We voted today and I got my usual high from the process.
I don't know why it is, but whenever I come home from travels overseas and see the American flag flying over US soil, I get all emotional, weepy and grateful to be an American. I get the same reaction when I vote. It happened again today.
This is the second day polls have been open in Kansas and we thought we'd just dash in, vote and be on our way. Not so fast! We stood in line!! Things proceeded efficiently and we were out of there within a half hour, riding the aforementioned high and thanking God that people are turning out.
It's my firm conviction that the more people who vote, the more likely we are (as a nation) to get it right. Of course I believe that President Bush is the best man for the job because of his record, I'm willing to concede that I have been wrong before. I did, in youthful innocence, vote for Jimmy Carter! But the mistakes of the past don't need to be revisited here.
It bothers me to know that some people vote on things like the way a candidate handles him/herself in a debate -- that's about as shallow a reason to support someone as I can think of. Unless, of course, you vote because you like his wife or his family or...whatever. All of that is superficial nonsense.
What counts is his character and his record. We need a man who will do his best and who is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do the job. President Bush has done that -- and in the process he has chalked up a record to run on. Four more years of his kind of Presidency is just what we need.
Kerry's Senate record is less than distinguished. If Kerry wins, though, he'll be my President. You won't see me at a Republican convention with a black arm band that reads "My President is George Bush." And I'll give him the respect due to his office. If he falters, I'll be the first to scream at him. If he succeeds, I'll gratefully praise him.
But I don't think Mr. Kerry can do the job. He is too ambitious and too self-centered. He judges success by dollar signs and his principles are whatever seems expedient. As a man he compares to President Bush as a kitten compares to a lion.
But soon we'll know....
Monday, October 18
Sunday, October 17
The Fallen Star
My husband and I moved to Kansas City two years ago to enjoy our retirement in a lively city full of great entertainment, opportunities for further education, a variety of restaurants and friends -- those we love and those we have yet to meet. We have discovered many pleasant surprises since we moved here, and very few disappointments. The Kansas City Star provided that today.
My heretofore favorite newspaper among those in all the communities we've lived in today endorsed John Kerry for President. No, we won't cancel our subscription. I probably won't even write a letter to the editor but my disappointment is deep and personal.
The editors begin by contrasting four years ago with today. During the last election, they claim, it was a "a time when the United States enjoys peace, extraordinary prosperity and great influence abroad.” A short look back at newspapers online dated 1999 and 2000 remind us that it was a time of deepening recession and a time when Americans were deeply disgusted with the politicians in Washington, where events had conspired to make the American Presidency a joke to much of the rest of the world.
Today, my favorite newspaper editors said, "Americans worry on a daily basis about terrorist threats, a bungled U.S. occupation in Iraq, international disapproval, widespread job insecurity, runaway federal budget deficits and a host of other problems."
However, the truth is...the Bush Administration has successfully strengthened the protection of our citizens (I know because I was involved in a foiled terrorist attempt) although they admit they are doing more as fast as they can. They have strengthened an economy that was floundering when they took office and suffered a damaging blow on 9/11. (And a study of national economics shows that the President is doing the only thing he could have done under the circumstances to stabilize the economy.) President Bush's policies have disrupted Al Qaeda and mangled the Taliban while drawing terrorists to Iraq where they are being dispatched. Egypt has "seen the writing on the wall" and given up its nuclear program. The first free elections ever were held in Afghanistan and soon will be held in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is in prison and, although I suspect he thinks he will return to power, he won't. Thousands of mass graves have been uncovered in Iraq -- the legacy of his reign.
It's easy for American media to say the "occupation" of Iraq is bungled. But that very statement proves a lack of understanding of the situation. American troops are fighting terrorists in Iraq in the daytime while they build the society at night. My son-in-law, a retired Army colonel who works as a contractor for the Army returned from Iraq recently full of angry frustration because the media doesn't report what is really going on there. Americans aren't "occupying," they are fighting and building.
"Widespread job insecurity" Star editors wrote today...and they were writing the same thing five years ago as they saw Payless Cashways struggling with bankruptcy and downsizing, CST Steel struggling with unions and new management, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City stung by a series of financial scandals and public relations setbacks and markets shaky enough so that staff writer Nicolova wrote about investors not"waiting for the mail to deliver the news of disappointing quarterly earnings. Fund managers and financial planners have been flooded with phone calls from clients asking for advice."
