith in the testimony of a Counter Terrorism Czar, no matter how many administrations he served in, who could not see 9/11 or some similar attack building. Radical Islamic terrorists have been attacking the country since the 1970s … it just took 9/11 to wake some people up enough to notice … and sadly, typically … many have gone right back to sleep!
To claim that George Bush and those in favor of strong national defense somehow “benefited” or had their “stock soar” because of that horrific attack is a vicious twisting of the facts to suit a political agenda. I suppose the argument could be made then that the Jewish people “benefited” by having Adolph Hitler murder 6 million of their fellow people because Israel now exists … Sorry … that nonsense will not fly.
Yes … we are now the worlds “de facto” super power and it is an awesome responsibility and does require thoughtful, cautious, balanced, and careful strategies and tactics for helping to preserve global peace and … yes … I may not agree with everything George Bush and his administration has done.
However, if we spent as little on national defense as say France, Japan, or the UK, how long do you think it would be before we could no long provide the stick for the EU’s carrrots … before the West would crumble … and we would all be praying to Allah five times a day, or living in a communist/socialist Amerika?
Not me … buddy!
Darren,
You missed my point and perhaps it was my fault.
I was not particularly criticizing the fact the the USA has so much bigger military than any other country. I was trying to indicate how much bigger the US military than Iraq’s military and how crazy and foolish that it would have been for saddam to attack the USA.
It was if I said that Peewee Herman would not attack Mike Tyson and you said that since he was a professional boxer in training it was OK for Tyson to be in such good condition and that made it somehow more likely that Peewee would be a danger to Tyson.
Certainly, Saddam Hussein would not attack the U.S. directly. That would be foolish and crazy, although you could perhaps make a strong argument that Saddam Hussein was a foolish and crazy guy.
However, that being said, Saddam Hussein did invade Kuwait in 1990. He also invaded Iran in September of 1980. He waged war on Kurdish civilians in his own country. And … contrary to what the media likes to report, Saddam Hussein had clear connections with Osama Bin Laden going back to the 1990s.
According to an FBI agent who questioned Hussein after he had been captured, Hussein said he tried to run a bluff on the U.S. and the UN by keeping up the illusion that he had weapons of mass destruction before 2003 because …. he did not think the United States would invade.
Even though Saddam Hussein would “probably not” directly attack the U.S., he was still a very dangerous and destabilizing influence in the Middle East, whose actions would ultimately bring the U.S. military forces into play anyway … and at a time that might not be nearly, should I say, as convenient.
Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran and gassed the Kurds therefore he was somehow dangerous to the USA ?
Your insisting that Saddam and Osama were cooperating does not make it so.
I suspect that you could make an argument for Saddam being foolish and crazy enough that would be convincing to someone who would like to rationalize the Iraq invasion.
I submit that the US invasion of Iraq did not have a stabilizing effect on the Mideast. Not only has Iraq become MORE of a problem to the USA but now Iran which was previously bufferede by Iraq now is a bigger problem.
The Neocons who started these problems strongly influences McCain.
So, let’s see, you argue that … the fact that he was willing to use violence against his own citizens, ignore the rule of law, invade neighboring countries, and thumb his nose at the U.N., makes him not a threat to the U.S. We do have a mutual defense treaty with Israel … another of his neighbors … suppose he decided to invade Israel next …
Operation Desert Storm was hugely successful in that there were no major U.S. casualties caused by the response to his invasion of Kuwait, but it could have been much different if his soldiers had been more willing to fight.
I am not just insisting that there is a Saddam/Osama connection … it is verifiable. There is strong and irrefutable evidence that the media and liberals choose to ignore because it is an ‘inconvenient truth.”
You can check it out for yourself if you are interested in the truth. Google is a great place to start, but I will give you a hand:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f9_1189985144
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110006953
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=524F0261-37CB-40C1-8291-014E1940EC27
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=4AA5AF47-49A9-44D9-A9D7-040935561B3A
Maybe this will be enough to get you started. Your pretending the connection doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t.
I have no need to rationalize the Iraq invasion. Even Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, rationalized the war in Iraq before they decided to un-rationalize it for partisan political reasons.
As long as radical Islamists in Iran and Syria are exporting and supporting the insurgents who are crawling around in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are busy ducking bullets, and missiles from the U.S. military, they are going to be to busy to launch an effective attack against another target in the U.S.. Sounds stabilizing to me!
I have several friends who have done repeated tours in Iraq … don’t swallow the anti-war nonsense … the vast majority of Iraqi’s are grateful for our presence and are working with American military forces to build schools, hospitals, markets, and other infrastructure. The children of Iraq are Iraq’s future … and the children are the one being most touched by U.S. soldiers. That is a stabilizing force for the future of Iraq.
The Neocons did not start this radical Islamic Jihad against the west, my friend, this has been going on for a long time …
The Neocons just want to make sure the West will survive this global struggle between two clashing ideologies … a liberal democratically based Western civilization or a barbaric Islamic Caliphate bent on world domination.
On thing at a time.
So, let’s see, you argue that … the fact that he was willing to use violence against his own citizens, ignore the rule of law, invade neighboring countries, and thumb his nose at the U.N., makes him not a threat to the U.S.
If the military force of the USA is thousnds of times bigger than that of Iraq it does not matter how aggressive Iraq has been against much smaller foes.
Some high school freshman football team might might be game and competitive against the JV or even a H.S. varsity team but it is not going to take on the NY Giants.
Do you want to continue debating this issue?
or do you want to go on to something else?
Darren I guess that you have been too busy with other things to respond to my last post.
Just out of the loop over the weekend! But .. I’m ba’ack!
I see little point in further debate on this issue. There is no valid comparison between football and the War on Terror. Al Qaeda killed over 3,000 innocent Americans (and other nationalities) in a single act … and they are even smaller than Iraq. In an age when a suitcase nuke, a biological weapon, or a dirty bomb can take out an entire city, the relative size of the antagonists simply no longer matters.
We can move on to something else if you like,
I agree that Al Qaeda killed 3000 Americans on 9/11.
I claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda.
Your whole argument is based on your contention that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and/or had something do do with Al Qaeda. Even GW Bush has admitted that there is no evidence for either of those things.
BUT LET’S MOVE ON.
IF YOU CLAIM THAT WE MUST KEEP OUR DEFENSE BUDGET HIGH BECAUSE OF THE COMBINED THREAT OF CHINA AND RUSSIA.
Our defense spending in 1999 was more than 2x the combined total of Russia & China. Our invasion of an oil rich Arab country which did us attackand was no danger to us would give them cause to worry and to start an escalade.
The neocons were out to take over the world and everyone except Americans know it.
The neocons do not even enter in to it for me… Policies change and presidents change! Both republicans and democrats have had good and bad policies. Bush has certainly made his mistakes, and … so did Bill Clinton, and so will every other politician and national leader of the future.
The neocons want a strong nation and I agree with them on that point.
I really don’t care what GW Bush says now … I am not a Bush “yes” man! I disagree that Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, or his followers. Ganted … while we have no picture of the two of them smiling and shaking hands, there is simply too much evidence going way back … way before 9/11 … to ignore unless, of course, you are driven by a political agenda … rather than a sincere interest protecting the citizens and interests of this country.
I seem to recall that Saddam Hussein was supporting the families of suicide bombers to the tune of $10,000 per family … oh wait, he raised that to $25,000 back in 2002, didn’t he? But thats OK, isn’t it! They were Palestinians, and we know they couldn’t have any connection to Al Qaeda… and they weren’t actually blowing up many Americans (just a couple here and there), it was mostly just the women and children of our allies the Palestinians were happily blowing up to receive Hussein’s generous bounty.
A government, truly interested in protecting its citizens and national self-interest must always plan and prepare for the worst case scenario. To do otherwise is a gross dereliction of duty. When the government gets it right, its leader is a national hero, and … if they make a mistake, they are castigated by the vast unthinking majority. That is simply life.
Neocons, for all their faults, simply observed that liberal democratic countries tend to not go to war against each other … and felt that creating a more democratic global society is better for the future of this planet than having a global caliphate 50 years down the road … and I can’t honestly say that I totally disagree with them.
My focus and my concern is for the protection, preservation, and continuation of America and American ideals … and that whole pesky “inalienable rights” thing …
A key one of which is, for me at least, is the right to not be randomly blown up by an radical Islamic fundamentalist for exercising those pesky other rights like freedom of religion, freedom of speech,the freedom to protect myself and my family … and freedom to not be a Muslim!
The Neocons want a strong nation and I agree with them on that point.
Hitler wanted a strong Germany and a lot of Germans agreed with him.
Germans also seemed to agree with Hitler that Poland was a danger to germany and needed to be struck preemptively.
