Timothy Birdnow

By Jack Kemp (not the politician):

The Circle of Friends of Retired Vets (www.vetsvision.org) is a longstanding organization which held a gathering last week in Denver for the Democratic Convention. Tuesday night, it was the their turn to gather near the Republican Convention site. Their featured guest speaker was John Voight who sounded anything but like a movie star. There were also two Republican Congressmen as speakers. More about all this later.

First to speak was the president of this veterans group, Brian Hampton, a retired US Air Force officer. He told of the 200,000 homeless vets on the streets of America and his organization’s tireless effort to provide all veterans with better benefits.

Mr. Hampton’s speech was followed by the director of Prodigal House of the Twin Cities, Ernest (sp?) Jackson. Jackson was a former homeless vet on the streets of Chicago who had been placed in rehab by the Circle of Friends of Retired Vets and given a new life of service to his fellow veterans. He remarked that the US provides for its politicians and civil servants, but not nearly as well for its’ veterans. Prodigal House has only 34 bed and the organization has a second shelter of 44 beds, this one for both veteran and non-veteran homeless. In the excitement of the dress-up event with major Minnesota Republicans, Mr. Jackson forgot to intoduce a group of four formerly homeless vets who were now living productlive lives. He remedied that later, introducing the four veterans just before John Voight began to talk.

I’m sure there are a number of readers who consider the efforts of this organization to find only 78 beds to stay in for homeless vets in the Twin Cities as a mere trifle. To that I say we should applaud these efforts by those few among us willing to do something to help. If you REALLY think this number of beds is too low, then their website, www.vetsvision.org , will accept your donations so that they can provide more beds. You can also write Congress to requisition more funds to veterans. In Judiasm, they say that to save one life is to save the world. Figure out how to help more rather than complain that someone else isn’t doing a large enough enough job — without your contribution(s).

The next speaker was former Army officer and FBI Special Agent, now Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan. He told a story of bravery in Afghanistan that I don’t know if I can do justice to in retelling. It was about the type of young people we have in the America today who join the military. A Special Forces Colonel with his senior staff officers were attempting to fly to an area behind the front lines, but storms and the related poor visability resulted in them being dropped virtually at the front, facing about 500 Taliban fighters directly above their position. Being experienced soldiers, they formed a defensive perimiter and radioed for help because they estimated they could only hold off their attackers for a short while. Four thousand feet below them, a group of young US soldiers started a climb with heavy backpacks that succeeded in not only shoring up their commanders’ defenses, but also take the fight to the enemy and save the lives of their senior officers. The young soldiers put their bodies on top of the wounded they found and used that as their position to fire at the enemy.

Speaking briefly was Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, the creator of the first government homeless veterans’ daycare center, and his successful efforts to get activated National Guard reservists the higher federal pay scale in the military.. He spoke of his committment and of his daughter becoming an active duty member of the US Air Force. Cong. Davis stated that, concerning veterans, “the government has failed them.” I believe part of that failure is the public’s being ignorant of what veterans have done in detailed accounts such as those heard at this gathering. I include myself among the members of that public.

The last featured speaker was the movie star and conservative (a rare coupling), John Voight. When the organization’s president Brian Hampton intoduced him, he spoke of Voight clearing his schedule to attend this event and of his ten year involvement with the organization. John Voight was “on” this Tuesday evening, quipping about his taking Basic Training years ago at Ft. Dix, New Jersey when “it was a lot tougher.” He began his speech with a series of amusing anecdotes about the making of “Deliverance” with Burt Reynolds, but making some worthwhile points. Stating that when the actors were lowered down a cliff in rural Georgia, rather than have Voight and Reynolds sit on a rock in the beautiful woods like normal people, the movie company assistants lowered down two “directors’ chairs” for them to relax in.

“That’s why those guys in Hollywood are nuts,” he quipped. “Can you see them threatening to call their agent if a nice chair isn’t lowered down to them in the woods?”

What went unsaid — but not unthought — was that this was pretty soft compared to what the veterans in the room had to deal with in their lives. Voight then made a stark admission before these veterans. He said that during the Vietnam War, he was part of the anti-war movement, that he had had been drawn into the prevailing Sixties attitude, that he knows how Hollywood slants the discussion and coverage in the media and discussion in the schools. Saying that he made many mistakes about politics, life and his career when younger, he now has come to some adult realizations by reaching his 70th year.

“Pickets at funerals (now) are part of the reason guys (vets) are on the streets (homeless).”

