Saturday, December 31, 2005

Wishes to You!

Hello Everyone!,
I hoped that all of you have enjoyed checking out Phillips Philes throughout 2005. As this will be my last entry for 2005, I wanted to wish all of you a healthy, prosperous, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Joyce and I plan to stay the course for 2006, as we will will plenty of the pink liquid as another round of off-year national elections come to further fruition.

Take care, everybody!


Thursday, December 29, 2005

Governor Mark Sanford: A Future Ronald Reagan?

click to enlarge
Mark Sanford was elected as South Carolina’s 115th governor on November 5, 2002.  He was sworn in and took office on January 15, 2003.

With an eye on efficiency, cost-savings and value to the taxpayer, Governor Sanford continues to focus on efforts in four core areas- keeping South Carolina competitive, bringing fiscal responsibility to state government, promoting an “ownership society” and improving the state’s quality of life.  He has undertaken a top-to-bottom review of South Carolina's governmental structure. In addition to holding in-depth budget hearings with over thirty individual state agencies, Gov. Sanford's Cabinet agencies have already saved taxpayers millions of dollars with innovative new initiatives designed to streamline operations and eliminate waste and duplication in government. For example, after making the Department of Motor Vehicles a cabinet agency the DMV is now offering Saturday office hours and online services to better provide for its customers. Wait times at the DMV are down from 66 minutes to 15 minutes and all with roughly half the general funds requested in the past.

Gov. Sanford, who campaigned on opening up South Carolina's political process, also signed landmark campaign finance reform and Commerce Department disclosure reform bills in 2003, two measures that have brought much needed sunlight and accountability to state government. The governor holds "Open Door After 4" meetings every month in his office, chatting one-on-one with individual South Carolinians and listening to their questions and concerns. The governor also travels across the state holding regular "Neighborhood Office Hours" to meet with citizens.

Prior to Gov. Sanford's election as governor, he lived on the South Carolina coast with his wife, Jenny, and their four young sons, Marshall, Landon, Bolton and Blake.  He served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives with no previous political experience. He was rated #1 in the U.S. Congress by Citizens Against Government Waste in 1995, 1997 and 1999 for his votes to protect the taxpayer before stepping down in 2001 to honor a term limits pledge.

Gov. Sanford learned the themes of hard work and frugality with two brothers and a sister on their family farm near Beaufort, S.C. He graduated from high school in Beaufort before attending Furman University in Greenville, S.C., where he received a B.A. in business. He later received an M.B.A. from the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business and went on to work in real estate finance and investment in New York and Charleston, S.C.


(Considered the preeminent taxpayer watchdog group)
Taxpayers’ Best Friend and Taxpayers’ Friend Awards
In recognition of an exceptional voting record to reduce federal spending, reduce the burden of the American taxpayer, and further the cause of vitally needed fiscal integrity for America
• Ranked Mark #3 in the entire U.S. Congress for his record of voting in the interest of the taxpayer

Taxpayer Superhero Award

Rated #1 in the U.S. Congress for 1995, 1997, and 1999

Deficit Hawk Award

In recognition of the Leadership and Courage of Mark Sanford in making tough choices necessary to balance the budget and put entitlement programs on a long-term sustainable path

The Guardian of Small Business Award

For promoting American business vitality and voting to protect small businesses from unnecessary regulation and taxation

Taxpayer Hall of Fame Award

In recognition of being one of the top ten most fiscally responsible House members
• “His steadfast commitment to lowering spending in Washington helped shape the budget debate and move the government away from deficit financing and toward surpluses”

Golden Bulldog Award

For voting efforts to cut federal spending, eliminate waste, and reduce the deficit

Hero of the Taxpayer Award

In recognition of leadership on behalf of taxpayers and for promoting simpler, fairer, flatter, more visible and lower taxes

Honor Roll of Legislative Achievement in Economic Development Award

In recognition of diligent and continuous efforts to support legislation that will enhance the economic vitality and growth within the American South

Spirit of Enterprise Award

For strong support of sound pro-business policies and legislation

Meritorious Service Award

For championing the causes of Older Americans

Tax Fighter Award

In appreciation of leadership and outstanding public service on behalf of American taxpayers

In recognition of leadership in educating today’s young leaders for their roles in tomorrow’s world

American Conservative Union Federation says Mark Sanford is
America's Most Conservative Governor


With Republicans on a national spending spree of historic proportions, it is reassuring to see a governor still fighting to limit the size and scope of government. Whereas the GOP majority in Washington has presided over an increase in domestic discretionary spending of eight percent per year, Mark Sanford of South Carolina has kept his state's increase to a mere one percent. In recent history, only one politician has done better. Ronald Reagan actually cut spending by an average of 1.3 percent per year over his two terms.

Gov. Sanford likes the Reagan comparison and, indeed, has set him as his model. Like President Reagan, he made control of spending, the bureaucracy, and waste his top goals from the first. He spent half of what his predecessor did on his official transition to office, disbanded his security detail and scrapped the traditional black tie fancy ball for a Bar-B-Q picnic open to all. But his actions once in office were hardly just symbolic. He adopted the first detailed executive branch budget in the state's history, which identified millions of dollars in possible savings, rather than leaving decisions solely to the legislature as had all earlier governors.

Gov. Sanford faced a $155 million deficit from his predecessor the day he entered office, together with threats from credit rating agencies to lower the state's borrowing status. To close this gaping hole, he engineered passage of a "Fiscal Discipline Act" through a reluctant legislature. He negotiated $139 million in repayment and issued 106 vetoes to cut spending to close the remainder of the gap. While the legislature overrode all but one veto, the governor did not stop there. He walked into the statehouse rotunda with a live pig under each arm to ask why the legislators could not cut unnecessary pork spending. While the spenders were squealing, the people loved it and granted the governor a 70 percent approval rating. Showing his true nettle, Sanford invested his popularity in his budget cuts and a half dozen Republicans who had defied him on spending, including the House majority leader, lost primaries in the following election.

Like Ronald Reagan, Sanford understands that legislators must be confronted if fiscal discipline is to be imposed. Representatives want to give people things in democracies, not to say "no" to them. That is why spending explodes if they are not restrained by executives. America's Founders understood this by giving the president the veto as his major domestic power. Rather than hoard them, the strong executive exercises vetoes with some frequency. One of Sanford's early acts was to veto a pork-laden "economic development" bill and threaten to go to court even if it was overridden as violating the state requirement for only one subject for each law enacted. He also went after the taxation side, proposing a one billion dollar tax cut, slashing discriminatory rates against the small businesses that create the jobs, from 7 to 4.75 percent over ten years.

Again following Reagan, Sanford set up a state version of the Grace Commission to investigate ways to control waste, fraud and abuse, recognizing that if the executive does not control the details of administration, it cannot truly govern. The new budget drew even agencies given independence by state law under the scrutiny of the governor. He had the troubled Division of Motor Vehicles transferred to the executive and reduced wait time at the agency from an average of 66 minutes to 15 to make it more responsive to citizens. A unit of the Department of Mental Health had lost 90 percent of its patients over time but continued to operate and waste taxpayer funds. Sanford saved $5.3 million on operating costs and $33 million from closing the underused facility and transferring the remaining patients to a better facility. The Department of Commerce was cut from 15 to 5 divisions, becoming more efficient and creating savings. Rather than having one state agency rent cars to another, he proposed to sell 6,000 cars, using more cost-effective private rental agencies to save the state $33.8 million. Additional privatization and private school choice are set as future priorities. Deregulation efforts include voiding the state's one handgun purchase per month limitation, ending a vest-hunting requirement on one's own property, and canceling state restrictions on local school construction. He backed his efforts up with an executive order forbidding the cabinet agencies from lobbying the legislature for more funds or more regulation.

Gov. Sanford comes across as a smart, serious executive who understands how government bureaucracies and legislatures work. This is nothing new for him. When he ran for Congress in 1994, he set a term limit for himself and had the courage to actually keep his word and quit when it expired. During his six years in the House of Representatives, the 44 year old earned high grades from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Christian Coalition, National Right to Life Committee, and the American Conservative Union. He was widely recognized in Washington as a tough legislator who could be counted upon to act on substance rather than rhetoric. He is conservative even when it directly affects him--he slept on his office futon while in Congress, raised private funds to make needed repairs in the governor's mansion and cut 60 positions from his own staff.

Even the media cannot deny his energy and commitment. As "The Columbia State" newspaper noted: "Oh lawmakers talk a good game about shaking up the bureaucracy, trimming the fat; but even the starve-government Republicans have done precious little to challenge this assumption since they came to power. Until now. Partly because he's an outsider with no investment in the way things have always been done, partially because he is more willing than the typical politician to make waves, Mark Sanford is working to overturn that idea."

He not only acts politically like Ronald Reagan, he gives the same sense in person that he is the real thing. His best friend and campaign manager is his wife, Jenny. He is devoted to his children. He asks all the right questions and wants to know every option. He questions everything and never accepts something simply because it is the way it has always been done. He is a serious, courageous and committed conservative -- in fact, the most conservative chief executive in America.

Donald Devine, Editor.

For More Information on Mark Sanford online check out:

Renew America "Getting a grip on runaway squealing pork" by Paul Weyrich

National Review Online "With-It Sanford: The free-market South Carolina governor" by Deroy Murdock "Mark Sanford, a Neo-Reagan, Runs for Governor in South Carolina" by Wes Vernon

Draft Sanford in 2008!

Draft Mark Sanford For President 2008

Mark Sanford at Wikipedia

Sanford, Perdue & Huckabee...Rising Stars of the Republican Party

Mark Sanford: The Right Man for 2008? By Joel Mowbray

Big story of 2005: Crash of confidence in media by Michael Medved

Source: | Hurricane Katrina highlighted the biggest story of 2005 — but that story had nothing to do with flooding or destruction.

Hysterical news accounts, initially exaggerating dead victims by a factor of more than 10 to one, demonstrated the irresponsible nature of U.S. media.

Similarly, news coverage of the Iraq war always emphasizes the negative, downplaying all positive developments. More and more in 2005, the public distrusted mainstream media — with opinion surveys showing journalists even less trusted than politicians.

Hiring of new anchors — even including Katie Couric — won't win back confidence of a public highly suspicious of supposedly fair-minded network stars. At the same time, the sharp box office decline in Hollywood shows disillusionment following the leftist, highly partisan role of the entertainment industry in the recent election.

When historians recall developments of the year just passed, reduced confidence in all forms of mass media will look like one of the most significant changes.

JWR contributor, author and film critic Michael Medved hosts a daily three-hour radio talk show broadcast in more than 120 cities throughout the United States.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Puerto Rico: To Be or Not To Be a U.S. State??

Bush administration calls for statehood vote in Puerto Rico
Associated Press


December 23, 2005, 8:36 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Thursday gingerly stepped into the debate over Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States, asking Congress to set yet another vote for the island's citizens to voice their opinion about their future.

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. commonwealth since 1952, when Congress approved the relationship. Puerto Ricans voted to keep that status quo and reject statehood in nonbinding referendums in 1967, 1993 and 1998.

But deep divisions remain, with a sizable number supporting the call for statehood and a much smaller group backing full independence. Statehood would bring the right to vote for president and voting representation in Congress. Full independence would require some Puerto Ricans to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

The issue also raises tricky political questions in the United States -- for instance, admitting Puerto Rico as a state could affect the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

President Bush's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status concluded that another vote by Puerto Ricans is the best next step. Releasing its final report Thursday, the task force urged Congress to set a vote, or at least hold hearings on the issue, by the end of next year.

The task force took no position on which of the three options -- continued commonwealth status, statehood or independence -- is preferable. It said the vote should ask Puerto Ricans to choose between remaining a U.S. territory or moving toward a permanent solution.

If Puerto Ricans supported a permanent status option, another vote should be set to choose between statehood and independence, the task force said.

"The hot potato ... someone has to put it in the kitchen," said Ruben Barrales, a task force co-chair and director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. "The people that are going to cook it are the people of Puerto Rico."

The island's nearly 4 million people have been U.S. citizens since 1917. Islanders can serve in the U.S. military but are barred from voting for president, have no voting representation in Congress and pay no federal income taxes.

The Caribbean island has become one of the wealthiest places in Latin America, though poverty remains more severe than on the U.S. mainland.

[Public Papers of the Presidents]
[William J. Clinton -- 2000]
[Volume 3]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]

[Page 2780-2781]

[[Page 2780]]

Memorandum on Resolution of Puerto Rico's Status
December 23, 2000

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Subject: Resolution of Puerto Rico's Status

Although Puerto Rico was acquired in connection with the Spanish-
American War and United States citizenship is granted to persons born on
the islands, Puerto Rico's ultimate status has not been determined.
Until that issue is resolved, questions remain about how United States
economic and social policies should apply to the citizens of Puerto
Further, although our citizens in Puerto Rico have been granted the
exercise of authority on local matters similar to that of citizens of a
State, they do not have voting representation in the Federal Government.
All three of Puerto Rico's major political parties are based on
different visions of what the options for a fully democratic status are,
and what the best status would be. And all advocate a substantial change
in the islands' status. The Commonwealth held a referendum on options
for its future status in December 1998, including the current governing
arrangement, and other recognized options, but a majority of the vote
was for a "None of the Above" column.
Much of the debate on the issue concerns what options are available
to Puerto Rico, in light of the Constitution and the basic laws and
policies of the United States. The elected representatives of the people
of Puerto Rico have, therefore, repeatedly petitioned the Federal
Government to clarify the islands' status options as well as the process
by which Puerto Ricans can determine the islands' future status.
The United States has a responsibility to answer such questions.
Successive Presidents, and the Congress in 1998, have supported the
people of Puerto Rico in determining their status preference from among
options that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws
and policies of the United States. I have made it the policy of the
executive branch to work with the leaders of the Commonwealth and the
Congress to enable Puerto Ricans to choose their future status. We also
have the responsibility to help Puerto Ricans obtain the necessary
transitional legislation toward a new status, if chosen.
To ensure that the Federal Government continues to address the
fundamental question concerning the islands until it is resolved, by the
authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of
the United States of America, including Public Law 106-346, I have today
issued an Executive Order establishing the President's Task Force on
Puerto Rico's Status (President's Task Force) and further direct as
1. The Co-Chairs of the President's Task Force shall conduct an
ongoing dialogue with the Governor and Resident Commissioner
of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico's major political parties and
other groups that advocate a change in the islands' status,
and the Chairs and Ranking Minority Members of the House of
Representatives Committee on Resources and the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This dialogue
shall focus on the options for Puerto Rico's future status
and the process by which Puerto Ricans can realize such an
option. It shall seek to facilitate communications among the
offices that the aforementioned officials represent on
matters relating to the status of the Commonwealth, and
ensure official attention to, and facilitate action on, such
matters. In particular, the dialogue shall seek to clarify
the options for Puerto Rico's future status and enable
Puerto Ricans to choose among those options.
2. The Co-Chairs of the President's Task Force shall monitor
the expenditure of funds for public education on and a
public choice among Puerto Rico's status options pursuant to
Public Law 106-346. This monitoring shall include ensuring
that educational materials are accurate, objective, and
nonpartisan and that they are consistent with the standards
set forth in the Executive Order entitled ``Establishment of
the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status.''