To hear the Democrats and the KC Star tell it, the Bush administration is responsible for companies outsourcing jobs. Not so. If you'll remember, in 1998 - 1999 the economy went into a bit of a tailspin. Companies were already "outsourcing" jobs. In December, 1999(when the Clinton administration was firmly in power in Washington, the Dallas Business Journal announced that INspire Insurance Solutions (NASDAQ: NSPR) would reduce its "work force by approximately 100 people, effective Dec. 31, 1999, due to reorganization. The company said it will discontinue its licenced software packages efforts, and concentrate on its business process outsourcing business. INSpire had income of $11.6 million on sales of $87.2 million for its fiscal year ending December 1998."
IBM had already outsourced its pc tech assist to Ireland. I know because I had many conversations with Irish gentlemen who helped me with computer problems while we compared the weather in Belfast with Kansas.
The "runaway federal budget" the Star blames on President Bush would have been the same "runaway" no matter what administration was in Washington after 9/11. Assuming, of course, that the administration decided to try to protect and defend the United States and solve some pressing issues (like education) at the same time. The Star neglects to address the President's plan to reduce that deficit in half in five years. But that's the way THEY play partisan politics, isn't it. We don't tell ALL of the story.
The Kansas City Star says, "With Kerry, the nation could expect leadership that would result in dramatic improvements in homeland security and a strengthened military force. Americans also would see more effective strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the welcome rebuilding of our tattered international alliances." I challenge them to tell me specifically what Kerry plans to do to make that true. I've read all his campaign speeches as well as everything available of his 20-years in the Senate...and more. He has promised to do all that but nowhere has he said how. There are no distinct plans, no specifics on what those strategies would be. The "dramatic improvements" he has spoken of are what has been done for the past four years and continues to be done today.
According to the Star's editorial: "Bush seems incapable of even acknowledging mistakes, much less learning from them. And there have been many mistakes, including fundamental failures in the area that the president claims as his greatest strength: national security." But he hasn't made any mistakes -- only the media and his critics claim he has. Going to war was no mistake, neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. And anyone who has studied war knows that it is the most unpredictable situation imaginable. War -- any war -- has a life of its own. The President has shown the flexibility necessary to change what needs to be changed. Yes, he has been surprised at events (he said so) but he listens to his military advisors and lets them run the show.
One of President Bush's strengths IS national security. Of course the media doesn't know about most of the successes. If they did, they would not hesitate to describe it all, and what worked would not work anymore. I believe media writers, editors and correspondents know that and they resent that the administration feels that way. However, they've more than proved their irresponsibility in similar matters.
Look at this: The Star editor writes, "Republicans have issued dire warnings against a return to a “pre-9-11 mentality,” implying that this mindset is the province of the Democratic ticket" and continues to say that the Bush administration is the embodyment of that mentality. "The commission found that top administration officials failed to heed urgent warnings from various sources about the possibility of large-scale terrorist attacks. The commission provided the public with ample evidence that the administration should have done far more to protect the country in the months before the attacks — and should be doing more now."
As I mentioned before, I'm in the unique position to know that the Administration is doing all it can as fast as it can. AND IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A SYSTEM THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE IT TOOK OFFICE 4 MONTHS BEFORE. As for the warnings, the Clinton administration had the same warnings, had even sustained attacks, yet no one imagined what took place on 9/11. It is irresponsible to judge a new administration in the light of what we now know.
Most horrendous of all, the Star editor writes,"John Kerry is not a perfect candidate with a flawless record. But he is a man of obvious intelligence, compassion, patriotism and courage whose presidency would be guided by a clear understanding of what went wrong in the last four years and what needs to be done in the next four." John Kerry is not a man of compassion, patriotism and courage. (He looks intelligent but his actions in his life make one wonder.)
It takes a far stretch of imagination to call him compassionate (except he does kiss babies if he has to), patriotic (unless he doesn't happen to agree with the leaders of his country, which in his minds gives him the right as a citizen to meet with the enemy)and his courage is the most doubtful at all. Four months does not a tour of duty in Viet Nam make and he has never -- not once -- taken on a major battle on the Senate floor.
Maybe we will cancel our subscription after all. The (Kansas City) Star has certainly fallen in our estimation.
My heretofore favorite newspaper among those in all the communities we've lived in today endorsed John Kerry for President. No, we won't cancel our subscription. I probably won't even write a letter to the editor but my disappointment is deep and personal.
The editors begin by contrasting four years ago with today. During the last election, they claim, it was a "a time when the United States enjoys peace, extraordinary prosperity and great influence abroad.” A short look back at newspapers online dated 1999 and 2000 remind us that it was a time of deepening recession and a time when Americans were deeply disgusted with the politicians in Washington, where events had conspired to make the American Presidency a joke to much of the rest of the world.
Today, my favorite newspaper editors said, "Americans worry on a daily basis about terrorist threats, a bungled U.S. occupation in Iraq, international disapproval, widespread job insecurity, runaway federal budget deficits and a host of other problems."
However, the truth is...the Bush Administration has successfully strengthened the protection of our citizens (I know because I was involved in a foiled terrorist attempt) although they admit they are doing more as fast as they can. They have strengthened an economy that was floundering when they took office and suffered a damaging blow on 9/11. (And a study of national economics shows that the President is doing the only thing he could have done under the circumstances to stabilize the economy.) President Bush's policies have disrupted Al Qaeda and mangled the Taliban while drawing terrorists to Iraq where they are being dispatched. Egypt has "seen the writing on the wall" and given up its nuclear program. The first free elections ever were held in Afghanistan and soon will be held in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is in prison and, although I suspect he thinks he will return to power, he won't. Thousands of mass graves have been uncovered in Iraq -- the legacy of his reign.
It's easy for American media to say the "occupation" of Iraq is bungled. But that very statement proves a lack of understanding of the situation. American troops are fighting terrorists in Iraq in the daytime while they build the society at night. My son-in-law, a retired Army colonel who works as a contractor for the Army returned from Iraq recently full of angry frustration because the media doesn't report what is really going on there. Americans aren't "occupying," they are fighting and building.
"Widespread job insecurity" Star editors wrote today...and they were writing the same thing five years ago as they saw Payless Cashways struggling with bankruptcy and downsizing, CST Steel struggling with unions and new management, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City stung by a series of financial scandals and public relations setbacks and markets shaky enough so that staff writer Nicolova wrote about investors not"waiting for the mail to deliver the news of disappointing quarterly earnings. Fund managers and financial planners have been flooded with phone calls from clients asking for advice."
To hear the Democrats and the KC Star tell it, the Bush administration is responsible for companies outsourcing jobs. Not so. If you'll remember, in 1998 - 1999 the economy went into a bit of a tailspin. Companies were already "outsourcing" jobs. In December, 1999(when the Clinton administration was firmly in power in Washington, the Dallas Business Journal announced that INspire Insurance Solutions (NASDAQ: NSPR) would reduce its "work force by approximately 100 people, effective Dec. 31, 1999, due to reorganization. The company said it will discontinue its licenced software packages efforts, and concentrate on its business process outsourcing business. INSpire had income of $11.6 million on sales of $87.2 million for its fiscal year ending December 1998."
IBM had already outsourced its pc tech assist to Ireland. I know because I had many conversations with Irish gentlemen who helped me with computer problems while we compared the weather in Belfast with Kansas.
The "runaway federal budget" the Star blames on President Bush would have been the same "runaway" no matter what administration was in Washington after 9/11. Assuming, of course, that the administration decided to try to protect and defend the United States and solve some pressing issues (like education) at the same time. The Star neglects to address the President's plan to reduce that deficit in half in five years. But that's the way THEY play partisan politics, isn't it. We don't tell ALL of the story.
The Kansas City Star says, "With Kerry, the nation could expect leadership that would result in dramatic improvements in homeland security and a strengthened military force. Americans also would see more effective strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the welcome rebuilding of our tattered international alliances." I challenge them to tell me specifically what Kerry plans to do to make that true. I've read all his campaign speeches as well as everything available of his 20-years in the Senate...and more. He has promised to do all that but nowhere has he said how. There are no distinct plans, no specifics on what those strategies would be. The "dramatic improvements" he has spoken of are what has been done for the past four years and continues to be done today.
According to the Star's editorial: "Bush seems incapable of even acknowledging mistakes, much less learning from them. And there have been many mistakes, including fundamental failures in the area that the president claims as his greatest strength: national security." But he hasn't made any mistakes -- only the media and his critics claim he has. Going to war was no mistake, neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. And anyone who has studied war knows that it is the most unpredictable situation imaginable. War -- any war -- has a life of its own. The President has shown the flexibility necessary to change what needs to be changed. Yes, he has been surprised at events (he said so) but he listens to his military advisors and lets them run the show.
One of President Bush's strengths IS national security. Of course the media doesn't know about most of the successes. If they did, they would not hesitate to describe it all, and what worked would not work anymore. I believe media writers, editors and correspondents know that and they resent that the administration feels that way. However, they've more than proved their irresponsibility in similar matters.
Look at this: The Star editor writes, "Republicans have issued dire warnings against a return to a “pre-9-11 mentality,” implying that this mindset is the province of the Democratic ticket" and continues to say that the Bush administration is the embodyment of that mentality. "The commission found that top administration officials failed to heed urgent warnings from various sources about the possibility of large-scale terrorist attacks. The commission provided the public with ample evidence that the administration should have done far more to protect the country in the months before the attacks — and should be doing more now."
As I mentioned before, I'm in the unique position to know that the Administration is doing all it can as fast as it can. AND IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A SYSTEM THAT WAS IN PLACE BEFORE IT TOOK OFFICE 4 MONTHS BEFORE. As for the warnings, the Clinton administration had the same warnings, had even sustained attacks, yet no one imagined what took place on 9/11. It is irresponsible to judge a new administration in the light of what we now know.
Most horrendous of all, the Star editor writes,"John Kerry is not a perfect candidate with a flawless record. But he is a man of obvious intelligence, compassion, patriotism and courage whose presidency would be guided by a clear understanding of what went wrong in the last four years and what needs to be done in the next four." John Kerry is not a man of compassion, patriotism and courage. (He looks intelligent but his actions in his life make one wonder.)
It takes a far stretch of imagination to call him compassionate (except he does kiss babies if he has to), patriotic (unless he doesn't happen to agree with the leaders of his country, which in his minds gives him the right as a citizen to meet with the enemy)and his courage is the most doubtful at all. Four months does not a tour of duty in Viet Nam make and he has never -- not once -- taken on a major battle on the Senate floor.
Maybe we will cancel our subscription after all. The (Kansas City) Star has certainly fallen in our estimation.
Sunday, October 10
Who Lied?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Saturday, October 9
Can't Kerry Win With the Truth?
John Kerry knows better when he claims that Pres. Bush “has underfunded [the No Child Left Behind law] by $28 billion.” During President Bush’s administration, funding for education has grown by 58% during his first three years and he has proposed another 5% increase for the coming fiscal year.
Kerry claims that the President broke a "promise" to fund the law at the maximum Congress authorized but that’s not true, either. What the President promised was to “provide the resources necessary.” Of course that leads us into semantics…and what the definition of “necessary” is.
Democrats have wrongly accused Pres. Bush of cutting education budgets 27%. A study of the record, however, shows that funding for the department of education has gone from Clinton-funded $39,932 in 2001 to Bush-funded $66,434 in 2005.
Another “fib” Kerry promotes is his claim that Pres. Bush "slashes job training by 24%." What the administration actually proposes to do is to move $250 million out of what it calls “outdated high-school shop courses ill-matched to the modern job market” and move them into a new "Community College Initiative" to upgrade technical and career training at 2-year colleges. Innovative, yes. Provocative, maybe. But “slashes job training,” not at all.
The saddest thing about all this is that Kerry and the DNC know the truth; they just prefer not to acknowledge it and try to come up with something better. The American people deserve candidates who are careful to face campaigning facts as they are, not to obscure and obfuscate reality.
Sources:
"The President's Agenda for Long-Term Growth & Prosperity: Remarks by the President on the Economy," Birmingham, Alabama 15 July 2002.
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, Analytical Perspectives , Table 24 4. Beneficiary Projections For Major Benefit Programs, Jan 2004: P361.
Budget of United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, "Historical tables, Table 5.2-Budget Authority by Agency: 1976-2009" Jan 2004.
Kerry claims that the President broke a "promise" to fund the law at the maximum Congress authorized but that’s not true, either. What the President promised was to “provide the resources necessary.” Of course that leads us into semantics…and what the definition of “necessary” is.
Democrats have wrongly accused Pres. Bush of cutting education budgets 27%. A study of the record, however, shows that funding for the department of education has gone from Clinton-funded $39,932 in 2001 to Bush-funded $66,434 in 2005.
Another “fib” Kerry promotes is his claim that Pres. Bush "slashes job training by 24%." What the administration actually proposes to do is to move $250 million out of what it calls “outdated high-school shop courses ill-matched to the modern job market” and move them into a new "Community College Initiative" to upgrade technical and career training at 2-year colleges. Innovative, yes. Provocative, maybe. But “slashes job training,” not at all.
The saddest thing about all this is that Kerry and the DNC know the truth; they just prefer not to acknowledge it and try to come up with something better. The American people deserve candidates who are careful to face campaigning facts as they are, not to obscure and obfuscate reality.
Sources:
"The President's Agenda for Long-Term Growth & Prosperity: Remarks by the President on the Economy," Birmingham, Alabama 15 July 2002.
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, Analytical Perspectives , Table 24 4. Beneficiary Projections For Major Benefit Programs, Jan 2004: P361.
