John Kerry History Page
In no way is this the views of 25th Aviation.org, It is strictly a research page of My Own , on one
man,by one man.

 It is not a Republican Page, A Democrat page, a Dog Catcher Page, or anything else.

 If someone can pass me along something positive about John Kerry that he has done for vets, or the
military I will promptly post that  also , So send it in, I am all ears.


This is America, built on Dissent, right John?
Aaaah the smell of Napalm In The Morning.....Bring It On!




Dec 30 2012


Gen. Patrick Brady rejects Obama candidates for top Cabinet posts

Kerry & Hagel: Both unfit for duty

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady

By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)

As the nation recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War, two veterans of that war are front-runners for high office: John Kerry for secretary of state and Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Unfortunately, neither one possesses the exceptional qualities of the typical Vietnam veteran. Both are willing pawns of a president who has no clue on foreign relations and is emasculating our military – our surest guarantor of peace and the one governmental institution that still works.

Hagel, who once denounced the ambassadorial appointment of a homosexual and homosexual conduct in the military under “don’t ask don’t tell,” now supports a quad sexual (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and transgender) military. As a tribute to his loyalty and military prescience, he turned on his commander in chief, President Bush, denouncing the war in Iraq, which he voted for, and called President Bush’s successful surge “the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” He also said, “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic. … But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships.” Our relationship with Israel, by definition, affects our relationship with Arabs and Muslims. Change one and you change the other, which may be Obama’s goal.

Get the full account of Gen. Brady’s Vietnam rescue operations in his book, “Dead Men Flying,” a riveting tale from America’s most decorated living soldier – autographed!

Hagel joins political turncoats such as Sen. James Webb who sniff out media opinion and polls to determine what they believe and to fulfill their selfish ambitions. This man is an opportunist and a mediaphobe low on character and conviction.

But with all his shortfalls, Vietnam veteran Hagel cannot match the duplicity and dishonor of our most infamous Vietnam veteran, John Kerry. Kerry once defined patriotism as “keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of this country.” By his own definition he is not a patriot. In his bid for the presidency, he often played the “hero” card – but before Kerry played his “hero” card, he played the atrocity card. When Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971 denounced “those who wear the uniform” as terrorist-like rapists and assassins who “cut off heads, taped wires … to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks” – and said he “committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others.” He made these charges under oath.

The very day Kerry was calling Vietnam veterans war criminals the family of one of those “war criminals,” Michael Blanchfield, was posthumously receiving the Medal of Honor for Michael who had thrown himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. How different from Kerry was the way this man kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. How different from Kerry was the manner Michael defended his country.

Kerry could have attacked the war without attacking the warrior. He could have questioned policy without supporting the communists’ claim that our soldiers were war criminals. He could have kept faith with those who wore the uniform with him. But he did not, and he should be held accountable. Kerry’s “hero” card is based on medals he received in Vietnam and is much celebrated, and unchallenged, by the mainstream media. I know many Medal of Honor recipients who have received less publicity for their medal than Kerry has for his. But medals don’t make a hero. It is goodness and how one uses medals that make a hero. Every honest soldier knows that medals are a function of circumstance, even happenstance, but most of all the support of one’s fellow warriors.

I was awarded the Medal of Honor; but my fellow soldiers who supported me in the actions and took the time to write it up earned it. I wear it for them; they own my medals. And every Medal of Honor recipient and hero I know believes as I do. Medals should be a sign of patriotism, a symbol of sacrifice, support and defense of a great nation. The highest form of patriotism is service to our youth; heroes also wear their medal for them to signal the importance of courage. Heroes do not use their medals for personal political gain. As I said, they are not theirs to use. What Kerry/Fonda and the media elite did to the Vietnam veteran and his family is deplorable. Not just the living but also those who died and their families who questioned if a loved one is a war criminal. And the POWs, some who believed the Kerry/Fonda cartel extended the war, increased their torture and filled more body bags.

Sen. Kerry threw his medals away (or ribbons, they are symbolically the same), a political act very difficult for any veteran to understand. He must have been proud of them, for he wore them even on his fatigues, in violation of all regulations. But they were not his. They belonged to those whom he served. By that act he symbolically denounced his fellow veterans – again. Does one keep faith with those who wear the uniform by throwing away their medals?

But perhaps most telling of his leadership qualities is his use of his Purple Hearts to abandon his band of brothers, his command, on a technicality. Kerry may be the only person in history who took advantage of a Navy regulation that allowed him to leave his command after four months for three Purple Hearts, none of which ever caused him to miss a day of duty. In my experience men fought to stay with their band of brothers, especially commanders.

All the commanders I know would get out of a hospital bed to be with their men. Today I see limbless troops, struggling to recuperate, with one goal – return to their fellow warriors. Someone had to take Kerry’s place; someone probably less experienced who would have to learn the ropes. That put his command more at risk than if he stayed. It is not hard to understand why those who witnessed Kerry’s actions, and served their time, deplore his desertion of his command. His abuse of veterans and misuse of his medals should bring into serious question his loyalty, integrity and character, all of which equal leadership. He is not fit for high office.

Sadly these are exactly the kind of men one would expect President Obama to select, men lacking leadership qualities, political grovelers who fit perfectly with the Obama/Panetta doctrine defined by Panetta to excuse the disaster at Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. …” That statement is a contradiction of the ethos of this country and every warrior who ever fought for it.

By that standard there would have been no Normandy or Inchon. In fact I cannot think of a war we fought in which we did not go into harm’s way without real-time information; or to save lives – something the president and secretary of defense refused to do in Benghazi. It contradicts the essence of compassion and courage, the foundation of all our wars – indeed, even of policeman and fireman.

We need a secretary of state who denounces the Obama/Panetta doctrine, who would not have abandoned the Americans at Benghazi. Kerry is not that man; he abandoned his command in Vietnam. We need a secretary of defense who reflects the character and conviction of the warriors in the Department of Defense, Hagel is not that man.


Feb 22, 2012

John Kerry calls for US funding to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood    
Published by Trinity on 2011/12/16  

    

Kerry kissing Khameni.jpg


Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Ma) is in Egypt where he has been sucking up to the Muslim Brotherhood. With the US already $15 trillion in debt, Kerry wants the International Monetary Fund - for which the US provides the largest piece of the budget - to finance the Muslim Brotherhood's takeover of Egypt.

In addition to praising the Brotherhood’s election as a model of transparency and integrity, Sen. Kerry also called for an infusion of cash from the International Monetary Fund to undergird Egypt’s new Islamist government.

The United States, though over $15 trillion in debt, is the leading contributor-nation to the IMF, providing close to a fifth of its funding. That is about three times as much as second-place Japan, more than four times as much as China, more than six times as much as the leading Islamist country (Saudi Arabia), and more than the combined contributions of the three top European donors — Germany, Britain and France. (See Wikipedia Table, here.) Consequently, a cash infusion by the IMF to the Brotherhood-led Egyptian government would be a redistribution of wealth from American taxpayers to Islamists whose goal is to conquer American taxpayers — assuming, of course, there is any money left in the IMF after the Obama administration gets done using it as the device through which tapped out American taxpayers bail out, at least temporarily, Europe’s collapsing experiment in trans-continental socialism.

Ironically, Kerry’s overtures and pledge of support to the Brotherhood come only a few days after a federal appeals court upheld the convictions of five top Brotherhood operatives in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the Justice Department’s most significant terrorism support conspiracy prosecution in recent years. As the proof overwhelming demonstrated, the Brotherhood, through its American affiliates, channeled millions of dollars to Hamas to support terror operations against Israel. Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, and underwriting its campaign to destroy Israel has long been a top priority for the Brotherhood’s satellite organizations in the West — many of which were designated “unindicted coconspirators” by the Justice Department in the HLF case, and shown by the evidence to have abetted the Hamas-support scheme.

What could go wrong?

March 14 2008
Sen. Kerry Confronted About Winter Soldier II

Jason Mattera caught the surprised Senator in a cloud of lies easily proven wrong

By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008

Sen. John Kerry is notorious for his anti-war stance and personal testimony against U.S. soldiers with whom he served in Vietnam. His story has been raked across news wires over the years but how often are his words challenged as lies? Jason Mattera, of Young America's Foundation, caught up with Sen. Kerry to confront him about the 1971 "Winter Soldier Investigation." Now, Iraq Veterans Against the War are instigating a second "Winter Soldier Investigation." The four day "investigation" begins today so Mattera asked Kerry if he had any advice for those activists. Not surprisingly, he said little, denied his own documented quotes and lied about criminal charges being filed as a result. The end of the encounter is the best part -- watch to see:

Also on YouTube.

***
Here’s the transcript:

Opening slate: On January 31, 1971, John Kerry organized the ?Winter Soldier Investigations,? a media event that falsely accused American soldiers of routinely raping, torturing, and murdering innocent Vietnamese civilians.

Second slate: From March 13-16, 2008, ?Iraq Veterans Against the War? has coordinated a second Winter Soldier Investigations in an effort to assail the U.S. Military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Third slate: On March 11, 2008, Jason Mattera of Young America?’s Foundation confronted Senator Kerry (D-MA) about Winter Soldier II and the Senator?’s shady past.

MATTERA: Hey, Sen. Kerry! Jason Mattera with Young America’s Foundation. How are you?

KERRY: Jason. How are you?

MATTERA: I was wondering: Do you have any advice for the new group of activists who are organizing Winter Soldier II?

KERRY: I haven’t [unintelligble] what they’re doing or where they’re at. I just don’t…

MATTERA: Do you think this crop of anti-war activists, do you there’ll be any frauds like Al Hubbard?

KERRY: I have no idea. I hope not.

MATTERA: Do you think that they will make slanderous accusations–accusing the troops of raping women, pillaging villaging, just like you did to the Fulbright committee?

KERRY: Uh, I didn’t make those.

MATTERA: You didn’t?

Audio clip, John Kerry, 4/22/71: [They told the stories at times] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry claims Winter Soldier Investigations were substantiated by further investigation.

MATTERA: Did you ever verify those

KERRY (crosstalk): I’ve been misquoted about that hundreds of times.

MATTERA: So you never substantiated those charges before you–

KERRY: I proposed–I gave them to the committee because I felt that they ought to be investigated and that’s exactly what I said. These are the–many of those charges, incidentally, were subsequently verified by different entities.

Slate: No criminal charges were filed as a result of any of the [Army’s Criminal Investigative Division] investigations into Winter Soldier.

FrontPageMag.com, February 25, 2008

Slate: Much of the testimony that will be heard during the three days could not be corroborated by the Free Press in the ten days it had to run down each account.

Detroit Free Press, January 31, 1971

MATTERA: Could you sign the picture of the dedication the North Vietnamese created in helping–claiming you helped them win the war?

KERRY: No. No.

MATTERA: Do you have any thoughts?

KERRY (puts hand on Jason’s shoulder): Who do you represent?

MATTERA: Young America’s Foundation.

KERRY: Ohhh.

MATTERA: Does it bother you that the North Vietnamese created a memorial dedicated to you?

KERRY: It’s not dedicated to me.

Slate: At the Communists War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, John Kerry’s picture hangs in a section dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War.

End slate:

Reputations ruined.
Lives torn apart.
Servicemen maligned.

We can’t let lies like Kerry’s go unchallenged again.

***


January 10 2007

 Former Dem nominee Kerry endorses Obama

By NEDRA PICKLER and ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writers 4 minutes ago

CHARLESTON, S.C. - John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, gave Barack Obama a timely endorsement Thursday, snubbing Hillary Rodham Clinton as well as his own vice presidential running mate.

Kerry came to South Carolina to embrace Obama, two weeks before the state's primary and with Obama needing a boost after Clinton's emotional victory over him in New Hampshire.

Quoting a black American hero in endorsing the man who hopes to be the first black president, Kerry told a cheering crowd, "Martin Luther King said that the time is always right to do what is right." Now is the time, Kerry said, to declare "that Barack Obama can be, will be and should be the next president of the United States."

The Massachusetts senator said there were other candidates he had worked with and respected but Obama was best able to bring Americans together.

"Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics so that Democrat, independent and Republican alike can look to leadership that unites to find the common ground?" Kerry said. "That's what this is about."

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the third contender in the Democratic presidential race, was Kerry's vice presidential running mate in 2004. Despite their political alliance, the two men were not close personally and differed behind the scenes on campaign strategy in a race that President Bush won.

Edwards responded to word of the endorsement with a diplomatic statement: "Our country and our party are stronger because of John's service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues."

Edwards defeated Kerry in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary. Kerry had considered running again but decided a year ago he would not.

Kerry dismissed Obama critics who say the Illinois senator lacks the experience to be president. And he took a swipe at Clinton, saying, "Some have suggested in this campaign that Barack is guilty of raising 'false hopes.' ... My friends, the only charge that rings false is the one that tells you not to hope for a better tomorrow."

In a debate in New Hampshire, the New York senator said in comparing her ability and Obama's to fulfill pledges to bring about change: "I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made."

Returning to the subject, Obama said when he took the microphone from Kerry: "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

Obama supporters were hoping the timing of Kerry's endorsement could give him a lift as he seeks to put his New Hampshire primary loss behind him. Obama also picked up the endorsement of South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson.

Obama praised Kerry's Vietnam War service, calling him a patriot and a man of conviction.

Kerry was Obama's political benefactor once before, selecting the relatively unknown Illinois senatorial candidate to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. It was Obama's first turn in the national spotlight and helped launch him on a remarkable ascent that has made him one of two leading contenders for the party's presidential nomination only four years later.