[[Page 2781]]

3. The heads of executive departments and agencies shall
cooperate with the Co-Chairs in fulfilling the assignments
provided for herein and in the accompanying Executive Order.

William J. Clinton

Note: The Executive order is listed in Appendix D at the end of this

Effective Date: December 23, 2000

Responsible Office: I -- Office of Policy Coordination and International Relations
Subject: Establishment of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including Public Law 106-346, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch of the Government of the United States of America to help answer the questions that the people of Puerto Rico have asked for years regarding the options for the islands' future status and the process for realizing an option. Further, it is our policy to consider and develop positions on proposals, without preference among the options, for the Commonwealth's future status; to discuss such proposals' with representatives of the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress; to work with leaders of the Commonwealth and the Congress to clarify the options to enable Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among options for the islands' future status that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States; and to implement such an option if chosen by a majority, including helping Puerto Ricans obtain a governing arrangement under which they would vote for national government officials, if they choose such a status.

Sec. 2. The President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. There is established a task force to be known as "The President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status" (Task Force). It shall be composed of designees of each member of the President's Cabinet and the Co-Chairs of the President's Interagency Group on Puerto Rico (Interagency Group). The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the Attorney General's designee and a Co-Chair of the Interagency Group.

Sec. 3. Functions. The Task Force shall seek to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. It shall ensure official attention to and facilitate action on matters related to proposals for Puerto Rico's status and the process by which an option can be realized. It shall provide advice and recommendations on such matters to the President and the Congress. It shall also provide advice and recommendations to assist the Executive Office of the President in fulfilling its responsibilities under Public Law 106-346 to transfer funding to the Elections Commission of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for public education on and a public choice among options for Puerto Rico's future status that are not incompatible with the Constitution and the basic laws and policies of the United States.

Sec. 4. Report. The Task Force shall report on its actions to the President not 1ater than May 1, 2001, and thereafter as needed but not less than annually on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status.

/s/William J. Clinton

December 23, 2000.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 30, 2001

Executive Order
Amendment to Executive Order 13183, Establishment of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to extend by 3 months the time in which the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status is to report to the President as directed in Executive Order 13183 of December 23, 2000, it is hereby ordered that section 4 of Executive Order 13183 is amended by deleting "May 1, 2001" and inserting in lieu thereof "August 1, 2001".


April 30, 2001.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 5, 2003

Executive Order
Executive Order Amendment to Executive Order 13183, Establishment of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 13183 of December 23, 2000, as amended, is further amended as follows:

(1) Section 2 is amended by deleting the second and third sentences, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "It shall be composed of designees of each member of the President's Cabinet and the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director for Intergovernmental Affairs. The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the Attorney General's designee and the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director for Intergovernmental Affairs."

(2) By deleting section 4, and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Sec. 4. Report. The Task Force shall report on its actions to the President as needed, but no less frequently than once every 2 years, on progress made in the determination of Puerto Rico's ultimate status."



December 3, 2003.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 5, 2003

Membership of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status

The White House today announced the membership of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status. The Task Force seeks to implement the policy set forth in Executive Order 13183, which is to consider and clarify options for the Commonwealth's future status that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States, toward the end of enabling Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among those options.

To advance this process, the Task Force will assess the current situation and outline a framework for moving forward. The Task Force will ultimately provide advice and recommendations to the President and the Congress.

The members of the Task Force are:

Name Title Department

Gilbert G. Gonzalez, Jr. Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development Agriculture

Elizabeth Dial Director of Intergovernmental Affairs


Victor E. Bernson, Jr. Director, Office of Legislative Counsel


Kathleen Leos Associate Deputy Under Secretary Education

Theresa Speake Director, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity Energy

Regina Schofield Director, Intergovernmental Affairs HHS

Joshua Filler Director, Office of State Homeland and Local Government Coordination


Frank Jimenez Chief of Staff HUD

David P. Smith Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish,


Wildlife and Parks

Noel J. Francisco Deputy Assistant Attorney General Justice

Chris Spear Assistant Secretary for Policy Labor

Leo DiBenigno Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary State

Sam Reid Deputy Assistant Secretary Transportation

for Governmental Affairs

Tony Fratto Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs Treasury

William McLemore Deputy Assistant Secretary Veterans

for Intergovernmental Affairs Affairs

Ruben Barrales Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

White House

Puerto Rico: Basic Historical Chronology


Late Fifteenth Century (XV)


Christopher Columbus discovered the island in his second voyage to the New World (Nov. 19). He found the island populated by as many as 60,000 Taino or Arawak Indians


Sixteenth Century (XVI)


Spanish colonization begins. (Juan Ponce de Leon, first Spanish governor)


First African Slaves were introduced into the island.


Eighteenth Century (XVIII)


Lieutenant General Alexander O'Reilly conducted a census. Puerto Rico's population had reached 45,000.


Nineteenth Century (XIX)


The printing press is brought to the island.


Public lightning with olive oil lamps was established in the streets of San Juan. Cadiz Constitution was adopted, which granted Puerto Ricans conditional citizenship.


The Royal Decree of Grace (commerce liberty) was expedited.


The book "El Jibaro" by Manuel Alonso was published.


Puerto Rico reached a population of 656,328; its population recorded as 346,437 whites and 309,891 "of color" (this category included blacks, mulattos and mestizos). The majority of Puerto Ricans lived in poverty. Agriculture, the main economic activity, was limited by lack of roads, rudimentary tools and equipment, and natural disasters, such as tropical hurricanes. While illiteracy was 83.7 percent, the intellectual minority remained relatively active within the limitations imposed by local Spanish authorities.


23 September

Manuel Rojas organized the pro-independence revolt and pledged to create the independent Republic of Puerto Rico as part of an uprising known as the Grito de Lares ("The Cry of Lares"). His Hacienda in the town of Lares became the headquarters for like-minded revolutionaries who would push for a split from Spain. The Grito de Lares was encouraged from his exile by Ramón Emeterio Betances (1827-1898) also known as the "father" of the Puerto Rican nationhood.


22 March

The Spanish Crown abolished slavery in Puerto Rico.


Ramón Baldorioty de Castro formed the Autonomous Party that tried to create a political and legal identity for Puerto Rico while emulating Spain in all political matters.


The Puerto Rican flag was first used on 22 December and adopted as a national symbol.


The "Carta Autonómica" (chart for political autonomy) was approved in which Spain concedes political and administrative autonomy to the island. It allowed the island to retain its representation in the Spanish Cortes, and provided for a bicameral legislature. This legislature consisted of a Council of Administration with eight elected and seven appointed members, and a Chamber of Representatives with one member for every 25,000 inhabitants. (November 25)


25 April

A formal declaration of war recognized between Spain and the United States.

8 July

U.S. acquired Hawaii.

25 July

U.S. troops under the command of Gen. Nelson Miles disembarked in Guánica on the southern coast of Puerto Rico.

29 September

Governor Macías officially announced that Puerto Rico had been ceded to the United States.

10 December

The Treaty of Paris ended the Spanish-American War of 1898. As a result of this treaty, Spain lost the last of its empire in the New World. The United States was ceded Puerto Rico and Guam, liquidated its possessions in the West Indies, agreed to pay 20 million dollars for the Philippines, while Cuba became independent.

Ramón Emeterio Betances (1827-1898), the intellectual leader of the Puerto Rican pro-independence movement died in Paris, where he had been living in exile for several decades.


Puerto Rico reached a population of 1,000,000 inhabitants.


