Mahoney Scandal Reveals Media Bias

In September of 2006, while on the verge of the 2006 Congressional midterm elections, Florida Representative Mark Foley was caught up in a salacious sex scandal involving lewd emails and instant messages with congressional pages that resulted in his resignation. The Main Stream Media (MSM) pounced on the scandal, and many pundits believe the scandal contributed significantly to the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress in 2006.

On September 17, 2006, about two weeks before the Foley scandal broke, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Democrats and Republicans tied at 48% when voters were asked which party they preferred in congressional races. On October 8, 2006, about a week after Foley resigned from Congress, the same poll had Democrats with a 23 point advantage over Republicans, 59% to 36%.

Of course, there were other contributing factors to the Republican losses, but the Foley scandal was the final nail in the coffin for the GOP in 2006. Other House members suffered in the scandal as well, as it was revealed that several had some knowledge of Foley’s emails and messages well before the scandal broke. This included Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and, as a result, there were calls for his resignation.

The press played a great role in keeping Foley’s fall in the headlines. They asked questions and pressed hard for answers concerning what Hastert and others knew and when they knew it. This is not happening in U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney’s current scandal. If you have not heard of Tim Mahoney, you are not alone. The MSM has been suspiciously quiet in the matter.

Representative Mahoney is caught up in his own sex scandal and, ironically, is the Democrat who, campaigning on a platform of “faith and family values,” won Foley’s seat after his disgraceful fall from politics. Mahoney’s scandal contains curious circumstances that may extend well beyond a U.S. Representative committing adultery, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM’s coverage.

For example, Mahoney paid off his mistress, who was a former staffer, to the tune of $121,000. He claims he paid her with his own money and not campaign funds, but are we simply to take his word for it? His mistress also was given a $50,000-a-year job with the advertising agency that handles Mahoney’s campaign buys.

Also, according to Fox News, Mahoney has admitted to “multiple other affairs.” He has not said specifically how many, but he has admitted to an affair with a high-ranking Martin county official from his congressional district. Fox News added that this affair took place while Mahoney “simultaneously [lobbied] the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give [Martin] county a $3.4 million hurricane clean-up reimbursement. The funds were awarded last year.”

Mahoney has insisted that there was no quid-pro-quo, but again, are we simply to take his word for it? It seems the MSM is at least content to accept Mahoney’s explanations, if not ignore the matter all together. NewsBusters reported that, “though all three broadcast network evening news programs covered the Foley sex scandal when it was first revealed on September 29, 2006, not one of them felt that the man who replaced him admitting to having an affair with a former campaign staffer was at all newsworthy.”

Furthermore, no one seems to be pressing the House Democratic leadership, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chair of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), on “what they knew and when they knew it.” According to ABC News, Emanuel had knowledge of Mahoney’s affair last year and even confronted him about it.

ABC News also reported that, according to Mahoney staffers, “Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel… have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign.” However, ABC leaves it at that and so have the rest of the MSM.

I realize that media bias is something tossed around quite a lot, especially during an election season. Nevertheless, this situation reeks of bias. Thankfully the FBI is now involved in investigating Mahoney. I wonder how the MSM will feel about itself if the FBI upstages it in revealing the truth in this matter. I suppose it won’t feel too badly as long as nothing comes out before November 4.

The MSM kept the Foley scandal in the headlines up to the 2006 election and beyond. The liberal leanings of the MSM are no secret, and this is certainly further evidence. One popular talk-show host has referred to 2008 as “the year journalism died.” Looking the other way in Mahoney’s case may have been the “final nail” in journalism’s coffin.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Obama’s Healthcare Hypocrisy

So, Barack Obama, as he stated in his second debate with John McCain, thinks that healthcare is a “right for every American.” John McCain should have taken the opportunity and clarified that Senator Obama sees healthcare as a “right” for only those Americans who were not born alive during a botched abortion. The hypocrisy here is almost too much to bear.

As I pointed out in a previous column, it has been clearly demonstrated that Obama, while a member of the Illinois state Senate, opposed multiple versions of an Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).

In 2000 the original BAIPA was passed by the U.S. House by a vote of 380 to 15. This occurred in spite of opposition by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Even staunch pro-abortion leaders, such as Jerrold Nadler, ignored the NARAL position and supported BAIPA. This version of BAIPA was later killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001 the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal BAIPA. Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” (What?! We need the “equal protection clause” to tell us that we shouldn’t kill our children?!)