Kerry had withheld his endorsement, hoping to have an impact on the race and avoid the fate of fellow Democrat Al Gore, the 2000 nominee who endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 shortly before the former Vermont governor's campaign imploded. Gore has made no endorsement so far this year.

While Kerry has been close to Clinton's husband, the former president, he was incensed in 2006 when she chided him after Kerry suggested that people who don't go to school "get stuck in Iraq." Aides said Kerry meant to jab at Bush and say "get us stuck in Iraq," and that he didn't appreciate Clinton piling onto the criticism he was already getting for the remark.

Kerry's own hopes to run for president this year fizzled with that botched comment. For many Democrats, his words revived bitter memories of his missteps in 2004. troop withdrawal deadlines. In another area, he has backed environmental causes, writing a book with his wife on the issue.

Kerry should be able to provide some organizational and fundraising muscle to Obama.

Since losing the 2004 race, Kerry has kept a national network of supporters intact. He has an e-mail network of 3 million supporters, according to aides. He also has traveled extensively raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates nationwide.

The Republican National Committee was dismissive about Thursday's endorsement, branding Kerry and Obama "liberal soul mates."

___

Associated Press Writer Andrew Miga reported from Washington. AP Writer Glen Johnson contributed to this report.

Excellent!! This should sink Obama, not help him




November 8 2007

Medal Of Honor Recipient Col. Bud Day On The Liberal's "War On America"

Medal ofHonor Recipient Colonel Bud Day

My Dear Fellow Americans:

For the last few weeks, the "Liberal's War on America" has gone badly.

* MoveOn, the New York Times, and Senators who accused Gen. Petraeus of being a traitor and a liar have been exposed and repudiated;

* The media's attempted flim-flam to portray Iran's Terrorist Dictator as a "Statesman," tripped on Columbia University's red carpet;

* The brave combat Marines whom Congressman Murtha and the press eagerly charged with "cold-blooded murders" in Iraq are being found innocent, acquitted one by one.

The "War" is not going well . the "War On America," that is.

Those who claim they "Support the Troops" are finally being unmasked, shown for being the cowards they are. But, it won't be long before they regroup, begin their own "Surge" in this decades-long "War On America." We won't stand by quietly when they do; nor, should you.

My fellow POWs and I have long known the contempt the extreme Left has for our military. We felt the crush of rifle butts in our faces, beatings and unspeakable torture in the Hanoi Hilton Prison when we refused to kowtow to American traitors who traveled to these countries for propaganda "photo-ops" with our Communist jailors.
The so-called "anti-war movement," lead by the likes of Lt. John Kerry and his mentor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, also said they "supported the troops". What they didn't say is whose "troops."

We knew the answer then, we were witnesses and victims. It's the same today. They "support" America's enemies, any Communist Regime, Dictator or Terrorists that vow to kill and maim American soldiers and innocent civilians.

American soldiers in Vietnam were falsely accused of being a "barbarian horde," "rapists," "murderers," "drug addicts" and "baby killers."

Today, their sons, daughters and grandchildren serving in uniform stand accused of being "terrorists," "Nazis," "cold-blooded murderers," people who wantonly conduct "air raids on villages" bombing and killing civilians.

Every one of those spurious accusations were spewed from the Halls of Congress, most often by the same men and women who voted to send America's youth to war, only to denounce, vilify and abandon them later, when the opportunity for personal, political advantage presented itself.

When I and my fellow veterans - POWs, Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Navy Swift Boat combat veterans alike - attempted to warn America about one of the most notorious turncoats from the Vietnam era, we were initially ignored by the mainstream media.

When the press and TV networks could no longer cover-up for John Kerry's very public treasonous conduct, we were accused of being "serial liars," shouted down by Leftist political campaign operatives disguised as "journalists." All the while the networks kept the film evidence of Lt. Kerry's betrayal under lock and key, where it remains hidden from the American public even today.

The recent treatment accorded Gen. Petraeus by the same radicals in Congress and the media was strikingly similar to our experiences in 2004. Before he uttered a single word, this highly decorated combat veteran, a man of great honor who has risked his life many times in the defense of our country, stood accused, disparaged and berated by a pack of power-hungry shirkers and slackers unworthy to polish his combat medals.

Veterans who attempted to expose Sen. Kerry in 2004 were treated no better. But, Kerry and his band of Leftist comrades had something special in store for me and my fellow POWs and their wives. We were sued repeatedly for three long years, forced to spend $1 million just to defend ourselves in several frivolous lawsuits.

What did we do to cause such a prolonged, vindictive assault? We told the truth no Mainstream Media news operation wanted the American public to know, then or now.
Dozens of my fellow POWs and their wives participated in a documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal." In that film we said Kerry and his anti-war followers were liars and frauds working on behalf of our brutal Communists captors. Their collaboration with the enemy prolonged our captivity and the Vietnam War itself by years. Their vicious lies accusing us and all U.S. servicemen of being "war criminals" put our lives and the lives of Americans still fighting on the battlefield in grave danger.

Worse of all, Kerry's self-aggrandizing, false accusations against American soldiers who had born the brunt of the bleeding and dying in Vietnam, spawned the myths our young men and women in Iraq today are forced to defend against, even as they fight for their lives on the battlefield each and every day.

You can draw a straight line from the deceitful Leftist tactics used to bring America's defeat and dishonor in Vietnam to Iraq today.

America's military didn't lose the Vietnam War. Congress declared defeat, voted to abandon South Vietnam nearly two years after our last combat troops left. That sell-out, not only of our South Vietnam ally, but the nearly 60,000 Americans who gave their lives on the battlefield, ignited a genocidal holocaust throughout Southeast Asia that can still only be measured in the millions, an estimated three to five million innocent civilians brutally murdered.

We cannot let that happen again. We will not let that happen. You can stand shoulder to shoulder with us to prevent that from happening.

Three years ago, I and my fellow POWs and Vietnam combat veterans created a non-profit organization, " The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation". Our mission was simple, to set the record straight about the Vietnam War and those who served and fought there. Little did we know then we'd be slapped with multiple lawsuits for daring to uncover the layer upon layer of lies that constitute the false Vietnam History.

Nor, could we know then the Left's plans to use the same Vietnam blueprint for defeat in Iraq. Little wonder Kerry and his followers wanted to sue us into silence! But, we prevailed. We successfully defended against each of those lawsuits, all have now been withdrawn. And, we will not remain silent any longer.

Our research into the Vietnam War, most especially, those individuals and organizations responsible for creating the completely false history of Vietnam, is voluminous, factual and compelling. We have amassed a virtual library of records, documents and eyewitness testimony that proves, conclusively, the popular history of Vietnam is pure bunk, propaganda.

Once we get the truth out to the American people, there will be winners. Those winners will be every man and woman who has served in our Armed Forces. To them and their families, this is a war we cannot lose.

The "War On America" is just heating up again. What we do now will dictate America's future, whether it is one of victory over terrorism, or, decades more of defeat, humiliation in a lost, but noble cause.

God Bless You and America,

Col. Bud Day


May 8 2007

No Hearings From Senator John Kerry On Multi Billion Dollar Small Business Contracting Scandal, Says The American Small Business League


PETALUMA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Despite years of complaints about the Bush Administration policies that have allowed Fortune 1000 firms to receive billions of dollars in Federal small business contracts, Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Chairman John Kerry has disappointed small business owners across America by declining to schedule hearings to investigate the abuses, according to American Small Business League.

In January of 2005, Kerry accused the Small Business Administration of, “Fostering an atmosphere that encourages widespread fraud and abuse in small business contracting.” Yet, he has to draft legislation to resolve the issue or schedule oversight hearings.

In Report 5-15, the SBA’s Office of Inspector General referred to the diversion of federal small business contracts to large businesses as one of the biggest challenges facing the nation today. They also found large businesses that had illegally received federal small business contracts by fraudulently representing themselves as small businesses.
Investigative stories by ABC, CBS and CNN have uncovered firms like Boeing, IBM, BAE, Northrop Grumman, L3 Communications, Rolls Royce, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin have all received millions in U.S. Government small business contracts.

Since 2002, over a dozen federal investigations have found that fraud, a lack of oversight, regulatory loopholes and bureaucratic error have allowed hundreds of large businesses to receive billions of dollars in government contracts earmarked for small businesses. To date, no legislation has been passed to address the issue.
Small business owners and advocates point out that Senator Kerry’s Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee website seems to completely ignore the diversion of billions of dollars in small business contracts to Fortune 1000 firms.

Instead of focusing his attention on an issue that small business advocates believe has diverted over $60 billion a year in federal small business contracts to many of the largest firms in the country, Kerry has focused the Committee’s attention on issues small business owners feel are significantly less critical to their immediate survival, according to American Small Business League.

A Bush Administration policy set to go into effect in June will allow Fortune 1000 firms to receive federal small business contracts until the year 2012. So far, congress has not passed legislation to stop the policy from taking effect.

Small business advocates are hoping that Senator Kerry will draft legislation that will once and for all remove Fortune 1000 companies from all federal small business contracting programs.


MAJOR MARK A. SMITH
UNITED STATES ARMY (RETIRED)


SUBJECT: NEVER AGAIN!

I write this letter not with a heavy heart, but with outright indignation. The statements in it are directed to all segments of the American body politic, media and just uncaring and wavering citizens. You are held up to ridicule by much of the world and it has nothing to do with our Government and military not bowing to the United Nations or some ‘ World Court.’ It is because of our lack of unity and the perception the average American does not know a thing about the rest of the world. That is unfortunately true. You were led by the very same personalities and organizations down the road to your willing defeat in Southeast Asia.Not the defeat of our valiant military and those of our allies but, yours.

NEVER AGAIN!

How easy are you to lead down the road to defeat?

Please allow me to refresh your memories. Contrary to what the media and politicians put out today I and my brave fellow warriors were participating in the Vietnam War when it was popular. Did our battlefield defeats, like the French, lead to a demand for us to quit and pull out? Oh no, it was you on the homefront who lost heart initially, listening to the very same voices you are listening to today. The claim was that American Soldiers and Marines could not find this elusive enemy and could not defeat him because this kind of war could not be won. We beat that five-foot tall, eighty five-pound sucker into dog dirt and our very own media called it a ‘defeat.’ Cronkite said it and you, not us but you, believed it then and too many of you darned fools believe it today. This time we will require truth and you will listen to us and not the mob.
NEVER AGAIN!

John Kerry is not your President today because of us, the real veterans of the Vietnam War. He was not ‘SWIFTBOATED’; he was knocked out by we who actually know what a low-life nobody of war he was in his few months in Vietnam. The ‘Swift Boats and POWs For Truth’ are not some right wing lobby, they are we and we are they. You want to use our dead, many of whom may be rightly laid at your and Cronkite’s feet? Not this time you uneducated in war fools. You want to make movies and then tell us you are experts on the real world? Sean Penn is a punk with no experience in the world, which allows him to sit in judgement on any real man. He is a pretender. That is his job! He, like Jane Fonda before him, has no special insight into politics or war. They are pretenders and it is their function to play real or imagined people and make themselves believable on the screen. But once again, they and you want to extend that to real life?
NEVER AGAIN!

You have the gall to allow Dan Rather to march out in front of you on the screen and proclaim himself a ‘former Marine’? He got the boot in boot camp and never made it to being a Marine.How dare you tarnish the image of a brave and legendary branch of service by allowing that quitter to claim he was one of them. You then want to hold up Murtha and Kerry as people to be listened to about the military and wars? They were the least of us and you want to shove them in our faces again and proclaim them ‘heroes’? Not this time boys and girls because we are not going to put up with it.
NEVER AGAIN!

You want to come to our wall and use it to make some political point and bring another generation to battlefield defeat? You are not going to shout us down this time. You come near that wall and it had better be with nothing but quiet respect. We do not ask this by appealing to you as fellow Americans. We know this does no good with your ilk. We require you to show respect to our fallen brethren, those still missing, and those serving today and to us. This is not a request, it is an order. An order from the only group with the authority to give it: US! We earned the right on terrible battlefields, for you to listen to us and not Fonda, Penn, Kerry or even a fallen honorable man’s mother. He is us and we are him and if he died, it was with us and not with you.
NEVER AGAIN!

In closing let me say that we by being who we really were on the battlefield, need not even raise our voices or fists to the mob. You shall by your very presence and bearing show you are greater men and women than any whom mount their podium. By merely looking them in the eye directly, you will say to those of ill intent on our sacred ground:

YOU SHALL NOT PASS, NEVER AGAIN!

God Bless you all, at home and on the battlefield and
God Bless America.

MARK 'ZIPPO' SMITH


Zippo Smiths NVA Hunting Club
RVN - 1966 to 1973
C Co. 1/506th BN 101 ABN
03/70 to 10/70
WIA / POW
1972 / 1973


1/24/2007
 John Kerry NOT RUNNING for President 2008!!!!
(Mission Accomplished)




12/29/2006
Troops halp Jon Carry in Irak
On his visit to Iraq, Senator Kerry apparently got something like the silent treatment from the troops who are "stuck" there. WDAY's Scott Hennen quotes a message from a friend serving in Iraq:

This is a true story....Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday morning. Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are obviously not troops.

What is amazing is Bill O'Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!
Scott comments:
Again I say..."GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS for all they do and all their sacrifice.






Kennedy won't wait indefinitely for Kerry's 2008 decision

December 11, 2006

WASHINGTON --Sen. Edward M. Kennedy isn't waiting much longer for fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to decide whether he will again seek the presidency -- not that Kennedy is ready to abandon Kerry for someone else.

Kennedy told The Boston Globe on Monday that he had assumed Kerry would reach a decision by early 2007. Kerry, however, has yet to set a specific deadline for an announcement.