Twentieth Century (XX)


12 April

The U.S. Congress passed the Foraker Act, establishing a civilian government in Puerto Rico under U.S. control. The Act provided for an elected House of Representatives on the island, but not for a vote in Washington.


Luis Muñoz Rivera and José de Diego founded the Unionist Party of Puerto Rico to fight against the colonial government established under the Foraker Act.


Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón, Manuel Zeno Gandía, Luis Llorens Torres, Eugenio Benítez Castaño, y Pedro Franceschi found the Independence party which was the first party in the history of the island to exclusively want Puerto Rican independence. Though short-lived, it established a precedent for future organizations with similar ideologies.


2 March

President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones Act. It gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship and a bill of rights and also established a locally elected Senate and House of Representatives. However, the Foraker Act still determined economic and fiscal aspects of government.


In the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 308, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Puerto Rico was a territory rather than a part of the Union. The decision stated that the U.S. constitution did not apply in Puerto Rico.


Don Pedro Albizu Campos is elected president of the Nationalist Party.


The Congress of United States approved a law to change back the name of the island Porto Rico, to its original name, Puerto Rico.


Franklin D. Roosevelt visited the island.


President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the Puerto Rican Reconstruction Administration, (PRERA) which provided for agricultural development, public works, and electrification of the island.


At the beginning of "Nacionalista de Puerto Rico" party parade, in Ponce, occurred as called "Masacre de Ponce" were 20 people are killed and 100 people are killed and 100 wounded.


The Democratic Popular Party (PPD) was founded, under the leadership of Luis Muñoz Marín.


United States began to establishes military bases in the islands of Culebra and Vieques. Rexford Tugwell was assigned governor of Puerto Rico (1941-1946).


Puerto Ricans began to emigrate to United States in relative large numbers.


The Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño (PIP) was organized by a dissident group of former PPD leaders led by Gilberto Concepción de Gracias. This is the principal pro-independence party in Puerto Rico today.


Operation Bootstraps is sponsored by the PPD in power (industrial modernization of the island)


The first governor is elected by the Puerto Ricans. Luis Muñoz Marin is elected.


Nationalist rebellion in Jayuya. Two nationalists tried to kill President Harry Truman in Washington D.C.


The flag of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was officially adopted - based on a flag designed by a group of patriots in the year 1895. The New Constitution is approved by voters, and Puerto Rico is proclaimed as Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (July 25)


Nationalists open fire in the U.S. House of Representatives, wounding five Congressmen.


Don Pedro Albizu Campos leader of the Nationalist party dies.


First plebiscite on the political status of Puerto Rico was held. Voters overwhelmingly (almost 60%) affirm continuation of Commonwealth status.


Luis A. Ferré, leader of a prostatehood party, is elected governor.

The New Progressive Party (PNP) is founded.This is the main pro-statehood party in Puerto Rico.


Luis Muñoz Marín founder of the PPD and first elected Governor of Puerto Rico dies.


Puerto Rico declares Spanish the only official language of the island.


The pro-statehood PNP (in power since January) approved the Law Number 1 of 1993 declares English and Spanish as the official languages of Puerto Rico.

In the Referendum, Commonwealth status
was reaffirmed by voters.

Statehood.......... 788,296 (46.3%)

Commonwealth....... 826,326 (48.6%)

Independence........ 75,620 ( 4.4%)

Nulls............... 10,748 ( 0.7%)


U.S. Congress introduced Proyect Young, to provide a process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico. (introduced Feb. 27 by Rep. Don Young, H.R.856)


In a non-binding referendum, which offered Puerto Rican voters will have five choices, which included: (1) remaining a U.S. commonwealth, (2) entering into a "free association" with the United States that would be somewhere between commonwealth and independence, (3) becoming a state, (4) declaring independence, and (5) or none of the above. The option 5 "none of the above" obtained the majority of votes. (December 13)

Option Votes Percent

1 993 0.06%

2 4536 0.29%

3 728157 46.49%

4 39838 2.54%

5 787900 50.30%

Others 4846 0.31%

FISA vs. the Constitution: Congress can't usurp the president's power to spy on America's enemies by Robert F. Turner


Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay--America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state--wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest."

In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president "account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify." They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them. And in 1818, when a dispute arose over a reported diplomatic mission to South America, the legendary Henry Clay told his House colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the president's contingent fund, it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry" by Congress.

For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.

Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.

Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.

Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84.

The New York Times Versus America By Michelle Malkin Commentary
December 28, 2005

2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, the New York Times.

What's "Idiotarian"? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset.

The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:

On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction":

"The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error."

Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty.

Funny how the "production errors" of the Times' truth doctors always put the Bush administration and the war in the worst light.

Not content to meddle with the words of a living soldier, the Times published a disgraceful distortion of a fallen soldier's last words on Oct. 26.

As reported in this column and in the news pages of the New York Post, Times reporter James Dao unapologetically abused the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girl friend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism" for a massive piece marking the anti-war movement's "2,000 dead in Iraq" campaign.

The Times added insult to injury by ignoring President Bush's tribute to Starr on Nov. 30 during his Naval Academy speech defending the war in Iraq.

After Starr died, Bush said: "A letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote. He said, '[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark.'"

Stirring words deemed unfit to print by the Times.

The Times did find space to print the year's most insipid op-ed piece by paranoid Harvard student Fatina Abdrabboh, who praised Al Gore for overcoming America's allegedly rampant anti-Muslim bias by picking up her car keys, which she dropped while running on a gym treadmill:

" . . . Mr. Gore's act represented all that I yearned for -- acceptance and acknowledgment. . . . I left the gym with a renewed sense of spirit, reassured that I belong to America and that America belongs to me."

I kid you not.

In June, Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of downed American Airlines Flight 77, blew the whistle on plans by civil liberties zealots to turn Ground Zero in New York into a Blame America monument.

On July 29, the Times editorial page, stocked with liberals who snort and stamp whenever their patriotism is questioned, slammed Burlingame and her supporters at Take Back the Memorial as "un-American" -- for exercising their free speech rights.

Yes, "un-American." This from a newspaper that smeared female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "sex workers," sympathetically portrayed military deserters as "un-volunteers," apologized for terror suspects and illegal aliens at every turn, enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson and recklessly endangered national security by publishing illegally obtained information about classified counterterrorism programs.

So, which side is the New York Times on? Let 2005 go down as the year the Gray Lady wrapped herself permanently in a white flag.

(Michelle Malkin is author of the new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.")

New York Times Accused of Toying with Treason
by Jim Kouri


Dec 28, 2005

From our chutzpah file comes this story: today's New York Times reports that defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
In an article written by James Risen, who wrote the original NSA spy article, the lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out. So Risen's article may actually help known terrorists -- including the one who planned to blowup the Brooklyn Bridge -- avoid prosecution. He should be proud.

It's been a long time coming, but finally someone from the mainstream news media had the wherewithal to use the words "New York Times" and "treason" in the same sentence. Although I thought the New York Post -- part of Ruppert Murdock's News Corp conglomerate -- didn't go far enough and may have hedged their accusations a bit, the editorial writers were the bold in their assertions. After the Times articles on top secret counterterrorism operations -- the NSA and FBI operations -- there remained little doubt that reporters at the Gray Lady had an agenda.

Here's the opening of their December 27 editorial titled, "Gray Lady Toys with Treason":

"Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror? The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

"Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.

"It has published classified information -- and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat."

While the New York Post stopped short of calling the New York Times' actions treasonous, I for one won't. I believe that the Times should be investigated, prosecuted and suffer the consequences of their actions in a time of war. Whether they believe we are fighting a war or not, isn't the point. The point is they committed an act far worse than those accused leakers in the Valerie Plame investigation; an investigation that the NY Times championed. How many times during the course of the Plame investigation did the Times sanctimoniously fret over our national security? Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?

