My aunt forwarded this to me and asked that I try and research it:

Excerpts from Senator Ted Kennedy's letter to Americans with disabilities and their families:

Dear Friends,
I am writing to you to ask your support for my friend and colleague, Senator John Kerry, in his campaign to become the next President of the United States.

For nearly 20 years John and I have fought side-by side in congress to:
--Enact the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
--Pass the Ticket to Work and the Family Opportunity Act so that people with disabilities could live the American Dream__Resist President Bush's plans plans to privatize and dismantle Medicare and Medicaid
--Hold the Administration and Congress accountable for abandoning their promise to fully fund IDEA so that every disabled child has an equal opportunity to succeed

We know millions of Americans with Disabilities and their families are hardest hit by this administration's misplaced priorities. They are being denied the education, employment, and health care they need.

With your help, John Kerry will defeat George W. Bush and put our country back on the path to peace, prosperity, progress and justice for all John Kerry has my unwavering support and that's why I hope he can count on your vote as well. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy

President Bush is no friend of us deaf folks.

The following is my response:

I ran a search and found the following links,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1081169/posts
http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Tom_Vilsack_Education.htm

The first link especially seems to discredit the information you were given. Though I sympathize with the concerns of some special interest groups, I see Sen. Kennedy and anyone else who would try to swing this election on these kind of issues as having a very narrow focus and attempting to use the uglyness of class warfare for political gain. Of course Sen. Kennedy has a "narrow focus" on a wide variety of issues that he distorts to scare voters. His only focus is to defeat Bush using any and every means possible.

The real issue in this election is the security of our nation and who is better equipped to do it. The left has and will continue to use deception and scare tactics to try and woo the undecided vote and sway those who have a real interest in special areas.

I personally have a problem with any funding that goes outside the constitutional mandates. Of course liberal courts have used their authority to expand those mandates to the glee of a political class (both sides of the aisle) who exploits the treasury to motivate voters complicity in maintaining their power. Ultimately what this does is move the constitutional power of our government away from the people (who vote pocketbook over principle) to a central governing authority (actually more the Congress than the Presidency) who vote power over principle. Of course that's a broad statement and there are exceptions, but in today's society and political environment it's the rule.

If we demanded less special funding from government, taxes would go down and more would be available for private funding of these needs. All of those at the trough resist this because federal (public) funding is easier to get than private funding. All you have to do for federal funding is show you are part of the class covered, in private funding you have to show a need.

So, at the risk of angering some of my family, I come down on the side of, if the Bush administration is cutting spending that's a reason to vote for him. I'd like to see much more in the way of cuts. If anything I've been distressed at the seemingly out of control spending the past few years. What concerns me more, outside the security issues, is that were Kerry to win the election, spending would skyrocket and with it taxes. This while 40% of Americans currently pay no income taxes and as of 2001 statistics the top 5% of income earners paid 53.3% of the taxes. For 2003 the top 5% of income earners estimated percentage of the total income taxes increased to 58.8%, in spite of the Bush tax cuts. Kerry says the wealthy are not paying enough. How does that work?

So what about funding for the deaf? Apparently the numbers sited by the NDA and Kennedy are spun to suit their special interests and political position. Why? For no other reason than they want to defeat Bush, maintain and grow their power and care little about the greater issues of our country. Are the concerns cited important if true, certainly. Are they reasons to vote for Kerry, absolutely not.

Hopefully enough voters will use what little integrity they have left and vote on principle and the greater good for America rather than what they hope to get from a candidate who's whole political career since 1971 has been an exercise in deception and duplicity.

PS: A vote for Kerry is a vote for homosexual marriage, for increased abortion, for the abyss of government healthcare, for higher taxes, for restrictions on the freedoms of people of principle (as in religious speech regarding moral issues similar to what you are facing in Canada),for increasing the size and power of government, for diminishing the US relative to the 3rd world nations making up the UN (Kerry's "Global test"), for weakening our military and intelligence capabilities (Kerry has never supported either of those except when campaigning), and for negotiating with terrorists, (Kerry has made statements that we should reason with them).

If this supposed reduction in funding for deaf issues is more important than the above to someone...well.

Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq

I recently took a trip to Potomac, MD, outside Washington, D.C., for training with the Postal Service. It had been many years since I had been to Washington and as I flew into Ronald Reagan National Airport I felt a lump in my throat as I look across the Potomac River and saw the Capitol dome, the Washington Monuments oblisk and the top of the Lincoln Memorial.

Those of us who love our country and have a sense of the history of it find these architechitural homages to the great men and the seat of our government inspiring and comforting. They provide a sense of continuity that is often missing in todays world of video games, faster internet and loosening moral standards. By many standards our country is still young at 230 years old, but by the standard of free democracies, we are the elder statesman.

Before the US came into being the standard was monarchy and feudal states. Those far sighted men of the original colonies wanted more for themselves and their children. And more they got. While the United States is not a pure democracy, that is by design. The founding fathers did not want the tyranny of democracy to overtake their fledgling nation.

Pure democracy has been described as akin to chaos. If you truly consider the basis of democracy, you have to agree. A nation ruled by a mob majority would have never approved the Civil Rights Act, nor would it have elected John Kennedy, a Catholic, president. Of course, at least up to 10 years ago, it would not have voted to allow abortion while at the same time would have opened the treasury of the government to the people and bankrupted her long before any of the above had chance to come about.

The genius of this Republic is that while the voter population gets to elect those who represent them, it is the elected who, hopefully, after serious study and debate, decide not in a moment of emotion but on fact and forward thinking what is best for the nation and her people. Well, that's what's supposed to happen.

Sadly, as we have moved further away from our founding roots, those elected have become more self-centered and aggrandizing, choosing to often political expedience over the needs of the nation and the moral condition of her people. Politicians have crafted an entitlement system unimagined by the founders. A system that encourages dependence on government and penalizes self-reliance.

That flies in the face of those early pioneers who coveted limited government and strong individuals who sought and forged their way through life's struggles, and were the better for it. As individuals became stronger, so became our nation. Her strength is not in the government but in her people. The same people who learn and improve themselves, who work and succede, who struggle and overcome, who's diversity is their strength.

Sadly, our government is filled with men and women who while giving verbal homage to those concepts, legislate to the contrary. Certainly there are some who still believe in their core those principles, but they are increasing becoming harder to find and even now, with Republicans in a slight majority, conservatism is loosing ground in the halls of Congress. And "We the People..." are the worse for it.

Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq

I finally saw the video of last Friday's presidential debates. Was I surprised? (I've tried to distance myself from the commentaries.) No.

Bush is open, honest, what you see is what you get. His strength is in his leadership, organizational skills, honesty and integrity. He knows what is right to keep America strong and will unswervingly move towards it.

Kerry has made a career of putting on a mask, of being duplicitous, of changing with the wind.

Is Kerry a better debater? Certainly. Is Bush a better leader? Of course.

Who do you want for the leader of the greatest nation in the free world? A debater or a leader?

I choose leadership.

Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq