Texas Conservative

...If you believe that the US is better at supporting democracy than the UN is, you're a Republican ...

... Don't listen to those with no faith in the American economy, they're economic "Girlie Men" ...

...With 64 more days until the election, John Kerry has time to change his position at least 4 or 5 more times ...

... Maybe this is what John Edwards meant by "two Americas", one America in which Kerry can vote one way on an issue, and another America where Kerry can vote the opposite way on exactly the same issue ...

... The choice was not between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war, but between war and an even graver threat ...

Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

...

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with [Lanny] Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.

Transcript:

STEVE GARDNER: “I spent more time on John Kerry’s boat than any other crew member.

John Kerry hasn’t been honest, he’s been deceitful.

John Kerry claims that he spent Christmas in 1968 in Cambodia and that is categorically a lie.

Not in December, not in January.

We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever.”

VOICE OVER: “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.”

Forty-five percent (45%) of Likely Voters believe that George W. Bush is more honest and trustworthy than John Kerry. A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in advance of the Republican National Convention found that 39% believe Kerry is the more honest and trustworthy candidate.

Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures...

I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see.

Has anyone else noticed the ease with which Democrats find contacts, connections, and collaboration between President Bush’s reelection campaign and various organizations (such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) that are running advertisements? I hear, for example, that Benjamin Ginsburg's legal representation of both President Bush and the Swifties establishes collaboration, which is illegal. Is this the same party that couldn’t find the slightest contact, connection, or collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda? Mind-boggling, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s just dishonesty.

(Emphasis mine —SCH)

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too -- and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 -- in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient

Recent pushes by liberals to allow immigrants (legal and illegal, but NOT US citizens) to vote in State and US elections are a transparent attempt to unconstitutionally enlarge the Democrat voting base.

From today's New York Times, the writer of the following letter to the editor agrees ...

To the Editor:

Re "Immigrants Raise Call for Right to Be Voters" (news article, Aug. 9):

My grandparents immigrated to America with grade-school educations - healthy, employable and willing to work. They learned English and attended citizenship classes to understand the history of the United States and how our government is supposed to work. Proud American citizens, they assimilated into the culture while keeping some "old country traditions" and discarded others that adversely set them apart.

America should welcome healthy immigrants who intend to become citizens, have sponsors and will not become burdens on our social system.

Immigrants and resident aliens are granted the privilege of living here, may own property and pay taxes. This does not give them shared values and a right to determine the government leaders of the United States, its laws and its future.

The future of the United States is determined by its voting citizens, natural born and naturalized. This is our right and responsibility. Let's not give it away!

Gini Cervone Hyman
Sarasota, Fla. —Aug. 9, 2004

Steven,

I am a Proud Democrat who happens to believe that the people who vote in the United States should be American Citizens. The way for Democrats to increase their base is to register more citizens, especially women, to vote and get them to the polls! (or fill out an absentee ballot, since I am in FL) While I may have a more liberal perspective on global, social and women's issues, I value my rights under the Constitution as much as any Republican ...

Gini C. Hyman

I think it is important that even the most conservative of
Republicans realize that we all share more common beliefs as Americans that unite us than political hot issues that some politicians would like us to believe divide us as a nation of red and blue states.

From Ralph Peters' column, "Heroes Don't Shout," in today's New York Post:

...[R]eal heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."
Real heroes (and I've been honored to know some) never portray their service in grandiose terms, telling TV cameras that they're reporting for duty. Real heroes may be proud of the sacrifices they offered, but they don't shout for attention.

This is so profoundly a part of the military code of behavior that it cannot be over-emphasized. The rule is that those who brag about being heroes usually aren't heroes at all. Bragging is for drunks at the end of the bar, not for real vets. And certainly not for anyone who wishes to trade on his service to become our commander-in-chief.

Regnery Publishing Inc., a small company with headquarters in Washington, D.C., originally planned to print just 40,000 copies, a very small run in the publishing business. After news commentators began talking about the book, Regnery increased the press run to 85,000. That still wasn't enough.

[…]

Regnery originally planned to release "Unfit for Command" on Sept. 1, but moved the date up two weeks in response to the media frenzy over the book.

Although the book is now in its fifth printing, temporary shortages are still expected. Major bookstore chains have reordered, but the publisher has cut the orders in half because it can't meet the demand.

"The book has become an event beyond its politics," said Dutton, the Los Angeles bookstore owner. "I've never seen anything like this." (Emphasis mine - SCH)

[…]

Regnery spokeswoman Kelley Keeler said the company expected the book to draw significant interest but didn't anticipate the avalanche of demand.

