McCain Reverend, Hagee: The Antichrist Will be a Gay Jew

While the press focuses on Obama's reverend problems, they ignore the just as outrageous comments by John McCain's supporter, John Hagee:

On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States' invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, "The Final Dictator," Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

[...]Exposed here for the first time, Hagee's comments identifying the Antichrist as a partly Jewish homosexual arrive in the wake of a furor the pastor provoked by describing the Holocaust as an act of God. Hagee's chilling sermon about the Holocaust prompted Sen. John McCain to reject the preacher's support, an unexpected turnabout after McCain spent over a year soliciting his endorsement.

Days after McCain's rejection, I reported that a key McCain ally, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, planned to deliver the keynote speech at Hagee's upcoming Christians United For Israel (CUFI) summit. As the story exploded into the mainstream press, pressure mounted on Lieberman to withdraw.

But Lieberman stayed the course, declaring in a prepared statement, "Pastor Hagee has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews... I will go to the CUFI Summit in July and speak to the people who have come to Washington from all over our country to express their support of America and Israel, based on our shared eternal values and our shared contemporary challenges in the war against terrorism."

Transcript FOX News Sunday: Hillary Clinton Fighting Over 2 Votes

The Clinton position is so ridiculous that it defies any norms of decency. The Clinton mafia literally wants to hold up the Obama nomination over 2 votes. You don't believe me? Listen to Clinton henchman, Howard Wolfson, make that very argument. We know what this is about. Bill and Hillary are fighting not on principle but opportunism. They want to destroy the Democrats chances of winning in the Fall so that Hillary can run in 2012. Why are so many of us unable or unwilling to see that:

WALLACE: She wanted 73 delegates. She got 69. That's a difference of four. And since they're only getting half votes, it's a difference of two votes.

You're telling me that she's going to keep this race open for three months over two votes in Michigan?

WOLFSON: Well, let's talk about what happened yesterday[...]

WALLACE: I understand. But we're talking about four delegates. She wanted 73. She believed she got 73. She got 69, in fact, from the rules committee. That's four delegates and two votes.

WOLFSON: Well, there's a principle at stake here, and it's a principle that is the bedrock principle...

WALLACE: And you're going to keep the whole Democratic fight going on for three months over two votes.

WOLFSON: It's not over two votes. It's over a principle. It's two votes that were taken away from us, and it's 55 votes that were given to Senator Obama that should have been uncommitted. But there's a principle at stake here.

Senator Clinton hasn't made a decision about whether to appeal this or not. She said she reserves the right to do that, and we do reserve the right, because if the Democratic Party doesn't stand for fairly apportioning votes that were cast in a primary, what's to prevent the next set of folks from taking more delegates away from a candidate?

WALLACE: I understand all the arguments that you've made about popular vote, about electability, about the kinds of states she's won in.

If you don't persuade the party, if you don't persuade the superdelegates, and Obama reaches that magic number of 2,118 Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, will she either suspend or end her campaign?

WOLFSON: We're going to be working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

WALLACE: But if it does happen.

WOLFSON: We're going to be making sure — we're going to work hard to make sure that it doesn't.

WALLACE: Are you leaving open the possibility that even if he reaches the magic number she won't end her campaign?

WOLFSON: I'm not going to accept the premise of the question.

- Read the entire transcript

Transcript: Scott McClellan on Meet The Press

Scott McClellan has been interviewed on just about every news talk program. But no one does it better than Tim Russert. Some excerpts below. Read the entire transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: The president said at the time that "if someone committed a crime, they'd no longer work in my administration." Do you believe the president should have fired Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a, that's a question that the president had to make, and he chose not to.

MR. RUSSERT: But what do you think?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word. I think the president should have stood by the word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, then you would no longer be in this administration. And Karl was involved in it. That would be a tough decision. I don't know if, if there was any crime committed. I don't--I say I just don't know that in the book. But we had higher standards at the White House. The president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set the highest of standards. We didn't live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, then the bar was moved. And the bar was moved to "if anyone is indicted, they would no longer be here."

