KERRY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND RIGHT FROM WRONG

Thirty-five years ago Kerry appeared before a Senate committee to call for the end to the war in Vietnam. On April 22, 2006 he defended that decision in a speech in Boston’s Faneuil Hall Marketplace. An article in the Washington Post on April 23, titled “Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says”, goes into detail about his speech.

Kerry stated that casting dissent in wartime is a patriotic act. He said “I believed then, just as I do now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties.”

This is true to a certain point. If someone is against war for whatever reason or religious principle, it is understandable. But if one’s actions aid our enemies it is no longer patriotic. If one has manufactured lies about the conduct of our troops, such as Kerry did thirty-five years ago, and has repeated them, as he has, during the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, that person is not patriotic. In fact, Kerry represents to the highest degree possible, the worst in American politics. He will spin the facts to support his position and he will manufacture false evidence. Kerry, along with much of the Democratic Party’s far-left leadership, specializes in this; they are doing everything in their power to undermine the administration’s effort to win the War on Terror.

The Democratic Party’s (and Kerry’s) idea of setting a timeline for pulling our troops out of Iraq only aids the enemy and does nothing to win the war. A premature pullout from Iraq would give the terrorists the victory and would lead to more terrorist attacks. I can only conclude from the repeated pushing of this idea that the current Democratic Party leadership, especially Senator Kerry, do not want to win the war and they have not accepted the fact that we are in a world war against terror. Or maybe they want us to lose the war so they can blame the loss on President Bush and the Republicans.

Kerry says “we are imprisoned in a failed policy” and that the administration has not learned the lessons of history. It is the far left and Kerry who have not learned the lessons of history! If we look back at Vietnam, we won the battles but lost the war. WHY? And why did the American public turn against the war? The bottom line is that you cannot win a war fighting a defensive battle. You must at some point go on the offensive. Fighting only a defensive war just prolongs the agony. Starting with our pullout from Vietnam, the enemies of the United States learned that if they can drag out a conflict long enough and use the American liberal media, they can win.

Is the liberal media totally to blame for all of the negative press about Operation Iraqi Freedom? NO!! It is the Democratic Party leaders like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean who fan the embers of the liberal media in the hope that the general public will grow against the war, and that the embers will grow into a fire that will put them back in power. The Democratic Party leadership has but one goal and that is to gain control of the Senate and win the Presidency in 2008. They do not care who they hurt in the process.

In my book the liberal media and the Democratic Party share the blame. They are the greatest allies the terrorist organizations have. The terrorists could lose every battle in Iraq and win the war with just help from the liberal media and the current Democratic Party leadership!

This type of political game is nothing new for Kerry. He learned it from the Kennedys when he first decided to get into politics. I find him the most despicable figure in politics. Right and wrong are clear, but Kerry, the extreme liberal, wants everyone to believe things are shades of gray rather than black and white. He can always be counted on to vote against a strong military and the things that would help the military remain strong. He will always exaggerate problems with the military and will go as far as lying about them. He has totally lost sight of right and wrong. Kerry started his speech referring to American ideals, but he does not practice what he preaches. What happened to truth and honesty? Is lying to gain votes and power justified? Does Kerry have any honor? NO!

GLOBAL WARMING – WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

I have heard a lot about Global Warming in the news during the past year, driven primarily by the bad 2005 hurricane season and El Nino. Most of the television coverage centered about Earth Day (April 22, 2006) events, which drew the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Howard Dean. It is obvious that they hope to make this an issue the far left can rally around. Al Gore and John Kerry have long supported the doom and gloom of global warming, and hope to gain votes by raising the issue to a higher level. Al Gore is starring in a movie titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, which will be released around Memorial Day. Howard Dean would like to muzzle America’s churches and religious group such as Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) because they counter the extreme left’s desire to support the Kyoto Accord and ignore the impact on the poor of the world and on our economy. Celebrities like Julia Roberts and George Clooney, as “climate experts” have gotten into the act as well. Fortunately, President Bush and the administration are pushing private industry to work on this issue.