For too long, the so-called "newspaper of record" has played loose and fancy-free with the truth. Columnist and author Michelle Malkin caught them in a number of lies for which the Times editors offered tepid excuses and apologies. In her December 27 column she wrote:

"The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:

"On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction":

"Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty."

This is only one example contained in Malkin's column.

Even more troubling is what isn't caught as untruthful in the pages of the New York Times. While many of the nation's news organizations are attempting to limit the use of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources," the Times will build an entire news story based on these nameless, faceless newsmakers. The Gray Lady has become the Kitty Kelly of the news business.

The problem is that most news organizations, including Fox News Channel, use the New York Times coverage as a template for what will be covered by their news people. Some editors, according the former CBS reporter and author Bernard Goldberg, will not cover a story unless it's already been covered by the New York Times. Why is so much respect lavished on this newspaper?

It's similar to the situation in academia where institutions such as Harvard and Yale are still held in the highest esteem, while the quality of their education has been in decline since the 1960s, when radical left-wing ideologues took over their campuses.

But the Times always had a left-leaning agenda. They were the primary apologists for the Soviet Union's brutal murderer and dictator Joseph Stalin. In fact, most of the left in the US were against entering World War II until Hitler attacked the USSR. Then the liberal-left began to call for action against the Nazis.

The left-wingers in politics, the media, academia and activism have turned the idea of treason on its head. Today, no one dares to voice their concerns about someone's patriotism or dare to use the term treasonous to describe the words or conduct of these America haters. They assert that they are patriots. And even conservative politicians and pundits fail to laugh in their faces when they utter such nonsense.

During a recent Fox News Channel debate between talk show host Mike Gallagher and left-wing columnist from The Nation, David Corn, something interesting occurred which went unnoticed. Usually, it's the liberal-left debater who resorts to name calling (i.e. racist, xenophobe, jingoist, etc.). After Corn's diatribe against the war and the Commander-in-Chief, Gallagher simply replied that Corn believed what he was saying because he's Un-American. For the rest of the debate all David Corn could do is protest that he indeed was not Un-American. And Gallagher laughed for the rest of the time he and Corn were on the air. A wise man once told me that most leftists are cowards, but hell hath no fury like that of a leftist uncovered.

Someday, hopefully soon, conservatives will stop pussy-footing around and call a traitor a traitor and treasonous behavor treason. Let's uncover them. Let the fury begin.

The Gray Lady Toys With Treason

New York Post
Tue Dec 27, 6:00 AM ET

Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror?

The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.

It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.

The most notorious example was the paper's disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has "secretly" engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.

It's not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren't exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation.

On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office.

In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots.

Is it legal? The administration insists so, and notes that congressional Democrats got repeated briefings on the program, with few objections. Sure, the legality can be debated — but the case against it is far from a slam-dunk.

As for taking action without court-issued warrants, both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects.

The Times says it held the story for more than a year, provoking a predictable uproar on the left. So why did it finally go ahead?

According to a Los Angeles Times report, New York Times editors knew that a book by the article's author was to be published in just a few weeks — and they feared losing their "exclusive" to their own reporter's outside work.

But the exact timing is highly suspect. The article appeared on the very day that the Senate was to vote on a Democratic filibuster against renewal of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act — a vote the Bush administration then lost. At least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece.

BUT it's not just the National Security Agency story.

Last May, the Times similarly "exposed" — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as "the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism."

In fact, as the Times itself reported, "the civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome." In an unconventional war, like the one against terrorism, the ability to move personnel around quickly and inconspicuously — or to deliver captured terrorists to a third country — is indispensable.

Thanks to the Times, that ability has been irrevocably compromised — costing Washington yet another vital tool in the War on Terror.

Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations.

In particular, the cops have been exercising their vigilance on the group called Critical Mass, which the Times refers to benignly as "a monthly bicycle ride."

Not quite. Yes, it began as peaceful, law-abiding rides — orderly protests. But it deteriorated last year into mass disruptions of traffic.

A federal judge unwisely refused the city's demand that the riders obtain a police permit in advance — but still admitted that the monthly protests were "spawning potential dangers."

All along, the NYPD has not been trying to shut the Critical Mass protests down or abridge anyone's First Amendment rights. It has only insisted on safeguards — like permits — to guarantee that no laws are broken and traffic disruptions are held to a minimum.

Unable to get the courts to agree, the cops instead used plainclothes cops "to prevent and respond to acts of violence and other unlawful activity."

In other words, to protect the people of New York.

Now, the Times has "exposed" this police work — and not just in words, but by splashing the pictures of these undercover officers across the pages of the newspaper, without making even the slightest effort to protect their identities.

And make no mistake: The result will be to compromise the ability of the NYPD to work undercover at a time of increasing danger to the city from back-pack-toting terrorists — a la Madrid and London.

Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?

The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.

The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.

The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone.

The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens.

The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Why In the World Would Anyone Support Senator McCain? by Russ Wilcox


Senator McCain occupies an unusual position in American politics. Because of his military service, his unquestioned heroism and the agonizing, extended torture he endured for 5 years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, he receives deserved acclaim from all sectors. Yet as a supposed Republican, he comes off as a liberal gadfly who will do almost anything to gain press coverage and face time on TV. There are six specific reasons why I oppose him, and certainly could not support him or almost anything he favors: 1. his membership in the Keating Five, 2. his potentially disastrous position on so-called torture, 3. his sponsorship of the ludicrous McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, 4. his opposition to extending the tax cuts, 5. his opposition to drilling for oil and some measure of energy independence in ANWR, and, 6. his opposition to extending the Patriot Act.

I will discuss or list newspaper accounts of each of these subjects below:


Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000

The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.

Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.


Since 9/11, there have been many instances where rough questioning and tactics of embarrassment in questioning terrorists have saved American lives, and only the most naïve among us does not recognize the "ticking bomb" scenario. Why has Senator McCain gone on and on about this subject, and now has pushed through a bill (called by some the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights) that puts our investigators and our troops at risk? One of the best discussions of this subject was by a renowned liberal, Alan Dershowitz, who said, "The treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

International law must recognize that democracies have been forced by the tactics of terrorists to make difficult decisions regarding life and death. The old black-and-white distinctions must be replaced by new categories, rules and approaches that strike the proper balance between preserving human rights and preventing human wrongs. For the law to work, it must be realistic and it must adapt to changing needs."
John McCain: U.S. Still Torturing Terrorists
Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005 11:12 a.m. EST

Sen. John McCain claimed Wednesday that the U.S. is still torturing terrorist detainees, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits with European leaders to assure them that the practice is banned under U.S. law.

"We've got to stop this torture," McCain told radio host Don Imus.

Sher Zieve
Senator John McCain Now Officially a Liberal Democrat
By Sher Zieve
Dec 16, 2005

In the United States, we already have laws prohibiting torture. But, that wasn’t enough for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain apparently “feels” (one of those liberal things) that torture is 'anything that makes terrorists uncomfortable’. Holy Smokes, Senator! Terrorists are supposed to be uncomfortable.

Not only does McCain not want those who blow up people, buildings and behead those they haven't already killed to be treated with a gentler and more soothing attitude, he has also managed to push this anti-American enemy bill through—with terrorists now being extended rights under the US Constitution!


The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was supposed to reduce or limit the amount of money coming into election campaigns. In its first test it failed completely, as record amounts of money were raised and spent in the last election. Instead, it has placed limits on what certain groups can say, and when they can say it, but not on other groups.