"We're working hard to make sure we get the books to our stores and customers as quickly as possible," Keeler said. "By next week, there will be over 500,000 copies of "Unfit for Command" either in print or on order."

"To me, that's treason. I call it treason against rock 'n' roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics," says the 56-year-old Cooper,

[ ... ]

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

It probably couldn't be said much better. But, unfortunately, every year there's over a million new 18-year-old potential voters whose knowledge of economics, history, and politics was gleaned from MTV.

Since Bruce Springsteen is about to "Rock the Vote" for John Kerry, I'd be only too happy to start booking my motel rooms to hit the road for George W. Bush. With my brothers Steve and Rudy, my buddies the Oak Ridge Boys, Lee Greenwood, Mark Wills and any number of other country music artists who get their support from the Heartland, I'm going to find the time, come fall, to tell America that we're playing, and praying, for President Bush.

Musicians can be political, and when the right time comes -- and the right cause -- they will be. But while I respect Bruce Springsteen's artistry and even his opinions on the current political situation (as expressed not long back in the New York Times), I see the world differently. Here's my take.

The intel on Iraq that President Bush saw raised red flags to some analysts and doubt in others. Some said there was an imminent threat, some said there was not. I believe that if one of Mr. Springsteen's friends were to swear to him that his house was on fire and another that it was not, he, or anybody, would surely check it out.

Well, our house was on fire. President Bush and an army of "the good guys and the good gals" checked it out. Big Time. And as a result, the bad guys have not been able to set our house on fire again.

To say, as John Kerry has, that "If attacked I will respond decisively" is not enough in today's world. Good Lord, Senator Kerry -- Barney Fife would respond decisively if we were attacked again! President Bush had the strength of will and courage to preemptively take out those who would attack us. I say "Rock on, Mr. President" (you too, Bruce). Keep checking out the bad guys and let Barney keep peace in Mayberry (a little humor in the middle of a very serious situation).

My gratitude to the president isn't confined to his role in keeping us safe. His tax cuts have helped all Americans who pay federal income taxes and have jump-started an economy that was in recession through no fault of President Bush. Those who refuse to see that have their heads in the sand and a "Kerry for President" bumper sticker on their SUVs. (I'd say the former condition is pretty much a prerequisite for the latter.) I'm no economist, but I do know two things for sure: I never got a job from a poor man; and the more money people have in their pockets, the more jobs they create by spending that money.

President Bush's attempts at education reform have been thwarted at every turn for fear that vouchers might actually work. (Imagine that, Ted Kennedy!) His faith-based initiatives tried to help those who can't help themselves, only to be "shot down" for fear that someone might get well and that God might have something to do with it. I was lucky. I had the money for my little "28-day vacation in pajamas" 20 years ago. There are millions out there who are not so lucky. So they die in the back streets of America for want of help. God only knows how many. (But there's the rub -- we can't say God and government on the same page.)

In closing, I'd say this to Bruce Springsteen: We do have something in common -- we were both "Born in the USA." From the bottom of my heart I say, Thank God.

In the end, Kerry has been quite successful in using his Viet Nam combat experience as the focus of his character for this election. It's unfortunate for the Senator that the result has been the exposure of his true character, instead of the fabricated nonsense he attempted to use to defraud the American electorate.

A source close to the Kerry campaign and the Democrat National Committee told crushkerry.com that John Kerry spent the better part of last week fighting with his political and legal advisors about how best to handle the Swiftees. His key political advisors did not want to confront the controversy head on, as Kerry has, for fear that it would draw further attention to charges of lies, fabrication and war crimes.

“There were several conference calls and a couple of meetings. Everyone was screaming. I would consider it the low point of the campaign,” our source told us. “By taking the Vets on, John Kerry thinks he’s demonstrating bravery. But it’s a horrible mistake, politically.”

Kerry also battled with his lawyers all week, insisting they distribute threatening letters to bookstores. According to our source, the Kerry legal team thought this, too, would be a mistake with a big risk of backfire.

“Look, bookstores aren’t going to stop selling this book because John Kerry wants them to,” our source told us. “From what I understand, John Kerry made the lawyers send these letters out. Kerry ordered it personally! I mean, we just look desperate.”

Our source also told us that several political advisors argued strenuously against threatening the bookstores and television stations, again fearing they would simply draw attention to the charges.