Even though Kennedy has said he would support another run by Kerry, the senior senator from the Bay State said Monday that he would not wait indefinitely for Kerry to make up his mind and has informed Kerry that he may get behind another Democrat for president.
"I was under more of the impression before that he was going to run and was waiting in time (to declare his candidacy), but now he's deferred that decision," Kennedy said. "I have no plans of supporting anyone else at this juncture. I'm also not going to just wait indefinitely until he's made a judgment or a decision."

Kennedy had kind words for two Democratic hopefuls, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, whom he called "formidable figures" connecting with rank-and-file Democrats.

David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, told the Globe that Kerry realizes that he must decide soon.

"He has no intention of waiting too long, kicking the can down the road, or holding this decision in limbo," Wade said.
Kerry delayed a decision about a 2008 race after he was widely criticized for what he called a "botched joke" aimed at President Bush and his handling of the Iraq war, a comment shortly before the November elections that Republicans deemed an insult to U.S. troops.


Dec  5, 2006

"Senator Kerry" ,  Damn you.

You are a bumbling idiot. My son, Cory, left the Computer Engineering Program at West Virginia University, a superlative educational institution, to volunteer to serve in the United States Marine Corps. He made it to Recon in less than one year, completing over a dozen schools, finishing with top scores in every single one of them. Cory, along with every Recon Marine, was/is a brilliant young man. They all volunteered - there is no draft as there was when you were in the Armed Forces. Cory, along with other Recon Marines, died as the result of an IED explosion in May, 2006. These men, along with their peers, are superior in intellect. How dare you d= ishonor them by your careless words. You are a stupid, self-absorbed, fool.

I am not speaking as a member of any political party - in fact, I support more democrats at this juncture than republicans. But I loathe the disdain you display for my son and those whose magnificent service was given for something they held so dear to their hearts - freedom.

I pray that your political future is doomed. You are a detriment to every democrat with whom you associate. If in deed, your words were, as you say, intended as a joke, then you are heartless. My son's life is certainly more than a joke. He and these almost 3,000 young men and women who have died with him, are much more valued and loved than to be used as pawns in your own petty political pundits.

You were not misunderstood. You were clearly heard and understood by us all. You were on national television. You are utterly disrespectful of our sons and of us, their families. I will work tirelessly to bring you down. You discredit every member of the Armed Forces. Not only are these troops more savvy than ever before in history, so are their commanding officers, many of whom have advanced educational degrees. You, John Kerry, are nothing but scum. Spare us from the further desecration of our troops and the superlative military minds that truly do serve our nation. Remove yourself from the limelight and step down from office, NOW.

VERY sincerely,

Mrs. Danna Swain Palmer,
 Proud Mom of Fallen Marine, Cpl. Cory Leonard Palmer,
 USMC, Recon.



8 Nov 2006

 This came from a friend of mine who goes to my church. I wish everyone could see it.

I salute this young man and agree with him completely. I have a son-in-law who has served three tours in Iraq and was proud to do so. He feels exactly the same way this young Marine does. Thank God for them, for all the troops who serve their country.

Subject: Response to Sen Kerry

I think this should be shared with everyone...


Yesterday John Kerry said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq”

So I wrote him a letter:

I am a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently on my second tour in Iraq, a tour in which I volunteered for. I speak Arabic and Spanish and I plan to tackle Persian Farsi soon. I have a Bachelors and an Associates Degree and between deployments I am pursuing an M.B.A. In college I was a member of several academic honor societies, including the Golden Key Honor Society. I am not unique among the enlisted troops. Many of my enlisted colleagues include lawyers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, musicians and artists just to name a few. You say that your comments were directed towards the President and not us. If we were stupid Senator Kerry, we might have believed you.

I am not a victim of President Bush. I proudly serve him because he is my Commander and Chief. If it was you who was President, I would serve you just as faithfully. I serve America Senator Kerry, and I am also providing a service to the good people of Iraq. I have not terrorized them in the middle of the night, raped them or murdered them as you have accused me of before. I am doing my part to help them rebuild. My role is a simple one, but important. You see Senator Kerry, like it or not, we came here and removed a tyrant (who terrorized Iraqis in the middle of the night, and raped them and murdered them). And we have a responsibility to see to it that another one doesn’t take his place. The people of Iraq are recovering from an abusive relationship with a terrible government and it’s going to take some time to help them recover from that. We can’t treat this conflict like a microwave dinner and throw a temper tantrum because we feel like it’s taking too long.

Senator Kerry, you don’t have to agree with this war. You don’t have to say nice things about those of us who choose to make sacrifices for the rights of every American rather than sit back and simply feel entitled to it. But please Senator Kerry, if you’re going to call me a stupid murdering rapist, stick by what you say. Don’t tell me that I misunderstood or that you would never insult a veteran because you’re one too. Having been there and done that does not give you a free pass to insult me.
My suggestion for you, Senator Kerry, is to remember that your speeches are recorded, and broadcast to us simpletons over here. You may want to write down what you want to say before you say it, maybe have somebody look at it before you say it and tell you what others might hear. Remember that we can’t read your mind, if there are any misinterpretations in what you say, it’s because you didn’t communicate clearly.

Good luck to you Senator Kerry, if nothing else it’s always entertaining to watch you try and climb out of the holes that you constantly dig for yourself.
Sincerely, Somebody who is watching his daughter grow up in photographs so that you can have the right to say whatever you want about him.

Sgt Aaron.......


5 Nov 2006

Kerry deletes data on cash for Dems

November 5, 2006

BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist

As the furor widened over Sen. John Kerry's insulting remarks about U.S. troops in Iraq, his Web site pulled down a listing of $4.2 million in contributions he had sent this year to 36 candidates for Congress.

Kerry, eyeing another presidential candidacy in 2008, has traveled the country raising funds for key contests in Tuesday's midterm elections. The deleted information on the Kerry Web site displayed the photos of his beneficiaries: 18 Senate candidates receiving $3.2 million and 18 House candidates getting $1 million.

The largest contribution was $586,000 to Pennsylvania state Treasurer Bob Casey, who is running well ahead of Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Information on the donation to Casey is being used by Republicans in the final days of the campaign.



1 Nov 2006

Scarborough: What is wrong with John Kerry?
Kerry has apologized for being "misinterpreted" about his remarks

COMMENTARY
By Joe Scarborough
Host, ‘Scarborough Country’
MSNBC
Updated: 4:09 p.m. CT Nov 1, 2006
Joe Scarborough
Host, ‘Scarborough Country’

"It’s sad. So sad.
It’s a sad, sad situation
And it’s getting more and more absurd
It’s sad. So sad. Why can’t we talk it over?
Oh it seems to me
Sorry seems to be the hardest word."
--  Elton John

What is wrong with John Kerry? What is missing from the Massachusetts senator’s makeup that will not allow him to admit that he’s human? And why did he wait so long to clean up a political mess that hurt his party in the short run and damaged his own long-term presidential prospects?

This is, after all, a guy who called the secret service member assigned to protect his life a “son of a bitch” for colliding with him on a ski slope. When asked later by a reporter about falling down, Kerry angrily declared, “I do not fall down.”




Posted Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006

John Kerry, Still One Step Behind

Once again, the former Presidential candidate deals with a gaffe by trying to compensate for his last mistake. Karl Rove is cheering

By KAREN TUMULTY

You've got to wonder about John Kerry's eye-hand coordination. His career is falling into a pattern. Whenever Kerry is confronted with a big decision, he tries to compensate for his last mistake. He voted against the first Iraq war, which turned out to be a success. So when the second one came around, he swallowed his misgivings and voted for it. That also turned out to be a mistake. So when it came time to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war that he had voted for, he produced what must be the single most damaging sound bite in modern political history by voting for it before he voted against it.

So now, when U.S. troops are suffering their worst casualties in nearly two years, he insulted them. Could Karl Rove have dreamed up a better October surprise than having the Democrats' most recent choice for Commander in Chief suggest that the men and women are dying there because they weren't smart enough to get into law school?

His initial impulse, predictably enough, was to fight back against the criticism. He didn't want to fall again into what turned out to be the biggest trap of 2004, when he failed to understand that a relatively small ad buy from a group that no one had ever heard of could be more damaging than he imagined. He was determined not to be "swift-boated" again. So he declared: "If anyone owes our troops in the fields an apology, it is the President and his failed team and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp — rubber-stamp policies that have done injury to our troops and to their families." But even Rand Beers, his national security adviser in the 2004 campaign, said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Kerry misspoke. No one who has ever been in combat would intentionally impugn our brave troops."
In other words, Kerry has managed on the eve of what could be a watershed election to remind pretty much everyone what it was they didn't like about the Democrats, and especially what they didn't like about him. It might have made more sense just to say he was sorry — for once to get ahead of a mistake, instead of trying to compensate for it the next time.


4/28/2006
Questioning John Kerry's Priorities

Anil Adyanthaya Thu Apr 27, 11:04 AM ET
On Saturday,


John Kerry celebrated the thirty-fifth anniversary of his Vietnam War testimony to the


Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He marked the occasion by giving a speech in Boston's Faneuil Hall and by penning an op-ed in The Boston Globe. The theme of both the speech and the op-ed was the value of dissent. Kerry's op-ed is noteworthy, both for what it said and what it did not say.
ADVERTISEMENT


First, what it did say. Kerry was particularly incensed by criticism of the generals who recently called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's firing. "We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the uniform." It is disturbing to hear a Democrat express a view as undemocratic as one arguing that certain arguments are off limits to "those who have never worn the uniform." But Kerry goes even further astray in his view of patriotism: "Patriotism does not belong to those who defend a president's position -- it belongs to those who defend our country, in battle and in dissent."

What a strange and self-serving statement. Defining the military as patriotic almost goes without saying. However, Kerry gives dissenters the same status, providing that they also "defend our country." Equating the patriotism of dissent and military service undoubtedly reflects Kerry's anti-establishment bias but is not an indefensible position. However, what to make of Kerry's refusal to acknowledge patriotism in those who support a president's policy but who have not served in the military? While Kerry's definition of patriotism conveniently excludes most civilian Republicans, it is still a curious statement for someone who is now in year four of his presidential campaign.

What Kerry left out of his op-ed is just as interesting. Kerry devotes a whole paragraph to listing the horrors he exposed through his Senate testimony: "I felt compelled to speak out about what was happening in Vietnam, where the children of America were pulled from front porches and living rooms and plunged almost overnight into a world of sniper fire, ambushes, rockets, booby traps, body bags, explosions, sleeplessness, and the confusion created by an enemy who was sometimes invisible and firing at us, and sometimes right next to us and smiling."

Yet he neglects to mention the most noteworthy parts of what he said about our military and this country in 1971:

* "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

* "We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum."

* "We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals."

* "We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts."

Kerry has made similar accusations with respect to the Iraq War. In a December appearance on CBS News Face the Nation, he stated that "there is no reason . . . that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs." This dissent did not make it into Kerry's op-ed either.

Why did he leave these accusations out? Perhaps it is because even he realizes that there is certain dissent that is unpatriotic.

Massachusetts's other senator, Ted Kennedy, has also been very vocal in his opposition to the war. Saturday would have been a good occasion for Kerry to honor his colleague's dissent. But given the following Kennedy statements on the war, it is probably best for Kerry that he passed on the opportunity:

* "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

* "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

* "My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops,"

Can anyone seriously argue that any of these statements show a love or devotion to the United States?

I do not doubt that Senators Kerry and Kennedy love this country. For example, both served in the military. But it seems that for Kerry and Kennedy, their patriotism is at times overshadowed by other priorities. One such priority is retaking Congress and the White House. As the above quotes suggest, at times they seem more focused on attacking the Bush Administration than doing what is best for the country. None of these quotes represent positive contributions to national debate on the war. In such instances, it seems perfectly fair to question their priorities and their judgment if not their patriotism.

Where Kerry and Kennedy go wrong is that they do not seem to understand that there is a clear line between pointing out specific wrongs and the hyperbolic, generalized slander they have grown too fond of. There is a difference between exposing the criminal behavior undertaken by a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib and maligning the entire military by saying it now manages torture chambers. There is a difference between exposing abuses committed by individual soldiers and claiming that American soldiers, as a matter of course, terrorize Iraqi women and children. And there is certainly a difference between disagreeing with military strategy and claiming, without proof, that that strategy was chosen because of fraud and advanced through bribery.

To paraphrase Kerry: those lines of attack are shameful, especially coming from men who wore the uniform.

4/27/2006

War Vets’ Lawsuit Against Sen. John Kerry Heats Up

April 10, 2006Jim Kouri

by Jim Kouri, CPP
“Vietnam veterans will not be intimidated by John Kerry,” retired Air Force Colonel George “Bud” Day said in response to the Massachusetts Senator’s newly created legal expense trust fund to finance his court battles against a group of highly-decorated Vietnam War veterans.

Col. Day added, “Why one of the wealthiest men in the Senate would expect others to pay his lawyers and use questionable Senate privileges against veterans is shameful.”

Col. Day is chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), a group of Vietnam combat veterans who sued Sen. Kerry for “conspiracy and defamation.” Day is the most decorated Air Force veteran alive, a Medal of Honor recipient, a veteran of three wars and a former Vietnam POW held captive for over five years.

Sen. Kerry recently filed papers with the US Senate creating a “legal expense trust fund” to handle costs associated with his defense in the VVLF lawsuit. This action appears to be questionable since he’s defending actions he undertook before he became a member of the US Senate and while he was running a presidential campaign which has nothing whatsoever to due with Senate business. Ironically, the account is named “Fund for Truth and Honor.”
“That’s his way of mocking us and all Vietnam veterans,” Col. Day remarked. “The concepts of truth and honor are utterly foreign to him. He’s forced to plagiarize our words.”

The veterans’ lawsuit stems from Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential bid when his campaign tried to prevent a documentary about Kerry’s 1971 anti-war activities from being broadcast on television and cable stations, or shown in theaters.

That film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal,” included interviews with Col. Day and several other Vietnam POWs. The film documented Naval Reserve Lt. Kerry’s portrayal of Vietnam veterans as “war criminals” before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Those accusations, the POWs said, were false, threatened their survival, and lengthened their captivity.
They also resented his use of the name “Genghis Khan” to describe the actions of the military. Senator Kerry is no different today. Recently, he said on national television that US soldiers “broke into Iraqi homes and terrorized women and children.”

Shortly after the documentary’s release in September 2004, Kerry campaign aides sued “Stolen Honor” producer Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning journalist and decorated Marine Vietnam veteran. The lawsuits were followed by an assault on Sinclair Broadcast Group, which had announced plans to air the documentary. Kerry campaign-inspired ad boycotts, stockholders’ rebellions, and calls for FCC and FEC investigations eventually forced Sinclair to drop its planned airing of “Stolen Honor.”

In August 2005 Kerry supporters filed two additional lawsuits against Sherwood and VVLF POWs, claiming they “libeled” Kerry and other Vietnam veterans by questioning whether they witnessed or participated in “war crimes and atrocities” in Vietnam. However, Sen. Kerry admitted to committing “atrocities” during the Vietnam War, but was never prosecuted by the military for his admissions.

In response to Kerry’s attacks on these honorable men, the VVLF POWs and Sherwood filed a “conspiracy defamation” lawsuit against Sen. Kerry and one of his top campaign aides, Anthony Podesta. That suit charges Kerry and his campaign with scheming to censor “Stolen Honor,” attempting to prevent the American public from hearing Kerry’s true anti-war history and the consequences his actions had on the POWs languishing in prisoner camps, as well as other Vietnam veterans.

“We could not stand by while John Kerry used his underlings to sue us into silence,” Col. Day explained. “We could not allow this man to keep his hands clean while his surrogates did the dirty work, suing me and my fellow POWs because we spoke the truth about him.
What truly irks Col. Day and his fellow vets is the fact that Kerry is having US taxpayers foot his legal bills stemming from his anti-war comments and actions.

“It’s time he is held accountable. He must face those whom he falsely accused. It’s time America sees this man for [what] he really is, and the great harm he has done to many brave soldiers.”
(Special thanks to Colonel Bud Day, USAF (Ret.) for providing information for this article.)


3/15 2006

KERRY DISCHARGE - THE JIMMY CARTER LEGACY CONTINUES

ITE
Subject: KERRY DISCHARGE - THE JIMMY CARTER LEGACY CONTINUES

Words of Captain Donald L. Nelson, JAG corps USN ret I was on active duty as a U.S. Navy JAG when all of this was going on 25 to 30 years ago, and so was Mark F. Sullivan, who at all relevant times was the personal JAG to J. William Middendorf, then the Secretary of the Navy.
We are trying to break this absolutely true story nationwide, i.e., Fox News, C-Span, and hopefully the major networks. We are positive that John Kerry was one of those dishonorably dismissed from the Navy for collaborating with the Viet Cong after he was released from active duty but still in the Navy and for a totally unauthorized trip to Paris. He later got an "honorable" separation in 1978, some 12 years after joining the Navy, under President Carter's "Amnesty Program" for draft dodgers,  and other malcontents who fled to Canada and Holland, among other places, to avoid military service to our country.

This is why he has refused, and continues to refuse, to release all of his Navy records: they reflect that he was Dishonorably Dismissed from the United States Naval Service. If they do not (which they do) he would have released them to the public. Again, he has not done so, because he well knows that the truth would kill his challenge to President Bush. If you would like to talk with me, I may be reached at telephone number (925) 964-0943 in Danville, California, or at DLNelsonSF@msn.com. Contact information for CAPT Sullivan is below.
Sincerely, DONALD L. NELSON CAPT, JAGC, USNR (Ret.)

Mark F. Sullivan Sullivan Taketa LLP 31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205 Westlake Village, CA 91362-4576 Tel. (818) 889-2299 mark.sullivan@calawcounsel.com



2/15/06

Sens. Clinton, Kerry are hypocrites on Iran

Posted: January 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Hillary Clinton last week blasted the Bush White House for downplaying the threat in Iran and for wasting time by outsourcing the negotiations to the E.U.-3.

Last year, Art Moore of WorldNetDaily.com investigated a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser that was scheduled for March 13, 2005, at the home of Gita Kashani. Moore reported that Kashani was a former member of the board of the controversial Iranian American Political Action Committee, a group that sponsored a technology conference in Iran with the cooperation of the Iranian regime. Iranian pro-democracy Iranians charged at the time that Kashani was considered a member of the Iranian American community in California who had collaborated with the mullah-led regime in Tehran.

When Moore questioned Ms. Kashani, she claimed: "I have no clue what her [Hillary's] policy toward Iran is," Ms. Kashani told WND.com. Still, when WND.com began investigating, Hillary's election committee cancelled the fund-raiser without providing an explanation why.

In "Atomic Iran," I documented the extent to which President Bill Clinton, and Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign, had accepted funding from New York financier Hassan Nemazee and had worked with the American Iranian Council – a group that many in the pro-democracy in Iran movement in the United States considered to be dedicated to legitimizing the mullahs and pushing to obtain normalized relations with the United States, ending all sanctions.

Federal Election Commission records show that Hillary Clinton took a $2,000 contribution on July 28, 1999, from Sheila Nemazee on behalf of the Nemazee Corporation. On Saint Patrick's Day in 2000, Secretary of State Madeline Albright addressed an AIC conference in Washington, D.C., apologizing for Eisenhower's role in the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. As Madame Albright framed the issue:

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.

Albright pushed for the United States to ease restrictions on importing carpets and food products, including dried fruits, pistachios and caviar from Iran. Despite sanctions being in place, these trade restrictions remain eased, even today.

Yet, when pressed, those who are accused of supporting the mullahs tend to run for cover. Mr. Nemazee had sued Aryo Pirouznia, a pro-democracy Iranian-American freedom fighter who runs the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran, charging that Mr. Pirouznia had defamed him by charging that Nemazee was an agent for the mullahs. In sworn testimony given as a deposition in the lawsuit, Mr. Nemazee took a strong position against the mullahs, stating that he "would not trust this regime on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program."

In the 2004 presidential campaign, Hassan Nemazee was one of John Kerry's top fund raisers, one of 60 people credited with raising more than $100,000 for Kerry's presidential run. In the first presidential debate in the 2004 election, held at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla., on Sept. 30, 2004, John Kerry took the position that we should give nuclear fuel to Iran – the same failed policy the Clinton administration had used against North Korea. Here's what Kerry said about Iran:

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, to test them, see whether or not they were actually working for peaceful purposes.

Still, Mr. Nemazee never called candidate Kerry to tell him that giving nuclear fuel to Iran would be dangerous and irresponsible. In his deposition, Mr. Nemazee pleaded that he would have no credibility on the issue with the Kerry campaign. "I have no knowledge on nuclear policy," he said under oath.

Last week, John Kerry too "flip-flopped," now saying that "Iran has made a dangerous and silly decision of confronting not just the U.S. government, but the entire international community." Kerry now evidently thinks we should bring Iran to the Security Council: "If all diplomatic channels fail, we have no choice but to take the issue before the international body."

John Spencer, a Republican who is running against Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2006, has put out a press release charging that "Senator Clinton accepts money from supporters of Iranian mullahs." In the press release, Spencer cites $4,000 in contributions to Hillary's '06 Senate campaign from Hassan Nemazee. FEC records also show another $4,000 from Nemazee Capital Corporation, made in the name of Sheila Nemazee.

Spencer's press release also cites a Friday, June 3, 2005, fund-raising event that evidently was held for Sen. Clinton at the California home of Gita and Behzad Kashani. Spencer directly challenged that Sen. Clinton had been "accepting money from the supporters of the mullahs," concluding that "Sen. Clinton lacks the credibility to keep New York safe and she should return this tainted money."


We shouldn't hold our breath expecting either Sens. Clinton or Kerry to admit they have reversed their Iran policies, or to give back any money critics charge was raised from "pro-mullah" supporters.

Still, the American public should demand that these liberal Democratic senators quit trying to have the issue of Iran both ways. President Bush was soundly criticized by Democratic senators throughout 2005 for not building an overwhelming international coalition before the 2003 Iraq war. Now, when President Bush has worked with the E.U.-3 and the IAEA, agreeing to follow their lead in the negotiations with Iran, these same liberal Democratic senators accuse the administration of going too slow and "outsourcing" the talks. Isn't this a contradiction?

If President Bush had pressed forward unilaterally on the issue of Iran, Sens. Clinton and Kerry could be expected to show up in the well of the Senate arguing that his Iran intelligence information was likely as flawed as the intelligence had been on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Sens. Kerry and Clinton have been supporters of the Iranian regime, especially when working with the U.S. supporters of the mullahs suited their campaign fund-raising purposes. Yet, when Iran defies the world by resuming uranium enrichment "research and development" at Natanz, Sens. Clinton and Kerry jump to the right, trying to "out hawk" even the Bush administration.

This hypocrisy has to stop. President Bush is moving toward Security Council action, while keeping the military option on the table. Democratic senators like Clinton and Kerry ought to be ashamed when they suddenly decide to talk tough on Iran. If Clinton and Kerry know no shame, they should be concerned that those of us who have researched for years their support of this corrupt Iranian regime will continue to speak out and expose their duplicity.


12/11/05
John Kerry Owes An Apology to Our Soldiers
By Aaron Goldstein (12/11/05)

I wonder if John Kerry sent a dozen long stemmed roses to Howard Dean. If not for Dean’s quip about not winning the war in Iraq during a radio interview, Senator Kerry might have spent most of this week defending his own ill advised remarks about our soldiers. Fellow Democrats might have been telling John Kerry to shut up rather than the DNC Chairman.

The day before Dean’s remarks, Kerry was being interviewed on CBS’ Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer (a full transcript of the interview can be found at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/18/ftn/main856364.shtml). In response to a question concerning Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s support of the Bush Administration on the War in Iraq (more on that later), Kerry told Schieffer, “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, break sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs.”

Wait a minute!

John Kerry believes that American soldiers are terrorizing kids? And women, too?

Where is John Kerry getting his information? From al Jazeera? MoveOn.org? Code Pink?

Does Kerry honestly believe that our soldiers enter the homes of Iraqi civilians for sport? If our soldiers have information that a terrorist or terrorists are inside a private home they must measures must be taken to remove the terrorist or terrorists. Measures must also be taken to protect innocent civilians who might also be inside the home. American soldiers do not enter homes with the intent to terrorize Iraqi women and children. They do so to stop terrorists from carrying out their objectives. In essence, our soldiers risk their lives to prevent more terrorism from happening. Why doesn’t Kerry understand this simple fact? If Kerry does have information that our soldiers acted improperly with Iraqi civilians doesn’t he, as a United States Senator, have an obligation to report this to the proper authorities? If Kerry does not have such information (and there is no reason to believe he does) then he is defaming our soldiers who have selflessly volunteered to put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and help Iraqis with the opportunity for theirs.

Kerry’s remarks suggest that he does not understand the mission in Iraq despite having journeyed there earlier this year. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, clearly understands their mission. In his November 29th article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “Our Troops Must Stay”, (which can be found at www.online.wsj.com/article/SB11332307590108762.html)Lieberman notes that Iraqis will have voted thrice in less than a year. Lieberman praises the free and vibrant independent print and electronic press. He points out that once cynical Sunnis have chosen ballots over bullets. “None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S.”, Lieberman wrote. And unlike Kerry, Lieberman does not view our armed forces as rogues who arbitrarily and capriciously wreak havoc with Iraqi children and women:

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: “I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates.

Somehow I don’t think terrorizing children and women is the cause to which our armed forces is devoted. I also believe there is a difference between someone who characterizes our military as “courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud” and someone who characterizes our military as an organization “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.”

There is every indication that John Kerry wants another shot at becoming the 44th President of the United States. This entails being Commander in Chief of our armed forces. How does Senator Kerry expect to have the confidence of his armed forces if he believes them to be terrorizing children and women? Now perhaps our soldiers are strong enough in character and discipline to ignore Kerry’s blather. Yet Kerry’s remarks and those of other Democrats (save for Lieberman) might have a cumulative effect on the morale of our armed forces when it becomes a persistent part of our public discourse. Despite the assurances of the Marine commander with whom Lieberman broke bread our mission in Iraq is only as strong as the willingness of our populace to support it and the troops who are carrying it out. With this in mind, Kerry has a choice to make. He can either choose to continually sully the reputation of our armed forces to curry favor with the Left or he can choose to report for duty and lead our armed forces with steadfast support for its mission and the soldiers who carry it out. If Kerry chooses the latter he must first apologize to our soldiers in Iraq for his inappropriate and reckless remarks.