I enjoy nature, wildlife, the outdoors, and the American way of life, so I decided to look into the subject. I wanted to understand if global warming is a real issue, if it is an issue what can be done about it, and is it an issue that requires the drastic action some scientists and politicians are pushing. Was President Bush right in not signing the Kyoto agreement? I reviewed more than 20 articles and Web sites and was surprised at the amount of data available. Most of what I found causes me to disagree with the very vocal far left.

The Kyoto Accord legally binds participating developed countries to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions to 5 % below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The United States and Australia are among those who did not sign this agreement. (The countries not signing did agree to non-binding talks on a climate-change agreement that will eventually replace ‘Kyoto’.)

The first question that came to my mind was, How much has the temperature of the earth changed in recent years? The answer is, less than .5 degree increase since 1940. Is this a lot, considering how the industrial complex of the world has grown? Has man’s environment improved, and have we done a responsible job? Should we go back to living like the American Indians prior to the arrival of the first colonists? Is the hype associated with global warming justified, or is it just the result of irresponsible alarmists? From my limited research it appears that the latter is true.

Two of the articles I read were written by Marc Morano: “Media Darling on ‘Global Warming’ Assailed by Colleagues” and “Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry”. A third article was written by Randy Hall: “Global Warming Alarmists Seek ‘Circle of Death,’ Group Says”. These articles point out that much of the hype about global warming centers around a NASA scientist named James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Dr. Hansen has spoken out in the news media about global warming, and because of his position at NASA the news media, including the New York Times and “60 Minutes”, proclaimed him a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the subject. Now it appears that his colleagues at NASA do not agree with him. NASA encourages their scientists speak publicly, but there is a protocol to be followed which Dr. Hansen chooses to ignore. Data releases, and the data itself, have to be approved by NASA Headquarters before going to the media. Hansen refuses to do so. In an interview he gave on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, he declared that 2005 had tied 1998 as the warmest year on record, but an internal NASA memo provides he failed to clear his data. In addition, none of his peers agreed with his interpretation of the data. George Deutsch, former NASA public relations employee, was warned by other employees (not political appointees) at NASA that Hansen is an alarmist and exaggerates. Deutsch does not appear to be the best source for information -- he had to resign his position due to a resume problem (he was one course short of having the degree claimed on his resume) -- but he provided CNS News with documentation that backs up his accusations.

CBS News “60 Minutes” in their March 19, 2006 show profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship by the Bush administration, but did not mention his link to Gore, Kerry, and Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen has contributed to the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and has accepted a $250,000 Heinz Award granted by the foundation run by Teresa. On that same day, Hansen endorsed Senator Kerry’s presidential candidacy! Is Hansen’s position based on politics more than facts? YES!! Also, “60 Minutes” has a history of distorting the truth for the liberal cause.

Why are many countries backing away from the Kyoto agreement? Why is the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) so concerned about how we (the world) address the issue of global warming? The answer illustrates just how complex the problem and solution are. We must understand the causes of global warming; we must address the problem in a way that does not harm or impede the improvements in the lives of the world’s poor; we need to remember that mankind is principally the producer and steward of the world, not the consumer polluter; and we must develop a sound environmental ethic.

We have to act responsibly and recognize alarmists like Dr. Hansen, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. and not jump off the deep end. Are the greenhouse gas emissions the cause of global warming? Based on my reading, the answer is No. According to research done by scientists such as K. Lassen (Danish Meteorological Institute) and Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West (Duke University), the major cause is solar warming. A paper by K. Lassen shows clear evidence that there is a direct correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and temperature changes on Earth during the past 130 years. I am not saying that the greenhouse gas emissions are not contributing to the problem, but we need to understand the full problem in order to take correct action. We should ask, “Is there anything in the atmosphere that reduces the impact of solar activity?” Also, climate experts such as Gabriele C. Hagerl of Duke University say the greenhouse gas buildup will cause significant climate change in the coming century, but not the extreme changes predicted by some studies. New research shows that extreme changes are unlikely to occur.

Based on the information I found in 20-plus articles and Web pages, the Bush administration was correct in not signing the Kyoto agreement. Enforcing the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as proposed in ‘Kyoto’ may cause hardships on many people, economies, and countries. Not that we should not take action, but if the U.S. follows President Bush’s proposals to develop the hydrogen engine to power our motor vehicles, construct nuclear power plants, which provide a much cleaner supply of electricity than fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), and continue to increase our production of ethanol fuel, we could make a significant impact on our greenhouse emissions without hurting the economy.

If we take the approach of forcing tougher restriction on power plants, manufacturing facilities, and motor vehicles, the cost of the products produced will be driven up. This will have an inflationary impact on the economy and will affect low-income families the most. We need to be careful here. Technology can help, but raising taxes to fund these activities can also have a negative impact on the economy and on middle and lower income families in our country.

IMMIGRATION: WHAT’S THE ANSWER?

On Friday, April 14, 2006, the Washington Post had two editorials on immigration. One, by Eugene Robinson, was titled “My Immigration Solution”; I feel that Mr. Robinson’s solution is no solution at all! In his words, he “would not brand the current influx of immigrants (as) felons or build a fortress wall along the Mexican border.” After weighing all options, he sees the alternative of allowing a limited flow of immigrants across the border, thinking this could “change the current incentive equation”, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed from Mexico and other South American countries. I believe this idea is a part of at least some of the proposals currently before Congress, but it cannot be the solution by itself. The number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country must be based on our ability to assimilate them into our society. We need the desired growth rate for our country as well as our ability to produce the resources needed to support our total population.

The second editorial, by Charles Krauthammer, was titled “Immigrants Must Choose”. Mr. Krauthammer says the “Hispanic civil rights movement” needs to decide: “Are they ready to be welcomed into the American family as the last illegals -- or only as the first of many millions more?” I do not believe Congress should place much importance on this “Hispanic civil rights movement”. Those who are here legally already have all the rights of anyone else, and do not need any entitlement. We need to treat criminals and lawbreakers humanely, and ensure they have basic human rights, but the bottom line is that the illegal immigrant has broken the law, whether it is a civil or felony offense. One does not ask a lawbreaker if the law needs to be changed, or if we should allow the breaking of the law to go unpunished forever. The laws that are in place should be enforced. A federal officer should not feel bad about enforcing a law. One should not get mad at a police officer giving someone a traffic ticket, if that person was in fact breaking a traffic law. The illegal immigrant should have no say as to what our laws should be!

The foregoing, to me, is a lot of blether!

Gaining control over illegal immigration is a must! What is the solution? Our borders must be closed to illegal immigrants. It is vital to keep in mind that illegal immigrants are not all Mexican or Hispanic. Eugene Robinson, who would really like an open border, like most liberals has never accepted the fact that we are at war with terrorism. Some of the illegals who have come in along the Mexican border are originally from Asian and South American countries that are working hard at becoming enemies of the United States. We need to be able to identify all illegal immigrants as soon as possible, just from a security perspective.

We need to establish a date after which being an illegal immigrant is a felony. This date should be aligned with registering current illegal immigrants. Employers must have a quick and easy way of verifying that a worker is legal . Requiring all employers to use an automated employment verification system is the way to go. This system exists, but needs to be implemented. After the implemetation date the employer must report any illegal immigrants currently employed, or those who apply for work. This raises the risk to the illegal of being caught. We have to convince the would-be immigrant that it is not worth his risk to come into the United States illegally. This will do a lot to ensure a legal workforce.

We should erect whatever is needed in the way of walls, fences, etc. along our Mexician border, and add new surveillance systems for border patrol.

We should plug any loopholes in exiting laws, ensuring that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted. These changes should take place no later than the end of the amnesty period.

Now, what should we do with the countless numbers of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Our government is partly to blame for the magnitude of the situation, because they have not enforced existing laws. Our current immigration facilities could not handle deporting them, or even being able to identify them in a short period of time. This needs to be considered when changing the law associated with those already here. It is not feasible to deport 12 million people! Nor is it fair to automatically make them all legal, with no penalty for having broken the law, and put them on an equal footing with those who have already gone through the current naturalization process to become legal residents. Neither is it fair to give preference to Hispanics over any other nationality. And whatever we do, we must not push the illegal deeper into hiding or into an even more dangerous underground existence. Although most Americans hate the word amnesty, it seems to me the only reasonable approach is to come up with an amnesty program such as the Senate has proposed for the current illegal immigrants. However, any amnesty program must have a cutoff date, corresponding with the date for changing the penalty for illegally entering the U.S. from a civil to felony offence. I would implement an amnesty program for a one-year period, after which any illegal immigrant would be liable to prosecution to the full extent of the law.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A “CITIZEN OF THE WORLD”?

