Archive for November, 2006
Father God:
You are truth. And you have called us as journalists to a profoundly important task. To tell the truth. But to do that, we must find it.
And as we pursue it, it comes in many parts. One group tells us one thing. Another, just the opposite, another something else. Give us the wisdom and understanding and skill to know which parts are true… and then to put the right parts together in the right order.
As we do our jobs, we are often manipulated, misled, managed and maligned. May we not be discouraged. Gift us with patience, guide us with common sense, guard us from pessimism.
Help us to be a voice for the voiceless… To be skeptical but never cynical… Righteously angry at the wrongs we expose, but never revengeful.
Keep our hearts from despair and give us the courage and steadfastness to go to places and ask the questions and shine the light that our readers and viewers need to make sense of this all-too-fallen world.
Keep us safe from harm as we do our jobs. But may we also realize that in doing our jobs, we often cause harm. Make us humbly aware of the power of words and pictures and help us to choose them carefully, always seeking to minimize harm, never exploiting the facts, slanting the story or preconceiving our prejudices to push a personal agenda.
May we admit and correct our mistakes promptly, learning from them.
But O God, may we especially realize that all news is not bad news. That love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control – what your word calls the fruit of your sprit – are all around us and part of the Good News we are also responsible to tell.
May our reports inform, not inflame.
May they encourage not discourage.
May we be sensitive instead of sensationalistic… Reflect reason not ridicule… Be balanced not bitter.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /Standard Newswire/ — The following text is of remarks by President Bush on Veterans Day:
Arlington National Cemetery
11:39 A.M. EST
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. Thanks for coming. Secretary Nicholson, thank you for your kind words and for your leadership. Members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress, members of the United State military, all veterans, all volunteers who have sworn to uphold the security of the United States, I thank your families for being here and I thank our veterans. I am proud to join you on this day of honor.
On this day, in this month, at this hour, our nation remembers the moment when the guns of World War I went silent — and we recognize the service and the sacrifice of our nation’s veterans. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, our veterans have borne the costs of America’s wars — and they have stood watch over America’s peace. The American people are grateful to the veterans and all who have fought for our freedom.
Since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, the National Cemetery has reminded our citizens of the cost of liberty. The simple white markers testify to honor fulfilled and duty served. Most of these markers stand over graves of Americans who came home to enjoy the peace they earned. Too many stand over the graves of those who gave their lives to protect that peace. This day is dedicated to all who answered the call to service — whether they live in honor among us, or sleep in valor beneath this sacred ground.
CWA’S Crouse: Slight, but Significant Voter Changes Dashed GOP Hopes for Election 2006
Washington, D.C. ––– In a dramatic shift of allegiance, two voting blocs abandoned the Republican Party in yesterday’s election. (1) Married Mothers and Married Men were decisive factors for the Republicans in 2000 and in 2004, but in the mid-term elections of 2006 they were as likely to vote Democratic as Republican. (2) Evangelical support of Republican candidates dropped from 74 percent in 2004 to 69 percent in 2006.
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, “Married Mothers and Married Men –– the M & Ms –– are very concerned about issues affecting their families, especially issues related to their children’s well-being and future. Families had such high hopes when conservatives were in power; they ended up discouraged, disappointed and disillusioned.”
Crouse said, “In terms of how groups voted, there were slight, but very significant changes from 2002 to 2006 that spelled disaster for the GOP.
More Republicans voted for Democrats (9 percent), than Democrats voted for Republicans (6 percent).
More conservatives voted for Democrats (21 percent), than liberals voted for Republicans (10 percent).
Nearly 30 percent (29 percent) of White Evangelicals voted for Democrats and 54 percent of those who attend church weekly voted for Democrats.
Among voters who thought that the scandals were “extremely important,” 53 percent voted Democrat.
“Though roughly the same percentage of evangelicals voted in 2006 as voted in 2002 (24 and 25 percent), there was a 2 percentage point drop in conservatives who voted (34 percent in 2002 compared with 32 percent in 2006). Also, there was an increase in the percentage of liberals who voted; in 2002, 17 percent of voters identified themselves as liberal compared to 21 percent in 2006.
“Finally,” concluded Crouse, “pessimistic voters dominated this election. More than half of the voters (56 percent) said that the country is on the wrong track, nearly six in ten voters said that they disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job (down from 2004), and 61 percent of voters disapprove of the Republican-controlled Congress.”
For Information Contact:
Stacey Holliday
(202) 488-7000
media.cwfa.org
Washington, October 31, 2006—Wartime recruits who joined the United States military in 2004 and 2005 tended to be better educated and wealthier than their civilian peers, according to a new report from The Heritage Foundation.
Economist Timothy Kane studied recruiting information to determine where service members are from, how much their families earn and what their education level is. His research follows up on a similar paper he wrote last year and shows that the trend toward better-quality recruits has actually accelerated in the years since 9/11.