Budget of United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, "Historical tables, Table 5.2-Budget Authority by Agency: 1976-2009" Jan 2004.
Friday, October 8
The Long Kerry Night
We're back from traveling again -- and talking to folks across the Midwest about the election. This one's going to be close, folks.
I have so many reasons for opposing John Kerry for President.
Hubby and I can't afford him because we're retired and living on a fixed income. Reading through all his pie-in-the-sky programs is frightening because each and every one must be paid for. That means higher taxes in spite of what he promises.
More money will go to schools again, as in past years, but without the accountability the No Child Left Behind Act requires. That program has worked where educators have used it; and the teachers and administrators who haven't used it (there are still $$$$$$$ unclaimed in the program) are the ones who complain the most about it.
It won't affect us because the guys in our family are already serving; but John Kerry promises to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (check his campaign speeches). That means a draft -- there's no other way to come up with that many divisions.
The worst experiences I've had throughout my life were caused by government thinking it knew better than I what was best for me. John Kerry believes in and will do everything he can to promote those kinds of government programs. GET OUT OF MY LIFE!
John Kerry reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. This campaign is just like the Goldwater/Johnson campaigns in 1964 -- deja vu all over again, as Yogi B says. Kerry is simply lying on so many counts; from claiming that he could have done better in the war and saying Pres. Bush lied about WMDs to the country when Kerry did the exact same thing -- from the same "intelligence."
Kerry's people continually accuse the Bush campaign (and NPR did a horribly unbalanced "report") on "The Bush campaign is charting dangerous new ground in its efforts to exclude non-Bush supporters from Bush events. There have been numerous stories of people being blocked or ejected because they were wearing Kerry buttons or T-shirts." Well, guess what, folks. Each and every one of those people was shouting and disrupting the events. Others who weren't disruptive were left alone.
And, PEOPLE, the current unemployment rate the Dems are yelling about is lower than it was when Clinton ran for his second term. Look up the stats.
When Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election the US descended into a time of truly oppressive government and a losing war -- lost not because the US couldn't win, but because of people like John Kerry and civilians who wouldn't listen to the military.
There's only one great thing about a Kerry win. If he does, he'll lead us into heavy taxation and lose a war; he'll never get a second term and Hillary will have lost her chance at the Presidency because the country will take a conservative turn unlike any every seen before.
You heard it here first.
I have so many reasons for opposing John Kerry for President.
Hubby and I can't afford him because we're retired and living on a fixed income. Reading through all his pie-in-the-sky programs is frightening because each and every one must be paid for. That means higher taxes in spite of what he promises.
More money will go to schools again, as in past years, but without the accountability the No Child Left Behind Act requires. That program has worked where educators have used it; and the teachers and administrators who haven't used it (there are still $$$$$$$ unclaimed in the program) are the ones who complain the most about it.
It won't affect us because the guys in our family are already serving; but John Kerry promises to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (check his campaign speeches). That means a draft -- there's no other way to come up with that many divisions.
The worst experiences I've had throughout my life were caused by government thinking it knew better than I what was best for me. John Kerry believes in and will do everything he can to promote those kinds of government programs. GET OUT OF MY LIFE!
John Kerry reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. This campaign is just like the Goldwater/Johnson campaigns in 1964 -- deja vu all over again, as Yogi B says. Kerry is simply lying on so many counts; from claiming that he could have done better in the war and saying Pres. Bush lied about WMDs to the country when Kerry did the exact same thing -- from the same "intelligence."
Kerry's people continually accuse the Bush campaign (and NPR did a horribly unbalanced "report") on "The Bush campaign is charting dangerous new ground in its efforts to exclude non-Bush supporters from Bush events. There have been numerous stories of people being blocked or ejected because they were wearing Kerry buttons or T-shirts." Well, guess what, folks. Each and every one of those people was shouting and disrupting the events. Others who weren't disruptive were left alone.
And, PEOPLE, the current unemployment rate the Dems are yelling about is lower than it was when Clinton ran for his second term. Look up the stats.
When Lyndon Johnson won the 1964 election the US descended into a time of truly oppressive government and a losing war -- lost not because the US couldn't win, but because of people like John Kerry and civilians who wouldn't listen to the military.
There's only one great thing about a Kerry win. If he does, he'll lead us into heavy taxation and lose a war; he'll never get a second term and Hillary will have lost her chance at the Presidency because the country will take a conservative turn unlike any every seen before.
You heard it here first.
Sunday, October 3
Our Troops Accuse the Media of Biased Reporting
Visit Marine Corps Moms (http://marinecorpsmoms.com) for a more accurate perception of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan than you can get from American media. Here's a quote...and there's more on the site. Much more. And they're first hand reports.