10/7

Vietnam Vets/Former POWs Respond to Slurs From Sen. Kerry's Staff
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation:
"I am irritated to be called a liar by the spokesman for someone who spent less time in Vietnam than I spent being tortured.
I would like to know what was false when I said that I was interrogated in 1971, told about the 'Winter Soldier Hearings,' told
that someone had recruited my mother to be associated with these people, and told that John Kerry organized it. Was Boris
 (my interrogator)  lying about Winter Soldier? Did these hearings not take place? Was John Kerry not involved? And while
 the Kerry people are tossing around frivolous lawsuits claiming defamation, isn't it defamatory to say that someone is lying
 if you can't prove it?" -- The Hon. James Warner, VVLF Board member and former US Marine Corps Captain held captive
 in Vietnam for over 5 years "Who is this pipsqueak press boy Wade to question the honor, statements or credibility of
veterans who took real fire and POWs who took real torture? How dare he! How dare Kerry allow his taxpayer-funded office
 to malign decorated veterans and call them liars. Of course, this is nothing new for Kerry -- his public life stems from vilifying
 vets." -- Mary Jane McManus, VVLF Board member and wife of former POW Lt. Col Kevin McManus "John Kerry, through
 his spokesman, David Wade, has brazenly labeled a group of POWs who dared to speak out with the truth about his
 testimony to the US Senate and his crusade to brand American combatants as war criminals. I read the statement that
referred to us as 'serial liars' and claimed that the truth doesn't matter to us. On the contrary, this is all about the truth, and
 it seems the only chance we have of letting the American people know the truth about the Vietnam War and the honorable
 men who fought it is in a Federal court of law. -- Col. Ken Cordier, USAF (ret), VVLF Board member and POW for over 6
years To read the Washington Post story and quote from Kerry staffer David Wade, go to:
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100501525.html To access
 a copy of the suit filed  by Mr. Sherwood and the VVLF, go to:
http://www.vvlf.org/documents/Sherwood_and_VVLF_v_Kerry.pdf





Vietnam Vets Versus Kerry
by Michael P. Tremoglie
07 October 2005
The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a plaintiff, along with Red, White, and Blue Productions, and Vietnam
veteran turned journalist Carlton Sherwood, in a defamation action against John Kerry and Tony Podesta.

The former presidenial candidate who, during his election campaign, proudly contrasted his military service during the Vietnam
 War with that of President Bush’s National Guard service -- and who once led an organization of Vietnam veterans protesting the
war in Vietnam -- is being sued by some Vietnam veterans.

The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a plaintiff along with Red, White, and Blue Productions, and Vietnam veteran turned
 journalist Carlton Sherwood, in a defamation action against current Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Tony Podesta, who
was Kerry’s Pennsylvania campaign manager.

The lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, claims that Kerry and Podesta libeled, slandered, and caused financial harm to the plaintiffs
as they sought to prevent the presentation of Sherwood’s documentary movie Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal before the
 2004 presidential election.

The lawsuit states:

Sherwood established plaintiff Red, White, and Blue productions, an independent film company which produced the documentary Stolen Honor:
Wounds That Never Heal….This documentary tells the story of Kerry’s involvement with the VVAW ( Vietnam Veterans Against the War) and his
 participation in the so-called “Winter Soldier” investigation…Stolen Honor also reports that…Kerry testified before the United States Senate
that during the Winter Soldier investigation Vietnam veterans testified to war crimes…not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day to
day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command…in fact the stories told by participants in the Winter Solider investigation
were outrageous and slanderous falsehoods against Vietnam veterans…Stolen Honor accurately reported that Kerry’s statements.. were lies
concocted by antiwar activists…Kerry knew this testimony was false…Vietnam veterans including former POW’s had been falsely tarred…
Sherwood produced Stolen Honor to bring this otherwise ignored history to light …and to explain the public sense of betrayal felt by many
Vietnam veterans -- particularly among former POW’s -- against Kerry and others who built their reputations slandering America’s Vietnam
veterans.
The lawsuit continues by saying that the movie received its initial funding entirely from Pennsylvania veterans. It asserts that Stolen Honor
points out Kerry’s false allegations were used by the North Vietnamese to threaten and demoralize the approximately 700 POW’s in North
Vietnam. Stolen Honor told this history through interviews with POW’s, including a Medal of Honor recipient and one who recounted how his
interrogator went through Kerry’s statements and told him that Kerry admitted he was a war criminal and deserved punishment.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs had a contract with Sinclair Broadcasting to air the documentary and a contract with the Baederwood Theater
 of Abington, PA to show the movie. It further claims there was a coordinated conspiracy by, "defendants Kerry, Podesta and others acting in concert
 with and on behalf of Kerry, to discredit and silence Sherwood and Stolen Honor, through a campaign of knowing, deliberate, and malicious
falsehoods about Sherwood and Stolen Honor and of illegitimate and malicious threats directed at Sinclair and Baederwood." The suit states
these actions by Kerry et. al. caused Sinclair to show only portions of the movie and Baederwood to refuse to show it.

This may be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate was sued for actions taken by him and his campaign during an election.
 It may also be the first time that an antiwar activist was sued, if only tangentially, for allegations made about American military personnel.

Democrats did indeed respond vehemently to Stolen Honor. Sinclair, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report, canceled their broadcast
 after being intimidated by Democrats. For example, a Democrat New York State Comptroller sent a letter to Sinclair criticizing the broadcast.
The Comptroller was the sole trustee for the NY State Common Retirement Fund, which owned 250,000 shares of Sinclair stock..

The Baederwood Theater received phone calls threatening boycotts if it showed the movie. Ominous phone calls were responsible for a suburban
 Philadelphia conference center canceling another presentation scheduled after Baederwood.

Although the Kerry campaign denied any involvement with these efforts, an October 15, 2004 email from Podesta to Kerry activists called Carlton
 Sherwood a, "disgraced former journalist, right-wing propagandist and apologist for cult-leader Sun Myung Moon." Podesta urged Kerry workers
to "…. take action …against this garbage…. let the theater know that, as a member of the community, you object to …this film …they should not
 allow Stolen Honor to be shown on their screen."

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else, it will be that the heroes of Vietnam are finally condemning the lies told about them during the war. If
nothing else results from this, it will be that those who served their country meritoriously, despite great controversy, despite the adversity, those
 who truly deserve to be called the Greatest Generation, are once again serving their country by telling the truth about Vietnam.

A former police officer, Michael Tremoglie's work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Human Events, FrontPage
 Magazine, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Email Michael Tremoglie



10/3

Former Vietnam POWs Sue John Kerry

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Sen. John Kerry and a top DNC campaign official have been sued for conspiracy and defamation in Federal
District Court in Philadelphia by the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), which is led by a group of former Vietnam combat veterans, including
several POWs, and the wife of a POW. The legal action comes just weeks after the group of highly decorated veterans, which includes a Medal of Honor
recipient, was itself sued twice by Kerry campaign supporters who were once his fellow antiwar activists.
    All the lawsuits stem from last year's Presidential elections and Stolen Honor, a documentary released last September that examined the impact of
Kerry's 1971 anti-war activities on hundreds of American POWs still being held in the notorious Hanoi Hilton prison camp.
    The Kerry campaign mounted a major effort to prevent Stolen Honor from being aired last October after the Sinclair Broadcasting Company announced
plans to show the film on its 62 stations nationally. Sinclair was sued,boycotted and harshly condemned by Kerry campaign officials who publicly
threatened to have the TV cable company's FCC license revoked if Kerry waselected. That was followed by protests from 18 U.S. Democrat Senators who
called for FCC and FEC investigations of Sinclair. Amid the furor, thedocumentary's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
and thrice wounded Vietnam veteran, was sued for libel by a Kerry advisor and member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an organization Kerry
represented as national spokesman in the 1970's. That case is scheduled for a jury trial next year in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas.
    Sinclair eventually withdrew its planned broadcast of the film and, under pressure from Kerry campaign supporters, theater showings were canceled.
    The federal lawsuit, filed this week by Sherwood and the POWs, charge Kerry and DNC campaign coordinator Anthony Podesta of conspiring to discredit
the documentary and defaming the film's producer for the purpose of preventing Stolen Honor from being broadcast or seen in theaters.
    Stolen Honor focused on Kerry's 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee when he accused U.S. combat troops of committing
atrocities and war crimes on a "day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." The film examined, through interviews with
17 POWs and three POWs wives, the consequences of those allegations on some 350 American POWs still held in North Vietnamese Communist prison camps.
    Some of the POWs interviewed for the documentary charged Kerry with "treason" and "perjury," while others said his 1971 Senate testimony placed
their lives in jeopardy, protracted the Vietnam War and extended their confinement for years. All the POWs accused Kerry and his followers of
fabricating "war crimes" and providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time ofwar.
    In recent weeks, the libel suit against Sherwood has been extended to name the VVLF and Newsmax as defendants.  Another Kerry supporter and VVAW member
has sued documentary producer Sherwood a second time for libel, also naming the VVLF and the Internet news company Newsmax as defendants.
    Those libel suits were filed by Kenneth Campbell and Jon Bjornson, both long-time antiwar activists and members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the
War (VVAW), who allege that Sherwood, the VVLF and Newsmax defamed them in the documentary when it questioned the credibility of those, including Sen. Kerry,
who claimed to have participated in, or, been witnesses to "war crimes" they allege were committed routinely throughout the Vietnam War. Although neither
man is identified in Stolen Honor, both claim they appear in 35 year-old pictures and film clips used in the film and allege their reputations were
harmed as a result. Campbell was a volunteer and an advisor to the Kerrycampaign last year. Bjornson also supported Kerry.
    Documentation for these suits is available at VVLF.org.
    All the POWs and the wife of a POW who hold leadership positions in the VVLF also appeared in Stolen Honor.  The VVLF's chairman is Col. Bud Day, a
POW Medal of Honor recipient and the Air Force's most highly decorated veteran.
    "It's time the American people learned the truth about Vietnam and Vietnam veterans," Col. Day said, "not just the sorry portrait they've seen in the
movies or read about from politically motivated propagandists. We served with honor."

    The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF.org) is a 501(c)(3) public service corporation whose mission is to educate and inform the public about
the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the courageous men and women who sacrificed to serve their country in Vietnam.

SOURCE Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation
Web Site: http://www.VVLF.org


9/13

John Kerry wades into Hurricane Katrina aftermath…
Published on 14 September 2005 | Source: TNC Member
…a tad late, and it's not clear what, if anything, Sen. Kerry paid for.

10 outa 10 for trying! (©2005 John F. Kerry)

Generous-to-a fault, billionaire Democratic Sen. John Kerry has finally sent his ‘own’ aid package to hurricane-ravaged New Orleans more than two weeks after the storm hit - and a week after most of the city had been successfully evacuated by the Bush administration.

The senator arrived in ‘The Big Easy’ last Monday aboard a UPS Boeing 757 loaded with 5,000 bottles of baby formula, 5,000 pairs of sneakers - perhaps Wellington boots would have been more appropriate - and an array of cleaning supplies - hopefully mops and buckets?

UPS - Great effort you guys. (©2005 UPS)


"Everything that any of us can do is so welcome, and it provides just a little bit of help at an extraordinary time," the Massachusetts Democrat
 told the AP.

But rather than pay for the aid using his wife's ketchup fortune - which the Los Angeles Times estimated last year at over a billion dollars - Kerry's
 aid package was donated by Boston's Children's Hospital, the hard-pressed New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans and the New Balance
sneaker company.

UPS donated the plane, the flight crew and fuel, trucks and drivers to transport the goods to Logan International Airport and then to disperse
 them to Baton Rogue and Lafayette, La.

However, distributing the aid, of course, might present a problem. for the city’s population has been sent off to the four corners of the US!

Not out of pocket himself, Senator Kerry should be applauded for organising the aid package, and so should those who came up with the goods…
albeit that Kerry appears to have missed the boat.



Kerry Demands Silver Star for Piloting Swift Boat Through New Orleans

chronwatch.com ^ | 9/13/05 | Jeremy Robb
Posted on 09/12/2005 9:32:19 PM PDT by ~bitt/"bitt
'WASHINGTON, DC --- John Kerry contacted the Pentagon today to request a Silver Star for a recent swift boat mission
he ran through the streets of New Orleans. While the Pentagon claims the mission was unauthorized, Kerry claims it was
 a secret mission approved by the highest levels of the government.

"I clearly remember listening to the radio and hearing President Bush deny that swift boats were in New Orleans," said Kerry.
 "And there I was on a swift boat in New Orleans. Dodging bullets. Scanning the shore for enemy fire and mortar attack. The
 band aid on my hand covers a wound I received while moving too quickly on deck for a photo op and scraping against the
 railing."

Sean Penn tried to join Kerry on his own swift boat, but it sank before leaving dock. Penn forgot to put the plug in the bottom
 of the boat and refused to stuff his Communist flag in the hole to prevent flooding.'



8/13/05


1st: Who is Traitor John?

You Can Tell A Man By The Company He Keeps

In light of John Kerry's puzzling insistence on a go-it-alone approach to North Korea in Thursday night's debate, I thought I'd make a little list. Admittedly, I'm doing much of this from memory, but there seems to be a certain consistency . . .
1. The North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that their war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end. John Kerry, during the Vietnam War, compared Ho Chi Minh to George Washington, argued that the North's war was one of national liberation, accused US troops of regularly committing war crimes and atrocities, called on Nixon to end the war immediately, argued that the people of South Vietnam would be happy to accept communism, and generally argued that the US war in Vietnam was immoral from beginning to end.
2. The Soviet Union and its allies denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983. John Kerry denounced the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.
3. The Soviets, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced Ronald Reagan as a warmonger and a threat to peace for deploying missiles in Western Europe.
4. Daniel Ortega, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with his regime. John Kerry, in the 1980s, denounced US support for the Nicaraguan contras and argued that the US should have peace talks with Ortega's regime.
5. Moammar Qaddafi argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties. John Kerry argued that Reagan's bombing of Libya was unjustified and caused excessive civilian casualties.
6. Our adversaries during and since the Cold War have argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense. John Kerry has argued that we were reckless and irresponsible by pursuing missile defense.
7. Fidel Castro has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba. John Kerry has, for decades, regularly denounced US sanctions against Cuba.
8. In 1991, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the process of the Western response in the hopes that it would bog down. John Kerry said we should have drawn out the process.
9. Yasser Arafat has denounced the security fence erected by Israel. John Kerry has denounced the security fence erected by Israel.