Rocky Mountain News
Time to rescue political speech
Another court test of McCain-Feingold law
December 5, 2005

The plain meaning of the First Amendment as regards speech is that you don't need the government's permission to say what you want, and it shouldn't matter who you are or when you want to say it. Once the government sets itself up in the permission-granting business, as it has with "campaign finance reform" under the notorious McCain-Feingold law, you've lost an important part of that constitutional freedom…..

The primary purpose of the constitution's free-speech clause was to protect political speech, and yet the law now explicitly bans the political speech of certain groups. It only goes to show that the law was misguided from the start.


John McCain is also opposing continuation of the tax cuts which saved the American economy after the deep recession of 2000 and the devastating blows of 9/11 to the travel, tourism and airline businesses – and to the businesses which depend on them. As has always happened, these tax cuts revived the economy, led to continuing record levels of employment and low inflation, and resulted in huge increases in federal tax receipts – cutting the deficit., Sept 23, 2005

WILL BACK-TO-BACK HURRICANES be enough to blow away the goose that laid the golden egg? The answer to that question might hold the key to the stock market for the rest of the year.

The golden goose I'm talking about is the May 2003 cut in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. As I explained at the time, it's a mathematical certainty that stock prices will move higher when investors know they will pay less in taxes on the dividends and capital gains they receive. Say a $10 stock pays a $1 dividend, and you have to pay a 50% tax on that income. The 50 cents you keep means you have an after-tax yield of 5%. If the tax is cut in half, to 25%, you would keep 75 cents, and your after-tax yield jumps to 7.5%. Do you think the stock will stay at $10? No way. It will immediately rise to $15, because that's the price that makes the after-tax yield 5% again.

But that's just the first step. When stock prices rise, the cost of capital falls. After all, the higher the price a company can sell its stock, the less it effectively pays to get the capital it needs to invest in new plants and equipment. So a lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains means more investment, which eventually translates into more productivity, innovation, employment and economic growth. And that suggests that the stock in my example should rise even further than $15 over time.

Want proof? That's easy. The S&P 500 today is more than 25% higher than it was when the tax cut on dividends and capital gains was enacted in May 2003.
And the same logic applies to income tax rates, which were also cut in 2003. When people get to keep more of the money they earn, they work more and they work harder. The result is the same: more productivity, innovation, employment and economic growth.

Want proof? Gross domestic product, after inflation, has risen 8.4% in the eight quarters since the tax cuts were enacted.

Now let me guess what some of you are thinking. What good does it do for stock prices to rise and economic growth to accelerate if government goes broke for lack of tax revenues? After all, if you cut taxes doesn't that mean the government will collect less?

If that's what's worrying you, then consider a few numbers. According to Treasury Department statistics, the federal government collected tax revenues of $1.79 trillion in the 12 months leading up to the enactment of the 2003 tax cuts. In the next 12 months, despite lower tax rates, the government took in more: $1.82 trillion. Then in the next 12 months — still with lower tax rates — it took in even more, at $2.06 trillion.

So everything's been going just fine. Revenues are pouring in, the economy has been doing great, and until several weeks ago stocks were making new four-year highs. You have to admit, those are some pretty golden eggs. Now why would anyone want to kill the goose that lays them? Why would anyone want to take back those tax cuts? Well, that's where Katrina and Rita enter the picture.

If it hadn't been for these hurricanes, Congress was all set to extend the cuts on dividends and capital-gains taxes by two years. As originally enacted, they automatically expired in 2008, and this year they were to be extended to 2010. But with the huge costs of federal assistance to the disaster-struck Gulf Coast, there are plenty of people in Congress who suddenly think extending the tax cuts isn't such a good idea.

Of course the Democrats think that. But they did even before the hurricanes — partly because they are sincerely opposed to tax cuts that they see benefiting only "the rich," and in part simply because the tax cuts were advocated by their political nemesis, George W. Bush. Now that the hurricanes have damaged Bush's reputation, they're in even less of a mood to compromise with him.


McCain is also one of six Republican senators stopping drilling in ANWR (Chafee (R-RI) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) DeWine (R-OH) McCain (R-AZ) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME)).

ANWR is a national security issue. In a time of war, the actual production from ANWR is not as important as taking the steps necessary to get the oil to a position where it would be available to us if we were to need it because of supply disruption or, worse, a catastrophic attack on our facilities for importing oil.

Stand-by production potential is as necessary to the economic health and defense capability of the United States at least as important to the national security as any other element in hour national defense. It is just not obviously so. Congressmen are supposed to have the intellect to get beyond the obvious.


Senator McCain is also leading the opposition to our primary defense against domestic acts of terrorism, extending the Patriot Act. It is no accident that thus far there have been no repeats of the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. The Patriot Act gave our government a fighting chance to detect and deter Islamic terrorists from operating in this country, and it removed the wall between intelligence agencies that the Clinton Administration had foolishly erected. It must be renewed.

Peggy Noonan sums up:

"Noonan is correct to dismiss concerns about McCain's age, but she doesn't deal with his almost compulsive need to distance himself from the base --voting this week against exploration in ANWR, leading the Gang of 14 instead of leading the fight to confirm Judge Alito, refusing to bring up the obvious disaster that was his masterpiece of campaign finance reform. McCain's candidacy will not survive a string of GOP-only primaries, and anyone who pretends shock at that result in '08 will have refused to collect or study the obvious data."

I believe that Senator McCain's meddling and bumbling in these matters will eventually be overcome, but, in the meantime, a large price is going to be paid by innocent Americans just to satisfy his enormous ego.

Sen. McCain Wants To Be President
Check-out his unpresidential credentials


January-February 1997 Issue
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch

Citing his 5-1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, columnists and journalists freehandedly describe Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona as a war hero.

Washington Post columnist George Will wrote about McCain in 1988, "He was a prisoner for 5-1/2 years. Because he was properly obstinate, he was in solitary confinement most of that time . . . Every day for two years, one of his guards ordered him to bow, and then knocked him down."

Joseph Spear, an awestruck columnist who wanted presidential candidate Bob Dole to pick McCain for vice president wrote, "McCain is a war hero . . . He was tossed into the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison camp, where he was hung by his fractured arms for hours at a time." Many have written columns suggesting that McCain is presidential material and advocate his running for the nation's highest office.

McCain obviously agrees.
Reuter's News Service reported in January that the 60 year old McCain says he wants to be President of the United States.

McCain also thinks President Clinton, who dodged the draft rather than serve in Vietnam, is the perfect presidential role model. He recently told the press that Clinton "is the best politician I have ever seen."

McCain, however, does not think so highly of the POW/MIA families and activists who openly challenge the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, many of whom walked the halls of Congress during the Vietnam War years demanding America's prisoners of war, including POW McCain, not be forgotten.

McCain, as a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, took the lead in demanding a U.S. Justice Department investigation of the POW/MIA activists and their organizations. He accused the activists of fraud because in some of their fund-raising literature the activists claimed the U.S. government knowingly left U.S. POWs behind after the Vietnam War and that some remain alive today.

McCain openly attacked the activists telling the press, "The people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." The Justice Department did investigate the POW/MIA activists and their organizations and found no reason to charge any POW/MIA activist.

McCain's use of the words craven, despicable and scam are mighty powerful and poisonous words from a man who admittedly traded "military information" to his communist captors in exchange for better medical treatment--or who divorced the wife that stood by him while he was a POW, after she became crippled in an accident.

Those words are hypocritical from a man whose younger and richer wife (she's an heir to Hensley & Co., the second largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributor in the United States) got caught after stealing drugs for two years from a charitable organization of which she was president.