"we get what reader Jim League of Smyrna complains about. He cited a picture and story featured at the top of Page 13A in Saturday's Tennessean:
"The perhaps 100 protesters get front-and-center billing, and the impression is that all of Iraq is unhappy. What is missing is perspective. Imagine a foreigner perusing the front page of The Tennessean. He reads about a 15-year-old-boy being chained to his bed for six weeks. Would he be justified in believing that all parents in America constrain their children? If he had no perspective and if his impression was selectively reinforced by subtle media or political pundits, this could be possible."
Exactly. And what we get on TV is also just one side. Consider this story Rose saw reported: "I was going through the battle damage assessment at my desk with NBC's Today on the TV. The attack occurred in the middle of the night. I had the footage of the attack on my computer, and here's Katie Couric (or whoever hosts it) showing the same bomb location.}
"I had pictures of the bombed vehicles, which is how I knew she was talking about the same location. The next shot is kids being carried into a hospital. We had eyes on this for a long time. If there were kids in there, they were toting weapons or the terrorists used them as human shields. …"
"I went to our Combat Operations Center and walked into them watching the same thing. I verified what I thought and spoke with our intelligence guys. They said the whole thing was staged and probably old footage. They track the footage and have seen repeat footage shown in the past. They also said to look at the footage and see if it makes sense. More often than not, it doesn't … pulling a child from rubble with relatively clean clothes. "
Is NBC wrong and the Marines right? Americans deserve both sides to make up their minds."
This is what I have heard from my son-in-law, a retired Army Colonel who recently went to Iraq to help with training. When he returned he was furious with journalists and spent hours describing what was REALLY happening in Iraq. What he described was what he had seen first hand.
When was it decided that the American people didn't deserve to know the truth? Who has so little faith in the American people that they can't give us balanced news? Isn't it time we took matters into our own hands and did something about it?
"we get what reader Jim League of Smyrna complains about. He cited a picture and story featured at the top of Page 13A in Saturday's Tennessean:
"The perhaps 100 protesters get front-and-center billing, and the impression is that all of Iraq is unhappy. What is missing is perspective. Imagine a foreigner perusing the front page of The Tennessean. He reads about a 15-year-old-boy being chained to his bed for six weeks. Would he be justified in believing that all parents in America constrain their children? If he had no perspective and if his impression was selectively reinforced by subtle media or political pundits, this could be possible."
Exactly. And what we get on TV is also just one side. Consider this story Rose saw reported: "I was going through the battle damage assessment at my desk with NBC's Today on the TV. The attack occurred in the middle of the night. I had the footage of the attack on my computer, and here's Katie Couric (or whoever hosts it) showing the same bomb location.}
"I had pictures of the bombed vehicles, which is how I knew she was talking about the same location. The next shot is kids being carried into a hospital. We had eyes on this for a long time. If there were kids in there, they were toting weapons or the terrorists used them as human shields. …"
"I went to our Combat Operations Center and walked into them watching the same thing. I verified what I thought and spoke with our intelligence guys. They said the whole thing was staged and probably old footage. They track the footage and have seen repeat footage shown in the past. They also said to look at the footage and see if it makes sense. More often than not, it doesn't … pulling a child from rubble with relatively clean clothes. "
Is NBC wrong and the Marines right? Americans deserve both sides to make up their minds."
This is what I have heard from my son-in-law, a retired Army Colonel who recently went to Iraq to help with training. When he returned he was furious with journalists and spent hours describing what was REALLY happening in Iraq. What he described was what he had seen first hand.
When was it decided that the American people didn't deserve to know the truth? Who has so little faith in the American people that they can't give us balanced news? Isn't it time we took matters into our own hands and did something about it?
Saturday, October 2
The Media Defending the Indefensible
Speaking at The New Yorker Festival today, Tom Brokaw accused bloggers of attempting to "demonize" CBS and Rather. He said the criticism "goes well beyond any factual information." Is the man senile?
"What I think is highly inappropriate," he said, "is what is going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous," the NBC anchor said at a panel on which all three men spoke.
In other words, when we catch the liberal press with its ... er... pants down... it's a jihad. Nevermind if the media perpetrates its own jihad; they can hide behind the First Amendment. One that comes immediately to mind is the intentional demonization of Alexander Haig when President Reagan was shot. Using selective quoting of the actual conversation at the White House, Ted Koppel accused Haig of saying he was "in charge at the White House." Video tapes of the entire context show that he said no such thing, but you can't get the media to admit that.