We can add four more from the debate alone:

10. In 2002-03, Saddam Hussein wanted to draw out the inspections process and make it more multilateral. John Kerry says we should have drawn out the inspections process and made it more multilateral.
11. Kim Jong-Il wanted to have bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks. John Kerry says we should have had bilateral talks rather than multilateral talks.
12. Osama bin Laden says we helped him by invading Iraq. John Kerry says we helped bin Laden by invading Iraq.
13. The Iranian mullahs oppose US sanctions against Iran, wish to enter into agreements with the US, and insist that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power. John Kerry opposes US sanctions against Iran, argues that we should enter into agreements with Iran, and insists that there are plausible reasons why a poor but oil-rich country needs nuclear power.
Does Kerry have company on some of these stances? Yes. Can he defend some by pointing to occasions (as with Israel and Cuba policy) where he's since taken the opposite position? Yes. Is he actually an unpatriotic America-hater? Of course not. But remember: Time and time and time again, America's enemies have argued against us - and Kerry has echoed their charges. I'd rather trust the national defense to someone who's not so quick to echo the words and strategies of our enemies.

(A partial list of sources: Kerry's stances on Grenada and Nicaragua, the first Gulf War, the Cold War and Grenada again, the




7/16/05
How Kerry whistleblower suffered for truth

BY MARY LANEY
This is the story of a military veteran whistleblower. He spoke out against someone he thought was dangerous for
the nation, talked to local newspapers, and appeared on talk shows. In return, he was vilified by reporters, threatened
 by a political operative, fired by his company, and now he's broke.

His name is Steve Gardner. He's also known as "The 10th Brother," as in Band of Brothers. He's one of two members
 of Sen. John Kerry's 12 Vietnam swift boat crew members who refused to stand with Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
The other man remained silent.

"They said I had a political agenda. I had no and have no political agenda whatsoever. I saw John Kerry on television
saying he was running for the Democratic nomination for president, and I knew I couldn't ever see him as commander
in chief -- not after what I saw in Vietnam, not after the lies I heard him tell about what he says he did and what he says
others did."

Gardner explains he was sitting at home in Clover, S.C., when he first saw Kerry on television. It was before the primary
 races. For 35 years, Gardner says, he hadn't talked about his tour of duty in Vietnam. But when he saw Kerry talking
about running, he says he got up, called the newspaper in town, called radio stations and "talked to anyone I could about
 why this man should never be president." Eventually he got a call from Adm. Roy Huffman, who had been in charge of
the coastal division in Vietnam, reunited with other swift boat veterans, and the rest is, as they say, history.

Gardner's story is one that bears telling. He volunteered for the Navy, enlisting on his 18th birthday in February 1966.
After training, he was shipped to Vietnam and served for two years as a gunner in the swift boat division. His superior,
for four months, was none other than Lt. j.g. John F. Kerry.

"I had confrontations with him there. He nearly got us rammed by the VC one night because he wasn't watching the helm.
 I heard the motor coming close, turned on the spotlight, and the boat was only 90 feet away, coming fast. The VC was
aiming an AK47 at us. I shot him out of the boat. We pulled a woman and a baby off the boat. Kerry wrote it up that we
captured two VC and killed four more on the beach. None of that was true. The only thing true on Kerry's report was the date.
The woman was catatonic and wouldn't call her baby VC and there were no VC on the beach. If we had seen that report
before Kerry sent it up the chain of command, he would have been court-martialed and never allowed to run for office. And
that's just the San Pan incident. There was much more. He is a self-aggrandizing bold-faced liar. I believe he caused the
extension of that war."

Gardner told this story and others to radio stations and he wrote a piece for the local paper. Then, he says, he received a
phone call from John Hurley, the veterans organizer for Kerry's campaign. Hurley, Gardner says, asked him to come out for
 Kerry. He told Hurley to leave him alone and that he'd never be for Kerry. It was then Gardner says, he was threatened with,
 "You better watch your step. We can look into your finances."

Next, Gardner said he received a call from Douglas Brinkley, the author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War.
 Brinkley told Gardner he was calling only to "fact check" the book -- which was already in print. "I told him that the guy in the
 book is not the same guy I served with. I told him Kerry was a coward. He would patrol the middle of the river. The canals
were dangerous. He wouldn't go there unless he had another boat pushing him."

Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking"
conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically
motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."

Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his
services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated
 him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being
eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the
 job back.

"I'm broke. I've been hurt every way I can be hurt. I have no money in the bank but am doing little bits here and there to pay the
 bills," he said.

All the millions of dollars raised by Gardner and his fellow Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the proceeds from John O'Neill's
 book, Unfit for Command, go to families of veterans, POWs and MIAs.

And, even though Gardner is broke and jobless for speaking out, the husband and father of three says he'd do it all over
again. He says it wasn't for politics. It was for America.



6/23
If Bush is dumb ... ?

Posted: June 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 Laurence A. Elder
"Does anyone in America doubt," said former New York Times executive editor Howell Raines before the 2004 presidential election, "that [presidential
candidate Sen. John] Kerry has a higher IQ than [President George W.] Bush? I'm sure the candidates' SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry
far ahead."
And, on March 6, 2004, a New York Times article called the way Kerry thinks through problems "the mark of an intellectual who grasps the subtleties
 of issues, inhabits their nuances and revels in the deliberative process." The Los Angeles Times dismissed Bush's achievements, and editorialized
that he became president only as a result of an "accident of birth and corruption of democracy."

Get it? See, Bush is a dunderhead, while Kerry positioned himself as the thinking man's alternative. Really?

After promising during the campaign and then refusing to do so, Kerry finally signed Form 180, which authorized the military to release all of his records.
 (One of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John O'Neill, says the records are incomplete and mysteries still remain.) The recently released records appear
to back up Kerry's account of his activities and injuries in Vietnam.

Why, then, didn't Kerry release his records during the campaign? After all, his refusal seemed like a cover-up. Now we know.

Kerry's military records also include his college grades. (The New Yorker printed Bush's grades in 1999, but Kerry consistently refused to release his.)
It turns out that "dummy" and fellow Yalie George W. Bush made better grades than did brainy, intellectual John Kerry. Under Yale's grading system at
the time Bush and Kerry attended, grades from 90 to 100 meant an A, 80 to 89 a B, 70 to 79 a C, and 60 to 69 a D. Kerry received five Ds, including four
 in his freshman year, with a D in political science! Bush, during his time at Yale, got one D, in astronomy. Overall, Kerry finished Yale with a cumulative
 score of 76. Bush finished with a score of 77. So who's the dummy?

Retired history professor Gaddis Smith taught both students, but only recalls Kerry. Smith remembered Kerry as a "good student." When informed,
however, that Kerry received a 71 and 79 in Smith's history courses, the professor said, "Uh, oh. I thought he was [a] good student. Those aren't very
good grades." Oh, what did the forgettable Bush get in history? 88.

Kerry and the Democrats clearly considered Bush stupid. During the campaign, when Bush injured himself by falling off his bicycle, Kerry snidely said,
"Did the training wheels fall off?" And on 2004 election night, as the returns came in, a dejected Kerry said, "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot."
What did some in the mainstream media make out of Kerry's now-released records?
A Boston Globe article began, "During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex,
while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences. But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical
grade average at Yale University four decades ago." The New York Times, too, ran a piece – on page 10 – about Kerry's grades. The Los Angeles Times,
however, ran a page A-17 story, only about how Kerry's records refute allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans. Not one word was printed about Kerry's
grades! "The long-awaited documents," said the Los Angeles Times, "contained no bombshells ..." No bombshells?

A week after Kerry's grades were released, a Fox News poll found that only 27 percent of likely voters (about one in four) believed Bush had better grades
in college, while 43 percent still believed Kerry had better grades. Does the contained-no-bombshells media play a role in voters' ignorance of current events?

Bush also performed better than Kerry on military intelligence tests. This came out during the presidential campaign. When Tom Brokaw told Kerry that
Bush scored higher, the senator sniffed that, the night before the exam, he "must have been drinking."
After repeatedly implying that Bush lacked the intellectual goods, how could Sen. Kerry release his transcripts during the campaign? After all, what looks
 worse? A "brainy" intellectual who underperforms? Or the "dunce" who manages to outperform the "genius"?

In fact, Bush himself jokes about his mediocre grades. At the 2001 Yale commencement ceremony, the president said, "To those of you who received honors,
 awards and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students – I say, you, too, can be president of the United States." Can we expect similar self-deprecating
humor from Kerry?
For what it's worth, Thomas Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Mind," says that most millionaires come from the ranks of B and C students. Their success
comes from the "people skills" to manage, lead and inspire. That sounds like poor George W. He got elected and re-elected governor of Texas. And then
elected and re-elected president of the United States.
Not bad ... for a "dummy."


6/3

'Hanoi' Jane Mystified by Kerry's Loss
'Hanoi' Jane Fonda said Tuesday that she just can't figure out why her old Vietnam War protest partner John Kerry failed to defeat
George Bush in last year's presidential election.

Fonda tells the New York Times that when the two worked together as leaders for the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry
was "just brilliant in his ability to articulate, and brave in his willingness to articulate."


But the John Kerry who flip-flopped his way to defeat last year was not the man she knew, Fonda lamented, adding, "I don't know what
 happened [to him] in the interim."

Mystified over the change, the radical actress recalled that in the old days, Kerry "seemed to be a human being who was in touch with
his core person."

The Barbarella sex pot-turned-feminist crusader offered a more harsh assessment of Kerry's campaign abilities last month.

"Men who show compassion or try to make peace are ridiculed as 'girlie men' or, like John Kerry, as wimps," she told an audience at
Montana State University.



5/24

Kerry signs release of Navy records
But senator offers more'dodges and digressions'

Posted: May 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
After more than a year of pressure, Sen. John Kerry says he has signed an official form to release Navy records that became a source of controversy in the 2004 presidential campaign.
Kerry told Boston Globe editorial writers and columnists the Standard Form 180 will be sent to the Navy within a few days.
''I have signed it," Kerry said, according to Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, who noted the senator added that his staff was ''still going through it" and ''very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it."

But Vennochi wrote that after the interview, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, was asked to clarify when the senator signed SF 180 and when public access would be granted.

"The devil is usually in the details," Vennochi wrote. "With Kerry, it's also in the dodges and digressions."

After the interview, she said, "Kerry drifted over to join the conversation, immediately raising the confusion level. He did not answer the question of when he signed the form or when the entire record will be made public."

Vennochi pressed the issue with Wade, and after several e-mails, said Kerry obtained a copy of Form 180 last Friday and signed it.

''The next step is to send it to the Navy, which will happen in the next few days," Wade said. "The Navy will then send out the records."

Kerry's records became a campaign issue after more than 260 Vietnam veterans who served in his swiftboat section launched an effort to counter many of the senator's claims about his war service.

The Kerry campaign largely avoided responding to specific charges and instead threatened lawsuits against the television stations that aired ads by the former colleagues, organized as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The senator's campaign also demanded publisher Regnery pull best-seller "Unfit for Command," attacked the character of co-authors John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, and accused the group of being run by the Republican Party.

Mainstream media repeated the assertion that the claims against Kerry were debunked, without providing evidence. Those who offered evidence contended the military's records supported Kerry's version of events, often without mentioning the swiftboat vets' assertion that it was Kerry himself who wrote the "official record" in many instances, in after-action reports.

As WorldNetDaily reported, William Middendorf, former secretary of the Navy, urged Kerry to open up his personnel files to resolve the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy.

In August, the Kerry campaign insisted that all of the senator's Navy records had been released, with the exception of medical papers.

"Senator Kerry's entire military service record is posted on JohnKerry.com. His entire record," said communications adviser Michael Meehan in an attempt to defend Kerry against charges he didn't deserve his three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

But the Washington Post and others reported that at least 100 pages were still under wraps and that Kerry would need to file a Form 180 to grant permission for full release of his records.

Kerry, however, seemed to contradict his campaign's position in late October, just a week before the election, when he told NBC's Tom Brokaw his military record "is not public." NBC, in fact, edited out that particular comment after including it in a previous version of an interview.

BROKAW: Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.
KERRY: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.
Finally, in January, Kerry told ''Meet the Press" host Tim Russert he would sign the form.

RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians ... .

KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get – I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

KERRY: But everything, Tim…

RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

KERRY: Yes, I will.

Since the Jan. 30 "Meet the Press" interview, some political weblogs have been keeping a running count of the days.

Blogger Mark Coffey at Decision '08 urges caution, noting it was 111 days between Kerry's promise and his actual signing of the form. He suggests another count be run until the papers are made public.



4/2/05


 Sandy Berger's Slap on Wrist
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:55:30 -0500

Sandy Berger, an advisor to the Kerry campaign as well Clinton's National Security Advisor, has ADMITTED that he stole and destroyed
documents from the National Archives that were after-action reports critical of Clinton's handling of the planned attack by bin Laden and Al
Queda in 1999. He stole and destroyed these government documents so that they would not be turned over to the September 11 Commission. These documents have shown that the Clinton Administration not only knew of proposed terrorists attacks on the U.S. but hid this information from the public and did nothing to go after the terrorists except leave a note to George Bush that there were terrorists planning to attack the
U.S. Like everything else Bill Clinton has done in his life, with the help of a fawning media, he sweeps the real work of governing under the
rug like a P.R. flack and leaves the heavy lifting to the next guy.
Fortunately, this next guy disregards the media suck-ups and does the job with li! ttle appreciation from these same suck-ups.