Obama finally, and “boldly,” voted “present” on the bill, which had the same effect as voting “no.” The bill passed the Illinois senate but died in a house committee. The scene pretty much repeated itself in 2002, this time with Obama voting “no.”

In 2002 a “neutrality clause” was added to the federal BAIPA. This clause basically said that, as far as federal law was concerned, legal protection could not be construed upon a human being prior to being “born alive.” This effectively protected Roe. The bill unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002.

Obama is on the record saying that he would have supported the Illinois bill had it contained the neutrality clause. In October of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act…”

However, in 2003 the exact language of the federal neutrality clause was added to the Illinois bill making it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA. In March of 2003, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

In attempting to blunt the extremism of his abortion record, Obama has stated time and again that the lack of a neutrality clause was all that was preventing him from supporting the Illinois bill. When he was called out on the matter, Obama accused individuals and institutions of lying about his record. His campaign has since had to admit that his critics were correct about his voting record.

Whatever moral causes (such as “universal healthcare”) Senator Obama chooses to champion, nothing compares to the helplessness of a newborn child. Obama’s unwillingness to stand for these, along with his attempted deception in the matter, should give any voter great pause.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Budgeting and Stewardship

Speaking in the early 1990s, when the median price of a home was about $108,000, the late Larry Burkett asked, “What do think the price of a house would be if you couldn’t borrow to buy a house? Do you think a $108,000 house would sell for $108,000 if you couldn’t sell it to anybody with a loan?” His answer: “No way. Nor would it sell for $58,000. It would probably sell for around $28,000. Everything above that we’ve built into it through debt.” I wonder how much debt is built into the current median price of a home, which is now around $215,000.

Our attitude and behavior toward debt have made practically every large ticket item in our culture more expensive. As Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council recently wrote, “We have become a culture addicted to instant gratification and a fixation on the material. Increasingly, concepts such as duty, self-denial, hard work, delayed gratification, and patience have been swept away.” In other words, we are a culture addicted to debt.

Forget home debt for a moment and consider the amount of automobile debt Americans have. Bad automobile debt is contributing to the credit crisis in the U.S. The L.A. Times reported late last year that, with the number of risky car loans approaching the same level as the number of risky home loans, a new credit crunch could be on the horizon for Americans.

This could mean even more trouble for Wall Street as well. We could see more of what happened recently with Bill Heard Chevrolet, the nation’s largest Chevy dealer, which shut down all of its 14 dealerships due in large part to subprime car loans.

Of course, not all debt is bad. However, as I noted in my last column, (seen here), the current economic crisis is due mostly to an “irresponsible” attitude toward debt by the federal government, lending institutions, and individuals.

Also, as I pointed out in my last column, my wife Michelle and I have lived the past approximately 10 years of our lives completely debt free: owning our home, cars, and so on. We have committed to live the rest of our lives completely debt free. The financial position that we are in has special significance given the current economic downturn.

Certainly, owning a home was the largest obstacle to our remaining completely debt free. We own our home because over a three-and-a-half-year period, from early 2000 to late 2003, before we had children and just after we had eliminated our consumer debt, we built it from the ground up, contracting it and financing it completely ourselves. We performed much of the labor ourselves, but we also had a lot of help from family and friends. (This is quite a tale in itself, and I hope someday to tell it in writing.)

Our situation was and is a unique one; I certainly would not recommend that anyone do things exactly as we did them. As I mentioned before, our path was “a calling.” However, I do believe that there are tried and true, simple financial principles that we applied, and are still living by, that would benefit most anyone.

The first thing that we did, very early in our marriage and before we were out of debt, was establish a workable budget that, with adjustments, we maintain to this day. Whether we are talking about the government, a business, a church, or a family, a good budget is essential in maintaining a healthy bottom line.

A budget can help keep you from overspending in any particular pay period or in any particular area, help you plan for non-regular expenses, such as car repairs, and help you plan for your financial future. Establishing a budget can be a lengthy process. It can take as long as a full year to get a budget working well, but the benefits are well worth the hard work involved.

