Robert G. Yetman, Jr.

It’s Official: McCain is a Traitor to Republicans

As if you needed any additional proof that John McCain is a Democrat in Republican’s clothing, we now have the Arizona senator’s earnest efforts to get fellow Republicans to drop their objections to Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State.  Some members of the party had voiced what they believed were legitimate concerns regarding foreign contributions to her husband’s charity (how telling that one of those voices didn’t belong to McCain), and the potential conflicts of interest that might arise.  As it turned out, Clinton was approved by a near-unanimous vote, so devoid of principles now are Republican members of congress, but the issue here is not really whether she should have ultimately been able to pass muster with the senate - it’s that McCain has officially reached the point of being indistinguishable from a garden-variety Democrat.

I voted for the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008, but my vote was much more for Palin than it was for McCain.  To me, McCain was an afterthought on that ticket.  That he was at the head of the ticket made no difference to me, because as bad as he was, I was never going to vote for an inexperienced senator with strong historical ties to leftist and ethnocentrist ideas.  When the campaign first began, I said that McCain was the worst of the bunch for the Republicans.  Unfortunately, too many naïve Republican voters bought into this pathetic “Big Tent Republican” idea, the notion that the only way to defeat Obama would be to serve up an only mildly (and I mean mildly) more conservative version of him (honestly, I don’t like using “conservative” as an even indirect descriptor of McCain).  Look, when you are a Republican that garners high praise from such leading senate Democrats as John Kerry, Joe Biden (who once said McCain and Kerry should run together), Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, and now-President Barack Obama…what else do you need to know?

I hope Republicans have learned a valuable lesson from this election, and endeavor not to repeat their mistake in future elections.  Our party, and this country, needs principled, conservative men of iron who will set it back on the path of righteousness.  We need warriors.  We need outspoken conservative leaders who embrace capitalist ideals, moral decency, and spirituality.  They must also be strong nationalists; they must love America, be proud of her, and put her interests first at all times.

John McCain is not one of those men, and because we chose to allow a McCain to lead our party into battle against an opponent who carried the battle standard for an ideology that spits on every principle and value we hold dear, we lost.  If you were one who supported McCain early on in the Republican primaries, then shame on you…and you now owe the rest of us; we expect that you will make good on your obligation. 

Agree or disagree; please register comments below.

Robert G. Yetman, Jr.  Editor-At-Large www.christianmoney.com

 

 

Tags: john+mccain,+hillary+clinton,+secretary+of+state,+robert+g.+yetman,+christian+politics

A Madoff Silver Lining: Planned Parenthood Suffers

And you thought the news related to the ongoing global economic crisis as all bad!  Turns out it’s not the case.  According to an article appearing in Crain’s New York Business.com, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is laying off roughly 20% of its staff.  How wonderful is that?  Here is a statement from Maryana Iskander, Planned Parenthood’s COO:

“As with many other nonprofit organizations, Planned Parenthood has had to make staff reductions at our headquarters due to the challenging economic times facing our country.  While taking this action is never easy, we want to ensure the millions of women and men who rely on Planned Parenthood as a health care provider that the reductions will not impact our ability to deliver care to those in need.”

(I find it interesting that Planned Parenthood cannot be more forthcoming about what it is and what it does.  Is it secretly ashamed?  You’d like to think so, but nevertheless, why don’t they just use the word “abortion” more frequently in press releases like this one.   I mean, that’s what they’re really known for, right?  You’d think with the high-profile stature they’ve assumed as champions of infanticide, they’d be walking around with their chests out all day because of it.  No?)  

Apparently, a big part of their problem is Madoff-related.  It seems that their funding is suffering in large measure right now due to the recent closure of the Picower Foundation.  The Florida-based philanthropic organization was one of the nation’s largest, and is now all gone because its money was a part of that being “managed” by Bernie Madoff.  Good riddance to anyone or anything that gives to the sponsor of nationwide baby butcheries.  I’m glad they were wiped out, and I hope those who worked for Planned Parenthood and now find themselves on the unemployment lines are out of work a long time…and suffer mightily.  However much they do suffer, it won’t be one one-millionth as bad as the pain and suffering they’ve helped to enable as accomplices to infanticide.

Perhaps I should send Madoff a giant “Thank You” card in this case, on behalf of all the unborn who will now live as a result of what he did; maybe I will.   

Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor-At-Large www.ChristianMoney.com

Tags: madoff,+planned+parenthood,+christian+political+commentary

The Inalienable Right to Self-Preservation

An acquaintance of mine reported a frightening experience she had in the parking lot of a well-known retailer the other day.  Doing some post-Christmas shopping, she exited a Wal-Mart not far from where I live and headed to her car.  She had a bag in each hand as she walked.  When she arrived at her vehicle, she noticed a van parked nearby with two salty-looking characters in the front seat.  As she noticed them, she saw one pull a sweatshirt hood up over his head (on what was an unusually warm day here in Central Florida).  At that moment, she moved as quickly as she could to deposit her bags and get in her car.  However, she only made it as far as dumping the bags in the back seat when the man with the hood exited the van and walked up to her very quickly.  She looked him dead in the eye and told him, “You’d better back the (expletive) off!”  According to her, he promptly turned around and began walking away, pretending to talk on his cell phone as he did so.

My friend is 100% certain that she was a robbery target.  No question.  She believes that the only reason she wasn’t attacked is that her assertive demeanor and choice of language startled her would-be assailant and prompted him to walk away.  It was clear he was not going to be dealing with a shrinking violet.

That said, when she arrived at our house, she was clearly shaken, which is more than understandable.  We sat around and spoke about it for a bit, and our conversation eventually moved into the subject of having a gun for self-defense (she does not own a gun).

Whenever I hear stories like this, it reminds me of how stunned I always am when I hear others actually suggest that average citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms, or shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns on their person for protection.  No one has the right to deprive me of the right to defend myself.  It’s really that simple.  Who is anyone to tell another that he should not be permitted the means to defend himself?  It’s my life, and I’ve become sort of attached to it.  My right to self-preservation supersedes any man-made law that prevents me from doing just that. 

My indignation on this subject even extends to states that do allow for the issuance of concealed weapons permits.  My position has always been that my “permit” exists in the form of the 2^nd Amendment, and that my right to possess a gun for self-defense should not need some additional sanctioning by the state.  In fact, even states that have seen fit to be gracious enough to allow me such a right will do so only if I have a generally pristine legal record.  I don’t agree with that.  Those rules can be too broad, and there should be more room for a case-by-case analysis.  For example, if you were in the service and exited on the basis of a dishonorable discharge, Florida will not ever let you have a concealed weapons permit.  That’s ridiculous.  There are a lot of reasons why someone may have a dishonorable discharge.  Additionally, many people who earn that discharge did so as young men;  according to Florida, if you earned a DD at, say, 21, but have seen fit to live a clean life thereafter, you can’t get a concealed weapons permit at any point for the remainder of your life.  That’s just plain stupid, and what’s more, it’s not right.

My friend survived her parking lot “incident” just fine, of course, but she’s now looking into getting a concealed weapons permit.  She shouldn’t have a problem with it, but in the meantime I would encourage her to do whatever she feels she must to protect herself when going about her business as a law-abiding citizen, even if it means acting in contravention of the law.  How does that saying go?  Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6?  Indeed.

Robert G. Yetman, Jr. – Editor At Large – www.ChristianMoney.com

Tags: self+defense,+concealed+weapons,+right+to+self+defense