He had a point in that the disdain with which many veterans were — and are — held by many lowers their ability to pschologically cope. He added that we can shame people into acting in defense of our veterans. “And we must do that.”

Voight then began talking about Col. George “Bud” Day, a Medal of Honor winner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Day) and John McCain’s superior officer at the “Hanoi Hilton” prison. Col. Day appointed John McCain the chaplain of the prison. McCain resisted this, saying he was not a very spiritual person, but the colonel saw something in him. McCain did not disappoint. In is first sermon, McCain started by mentioning the quote from the Gospels about “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which be Cesar’s; and unto God the things which be God’s.” McCain then said (this is a close approximation), “Do not pray for God to release you (from this prison). Pray for God to give you the strenght to behave as an American.”

Voight then went into more detail about why he deeply believes that John McCain is the right person to be President, about his choice of running mate being a bold decision, and the importance of this 2008 election. He ended his speech by saying he was now a conservative and received a standing ovation. As he made for the exit, the crowd followed him towards the exits. There was nothing more to add.

Jack Kemp

P.S. I want to thank Dana Mathewson for arranging with his friends for my being at this Veterans event which I attended along with him. This account would not have been possible with his efforts.

This from Richard Viguerie:

Manassas, Virginia) Within the next week, Governor Sarah Palin will be defined forever in the eyes of the public, Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com said.

In a statement, Viguerie said:

A critical rule in politics is: Define or be defined. Fairly or unfairly, Dan Quayle’s image was set within days of his selection as a candidate for vice president, and, forever after, the media sought out evidence that fit in with that pre-conceived image.

Liberal Democrats are working quickly to Quayle-ize her. They are downplaying her experience and expertise, and trying to define her as ‘just a little housewife from Alaska.’ And, with the help of their friends in the media, they will get away with it, if the Republicans let them.

There is no one who presents all pluses and no minuses. Sure, it would be better if she had more foreign policy experience, and if she had won the Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes, while flying the space shuttle and curing cancer. But she is someone who represents the values and worldview of the American people.

And she has the toughness to be president. She has spent her political career standing up to powerful men ranging from the state Republican chairman to the previous governor to the presidents of Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum. Honestly, who is more likely to be another Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher? Sarah Palin or Joe Biden? Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?

By many measures, she outshines Barack Obama in terms of experience, especially in fighting political corruption and making us energy independent. And while he has spent the last couple of years running for president, she has spent the last couple of years running a state.

As for Joe Biden, he has foreign policy experience, all right – the wrong kind of foreign policy experience. He and those who represent the Harvard-Princeton-Yale ‘best and the brightest’ way of thinking have caused untold suffering for the world’s people. They extended the Cold War by decades, did almost nothing as terrorists waged war on America in the ’90s, and stood by as genocide was committed in Rwanda and Darfur.

In the effort to beat Sarah Palin, liberal Democrats will play to every sexist stereotype that has kept women ‘in their place’ in the past. They consider conservative women ‘uppity,’ and won’t stand for Sarah Palin being vice president and someday president.

They are terrified at the prospect that the first woman vice president and possibly the first woman president might be a conservative Republican. A few years ago, they were likewise terrified by Clarence Thomas and the prospect that that the country’s most powerful African-American would be a conservative Republican. They trashed Clarence Thomas and continue to trash him in the most racist and hateful ways, and they won’t hesitate to do something similar to Sarah Palin.

If Republicans think they won’t do it, they don’t know liberal Democrats like I do.“
– 30 –

Wil Wirtanen forwards this Wall Street Journal piece:

Bush Has a Good Economic Record
By KEITH MARSDEN
September 3, 2008; Page A23

Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush’s economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party’s call for “change,” and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a “third Bush term,” delegates groaned.

Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush’s presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom’s, 37% above Germany’s and 38% more than Japan’s.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg’s, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.

While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany’s), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.

When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.

The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad — an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton’s term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party’s criticism of President Bush’s economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a “social justice” strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in “old” industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.

Mr. Marsden, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an adviser at the World Bank and a senior economist in the International Labor Organization.

Here is a letter in the Wall Street Journal that makes a huge case for the Vice-Presidential nominee:

“Under 45, lover of the outdoors, a Republican reformer who has taken on the Republican Party establishment, has many children, and a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor’s office — you describe Teddy Roosevelt in 1900 and Sarah Palin in 2008.“

Alec Ellison
Rye, N.Y.

Thanks to Wil Wirtanen