"I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," said Jennings, anchor on ABC. Sorry, Mr. Jennings but that wasn't the only "event" in Rather's career. Even after disclosure of his intentional "mistake" concerning the Bush papers, Rather said that the Berger story (Sandy Berger caught stealing documents from the National Archives) "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger..." Nevermind that it is true and that stealing is a felony and that national security was, by the nature of the documents taken, involved.
Just a few little examples of mistakes: Rather got in trouble with CBS when he refused to even report on the Chandra Levy scandal for 78 days. He called the Lewinski affair "a "so-called scandal." He has said that Clinton is "an honest man." In fact, Bill O'Reilly pointed out to him in an interview that Rather had mentioned unsubstantiated allegations of past drug use by George W. Bush more than twice as many times as it mentioned rape charges (substantated by NBC) against Clinton. When he was criticized for speaking at a Democratic fund raiser in Texas, Rather said, "I made an embarrassing and regrettable error in judgment by going to this event. It was a serious mistake, which I acknowledge. No one believes more strongly in CBS News standards than I do, and I have let those standards down." And that's just a small sample of Dan Rather's mistakes.
The American Press has too long been allowed to hide behind the First Amendment when it flagrantly and blatantly lies. The American public is going to have to insist that the media no longer hide behind unnamed sources and phrases like "a White House spokesman." Reporters like Jennings, Rather and Brokaw have too often broken the public's trust.
The First Amendment, by the way, says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't say the Press can publish anything it wants to accomplish its political ends.
No, it's not a jihad, Mr. Brokaw. It's a loud, persistent demand for the accountability and truth in the media.
"What I think is highly inappropriate," he said, "is what is going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous," the NBC anchor said at a panel on which all three men spoke.
In other words, when we catch the liberal press with its ... er... pants down... it's a jihad. Nevermind if the media perpetrates its own jihad; they can hide behind the First Amendment. One that comes immediately to mind is the intentional demonization of Alexander Haig when President Reagan was shot. Using selective quoting of the actual conversation at the White House, Ted Koppel accused Haig of saying he was "in charge at the White House." Video tapes of the entire context show that he said no such thing, but you can't get the media to admit that.
"I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," said Jennings, anchor on ABC. Sorry, Mr. Jennings but that wasn't the only "event" in Rather's career. Even after disclosure of his intentional "mistake" concerning the Bush papers, Rather said that the Berger story (Sandy Berger caught stealing documents from the National Archives) "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger..." Nevermind that it is true and that stealing is a felony and that national security was, by the nature of the documents taken, involved.
Just a few little examples of mistakes: Rather got in trouble with CBS when he refused to even report on the Chandra Levy scandal for 78 days. He called the Lewinski affair "a "so-called scandal." He has said that Clinton is "an honest man." In fact, Bill O'Reilly pointed out to him in an interview that Rather had mentioned unsubstantiated allegations of past drug use by George W. Bush more than twice as many times as it mentioned rape charges (substantated by NBC) against Clinton. When he was criticized for speaking at a Democratic fund raiser in Texas, Rather said, "I made an embarrassing and regrettable error in judgment by going to this event. It was a serious mistake, which I acknowledge. No one believes more strongly in CBS News standards than I do, and I have let those standards down." And that's just a small sample of Dan Rather's mistakes.
The American Press has too long been allowed to hide behind the First Amendment when it flagrantly and blatantly lies. The American public is going to have to insist that the media no longer hide behind unnamed sources and phrases like "a White House spokesman." Reporters like Jennings, Rather and Brokaw have too often broken the public's trust.
The First Amendment, by the way, says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't say the Press can publish anything it wants to accomplish its political ends.
No, it's not a jihad, Mr. Brokaw. It's a loud, persistent demand for the accountability and truth in the media.
Kerry's Word
In the day of our Founding Fathers, honor was important in the character of a man. Men were careful about the oaths they took and they gave their lives rather than go back on their word.
When he joined the Navy, John Kerry took an oath. TheNavy Oath of Enlistment: "I, John Kerry, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
That oath lasted just four months.
The President of the United States takes an oath, too. It's mandated by specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since it was so easy to go back on his word when he served in the Navy, I wonder how long it would take him to go back on it as President of the United States. His track record on keeping his word isn't very good.
When he joined the Navy, John Kerry took an oath. TheNavy Oath of Enlistment: "I, John Kerry, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
That oath lasted just four months.
The President of the United States takes an oath, too. It's mandated by specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Since it was so easy to go back on his word when he served in the Navy, I wonder how long it would take him to go back on it as President of the United States. His track record on keeping his word isn't very good.