I have for many years considered myself a “citizen of the world”. A comment received on my April 2, 2006 posting ‘Democratic Party Misses The Point’, got me thinking about what it means. The person providing the comment, who calls himself Corndog, used to be a liberal, and stated that the process of becoming a liberal “begins with the psychological renunciation of one’s American-ness, in order to become a ‘citizen of the world’.” As one might expect, this set me to thinking: Could I be shifting to the left? NO WAY!! I cannot ever see myself as a liberal! So I decided to see what was available on the Internet on this subject, and after doing that, I decided to write about what being a “citizen of the world” means to me.

First, I found an organization called World Citizen, Inc., a non-profit organization that empowers the educational community to promote a just and peaceful world through activities for children and youth. Most educators are very liberal; one should ask are the youth being taught to think, or just being indoctrinated?

Next was The World Citizen Foundation. This is a non-profit, non-partisan think-tank dedicated to the design of solutions to international problems based on the fundamental principles of equal human dignity, liberty, democracy, and constitutionally protected basic rights of all. This may or may not be liberal depending on its members.

Then I found the World Citizen Update. This one started by asking “Who Represents World Citizens?” The message began “In politics, the nation-state insidiously controls not only the dialogue but also the electoral process.” Another statement was “the general public’s loyalty on this national political illusion blinds it to the solution of humanity’s ills taken together, i.e. world law based on human rights”. There is no doubt this is extremely liberal.

The last one was called “World Citizen Guide”. This guide was put together by students for students to use when going abroad. The group, Business for Diplomatic Action, Inc., started this because in their words ‘America’s favorability’ in other countries was decreasing. They blame U.S. public policy, the negative efforts of globalization, our culture, and collective personality. Globalization-- hmmm….that is interesting. One should not go abroad with an attitude, or present one’s self as superior. Depending on how this is done, it could be very good.

Do the preceding come across as leftist or very liberal organizations? (Corndog does have a point.) But I would like to tell you my definition of a “Citizen of the World”. Every individual is a citizen of the world! I do not believe that being a “Citizen of the World” means you must be liberal. That is a false theory that has been accepted for too long. All of the above items are rather liberal in nature. Some of the points they cover are important, but there are many differing viewpoints about what can and can’t be done, and what the causes are. Let’s look beyond these.

The world is getting smaller every day. Back in the 19th century, Jules Verne wrote “Around The World In 80 Days”. We now do it in hours, and astronauts can do it in minutes. But this is only a small part of why the world is getting smaller. If the world is ever going to truly have peace, the economy of every country needs to be developed to its full potential. As long as some countries are under-developed and don’t politically fit in with the rest of the world, there will always be a danger of war. This is a huge challenge for the world to overcome. Every year the economies of the United States and other industrial countries become more dependent on each other. How many items do we buy each year that say ‘made in China’, Korea, Japan, France, Norway, etc.? This occurs because things are made better or cheaper somewhere else, or may not be available in your country. This helps keep down our cost of living, and it helps the economies of other countries to grow. Each country needs to find its niche. The more people of different countries do business with each other, the more they realize we all have the same goals in life, and the more tolerant of each other they become.

Then there are issues such as terrorism that are truly global issues that the world needs to address. The more nations take an active role in this fight, the sooner terrorism will become a thing of the past. Each year since 9/11 more countries have come to this realization. The sooner the world learns to recognize evil and address it with immediate and decisive action, the sooner there will be peace in the world, but as long as countries such as those who took advantage of the UN’s Oil for Food program continue to profit by their actions, the longer the process will take.

In conclusion, I say every person is a “Citizen of the World” because every year we are coming closer together and more dependent on each other. Sometimes the process seems hard to see, but it is happening. The extremist Muslim groups that are fighting this change through terrorist activities are actually accelerating the process by forcing the rest of the world to join together to fight terrorism.