Editor's note: The U.S. military Code of Conduct is the definitive code specifying the responsibilities of American military personnel while in combat or captivity.

Article V of the Code is very specific in ordering U.S. military personnel to avoid answering questions to the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements disloyal to the United States and its allies or harmful to their cause. Any willful violation of the Code is considered collaborating with the enemy.

U.S. Navy pilot John McCain was shot down on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, October 26, 1967. He was released March 1973 after being held captive by the North Vietnamese for 5-1/2 years.

Within days of his release, McCain wrote the following account of his captivity, which was published in U.S. News and World Report - May 14, 1973:
"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football . . . when I saw it, I said to the guard, 'O.K., get the officer' . . . an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug.' He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, 'O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"

McCain now says it was only a coincidence that at the same time he was offering "military information" in exchange for special medical treatment, his captors discovered that his father was Adm. John S. McCain Jr., commander of all U.S. forces in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, including Vietnam.

Upon learning about McCain's father, the communists, in an unprecedented move, rushed McCain to one of their military hospitals where he received treatment not available for other U.S. prisoners of war.

Read following news excerpts that chronicle McCain and his associations:

"Nhan Dan today published answers to questions by one of its correspondents made by a U.S. air pirate detained in North Vietnam. "He is Lt. John Sidney McCain . . ." Hanoi VNA International Service in French - November 9, 1967

"To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots which were sustained by this aircraft carrier due to its raids over North Vietnam territory and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany . . . upon arrival near the target, our formation, with six bombers, would mount the attack according to the following order: I would be number three, and the chief of the formation, number one. Each pilot would have to approach the target from a different direction, the choice of which would be left to him.'" A November 9, 1967 declassified Department of Defense document

"A meeting which will leave its mark on my life: My meeting with John Sidney McCain was certainly one of those meetings which will affect me most profoundly for the rest of my life. I had asked the North Vietnamese authorities to allow me to personally interrogate an American prisoner. They authorized me to do so. When night fell, they took me--without any precautions or mystery--to a hospital near the Gia Lam Airport reserved for the military. (Passage omitted) The officer who receives me begins: I ask you not to ask any questions of political nature. If this man replies in a way unfavorable to us, they will not hesitate to speak of "brainwashing" and conclude that we threatened him. (Passage omitted) "This John Sidney McCain is not an ordinary prisoner. His father is none other than Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S. Naval forces in Europe." Written by "prominent" French television reporter Francois Chalais - January 1968

"Reds Say PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral
. . . Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner." Saigon-UPI, June 4, 1969

"The English-Language broadcast beamed at South Vietnam was one of a series using American prisoners. It was in response to a plea by Defense Secretary Melvin S. Laird, May 19, that North Vietnam treat prisoners according to the humanitarian standards set forth by the Geneva Convention." The Washington Post - June 5, 1969

"Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist residing in Cuba, returned from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam . . . he brought back some journalistic news: an interview with a North American pilot captured in the DRV after bombing Hanoi on 26 October 1967. The meeting between him and the pilot took place in an office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. The pilot interviewed is Lt Cmdr John Sidney McCain, son and grandson of American Navy Admirals . . . "In the course of the interview, on various occasions he showed that knowledge of the language, saying some words, dates, and so forth in Spanish, or [using it] when he thought the interpreter was seeking the corresponding French word. "Naturally, from the beginning this established a more direct communication between us, and more than one question or my response was made directly in Spanish." Havana Granma - January 24, 1970

"Let me emphasize that there were many, many fine women who supported what they knew their husbands believed in. My wife, Carol, was one of those and I am proud of her." U.S. New and World Report - May 14, 1973

Editor's note: In 1980, McCain's personal life soured. He divorced Carol, who had been seriously injured and crippled in a motor vehicle accident, and married Cindy Hensley, whose father Jim is an Arizona "beer baron."

"Republican Sen. John McCain reported a net worth of at least $830,705 but possibly as much as $1.2 million or more, excluding personal residences . . . McCain listed his wife, Cindy, as the source of most of his assets. . . the bulk of McCain's assets consisted of stock in three Glendale firms - Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship headed by his father-in-law; Western Leasing Co., which leases trucks and equipment; and Eagle Enterprises, which invests in real estate and stock." The Phoenix Gazette - May 19, 1987

"So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. "McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona." The Phoenix Gazette - December 8, 1987

"While Sen. John McCain's wife and father-in-law were investing with Charles H. Keating, Jr. in a shopping center, McCain was helping Keating battle federal regulators who questioned his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan . . . [photo caption] Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley (second from right) are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr. (right). But John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"Sen. John McCain had more than a constituent relationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr. prior to 1987 . . . the McCains - sometimes with their daughter and baby sitter - made at least nine trips at Keating's expense from August 1984 to August 1986 aboard either Keating's American Continental Corporation's jet or chartered planes and helicopters owned by Resorts International. Three of the trips were for vacations at Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"McCain, in a radio talk-show appearance last week condemned disclosures of his family's ties to Keating as "irresponsible journalism." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

" . . . both in telephone conversations with reporters and on a live radio talk show, the Republican senator was far from calm. He was agitated. Angry. And the way he dealt with unpleasant questions was to bully the questioners . . . 'You're a liar,' McCain snapped Sept. 29 when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him about business ties between his wife, Cindy McCain, and Keating . . . 'That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot,' McCain sneered later in the same conversation. 'You do understand English, don't you?' ". . . Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.' . . . McCain wasn't talking to liars. He wasn't talking to juveniles. The senator was talking to two reporters." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

"Employees at Hensley & Co., a $100 million Anheuser-Busch distribution firm, also say that during McCain's first campaign for Congress, some workers were pressured into going door-to-door in neighborhoods to hand out McCain election pamphlets . . . Hensley employees say they must take the checks to work, where they are collected by supervisors. I asked one person if employees were assured that all contributions were voluntary . . . 'no way,' I was told. 'And my (spouse) and I aren't even registered (to vote). That's what makes us so mad." The Arizona Republic - November 1, 1989

"As a 100 percent, service-connected, disabled ex-prisoner of war, I sought help from John McCain when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and I needed help in regard to a claim for back service-connected disability compensation. I did so because I thought that as an ex-POW himself he could relate to my problem. When I could not reach him via letters to his office, I wrote to his home address. That was a very enlightening experience . . . my letter, addressed to the congressman, was opened by his wife, Cindy. She didn't like what she read, so she wrote me a nasty letter. Apparently John McCain isn't even capable of communicating on a one-to-one basis with someone who was a POW and returned from his experience in far worse physical condition than John McCain returned from his experience . . . M. "Shane" Schoenborn." The Phoenix Gazette - November 4, 1989

"Reporters also 'discovered' that the senator's wife and father-in-law invested $359,100.00 in one of Mr. Keating's projects in 1986 . . ." The Phoenix Gazette - November 13, 1989

"The liquor case is particularly intriguing as it resulted in criminal charges against Marley's subordinates, James and Eugene Hensley. If the last name sounds familiar, it's because James is papa to Cindy McCain, who is wife of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is infamous lately as a member of the Keating Five . . . Marley also has been a shadow figure in the 1976 slaying of Republic reporter Don Bolles. Bolles wrote extensively about Marley's lucky past. And about how the Hensleys (Marley's managers) bought Ruidso Downs racing track in New Mexico. He wrote about Eugene Hensley spending five years in federal prison for a skimming scam. And about the Hensleys selling their track to a buyer linked with Emprise Corp. And about Marley's liquor ties with Emprise . . . one of Bolles' final dispatches appeared as Marley was about to become a member of the Arizona Racing Commission - the agency that regulates racetracks, including those run at the time by Emprise . . . the story dispatched Marley's appointment. Two months later, a car bomb killed Bolles." The Phoenix Gazette - January 4, 1990