Kerry's One Consistency
Campaigning today, President Bush said, "In the debate Senator Kerry said something revealing when he laid out the Kerry Doctrine. He said America has to pass a 'global test' before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our own national security decisions. I take a different view. When our country is in danger, the President’s job is not to take an international poll. The President’s job is to defend America. I work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace, but our national security decisions must be made in the Oval Office, not foreign capitals."
In that speech, President Bush touched on the one and only consistency in Sen. Kerry's 20 years of voting in the Senate and 2 years of campaign statements.
What the President was too polite to say is that Kerry has made this statement many times since it was first published as his quote in The Crimson when he was in college many years ago. Kerry said it a little differently then. He said if he was President, he would never take the country to war without the approval of international allies. It's interesting that he was thinking of running for president even then -- and it probably explains why he managed to take a movie camera to war so that he could be pictured in the jungles of Viet Nam. Of all the men I know who served in that war, not one brought home movies of himself in the war. But I digress.
Mr. Kerry's single committment to consistency is one of the most lethal (to our country) positions.
In that speech, President Bush touched on the one and only consistency in Sen. Kerry's 20 years of voting in the Senate and 2 years of campaign statements.
What the President was too polite to say is that Kerry has made this statement many times since it was first published as his quote in The Crimson when he was in college many years ago. Kerry said it a little differently then. He said if he was President, he would never take the country to war without the approval of international allies. It's interesting that he was thinking of running for president even then -- and it probably explains why he managed to take a movie camera to war so that he could be pictured in the jungles of Viet Nam. Of all the men I know who served in that war, not one brought home movies of himself in the war. But I digress.
Mr. Kerry's single committment to consistency is one of the most lethal (to our country) positions.
The Berger Question
Sandy Berger has been the National Security Advisor for the White House so he definitely should know better -- and he did. During Clinton's first term, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President in National Security Affairs. This guy knows his way around the block in Washington. Blindfolded.
So will you please tell me why this Doctor of Jurisprudence from Harvard Law accidentally walked out of the National Archives with top secret documents AFTER intentionally mis-directing the guards and hiding said papers in his pants (!), shoes and jacket?
Fox news reported "Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millenium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports."
How do they know what's missing? They don't: Look at the facts.
1. After Berger's first visit to the Archives, staff felt it necessary to mark the pages they allowed him to see because they noticed him hiding papers in his pants. He seems to have gotten away with some papers before they began to check on him.
2. He admits he "inadvertently" took at least 50 pages, some of which were his own notes, but all of which were supposed to have approved for removal by Archives staff.
The New York Sun wrote "It really doesn't matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission's report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly."
But the real point here isn't what embarrasses Berger, it's what was in the documents that he didn't return. He had access to any Archives documents he wanted. He obviously knew what he wanted, where it was, and how to hide any evidence of his theft.
There's no group in America more experienced in destroying and hiding evidence of wrongdoing than the Clinton Democrats. They have proved that again and again from WhiteWater to the White House.
The question isn't whether Berger's theft was due to negligence as Colbert King asked in the Washington Post, July 2004. The question is what were the documents and why was he willing to risk his reputation to get them and destroy them?
And another question is why isn't the media asking that question?
SunnyeWriter
So will you please tell me why this Doctor of Jurisprudence from Harvard Law accidentally walked out of the National Archives with top secret documents AFTER intentionally mis-directing the guards and hiding said papers in his pants (!), shoes and jacket?
Fox news reported "Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millenium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports."
How do they know what's missing? They don't: Look at the facts.
1. After Berger's first visit to the Archives, staff felt it necessary to mark the pages they allowed him to see because they noticed him hiding papers in his pants. He seems to have gotten away with some papers before they began to check on him.
2. He admits he "inadvertently" took at least 50 pages, some of which were his own notes, but all of which were supposed to have approved for removal by Archives staff.
The New York Sun wrote "It really doesn't matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission's report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly."
But the real point here isn't what embarrasses Berger, it's what was in the documents that he didn't return. He had access to any Archives documents he wanted. He obviously knew what he wanted, where it was, and how to hide any evidence of his theft.
There's no group in America more experienced in destroying and hiding evidence of wrongdoing than the Clinton Democrats. They have proved that again and again from WhiteWater to the White House.
The question isn't whether Berger's theft was due to negligence as Colbert King asked in the Washington Post, July 2004. The question is what were the documents and why was he willing to risk his reputation to get them and destroy them?
And another question is why isn't the media asking that question?
SunnyeWriter
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)