WASHINGTON POST DOES IT AGAIN!

On April 10, 2006, in an article titled “U.S. Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi”, the Washington Post accused the military of magnifying the role of Abu Musabat al Zarqawi in Iraq in order to help the Bush administration justify the war in Iraq by linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda. The article is based in part on a quote from Col. Derek Harvey, an officer on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a meeting that took place LAST SUMMER (2005) in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas! Why would anybody dredge up a statement made that long ago to lend credence to an article in April 2006, in view of the dramatic flare-up of the insurgent problem just since the Iraqi elections in December, months after the meeting at Ft. Leavenworth?

I have three problems with this article.

First, the facts related to Zarqawi as presented by the military prove the Post article is without basis. Everyone should read the American Forces Information Service news article titled “Zarqawi, al Qaeda Threaten Iraq, Military Spokesman Says”, by Steven Donald Smith. This article points out that Zarqawi and al Qaeda have openly declared war on the democratic process in Iraq, and that they have recruited, trained, and equipped more than 90% of the suicide attackers who have injured or killed thousands of Iraqis in the past year. This is a fact, not hearsay as the Post indicated.

Second, the Post article implies that propaganda is bad, and is a tool that should not be used by our military or the United States government. Webster’s dictionary defines propaganda as “information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, movement, nation, etc; the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement”. The heart of capitalism and our election process are very dependent on propaganda. My take on this is if the information used is based on fact, it is good. However, I must add: if it was illegal to put out false information, many politicians, like John Kerry, who lied and propagated false information about our military in Vietnam and in Iraq, would be in jail and not in Congress!

Third, the Post article opened by saying that the military overstated al Zarqawi’s importance in helping the Bush administration link the war in Iraq to al Qaeda. I do not understand their point. Zarqawi is a member of al Qaeda, and he is in Iraq. The Washington Post is just pushing their own agenda once more, and not reporting the facts. They are trying to make something out of nothing, and hurting our military and the war effort in the process, without just cause.

SENATOR JOHN KERRY SHOULD JUST GO AWAY

Once again Senator John Kerry opened his mouth and tried to undermine President Bush and his administration in an article titled “May 15 Deadline Urged for Iraq’s Government”. This time, his statements received only minimal support from his own party, but there was one idea Kerry put forth that, if changed slightly, might help get the formation of the Iraqi government moving faster. He suggested convening a summit of Iraqi leaders and others on neutral ground, with the goal of reaching agreement on a government. I do not believe the newly-elected members of the Iraqi Parliament would agree to a summit meeting outside of Iraq, but maybe they could be closured within Iraq, with no contact with others in their home areas, and hopefully come to an agreement. (However, are they doing any worse than our own Senate is doing with the borders and immigration issue?)

Senator Kerry has no respect for people of the Middle East and showed it with his suggestions that the Iraqis do not want democracy as much as we want it for them, and that Iraqi politicians show no commitment to establish a working government. He has always talked down to the people of the Middle East. Unfortunately, his approach only strengthens distrust of the United States in the Middle East, and may cost us dearly.

Setting up arbitrary deadlines like May 15 for having a government formed or risking the pullout of American troops, as Kerry suggested, is a bad idea. This is nothing more than the cut-and-run proposals put forth by Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, and Democratic Party Leader Howard Dean. The Iraqis are attempting for the first time in their history to set up a democratically elected government. They are currently struggling with the selection of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as Prime Minister. We have to give them time to work through the issues surrounding the selection of the Prime Minister and the formation of a National Unity government. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this past week that “it takes patience”, and he quoted Bill Schuster who said “we’re living in the microwave age where we expect everything to be cooked in about 30 seconds.” In Rumsfeld’s words “The world isn’t like that”, but despite the difficulties associated with putting the Iraqi government in place, progress is being made. There are now in excess of 240,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and they are carrying more and more of the load. Now is not the time to cut and run!

Kerry also said the Bush administration has made only half-hearted diplomatic efforts to overcome the issues preventing the government from being established. He stated that the administration has failed to support U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s efforts. Of course there is no basis for these statements. Has the Ambassador said this? NO! Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visited Iraq this week and pushed the issue, but Kerry totally dismissed her efforts.

Senator John Kerry should just shut up and go home. In my book he is a terrible example of what a Senator should be. The foundation of his career was based on lies about American servicemen in Vietnam. He is what I call pure politician, which means he will say or do anything to get votes no matter who he steps on or hurts in the process. There is no honor in this man. No one should believe anything he says.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY MISSES THE POINT

I read an article on cnsnews.com today that really illustrates what is wrong with the Democratic Party today. The article is titled “Iraq War Frustration Key to Dem Victories, Says Rangel”. Representative Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) statements will only drive those in the middle between the far right and extreme left to vote Republican.

According to the article, Rep. Rangel said that voters should not just be frustrated over the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, ‘they should be outraged’. The outrage to me is the way in which the Democratic Party leadership has tried to undermine the administration. For example, Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis.) call to censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless surveillance of phone calls between persons in the United States and known Al Qaeda operatives. Previous Presidents going back at least to Jimmy Carter have done the same thing! I believe the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to take this step, and I am glad he did so.

There is no justification for Feingold’s action in the midst of war. It should be noted that afterwards Senator Feingold got a boost from the far left in the Democratic Party in his possible bid to run for President in 2008. Senator John Kerry pursued a similar push from the far left by calling for the impeachment of President Bush over the same issue, and he is hoping to make another run for President! These people are playing politics with no concern for the War on Terror, the impact on our troops, and the impact on the American people. In fact, actions like these should raise the question, do the Democrats even realize we are in a global war on terror?

Rep. Rangel suggests there is fear that the reputation of the United States has suffered and that we have lost friends in Europe because of the President’s action against Iraq. He is most likely concerned about our relationships with France and Russia. I would not use the word ‘friend’ when referring to France and Russia, when it comes to Iraq. Their part in the oil for food scandal must be considered a major cause for the War in Iraq. If they had worked as hard at enforcing the sanctions against Iraq as they did at getting around them, the war might not have happened. They were part of the cause, not the solution. France and Russia are only worried about themselves, their stature in world politics, and the money coming into their economies. The world agreed that Saddam Hussein had to go. The only way in Iraq to effect a change was to remove Hussein and the Baathist party from power. I do not believe there was any other way to effect the change. The bottom line is that if we stay the course in Iraq, we will have gained respect, done much to deter radical Islamic terrorism, and established a stronger bond of friendship and trust in the Middle East.

Rep. Rangel’s concern about the growing deficit is a concern of everyone, but we must remember that we are at war, and we must provide the military with the resources required to do their job as safely as possible. What would the Democrats do to help reduce the deficit? Probably cut military spending, and cut and run from Iraq! The only other possibility would be to raise taxes, which would have a negative impact on business and would slow the economy. The best solution for the deficit is to work with the Republicans as a team. A united Congress would do more to end the war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom than anything.

If we stop and look at what the Democratic Party has done since Operation Iraqi Freedom began three years ago, it is clear that they have done nothing to help the situation. They aided Al Qaeda! Al Gore’s statement that our government has committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs in the United States, and John Kerry’s comments that our troops were terrorizing Iraqi civilians, clearly show how they twist the truth and lie about our troops. Kerry, as a senator, has never supported our military. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy both have voting records of non-support of the military.

Rep. Rangel states he submitted the bill to reinstate the military draft because lawmakers have lost touch with our military men and women, and because a disproportionate number of service members come from low-income households. There has been no evidence from Democrats that they are at all concerned about our military personnel. In fact, taking their actions as a whole, they provided no support at all. It appears to me that Rangel is much like Hillary Clinton, who looks down her nose at those who serve in the military, CIA, etc. Reportedly Hillary, while Clinton was in office, was continually rude and abrasive to those who were charged with protecting her life. Vice President Al Gore also looked down on those protecting him. It is said that “Al got angry at his children and pointed to his detail saying, ‘Do you want to grow up and be like them?’”

Taking all of the above into account, and wanting to win in Iraq and in the War on Terror, why would anyone vote for a Democrat for national office?