"Bradley J. Funk, an antique dealer linked to the 13-year-old Don Bolles murder case through his family's former ownership of dog-racing tracks, has died of a heart attack, authorities said Jan. 2 . . . Bolles, 47, a former investigative reporter with the Arizona Republic, died June 13, 1976, about 11 days after a dynamite-based bomb blew up beneath his car . . . in his last statement before lapsing into unconsciousness, he mentioned the Mafia, John Adamson and Emprise Corp., a Buffalo, N.Y. company with a far-flung sports empire which once included ownership of the Boston Bruins hockey team and the former Cincinnati Royals basketball franchise . . . now known as Delaware North Cos., Emprise was convicted in 1972 of a federal charge of conspiring to hide Mafia interest in a Las Vegas, Nev., casino . . . Emprise and the Funk family were partners in six dog-racing tracks in the state and the Prescott Downs horse track, and Bolles had ripped their operations in print." Arizona Business Gazette - January 5, 1990

"McCain's involvement with Keating . . . when reporters called him with questions last year about previously unknown ties to Keating, an investment by wife Cindy McCain in a Keating shopping center and trips to Keating's Bahamas home, McCain went into a rage." The Arizona Republic - April 29, 1990

"Cars, homes and bank accounts of 18 people, including eight state legislators, were confiscated in a civil racketeering lawsuit that paints a portrait of lawmakers eager to sell their influence for as little as $660 and as much as $750,000 . . . Richard Scheffel, another lobbyist indicted but not targeted in the civil racketeering suit, is reputed to have been paid $20,000 to identify and approach lawmakers interested in trading votes for money . . . in a bid to establish his professional credentials with Stedino, Scheffel is reported to have boasted that '(U.S.) Sen. John McCain's father-in-law gives money to politicians through him' . . . Bauer, in his report, said Scheffel claimed that 'each January he receives $30,000 from the local Anheuser-Busch distributor, Jim Hensley,' adding that Hensley also supplied him with names of people to list as contributors." The Phoenix Gazette - February 6, 1991

". . . Bob Delgado, executive vice president for Hensley. He also pointed out that Scheffel was a lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch Inc. and not Hensley & Co . . . Hensley & Co. has a pattern, according to state campaign filings, of registering key executives as lobbyists." The Phoenix Gazette - February 9, 1991

"Hensley & Co., a Phoenix-based beer distributor, rewards its drivers and sales people with parties at Phoenix Greyhound Park . . . 'It's been an excellent motivator for us to use for incentive contests,' said Dave Daulton, assistant vice president at Hensley." The Arizona Republic - February 15, 1991

"Don't overlook that multifaceted beer distributor Jim Hensley, father-in-law to Republican Sen. John McCain of modest Keating fame. According to current AzScam records, Hensley is a financial godfather to hosts of lobbyists." The Phoenix Gazette - March 16, 1991

"McCain, meanwhile, reported assets of more than $5.4 million, much of it held jointly with his wife, Cindy. The couple reported holding at least $2 million in stock in Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship owned by Cindy McCain's father, Jim Hensley . . . John McCain, R-Ariz., also reported at least $500,000 in Anheuser-Busch debentures, with most of the rest of the assets primarily in land holdings that his wife has invested in with her family . . . last year, McCain's wealth was estimated by Roll Call at closer to $2.9 million." The Arizona Republic - May 16, 1991

"At the time, Devereux stumbled upon Bolles' notes concerning Charles C. Morgan, a Tucson escrow agent who took a bullet to the head in 1977 while wearing a bulletproof vest. According to Devereux, Morgan worked for organized crime figures . . . Devereux says, Danny Casolaro called 'out of the blue' to ask about laundering operations, a Tucson bank, the Bonanno family and Reagan administration officials . . . a few weeks after that conversation, Casolaro was found in a West Virginia motel room with his wrists slashed. The case, initially ruled a suicide . . . The Phoenix Gazette - March 28, 1992

"Miller blamed the car-bomb slaying on former greyhound owner John Harvey Adamson, who has confessed to murdering Bolles; Phoenix lawyer Neal Roberts; and the late Bradley Funk, whose family used to race greyhounds in Arizona . . . 'this is a case of two contracts, a contract to kill and a contract to cover up who ordered the killing,' he said . . . Granville contended that Dunlap plotted with Adamson to have Bolles killed in behalf of Kemper Marley Sr., a Phoenix land and liquor baron." The Arizona Republic - February 10, 1993

"An Oregon racing regulator who has been offered the top post in the Arizona Racing Department thwarted in 1990 a Portland newspaper's investigation of a possible link between an Oregon track and an alleged organized-crime figure . . . on Friday, Gov. Fife Symington offered Barham the position of director of the Arizona Racing Department. Barham also would become director of the State Gaming Agency, which regulates Indian gaming . . . the Oregonian was looking into a possible connection between Oregon Racing, Inc. and the Emprise Corp., which had been forced out of Oregon because of allegations involving organized crime . . . the Oregonian became curious about Oregon Racing after learning that one of its early investors shared an office in Kenner, La., with John G. Masoni, a longtime Emprise partner . . . the Oregonian said Florida officials consider Masoni an 'associate' of the Detroit Mafia . . . Emprise, now called Delaware North Cos., long has had an interest in Arizona racing. At one time, the company had a virtual monopoly on dog and horse racing in the state in partnership with the Funk family of Phoenix . . . in the mid- '70s, the state moved to break the monopoly in light of a 1972 felony conviction of the company. Emprise was convicted in U.S. District Court in California of conspiring with racketeers to hide an ownership interest in the Frontier Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas." The Arizona Republic - June 23, 1993

Photo caption: "Below, Charles Keating III and McCain, then a member of the U.S. House, celebrate their August birthdays at the Keating's beachside estate at Cat Cay in the Bahamas." The Phoenix Gazette - September 12, 1993

"Cindy McCain, the wife of U.S. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, admitted in a series of media interviews Monday that she became addicted to the painkillers Percocet and Vicodin. She said that she used the drugs from 1989 to 1992 and acknowledged that she had stolen some pills from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a charitable organization of which she is president . . . at one point, McCain, 40, was ingesting 15 to 20 pills a day . . . the normal dosage for seriously ill patients is 6 to 10 a day for a short period." The Arizona Republic - August 24, 1994

"Cindy McCain, who admitted to drug addiction this week, faces more problems, this time involving the adoption of a Bangladeshi baby two years ago.
"Sources confirmed Wednesday that a former employee of McCain's volunteer medical team has accused her of demanding that he commit perjury in adoption proceedings for her daughter, Bridget." The Phoenix Gazette - August 25, 1994

"Her husband is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."
"Cindy McCain was investigated recently by the Drug Enforcement Administration for stealing and using Percocet and Vicodin, both narcotic painkillers from her aid organization . . . the county attorney's report provides a window to drug dealings within Cindy McCain's nonprofit corporation . . . Gosinski also alleged that Cindy McCain abused her husband's office and diplomatic privileges by transporting illegal substances overseas. He also claimed, according to her lawyers, that Cindy McCain tried to prevent him from providing accurate information to the DEA." The Phoenix Gazette - August 25, 1994

"About 300 guests turned out Saturday night to celebrate the 90th birthday of Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno, retired boss of New York's Bonanno crime family. He retired to Tucson in 1968 . . . John McCain, R-Ariz., and Gov. Fife Symington sent their regards by telegram." The Arizona Republic - January 17, 1995