Our budget has played an essential role in helping us weather these difficult financial times. I despise the rise in gas and food prices that we have experienced over the last several months. Being a family of six, these increases have hit us hard. Our budget is in constant flux, but it helps us see the adjustments in spending that we need to make, and therefore maintain sound financial discipline.

I recently moved from teaching at a private school to teaching at a public one. This decision in large part was made for financial reasons. However, it was not a rushed decision. It was one that Michelle and I weighed carefully over many months, and our budget helped guide us in this decision. (See www.crown.org for help with budgeting.)

The second and most significant thing that I came to grips with financially, after budgeting, was the biblical principle of stewardship. In my last column I said that the bottom line for anyone financially is what you own vs. what you owe. However, I was speaking there in practical terms only.

The real bottom line when it comes to money and finances, and this is the most important financial principle taught in Scripture, is that none of us really “owns” anything. The Bible says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” We are merely stewards, or managers, of His property. Until we come to grips with this, we can never truly understand money and wealth.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

What You Own vs. What You Owe

“An absolute principle of economics,” the late Larry Burkett wrote in his 1992 # 1 best seller, The Coming Economic Earthquake, is that, “No one, government or otherwise, can spend more than he or she makes indefinitely. At some point the compounding interest will consume all the money in the world.”

Larry added that, “With so many variables in the economy, the one non-variable is this: What you own belongs to you and not to a lender.” What Larry was encouraging folks to do here was to make debt a rare thing, and to get completely out of debt as soon as possible.

In this best-seller, Larry may not have foreseen the subprime mortgage crisis, but writing about mortgages, home equity loans, and easy lines of credit, he did note that, “Clearly many American homeowners have transferred the wealth stored in their homes to the lenders. In this case, it leaves both in jeopardy. Given the wrong set of circumstances, the homeowners will default, leaving the banks with huge inventories of homes they can’t sell.”

Approximately 18 months ago, it seems that “the wrong set of circumstances,” became “the perfect storm” for many homeowners, lenders, and the government. The latest big victims of this storm: Investment bank Lehman Brothers (fourth largest in the U.S.), insurance giant AIG, and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Hundreds of billions of dollars will have been lost by homeowners and lenders by the time this turns around. I’m speaking here not only of those individuals who lost their homes, but also of those who have seen their homes plummet in value as a result of this mess.

With its bailout of companies “too big to fail,” its purchase of failed assets, and a pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to insure investors in money-market funds, according to some in Congress, the total cost for the federal government in all of this will be over a trillion dollars. Of course, by “the federal government” what I really mean is the U.S. taxpayer, or better still: you and me.

How did it get to this? The details are somewhat extensive and complicated, but simply put: America had too much bad consumer and corporate debt, especially in the area of home mortgages. The better question is: Where do we go from here? There is no easy answer, but first and foremost I believe that all parties involved here: the government, lending institutions, and U.S. citizens, need a much more cautious attitude toward debt.

Even Time magazine recently noted that, “We all will have to start living within our means—or preferably below them. If you don’t overborrow or overspend, you’re far less vulnerable to whatever problems the financial system may have.” That sounds like something Larry Burkett would have said.

My wife Michelle and I can testify to this wisdom. We have now been married for nearly eleven years and for about the past 10 years we have lived our lives completely debt free. This includes owning our home, our cars, and so on.

We are not, nor have we ever been, “rich,” at least by American standards. I’ve been a public or private school teacher for the last 15-plus years. Michelle worked full time for a Christian ministry early in our marriage, but has been a stay-at-home mom for about the last 7 years. Our income over the life of our marriage has always been at or slightly above the median income for Americans.

I take almost no credit for where we are financially. Michelle has always been more financially disciplined than me. Early in our marriage, through her efforts and the ministry founded by Larry Burkett, Christian Financial Concepts (now Crown Financial Ministries, www.crown.org), I embraced the simple, wise truths put forth in Scripture concerning money and debt. In other words, we are where we are financially by the grace and wisdom of God.

Our financial path has literally been a calling. After about a year of marriage I felt God was calling us to commit to live our lives totally and completely debt free, never going into debt again for anything. I have always felt that this calling was not simply to bless us personally, but that we were to be an example to others and encourage them to trust God to provide all that they need. (A snippet of our personal testimony from Crown Ministries can be seen here.)