Why does Berger only get probation for stealing and destroying sensitive government documents for purely political purposes? And why hasn't the media exposed this egregious disregard by the Clinton Administration for the public's safety and tell the story? Where is the media outrage such as undoubtedly would have been leveled against George Bush. Do they, the media, wonder why they have the credibility of used car salesmen - I apologize to used car salesman to put them in the same low-class. I respect factual criticism, especially constructive criticism, of all and, especially anyone who purposely and strenuously becomes a public figure. But I have no respect for journalists and their management who, through a plethora of devious means, censor the news for their own, profitable agenda. Ironically, it is these elitist journalist who scream
the First Amendment who want to silence bloggers because they may have an agenda.

Please, somebody, give this story the unbiased, factual attention it deserves. I saw a small reference to this in our local (Palm Beach) press and no editorial comment. Yes, it will hurt Hillary's aspirations to the throne but that is her problem, one she deservedly should have.

David Barth, CFA
Jupiter, Florida



3/`15/05
Jane Fonda: Kerry Suffered From 'Wimp' Image

In more bad news for Sen. John Kerry, "Hanoi" Jane Fonda is once again stepping into the media spotlight, promoting her new book,
"My Life So Far," and explaining that Kerry lost the election because he came across as "a wimp" and a "girlie man."

Fonda bankrolled Kerry's anti-war protests during the 1970s, and last year she tried to help him by registering as many women as
possible in her "Vaginas Vote" campaign.
In a preview of what's to come as her book tour hits the TV talk show circuit, Fonda discussed her life and times last month at the
"Girls For A Change" conference held at Montana State University.
She began by explaining that she'd spent the last five years working on her memoir, and insisted that her own life story is universal.
 Even someone who's wealthy, privileged, famous and white can be hurt by the hierarchy's rules in profound ways, Fonda explained.
Before too long the former actress got around to the subject of Kerry's defeat.
In quotes picked up by Bozeman, Montana's Daily Chronicle, she complained: "Men who show compassion or try to make peace are
ridiculed as 'girlie men' or, like John Kerry, as wimps."
It's all a part of the patriarchal society we live in, she said, where American boys learn as early as age 5 that they have to earn a place
in the hierarchy by being "real men" - not sissies who express emotion.
"We have to feel true empathy for boys," she urged. "Males have the power, but at what cost."
The former Hollywood radical urged girls to be more assertive, saying: "Get mad. It's not the way it has to be. Don't succumb, don't take
 it sitting down."
The solution, she said, is for girls to realize it's society and not their own flaws that makes them feel anxious and inadequate.












3/4/05
Kerry Wants U.S. to Honor Communist
John Kerry is asking the U.S. Senate to pay homage to the memory of a notorious Communist and rabid anti-American.


As sponsor of a resolution that would have the Senate honor the late W.E.B. Du Bois, Kerry is promoting a man who was fervently anti-American, a member of the Soviet-dominated Communist Party, and twice ejected from the NAACP for his opposition to racial integration.
It would not be the first time a nation has honored Du Bois. According to Daniel J. Flynn, writing in Human Events, the Soviet Union awarded him the Lenin Peace Prize, and Maoist China staged a national holiday in his honor in 1959.
Writes Flynn, "Now, for reasons unexplained, the Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nominee seeks to honor Du Bois, too."
Kerry promoted his Senate resolution, co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Carl Levin (Mich.), by declaring, "Dr. Du Bois taught us that the promise of freedom is honored through action."
The reality is far different. Du Bois renounced his American citizenship and joined the Communist Party. In writing longtime Communist Party U.S.A. Chairman Gus Hall in 1961, the reflexively anti-American intellectual called communism "the only way of human life” and predicted that the free market was "doomed to self-destruction."
Here's just a small part of Du Bois’ pro-Communist record, as reported by Human Events:
During the Korean war in 1950, in which 54,246 American service men and women would die, Du Bois said that "the North Koreans are fighting exactly the things for which Americans fought in 1776."
Three years later, he eulogized Soviet dictator Stalin - one of history's worst mass murderers - as a "great" and "courageous" man, "attacked and slandered as few men of power have been." In his posthumously published autobiography, he called the crackdown on religion behind the Iron Curtain "the greatest gift of the Russian Revolution to the modern world."
After a 1937 visit to Nazi Germany, he admitted that the Nazis had stamped out freedom, but nevertheless praised the Hitlerites for creating "a nation at work after a nightmare of unemployment; and the results of this work are shown not simply by private profits, but by houses for the poor; new roads; an end of strikes and labor troubles; widespread industrial and unemployment insurance; the guarding of public and private health; great celebrations, organizations for old and young, new songs, new ideals, a new state, a new race."
He failed to mention concentration camps and the gas ovens that consumed millions. And while condemning anti-Semitism, Flynn noted, Du Bois called it "a reasoned prejudice" in Hitler's Germany.
Flynn concluded by observing that "ironically, both the honoree and the politician paying homage to him are guilty of the same transgression: failing to identify evil when it appears at close range. From communism to eugenics to racial separatism, W.E.B. Du Bois was wrong on just about every major issue he championed. His admirers in Congress are wrong, too."

2/1/05


On January 30, 2005, The Great Pretender once again promised to sign his 180, this time on NBC News’ Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Many people who’ve been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…

SEN. KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren’t even relevant to the record. So when we get–I’m going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn’t in the record and we’ll put it out. I have no problem with that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will.

Well. Thirty days have passed and no 180. Jeepers. The Great Pretender must have forgotten all about it! So? I consider it my civic duty to remind The Great Pretender to keep his promise to the citizens of the United States of America.

You can help. Send the Senator an email with a link to the form. Have your friends do so too. and... if you are a blogger, join us for the Tuesday Blogburst!

And Rightly So!
Cao's Blog
Conservative Friends
Flight Pundit
Kender's Musings
Nickie Goomba
NIF
Pirate's Cove
Progressive Conservatism
Ravings Of A Mad Tech
Something... and Half of Something
Rottweiler Puppy
Uncle Jack
Villainous Company
Web-Nuts
Where's Your Brain?

Sign the 180 Senator. Sign the 180.

Senator John Kerry Opposes Nomination Of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
I appreciate Dr. Rice’s willingness to stay late last evening to have an exchange with the committee on the critical foreign policy and security questions before us.
“After serious consideration, I have decided to vote against this nomination. Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice’s testimony any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America’s role in the world. On Iraq, on North Korea, on Iran, to name just a few of the most critical challenges, it seems to be more of the same.
“I hope I am proven wrong. I hope the course will change. And I hope that the administration will recognize the strength of a foreign policy that has bipartisan support. I am prepared to work with Dr. Rice and others in the administration to try to reach agreement on policies that will truly strengthen our security and restore America’s credibility on the world stage. And I am confident colleagues on both sides of the aisle are prepared to do so as well.

Contact: David Wade or April Boyd



1/21/05

Vietnam Veterans Celebrate Kerry's Election Defeat
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 21, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Vietnam Veterans who opposed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry held an "un-augural" reception on Thursday afternoon in Washington to celebrate the fact that Kerry lost the election and to honor the veterans who helped defeat him.

"We are celebrating the fact that John Kerry lost," said Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. Corsi wrote the book with former Swift Boat veteran John O'Neill.

"The whole Swift Boat effort was organized, not to re-elect George Bush but to defeat John Kerry, and that was the unifying factor that brought all the Vietnam Veterans together," Corsi told Cybercast News Service at the National Press Club reception. Cybercast News Service was the first news organization to report that Kerry's Swift Boat veterans were organizing to oppose Kerry's candidacy in May 2004.

The moderator of the reception, Lou Priebe, put it bluntly: "We are celebrating the fact that the commander in chief that raised his hand today was not John F. Kerry."

Under a banner that read "Kerry Lied, Good Men Died," the coalition of veterans groups, including Swift Boat veterans, POWs and other military veterans, declared their mission accomplished.

"These men literally changed history, because I believe that without Vietnam Veterans across the country taking a stand for the truth, this election would have gone otherwise, there is no doubt in my mind," said Carlton Sherwood, producer of the documentary "Stolen Honor," which details Kerry's "betrayal" of U.S. servicemen fighting in Vietnam.

Sherwood is an investigative reporter and thrice-wounded (and decorated) Marine Corps combat veteran. His documentary details POWs' resentment towards Kerry for what they see as his smearing of Vietnam Veterans through his anti-war activism in the early 1970s.

Kerry, in testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Detroit "Winter Soldier" investigations, claimed that more than 150 Vietnam veterans "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia -- not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."

According to Kerry's testimony, some of the 150 veterans admitted they "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."

But Sherwood refuted Kerry's claims about the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. "Vietnam is not a four letter word. It was fought honorably and well by men who were not war criminals," Sherwood said on Thursday.

"John Kerry still hasn't answered any of the questions that were posed to him," he added.

'We confronted his lies'

B. G. Burkett, a military researcher and author of the book Stolen Valor , which details phony veteran claims, said that Vietnam Veterans "got the truth out about John Kerry."

"We confronted his lies and we told the truth," Burkett told Cybercast News Service.

Burkett noted that much of the media still does not give the Vietnam Veterans who opposed Kerry the respect he believes they deserve.

"The mainstream media is still saying the Swift Boat Veterans were completely discredited. Nobody has ever discredited anything the Swift Boat Veterans presented. You will see that type of phrase in column after column and articled after article and it's just totally bunk," Burkett said.

Kerry labeled the Swift Boat veterans' efforts against him "a pack of lies" in September 2004.

But Burkett said the facts prove otherwise: "John Kerry lied about this military service in Vietnam. That's just the absolute truth," Burkett said.


See Related Articles:
Kerry Blamed for Vietnam Vets Being Dubbed 'Atrocity Committing Monsters' POW Says

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues (May 3, 2004)

Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges (March 18, 2004)

Kerry's Denials at Odds With 1971 Book He Authored (Feb. 20, 2004)

E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.



1/20/05

Kerry’s Logan Act
By Patrick Hynes
Published 1/20/2005 12:07:39 AM

John Kerry recently returned from an extended tour of the Middle East and Europe. He tried some of his old material on the road, bashing the Bush administration's foreign policy and criticizing America's effort in the war in Iraq, as if November 2, 2004, had never happened.

While Kerry's Bush-bashing tour may have won him some gratifying ovations overseas, it's what he has said upon his return to the United States that should raise the eyebrows of every American.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kerry gave a speech in Massachusetts chiefly notable for its perpetuation of the silly myth that a coordinated conspiracy to disenfranchise African Americans had cost him votes, possibly even the election. But buried deep in that same story was the following utterance:

"Throughout Europe, as I met with European leaders, it's clear that they're prepared to do more, but the (Bush) administration has not put the structure together for people to be able to do it," he said.

Kerry declined to specify which leaders expressed a desire to help more with Iraq, or how.


Then on Tuesday, during his grilling of Dr. Condoleezza Rice at her confirmation hearing, Kerry repeated the story, but peppered in an assertion that Arab nations wanted in, as well.

"Every Arab leader I asked, do you want Iraq to fail, says no. Do you think you will be served if there's a civil war? They say no. Do you believe that failure is a threat to the region and to the stability of the world? Yes; same with the European leaders. But each of them feel that they have offered more assistance, more effort to be involved, want to be part of a playing field that's more cooperative, and yet they feel rebuffed."

Bear in mind this was not an official trip to Europe and the Middle East. Kerry was not visiting as a representative of the United States Government. He was in no way commissioned by the executive branch to negotiate alliances with foreign countries. So what was he doing there? In an e-mail to 3 million political supporters in which he also calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Kerry said, "After several months consumed by the campaign trail, I wanted to make contact with our soldiers on the ground there."

In short, his trip was, essentially, a very public vacation. One in which Kerry seems to have run afoul of the Logan Act, which reads:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


The Logan Act became necessary when, in 1798, a friend and political supporter of Thomas Jefferson named George Logan spirited off to Paris on his own authority to secure an accord with France during a time of great tension between the U.S. and that country. Logan later served a single term in the United States Senate.

No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, and certainly not a U.S. Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee. But it wouldn’t be unheard of. In the late-1980s the National Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Speaker of the House Jim Wright, who was at the time playing footsies with the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

But all of Kerry's bloviating can be overlooked and chalked up to post-election face-saving and I-told-you-so-ism, right? Well, maybe. But remarks and actions like these have become an unsettling trend for John Kerry.

For example, as the nation became well aware during the course of the 2004 election, John Kerry has probably violated the Logan Act before, and possibly other laws that make it a crime to negotiate with enemies of the United States.

The script of the famously hard hitting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad on the subject recaps the story better than I could:

Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prisons camps.

Then he returned and accused Americans of committing war crimes on a daily basis. Eventually, Jane Fonda apologized for her activities. But John Kerry refuses to. In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?


Of course, John Kerry could just be embellishing his conversations with Arab and European leaders. He has been known to stretch the truth, or at least mumble unsubstantiated statements, such as this one from last March:

"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that."

No one is suggesting that John Kerry will be the subject of a criminal probe or a congressional hearing. Many of us have long ago given up hope that obstreperous liberals in Congress who deliberately weaken our country's position in a time of war will face appropriate repercussions. But it would be nice if John Kerry would stop visiting “foreign leaders” for a while, at least until the war in Iraq is over. Either that, or stop making up stories.

Election Day exit polls skewed in Kerry's favor, consortium admits

BY JOHN COOK

Chicago Tribune

LOS ANGELES - (KRT) - The consortium of news media formed to obtain exit poll data on Election Day acknowledged Wednesday that the data dramatically overstated the percentage of voters who supported Democrat John Kerry.