This disproves the idea, expressed on Oct. 30 by Sen. John Kerry, that only those who fail in school end up in the military. “If you study hard, do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” the former presidential candidate told college students.
Yet even “as the conflict in Iraq continues, youth from wealthy areas continue to volunteer for duty despite increased risk,” Kane says. In fact, the data show recruits from wealthy families are actually overrepresented in today’s military, while the only income group that’s lowering its participation in the military is the poor. “This evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die for the interests of the rich,” he says.
Kane, himself an Air Force veteran, broke recruiting information down by four characteristics: household income, level of education, race/ethnicity and regional origin.
“Like their peers in 1999 and 2003, recruits in 2004 and 2005 came primarily from middle-class areas,” Kane found. In fact, 2004 recruits came from neighborhoods with an average household income of $43,122. Last year that figure rose to $43,238, more than $2,000 higher than the 1999 average of $41,141 (in constant dollars).
Kane also notes that military recruits tend to be better educated than the public at large. At least 90 percent of enlistees, for example, have a high-school diploma, while the national high school graduation rate is 75 percent. In addition, “the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population,” he writes.
When it comes to race, “the enlisted ranks are not disproportionately composed of minorities,” Kane found. Whites serve in numbers almost equal to their percentage of the population. And while blacks are somewhat overrepresented, “their representation has decreased during the wartime years and is much closer to being proportional in 2005 than it was in 2003."
by Average Joe Boomer
Watching the Towers Fall and Moving Beyond Stuck-On-Stupid!
Watching the twin towers of the World Trade Center come down, live on TV, had a profound affect on many Americans including this baby boomer. Probably due to age, serious motivation to join the Ohio Army Reserve did not develop, however, until 2004 when I was fifty years old. It was not only our enemies who influenced my attempt to join up; it was the mindsets of some of my closest loved ones. Those mindsets appear to be mental blocks that obstruct logic.
This obstruction of logic caused an acute affliction of angst in me until it seemed that only joining our volunteer forces would position me around clear thinkers, to keep me out of the insane asylum. Hopes were for nothing drastic, just going to serve as a slightly arthritic operations guy on a desk somewhere. Unfortunately, age already restricts me from serving as a first time member of our military. Hopefully world events will not degrade to the point that the Army needs to include my age group or skill level, but I was disappointed. Eventually motivation overcame disappointment and this is how it happened. It was not easy because I was stuck on stupid, for a while.
Years of stressful dialog with loved ones who cling to mental blocks about projecting US military power and about George W. Bush, had all ended in failure. My relentless efforts to present common sense, logical conclusions based upon facts from many sources had all failed. Beloved friends and family members were content with their mental blocks. Failure in my efforts finally became undeniable and had to be accepted as the truth.
Media Dismiss Insult as Mistake, Hope Issue Will Vanish For Elections
Alexandria, VA–Senator John Kerry grossly insulted the intelligence of American soldiers by telling college students they would “get stuck in Iraq” if they didn't work hard in school. Yet the liberal media, instead of seizing the opportunity to condemn this offense as they have done with conservatives who make gaffes – for example, Senator George Allen’s “macaca” comment – brushed off Kerry’s insult as, among other things, “an idle political remark.”
“With his rich history of besmirching the military, John Kerry and his cheap insult against our U.S. troops should be held to the same standard as other political misconduct,” said Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “But liberal anchors have dismissed it as merely an ‘idle political remark’ and have left it up to the White House to demand an apology.”
“Their reaction pales in comparison to the weeks upon weeks of coverage still devoted to lambasting Senator George Allen for his ‘macaca’ comment. If a conservative denoted a particular group of people as stupid, these same reporters would exploit every opportunity to drive the GOP into the ground in the week before elections. The liberal hypocrisy and media bias are loathsome.”
Examples of Downplaying Kerry’s Comment:
-
CBS’s Katie Couric mimicked a potential GOP ad, impersonating “John Kerry insults the troops. Do we really want the Dems to take over?”
-
ABC anchor Charles Gibson characterized it as merely an “idle political remark.”
-
CNN’s White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux stated “we hope and we think that all of this is going to go away tomorrow.”
-
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews referred to the controversy over Kerry’s comments as a “brouhaha” and a “rhubarb.”
-
CNN’s Jack Cafferty said “one can only hope” the issue goes away quickly
Source: Media Research Center
by Thomas Lindaman
To the Honorable Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA):
I read with great interest your recent speech at a rally for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Agenlides where you said the following:
"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and do your homework and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
By way of introduction, allow me to offer a bit of personal history. Unlike you, I did not serve in our military. However, I have friends and extended family who have either served or are currently serving. I have traced my lineage back to two relatives who fought for the Union during the Civil War. Even though I chose not to serve, I feel more than qualified to comment on your statements.
I found your statement deeply offensive. But your attempts to spin your ill-advised statement into an attack on Republicans and conservatives were even more offensive. Allow me to point out something else you said:
"I apologize to no one for my criticism of the President and his broken policy."
Sir, your comment wasn’t criticizing the President or his "broken policy." It was directed to college students. Nowhere in the statement you made about education did you reference the President by name or by insinuation. Your response is intellectually dishonest at best.
To compound the problem, you blamed your statement not on a momentary lapse of reason, but on a purposeful misinterpretation of your statement. Here is what you said:
"…my statement yesterday, and the White House knows this full well, was a botched joke about the president and the president’s people, not about the troops."
First off, how would the Bush Administration know your intent? It was your statement, not theirs. Second, I have to point out again that you didn’t mention Bush or anyone in the Administration.
by Erik Rush
It will all be over shortly, for better or worse; many agree that the midterm election of 2006 is (or was, if you're reading this after 11/7/06) perhaps more significant than will be the general election of 2008. It has been the ugliest, most calumny-ridden election season I've ever seen, for reasons that are apparent to some and not so apparent to others.
As my friend and colleague Marie Jon' put it the other day (and I'm paraphrasing), "The GOP may not be perfect, but the Democrat Party is subversive and evil." I think I would amend that to "the Democrat Party is subversive and is serving evil." I've attempted to clarify on several occasions that this corruption is largely focused within the national Democrat Party leadership (as opposed to some silly blanket indictment of all Democrats as serving evil); this has gone largely ignored by those who choose to manufacture their own reality – or just enjoy writing profanity-laced hate mail.
A great deal of the diatribe that's ensued has centered around the War on Terror (or WWIII, if you prefer), particularly the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq campaign. It is in this area I've heard most of the blatant lies and fearmongering during the election campaign. Certainly recent and past scandals involving irresponsible Republican leaders and RINO (Republican In Name Only) politicians haven't helped.
by Sher Zieve
It’s difficult to believe that the American Left could hunker down even further, under the saturated-with-innocent-blood covers, with terrorists who have unequivocally announced their intentions to destroy us. But, it has. Recently, The Factor’s Bill O’Reilly asked leftist celebs Rosie O’Donnell and David Letterman if they wanted the United States of America to win the war against terrorists. Neither would answer. In fact, when O’Reilly commented to Letterman that it was an easy question requiring a simple yes or no answer, instead of answering Letterman said that he was "being thoughtful".
Thoughtful? Letterman has to "think" about whether or not he wants the US or the Islamic terrorists to win? These Islamists regularly and with impunity blow up infrastructures in the UK, Indonesia, Spain and myriad other countries (including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the US) and behead people on videotape. And this leftist representative of the New York and Hollywood Industrial Entertainment Complex has to think about whether or not he wants the US or the terrorists to win?
This attitude is both reprehensible and appalling. It is also the attitude voiced by the many (including George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and multiple others) elitist leftist celebrities who have become extremely wealthy due to the ideologies and opportunities within the USA. Opportunities that, should the terrorist entities take over or destroy the country, would be lost to all of us. But, the socialist Democrat "principles" allow for only the haves and the have-nots —"the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". One only need look to France’s form of government for proof.
Prime examples of Democrat politicians working to destroy the US seem to crop up almost each and every day. We have Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) voting against any programs that would protect the country — including the Patriot Act and the NSA terrorist surveillance programs. Both of these politicos falsely claimed the NSA program is wiretapping American citizens, instead of the reality that it was monitoring terrorist and potential terrorist calling patterns. Instead, the Democrats and even some of our liberal Republican leaders are proposing and passing legislation that gives terrorists US Constitutional rights! Shameful.
by Thomas E. Brewton
Just as he now works to undermine our resistance to Islamic Jihad, Teddy Kennedy arrogated to himself the role of secret negotiator with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If it wasn't treason, it was very close to being so. His actions clearly were intended to thwart the foreign policy of our elected government and thereby to give aid and comfort to our enemies.
A Washington Times article reports:
In his new book, "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism," Grove City College professor Paul Kengor sheds light on a letter written by KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. The letter is dated May 14, 1983, right as the debate was heating up over Mr. Reagan's proposed deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviets' medium-range rockets in Eastern Europe.
Most Democrats and much of the left were universally opposed to Mr. Reagan's plan, which they argued would lead to nuclear war. Heading the list of critics was Mr. Kennedy, who had, according to the Soviet letter, sent former Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with Kremlin leaders. Chebrikov writes that Mr. Kennedy "charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to… Andropov."
……The letter goes on to say how Mr. Kennedy felt that the Soviets' peaceful intentions were being "quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted." Conversely, Mr. Reagan "has the capabilities to counter any propaganda." In other words, if the letter is to be believed, Mr. Kennedy felt his own president was the real aggressor.
Mr. Kennedy had two proposals for Andropov, according to Chebrikov. First, he asked for a meeting later that summer in order "to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Second, that "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize…. televised interviews with [Andropov] in the USA."
Ironically, even Senator Kennedy now acknowledges that President Reagan's policy was not only correct, but also was responsible for ending the Cold War.