Friday, February 29, 2008
John Hagee publicly endorsed John McCain
It seems that I usually find myself posting comments on other blogs instead of keeping this one up to date. For some reason, I find responding to the comments of other kind of fun. Below is one of my comments to "Fred" concerning the John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain.
Eric said...
Fred,
You make it quite obvious that you are unable to defend the non-rejection of the endorsement of Louis Eugene (Walcott) Farrakhan by Barack Hussein Obama by your rapid change of focus to other candidates. It may be possible that you agree with Farrakhan, in which case your continued support for Barack Hussein Obama is understood. For some, there is nothing more important than winning elections, even if the anti-Semitic racist voting bloc is needed to accomplish that goal. I am sure that they are glad to have your support.
Whether McCain should rejected by Catholics is a matter of faith and ones ability to read and comprehend the Bible.
Fred, The bible is filled with allegory, prophecy and parables that are understood only through the prism of faith. The reason the bible is written in parables is found in Matthew 13 in the statement, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”
John Hagee’s statements are based on the Book of Revelations. Revelations contains messages to the seven churches in the province of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardi, Philadelphia and Laodicea.) that speaks of “the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. Some view “the great prostitute” as the organization of the Catholic Church. This is in no way calling those who follow the Catholic teachings whores, but prophesy does warn about evil within the organization.
A prostitute is a woman of questionable moral character that gives her “treasure” for monetary and personal gain. “We the people” have seen how our government has become corrupt, drifted away from the Constitution and prostituted itself for personal gain. “We the believers” have seen the church drift away from its religious and moral teachings for personal gain. Our government and the church are being prostituted from within by those who wish to destroy them. It is prophesied that both bureaucratic organizations will one day be under the same evil ruler, so I don’t find this surprising. The religions of Obamanation and Global Warming are evidence of how easily many are deceived into seeking “hope” and “change” from sources other than God.
Fred: “Does this mean McCain needs to be judged by the views of John Hagee and therefore rejected by Catholics?”
John McCain should allow Catholic to make their own decision based on their faith. John Hagee’s statements are based on 2000 years of prophesy and a religious foundation found in the Bible. Catholics opposed to scripture may be under the influence of the prostitute mentioned by Mr. Hagee. If Catholics have questions concerning the Bible, then they should consult the author for clarification.
Fred, you appear to be an intelligent person so I request your assistance. I am attempting to figure out how your political views lead you and Louis Farrakhan to support the same candidate. Below are some of Farrakhan’s quotes. Since Obama’s acceptance or rejection of Farrakhan’s views is unknown, if you could please compare and contrast your views with these statements it would help identify other similarities you may have with Mr. Farrakhan. Thanks.
"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."
"The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road."
"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes."
"They call (Hezbollah) terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That's what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn't want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world."
"The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years."
Eric said...Fred,
You make it quite obvious that you are unable to defend the non-rejection of the endorsement of Louis Eugene (Walcott) Farrakhan by Barack Hussein Obama by your rapid change of focus to other candidates. It may be possible that you agree with Farrakhan, in which case your continued support for Barack Hussein Obama is understood. For some, there is nothing more important than winning elections, even if the anti-Semitic racist voting bloc is needed to accomplish that goal. I am sure that they are glad to have your support.
Whether McCain should rejected by Catholics is a matter of faith and ones ability to read and comprehend the Bible.
Fred, The bible is filled with allegory, prophecy and parables that are understood only through the prism of faith. The reason the bible is written in parables is found in Matthew 13 in the statement, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.”
John Hagee’s statements are based on the Book of Revelations. Revelations contains messages to the seven churches in the province of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardi, Philadelphia and Laodicea.) that speaks of “the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. Some view “the great prostitute” as the organization of the Catholic Church. This is in no way calling those who follow the Catholic teachings whores, but prophesy does warn about evil within the organization.
A prostitute is a woman of questionable moral character that gives her “treasure” for monetary and personal gain. “We the people” have seen how our government has become corrupt, drifted away from the Constitution and prostituted itself for personal gain. “We the believers” have seen the church drift away from its religious and moral teachings for personal gain. Our government and the church are being prostituted from within by those who wish to destroy them. It is prophesied that both bureaucratic organizations will one day be under the same evil ruler, so I don’t find this surprising. The religions of Obamanation and Global Warming are evidence of how easily many are deceived into seeking “hope” and “change” from sources other than God.