MR. RUSSERT: So you think they should've been dismissed.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think so. I mean, Scooter Libby was, and I, and I think that he should...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, he resigned. But you...

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. But that was pushed out.

MR. RUSSERT: But you believe Rove--Rove should've, should've left?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the president should've stood by his word, and that meant Karl should've left.

Also interviewed was Harold Ickes, a Clinton hatchet man:

MR. RUSSERT: Now, we had a briefing with the Clinton campaign in December, and you made we repeat after you, "Timothy, delegates nominate. Not states, not popular vote, delegates." So I want to look at the delegates. You need 2,118 to be nominated, and here they are. Obama, pledged delegates plus superdelegates 2,055.5; Clinton, 1880. If you assume that there are only 86 delegates left--Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota--for discussion's sake, because of portion allocation, they divide them. Each gets 43. Senator Clinton would then be 195 delegates short of the nomination. There are only 203 undeclared superdelegates. She'd have to get 195 out of the 203. Is that going to happen?

MR. ICKES: We continue to make our case that she is the more electable. Not that Senator Obama, who's run a strong and, and good campaign is not electable. We make the case, as you know, the superdelegates, not in the matchup in November, the person who can best assemble the swing or purple states, such as Florida or Ohio or a combination of smaller states, is Hillary Clinton. And I think she's, she's shown that in, time after time, in these primaries. And you look at her electoral base: women, Hispanics, Catholics, older Americans, and incomes under $50,000. She has a very strong general election electoral base and that's the case we make. Look, Tim, this is a--this is an extraordinary year. We both--Senator Daschle and I were talking about it earlier--it's an extraordinary year. We have two extraordinary candidates, and they're--these are difficult decisions that these remaining superdelegates will have to make. Hillary Clinton will be ahead in the popular vote on, on November--on the--on Tuesday.

MR. RUSSERT: If you're counting Michigan.

MR. ICKES: Neither, neither, neither--well, we're counting Michigan.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

MR. ICKES: Michigan's in.

MR. RUSSERT: You...

MR. ICKES: It was seated by the, it was seated by the party rules.

MR. RUSSERT: You voted against seating it, according to the--and now you're counting the vote, even though you were against it?

MR. ICKES: Well, they're in there, and whether or not we go to the Credentials Committee. But, Tim, all I want to say is that she will be leading in the popular vote. He will be leading in delegates. Neither one will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. The new number now is 2,118, as you specify. Not since 1972 has our party nominated a candidate who was not leading in the popular vote. That was, as you know, McGovern. That was the McGovern year.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, so you're comparing Barack Obama to George McGovern.

MR. ICKES: No, I'm not. I'm not.

MR. RUSSERT: And you only...

MR. ICKES: That's not--Tim, no, no...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, but, but there are only 19...

MR. ICKES: No, wait. I was giving--no wait a minute. I was giving you a historical fact.

MR. RUSSERT: There were only 19 primaries back then, and it appears as if you're trying to put an asterisk on the nomination, saying, "You know, Obama may win this by delegates, but we really won the nomination."

Congressmen Sent Millions in Earmarks to Own Families

Why aren't there more stories about how "our" government uses our tax dollars to benefit their own families. And why isn't this crime:

A number of U.S. congressmen and their families — including former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert — have personally profited from congressional earmarks they slipped into federal legislation, a FOX News documentary reveals.

The documentary, “Porked: Earmarks for Profit,” hosted by Chris Wallace, premieres Sat., May 31, at 8 p.m. EDT on FOX News Channel.

Budget earmarks became a national scandal — and a national joke — after some wasteful schemes made headlines recently: a $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a $500,000 teapot museum in North Carolina, a $10 million extension to Coconut Road in Florida.

Many lawmakers earmark taxpayer money for projects supported by contributors to their campaigns.

But the FOX News investigation exposes a far more disturbing practice: federal lawmakers earmarking taxpayer dollars on projects that offer them not just political advantage, but personal financial gain.

The FOX documentary focuses on three current and former congressmen — two Republicans and one Democrat.

The most recognizable name is Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert, who stepped down as Speaker of the House in 2007.