When asked if they expected anything to come out of the Kerry campaign’s complaint to the FEC against the Bush campaign and the Swiftees, our source was not optimistic. “Those complaints are pretty much pro forma. The Bush people have filed dozens of complaints against us and the 527’s.” our source stated.

When asked if they thought the campaign had overreacted and mismanaged the issue, our source said yes.

“The original plan was to let the press handle it [the controversy, on behalf of the Kerry campaign],” our source told us. “But John Kerry has gone off the deep end. He wants to personally discredit these guys. I don’t know if what they’re saying about him is true, but they have touched a big nerve with him. There is a lot of bad blood there.”

Bad times. Hardly any new jobs were created at all in the US economy. The rate of real GDP growth in the most recent quarter was below average, and it slipped from that of the previous quarter. Yet Gene Sperling, one of the chief economic advisors to the John Kerry campaign, was upbeat on the economy, declaring "the combination of economic numbers announced this week was good."

Pretty generous of him in an election year, wouldn't you say? Not really, because there was one thing I didn't mention.

Sperling didn't say those things last week, when it was announced that the US economy added 32,000 payroll jobs including 10,000 in the manufacturing sector, with last quarter's real GDP growth running at 3.0%. No, his optimistic statement was made in The Washington Post eight years ago, on May 4, 1996, back when he was a White House economic advisor to the Clinton administration.

He made that statement right after it was announced that only 2,000 jobs were created in the economy the previous month, with 17,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector. And the previous quarter, real GDP growth had been running at only 2.85%, a fall from the previous quarter's rate.

Sperling was optimistic then, when the news was tangibly worse than it is now. What is Sperling saying now, when the news is tangibly better? For some reason he's not quite so optimistic when the other team occupies the White House. Last week he told CNBC, "This is bad news for American workers. These are very disappointing, very anemic job numbers, not only are we not turning the corner on jobs, it is not even clear we are headed in the right direction."

This is just one of dozens of examples of the hypocritical and dishonest ways the Kerry campaign is trash-talking the economy.

To the Editor:

Re "Immigrants Raise Call for Right to Be Voters" (news article, Aug. 9):

My grandparents immigrated to America with grade-school educations - healthy, employable and willing to work. They learned English and attended citizenship classes to understand the history of the United States and how our government is supposed to work. Proud American citizens, they assimilated into the culture while keeping some "old country traditions" and discarded others that adversely set them apart.

America should welcome healthy immigrants who intend to become citizens, have sponsors and will not become burdens on our social system.

Immigrants and resident aliens are granted the privilege of living here, may own property and pay taxes. This does not give them shared values and a right to determine the government leaders of the United States, its laws and its future.

The future of the United States is determined by its voting citizens, natural born and naturalized. This is our right and responsibility. Let's not give it away!

Gini Cervone Hyman
Sarasota, Fla. —Aug. 9, 2004

On one side, you have a candidate who for four years has demonstrated his willingness to go after Islamic terrorists and kill them outright. No negotiations, no pandering, no waiting for U.N. approval. Just a commitment to do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect the United States of America. That's the Bush record.

On the other side, you have an appeaser. This is not in dispute. The Poodle is more concerned with what France thinks than what the United States needs. He is also inconsistent....one minute he is for the war, the next against it, and so on. Is this lack of resolve what we need when facing down the most vicious enemy we have ever faced in our history? I think not. Ask anyone with experience dealing with Islamic radicals. They view sensitivity as weakness. When they heard The Poodle making his comments about "a more sensitive war on terror" they must have cheered. How do you should "bring it on, Mr. Sensitivity" in Arabic anyway? Face it, November's choice is becoming more and more clear.

A more sensitive war on terror? Not sensitive, but weak. Very, very weak.

A wealthy old lady decided to go on a photo safari in Africa . She took her faithful pet dachshund along for company.

One day, the dachshund starts chasing butterflies and before long the dachshund discovers that he is lost. So, wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the obvious intention of having lunch.

The dachshund thinks, "OK, I'm in deep trouble now! Then he noticed some bones on the ground close by, and immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat.

Just as the leopard is about to leap, the dachshund exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard. I wonder if there are any more around here."

Hearing this, the leopard halts his attack in mid-stride, a look of terror comes over him, and he slinks away into the trees.

"Whew," says the leopard. "That was close. That dachshund nearly had me."

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes.

But the dachshund saw him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figured that something must be up.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.

The leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine."

Now the dachshund sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back, and thinks, "What am I going to do now?" But instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet...and just when they get close enough to hear the dachshund says....

"Where's that monkey? I sent him off half an hour ago to bring me another leopard!"