How was Germany in 1939 different from the USA in 2002?
In a word …. Motive!
Hitler, like Stalin or Pol Pot, was an evil dictator in the purest sense of the word. He was bent on world conquest.
Sorry dude! Francis Fukuyama, John Bolton, Wolfowitz, or even Dick Cheney don’t come close to qualifying. Your question and argument borders on the ludicrous!
Most Americans, even those listed above, are typically very willing to co-exist peacefully with any nation-state or group of people who will also respect our right to exist and live in the way we choose as a nation and as individuals.
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot did not respect the basic rights of anyone but their most loyal followers and disparate terror kept the people they ruled in check. And like them, Saddam Hussein murdered, raped, tortured, and imprisoned his own people!
The motives and goals of George Bush and his administration, though they can certainly be disagreed with … or might cause some argument depending on your political slant … are not even close to being similar to those of Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
If this is the slant your argument takes … it is pointless to continue …
OK Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. were kinder, gentler versions of some bad guys.
The USA made an preemptive invasion of Iraq in 2003 is very comparable to the German invasion of Poland in 1939.
I admit that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are in a class by themselves and far worse than our Neocons.
Concerns have emerged in the weeks since Mr. McCain became his party’s presumptive nominee and began more formally assembling a list of foreign policy advisers. Among those on the list are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan, an author who helped write much of the foreign policy speech that Mr. McCain delivered in Los Angeles on March 26, in which he described himself as “a realistic idealist.” Others include the security analyst Max Boot and a former United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton.
John McCain has also, in the past, listened to the likes of Feingold, Kennedy, and Lieberman. I personally like John Bolton’s no nonsense approach to security and diplomacy. He really shook things up at the U.N., which should have been disbanded years ago for its ineptness, stagnation, corruption, and efforts at undermining basic American constitutional rights.
So McCain is a “realist idealist.” Well … live in the “real” world! All is not roses and not everyone is a good guy! And … the U.S. is not the root of all evil on the planet!
All Obama offers is cool sounding cliches like,”Yes we can!” …. “Hope” …. and “Change We Can Believe In!”
I mean, I admit the man make great speeches … but then, so did Adolf Hitler. Obama offers great “rockstar” slogans but no “real” substance!
Well, thats not totally honest … he also offers us skyrocketing taxes and an overarching “nanny” state. However, he has zero real experience … and if you look at his voting record … no stance. He mostly voted “present” while present in Congress.
Hillary Clinton simply represents everything that is wrong with American politics … corruption, scandal, power brokering, and a socialist agenda! Her corruption goes all the way back to the Clinton’s governorship in Arkansas with a stream of unsolved murders and suicides, white water, crooked investments, campaign funding, etc. There is no choice there for me!
McCain is, at least a proud American, and not ashamed of his country, or busy trying to turn it into something the Founding Fathers would never recognize … some kind of socialist Amerika!
1.John Bolton is a draft dodging chickenhawk who was part of the the PNAC plot that sent thousands to their deaths in the Iraq fiasco. He was so repugnant to the Senate that Bush needed to appoint him UN Ambassodor when Senate was out of session.
2. You have your idea of reality and I have mine.
3. I will take someone who is cerebral and cool over someone who is; hot tempered, superstitious and 5th from the bottom of his college class.
4. Maybe the substance of what Obama says is going over your head.
5. Obam a gives long speeches that even you admit are great. Here and there , you find single words that can be distorted and twisted into another meaning and THEN you beat those single words to death.
6. The only reason taxes are not skyrocketing under Bush is that we are borrowing massively from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
7. Hillary would sitll be a better choice than McCain whose knowedge and understanding of economics and Mideast politics is pathetic.
8. I believe that McCain is a proud American and not ashamed of his country. I AM NOT PROUD OF OUR PREEMPTIVE INVASION OF A COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US AND WAS NO DANGER TO US.
Anything of substance Obama has managed to come up with (higher taxes, more bureaucracy, surrendering to terrorism, and disarming law abiding American citizens) is about as far from the American ideal as we can get.
Hillary Clinton’s vast experience can be summed up as being married to a philandering president, unrestrained political ambition, and two terms as a U.S. Senator.
McCain has been involved in the U.S Government since Reagan, has fought in the Middle East, been a POW, and understands the danger facing the West that radical Islam presents.
So, my friend, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree!
But then again, isn’t that part of what makes our country so great.