Fred: “Does this mean McCain needs to be judged by the views of John Hagee and therefore rejected by Catholics?”
John McCain should allow Catholic to make their own decision based on their faith. John Hagee’s statements are based on 2000 years of prophesy and a religious foundation found in the Bible. Catholics opposed to scripture may be under the influence of the prostitute mentioned by Mr. Hagee. If Catholics have questions concerning the Bible, then they should consult the author for clarification.
Fred, you appear to be an intelligent person so I request your assistance. I am attempting to figure out how your political views lead you and Louis Farrakhan to support the same candidate. Below are some of Farrakhan’s quotes. Since Obama’s acceptance or rejection of Farrakhan’s views is unknown, if you could please compare and contrast your views with these statements it would help identify other similarities you may have with Mr. Farrakhan. Thanks.
"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."
"The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road."
"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes."
"They call (Hezbollah) terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That's what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn't want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world."
"The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years."
Labels: 2008 Election
Monday, February 25, 2008
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
There may be some that may attempt to psychoanalyze and assign labels based on my comment. Although I will share my position, I will not attempt to explain that which some will never understand to those who will never understand it. If after reading my comments you find yourself not understanding, then accept the fact that my comments were not written for your benefit.
In Mr. Hubbell’s article he describes a type of man that he labels the “Angry White Man.” Although many are distracted by the author’s choice of labels, being angry or white is not a requirement. As stated by Mr. Hubbell, the characteristics can be seen throughout the social-economic, political, geographic and racial spectrum.
I realize that some people have contempt for the man described by Garry Hubbell. These people use words like “racist, psychopaths, misogyny, etc” to describe the AWM in an attempt to discredit him because they fear him. These people hope to gather others to support their cause. IMO, the fear of the AWM is justified.
The man who "is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others" and who has no fear of “killing someone who needs killing” isn’t a helpless sheep. He can not be easily controlled by those who wish to destroy him. Attempts to control this type of man’s thoughts, and actions, or to unjustly limiting his freedom could result in someone getting hurt. The AWMs religious and moral authority gives him the justification. His desire for survival, self preservation, and his “latent violent streak” provides him with the strength and courage to protect himself and the innocent against the evils of society. He knows that that the innocent would never fear him, so when evil hates him it is only confirmation of a job well done.
I support, recognize, and salute the “Angry White Man” and all men everywhere who willfully accept criticism in the name of doing the right thing. The job of defending freedom was never easy. It is by your selfless sacrifice that we continue to be a free people. I proudly, willingly, and without reservation accept my position among your ranks.
In Mr. Hubbell’s article he describes a type of man that he labels the “Angry White Man.” Although many are distracted by the author’s choice of labels, being angry or white is not a requirement. As stated by Mr. Hubbell, the characteristics can be seen throughout the social-economic, political, geographic and racial spectrum.
I realize that some people have contempt for the man described by Garry Hubbell. These people use words like “racist, psychopaths, misogyny, etc” to describe the AWM in an attempt to discredit him because they fear him. These people hope to gather others to support their cause. IMO, the fear of the AWM is justified.
The man who "is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others" and who has no fear of “killing someone who needs killing” isn’t a helpless sheep. He can not be easily controlled by those who wish to destroy him. Attempts to control this type of man’s thoughts, and actions, or to unjustly limiting his freedom could result in someone getting hurt. The AWMs religious and moral authority gives him the justification. His desire for survival, self preservation, and his “latent violent streak” provides him with the strength and courage to protect himself and the innocent against the evils of society. He knows that that the innocent would never fear him, so when evil hates him it is only confirmation of a job well done.
I support, recognize, and salute the “Angry White Man” and all men everywhere who willfully accept criticism in the name of doing the right thing. The job of defending freedom was never easy. It is by your selfless sacrifice that we continue to be a free people. I proudly, willingly, and without reservation accept my position among your ranks.
Labels: 2008 Election
Friday, February 01, 2008
Rally for Romney
Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
By Mark R. Levin
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.
I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.
Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).
McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.
Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.
— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
By Mark R. Levin
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement — from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.
I don’t pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.
Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a “manager for profit” and someone who has “laid-off” people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his “millions” or “fortune” to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? It’s a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
But wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it won’t be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there won’t be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).
McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.
Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.
— Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
Labels: 2008 Election, Conservatives, GOP