I am not saying that it is wrong to be in debt. However, debt should be rare (as it used to be), and any debt should be paid off in full as quickly as possible. The bottom line financially, whether we’re talking about the government, banks, corporations, small businesses, churches, or an individual is: How much do you own and how much do you owe? Let me say from experience, it is much better to own than to owe.

I plan to share more of our financial journey, including some of the struggles we’ve faced with the current economic climate and other challenges as well, in my next column.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

McCain's Brilliant Choice

See, I told you that John McCain could be trusted to make good decisions for the country (See The Case for McCain on my Web site.). If Sarah Palin is any kind of indication as to the kind of people with whom he would surround himself as President of the United States, I can’t wait to see his first Supreme Court nominee.

The choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate was a brilliant decision by John McCain in numerous ways. First, and probably most importantly, she energized the base of the Republican Party and galvanized them behind McCain. Palin is a true-blue (or rather red) conservative. She is a Christian, is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, while also being fiscally conservative, and anti-establishment.

Palin is someone that every facet of the conservative base can get behind. Evidence of this was the money that came pouring into the campaign the weekend that she was chosen and continued to roll in the week of the Republican convention. McCain’s campaign raked in $7 million the day Palin was announced. They reported bringing in $10 million on the day of Palin’s convention speech, which was the most they ever raised in one day. Republicans now say that there will be no money advantage for Obama the rest of the campaign.

The choice of Palin demonstrates, again, the “maverick” image of McCain. This will continue his appeal to independents. Also, there is the obvious appeal to women, especially those who may have become disenfranchised with the Obama campaign not choosing Hillary. If nothing else, it keeps Obama playing defense as to why he passed over Senator Clinton for his V.P.

Also, Palin’s strengths match Obama’s strengths. He’s fresh and new, so is she. He’s articulate and well spoken, so is she. He’s handsome; she’s beauty-queen beautiful. He’s an African-American, she’s a woman.

In addition, her weaknesses, whether perceived or real, that liberals may point out, highlight even greater weaknesses in Obama. This gives the Republicans a retort for most every criticism that could be leveled at Palin. Liberals have said she doesn’t have enough experience. Conservatives responded that she has more than Obama.

Liberals will say she’s a small-town hick. Conservatives will respond that Obama is a big-city elitist. Liberals will say she comes from a radical church. Conservatives will quote Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Liberals will say she’s too conservative. Conservatives will point to Obama as the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Congress. Along with all of this, conservatives will note that Palin is on the under card for their party, while Obama has top billing with the Democrats.

What’s more, Palin has a life and a history to which most all Americans can relate. This cannot be said of any of the other candidates. McCain’s biography is so unique and amazing that no one can imagine himself as him. Obama is the graduate of two Ivy League schools (Columbia and Harvard) and has been involved in law or politics his whole adult life. Joe Biden has been in law and politics all of his adult life as well. In fact, he became a U.S. Senator at the Constitutionally minimum age of 30.

Palin is a graduate of the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She worked in journalism and served on the PTA. She’s helped her husband run his family’s commercial fishing business. She served two terms on the city council in Wasilla, Alaska and later became mayor of Wasilla. In 2002 she ran for lieutenant governor of Alaska and lost in a close race. She was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and chaired that Commission from 2003 to 2004.

In 2006 Palin became the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest at age 42. In addition to all of this, she is a wife of 20 years and a mother of 5, including a son who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month. She hunts, fishes, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

All of this gives Palin strong connections to the majority of Americans. Her life story is one that resonates across the heartland. It’s one that many young Americans, especially young women, can look at and say, “Yeah, I could do that.”

Many liberals know this, and this is why they have come after her. The attacks have been vicious. It was discovered through wild efforts to prove that Governor Palin’s last child was actually her grandchild, that her unwed 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. Having their crazy theory quashed, liberals went after Bristol. (These liberals never seem to let the facts get in their way; i.e. Joan King’s August 26 article, which contained multiple false accusations about me. See my Web site for my response.)

It seems that many liberals imagined that since Palin’s daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, evangelical support might waver. This proved to be way off, and her attackers should have known better (though most liberals often get evangelicals wrong). Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Bush-Cheney in two elections even though Cheney has a lesbian daughter.

This election should ultimately come down to the contrasts between McCain and Obama. However, Palin has shaken up the election like no one else could have. I think John McCain could have won without her, but I also believe that with Palin on the ticket, he improved greatly his chances of victory.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com