It also announced steps to prevent the leaking of preliminary exit poll data in future elections.

"The exit poll estimates in this year's general election in many states and in the national survey had a sizable overstatement of the estimated percentage of the vote for John Kerry," said a report by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the research firms that conducted the polls.

Edison and Mitofsky were hired to do the polling by the National Election Pool, consisting of the major broadcast and cable news networks and The Associated Press.
The NEP said in a statement that in future elections it will not release exit poll results to members and subscribers until 6 p.m. Eastern time to minimize leaks.

Early exit poll results circulating on the afternoon of Nov. 2 heavily favored Kerry, leading some television commentators to hint at a Kerry victory. Though the data are supposed to be kept confidential until polls close, they leaked onto many Internet sites almost as soon as they were released to members early in the afternoon.

The eventual Bush victory led many to question the reliability of exit polls and the wisdom of conducting them at all, particularly in light of the fiasco of the 2000 election when flawed exit poll data contributed in part to a string of botched calls by news outlets.

The networks initially defended the polls, saying that early results were preliminary and never intended for release. They said the final numbers distributed later on election night were more accurate.

But Wednesday's report confirmed that in the case of 26 states and the nationwide exit poll, the final results skewed in Kerry's favor.

"Even when the polls were complete, we were overstating the Democrat," said Warren Mitofsky, president of Mitofsky International. The final nationwide exit poll, which was completed at 11 p.m. EST on Nov. 2, showed a Kerry victory with 51 percent of the vote to Bush's 48 percent.

Mitofsky said exit polls have always tended to give an edge to Democratic candidates, and that he had anticipated the problem and taken steps to account for it. But he said the magnitude of the discrepancy was greater than he had expected. He said that for reasons that remain unclear, Democratic voters are more likely than Republicans to agree to interview requests from pollsters.

Mitofsky and network election experts acknowledged that more needs to be done to refine the exit-polling system, including better recruitment and training of pollsters, but insisted that the practice is sound.

"They run a professional operation and they know what they're doing," said Tom Hannon, the political director for CNN, a member of the pool. "They didn't make one bad call. There were problems, but compared to 2000, they weren't that bad."

Critics, however, pounced on the NEP report.

"I'm not sure that I will ever believe an exit poll again," said John Zogby, president and chief executive of the polling firm Zogby International. "How could they have been so way off? They were worse than virtually every pre-election poll." (Zogby's own pre-election polling predicted that Kerry would win.)

Kathleen Frankovic, director of surveys for CBS News, also a pool member, said she supports exit polling but said it is not surprising that the exit polls were off because all polls are estimates rather than vote counts. "If you want to do an exit poll, there's a lot of detail and a lot of potential for problems," she said. "Maybe this will undercut some of the blind faith in exit polls."

Mitofsky laid most of the blame for the Election Day confusion at the feet of people who distributed the leaked data on the Internet.

"I don't really take well (to) being criticized for numbers that were leaked when I didn't leak them," he said. "Some of the exit polls were off during the day, but I never told anyone to pay attention to them."
---

Jan 19/05

Senator John Kerry Opposes Nomination Of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State
January 19, 2005--Statement of Senator John Kerry:

I appreciate Dr. Rice’s willingness to stay late last evening to have an exchange with the committee on the critical foreign policy and security questions before us.



“After serious consideration, I have decided to vote against this nomination. Dr. Rice is a principal architect, implementer, and defender of a series of administration policies that have not made our country as secure as we should be and have alienated much-needed allies in our common cause of winning the war against terrorism. Regrettably, I did not see in Dr. Rice’s testimony any acknowledgment of the need to change course or of a new vision for America’s role in the world. On Iraq, on North Korea, on Iran, to name just a few of the most critical challenges, it seems to be more of the same.

“I hope I am proven wrong. I hope the course will change. And I hope that the administration will recognize the strength of a foreign policy that has bipartisan support. I am prepared to work with Dr. Rice and others in the administration to try to reach agreement on policies that will truly strengthen our security and restore America’s credibility on the world stage. And I am confident colleagues on both sides of the aisle are prepared to do so as well.

8:56 pm PT, Wednesday, Jan 19, 2005

John Kerry - Petty, Petulant, Piss Ant Extraordinaire - I Again Thank American Voters For His Defeat
By Dennis M. Becklin

Medford, Oregon - US Senator John Kerry's "NO" vote at the conclusion of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing for Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice tells the entire story. This petty, petulant, poor losing, piss ant who aspired to be the 44th President of the United States of America is beneath the office.

I again thank every American voter who voted for President George W. Bush in November, 2004.

If any of you needed confirmation of the importance of your vote for President Bush versus his challenger last year, you saw it today.
Senator John F. Kerry, member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, cast one of only two votes against Dr. Condoleeza Rice today. He stood on the same side of the vote with California's US Senator Barbara Boxer, and cast his lot with the icon of negativist personalities in the US Senate.

Congratulations, Mr. Kerry. You lived up to my expectations.

If you had the slightest amount of class... If you had the slightest amount of character... If you had even a minimalist understanding of the concept of the common good of all Americans...If you possessed the smallest quotient of American spirit...

Mr. Kerry, you would have voted in favor of Dr. Rice today.

For Americans, this is an historic day... a star-spangled-banner day. Those who voted for John Kerry have been shown why they made a grievous mistake. Those who voted for President George W. Bush have been handed Kerry's petulant personality on his own silver platter.
Thank you, Mr. Kerry.

More importantly, thank you President George W. Bush, and thank you US Secretary of State designate Dr. Condoleeza Rice.
Your class and your strength of character are welcome, and necessary, in the leadership of the shining light of the world...The United States of America.

Dennis M. Becklin, Publisher
SouthernOregonNews LLC
www.GrantsPassNews.com
www.MedfordNews.com
www.NewsAshland.com
Contact info: Dennis M. Becklin may be reached at dennis@southernoregonnews.com.

Kerry failed vets on return home
Jan. 18, 2005 12:00 AM

Regarding "Media fumbled on Guard memos" (Letters, Thursday):

The writer states he hasn't read any corroboration of Lt. Col. Larry B. Killian's positive evaluation of then-Lt. George W. Bush. I have.



The writer also states then-Lt. Bush's Guard service is "relevant" because the Bush presidential campaign attacked Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam service, a misstatement of fact. On several occasions President Bush and other campaign officials stated that Sen. Kerry served his country honorably. The "attack" he refers to came from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an independent 527 organization, like moveon.org.

What is "relevant," is not the fact that Kerry was there; it is what he said and did when he returned home. On a visit to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., shortly after it opened, I met several Vietnam vets. Some handed out literature, others had booths where they sold anti-Jane Fonda and John Kerry memorabilia. They wanted the American people to know the truth: They were not baby killers, they were not criminals, they served their country with honor.

For more than 30 years our vets tried to inform the public of the atrocities committed by John Kerry and others, yet the mainstream media ignored them. When John Kerry ran for president, he provided the veterans an opportunity to get their message out.

The election is over; whether you like the outcome or not is irrelevant. Maybe the real winners are the veterans - their voices were heard, they reopened debate, hoping we the people would seek the truth and finally heal the wounds of Vietnam. - Cindy Saling, Surprise



Nov 8
Monday, Nov. 8, 2004 9:42 a.m. EST
Kerry in 'F'-word Tantrum over Missing Hairbrush
Now they tell us.

Newsweek's special election issue is chock full of juicy details about the man the media wanted to become president, one of which was that the billionaire Democrat was hellish on the help.

One revealing incident transpired as John Kerry was preparing for a Time magazine photo shoot last February, and wanted to attend to his carefully maintained coiffure.
Turning to his butler and valet, Marvin Nicholson - whom Kerry brought along on the campaign trail to fetch everything from peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to throat lozenges - the man-of-the-people Democrat demanded to know where his hairbrush was.
"Sir, I don't have it," Nicholson replied, after rummaging in the bags.
"Marvin, f---!" Kerry barked
Press secretary David Wade tried to help, offering Kerry his own brush, but the temperamental billionaire rejected the help
"I'm not using Wade's brush," he shot back, before cursing his at butler again.
"Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Vietnam Swift Boat veterans celebrate their role in John Kerry's election defeat
By Charles Laurence
(Filed: 07/11/2004)
'John Kerry will never call us terrorists and war criminals again," crowed John O'Neill, the Vietnam war Swift Boat captain who led the fiercest attack of the campaign against the Democratic candidate.

With his brothers-in-arms from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr O'Neill was celebrating President George W Bush's victory with fervour. For the Swift Boat captains and crew who fought to destroy Sen Kerry's credibility as a Vietnam war hero, it was a victorious end to a vendetta that began more than 30 years ago.

"I will leave it to the professionals to decide whether we played a crucial role in defeating Kerry, but I am very satisfied," said Mr O'Neill from his law office in Houston, Texas.

Last week it emerged that Mr Kerry had wanted to fight back against his Vietnam nemesis, but was dissuaded by his campaign advisers. He is furious at their miscalculation. The Swift Boat Veteran for Truth organisation, operating outside the official Republican machine, did more damage to Mr Kerry's image as the cool, experienced war leader than anyone else.

Mr Kerry was enraged by its television advertisements and a best-selling book, Unfit for Command, by Mr O'Neill. He was even more angry when the former senator Bob Dole - a Second World War veteran - appeared on television to endorse the veterans.

According to a special edition of Newsweek magazine, Mr Kerry telephoned Mr Dole, a fellow Purple Heart holder, decorated for wounds suffered in battle, in fury. "You can't say this kind of stuff," he shouted. "And by the way, Bob, I bled from every one of my wounds."

Throughout their campaign Mr O'Neill and his fellow veterans insisted that they were working not for President Bush, but for justice and their own honour.

They saw Mr Kerry as a man who had ratted on his fellow warriors by describing them as "war criminals", faked his Vietnam wounds, and secured his medals under false pretences. Mr O'Neill's book caught the senator out in at least one exaggeration: his claim to have spent a Christmas in Cambodia, when he was several miles inside the Vietnamese border.

"Kerry has lost his case as well as the election. We have reclaimed history," said Mr O'Neill.

Mr Kerry attracted particular opprobrium for having taken up leadership of a veterans' anti-war movement, the role in which he claimed that American troops had been involved in war crimes.

Mr O'Neill debated with Mr Kerry on television and has pursued him ever since. "The reason I will do anything to stop John Kerry becoming Commander-in-Chief is that, the first time he confronted terrorism - the terrorists of Vietnam - he took the position that they were the army of George Washington and we were the war criminals," he said.

Mr Kerry was ambushed by the Swift Boat veterans within hours of leaving the podium of the Democratic Convention, where he had theatrically saluted and "reported for duty". Newsweek reports that he wanted to fight back immediately, encouraged by an aide to Sen John McCain. The aide warned Mr Kerry: "They'll make it look like you fought for the Viet Cong."

But Mr Kerry's campaign managers, Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill, insisted that he "float above" the attack advertisements.

It was only after James Carville, President Clinton's former campaign strategist known as the "Ragin' Cajun" joined Mr Kerry's team in September that the approach changed. Mr Carville, reports Newsweek, insisted that the candidate be allowed to hit back - but it was too late.

Mr O'Neill warned that he remained ready for combat, and was waiting in the wings with his "message" should Sen Kerry ever choose to return to the presidential political fray.



Nov 7
Diary Bombshell: Kerry Met with Terrorists
News Max 7 Nov 2004
In a bombshell development that could have turned President Bush's victory into a landslide had it come out before the election, John Kerry wrote in his Vietnam war diary that he met "terrorists" in Paris - a revelation that "flabbergasted" his running mate John Edwards.

All during the campaign, Kerry had adamantly refused to release his diary, claiming that he'd given exclusive rights to use the document to his biographer, Douglas Brinkely. But when Brinkley told reporters that wasn't true, Kerry still declined to make the diary public. Now we know why.

According to Newsweek magazine: "Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris."

Though Kerry's sit-down with North Vietnamese representatives had been reported late in the campaign, his description of them as "terrorists" would have set off smoke alarms.

The prospect that the top Democrat was willing to negotiate with "terrorists" 35-years ago would undoubtedly cement the Bush campaign's central message on Kerry: Anyone who would negotiate with terrorists can't be trusted with U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.

John Edwards was "flabbergasted" by the news, Newsweek said. He recognized immediately how important it was to keep Kerry's terrorist confab secret.

"Let me get this straight," he told campaign staffers who delivered the shocker. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."
Democrats Perplexed…Still Don’t Get it!
Written by JB Williams
©2004-11-06
I’m not surprised that a Party, who thinks George Soros represents American values, still can’t figure out what happened on November 2nd. No wonder Bill Clinton is still the star of the Democratic Party, he’s the only one who is even close to getting it…

Three days after the outcome of the 2004 election became clear, former President Clinton had a message for Democrats on the brink of suicide: “Buck up. It's not that bad. You need to improve your image.”
"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for Democrats, and the two are not necessarily in conflict. It would be a mistake for our party to sit around and ... whine about this and that or the other thing." Clinton said in his first public remarks since Democratic Sen. John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday.
I said Clinton is the “closest” to getting it… but even he is missing the mark by a smidge…

It’s classic Clinton; he only recognizes the “image” problems facing the DNC, completely ignoring the fact that their current image matches their current platform and base philosophy perfectly.

Clinton is almost right, the DNC does have a severe image problem with all those red counties across the country. But the problem doesn’t stop with just their image, it runs much deeper than that.

Remember when the extreme left in America (yeah, it existed back then too, just in much smaller numbers) was afraid to elect JFK because they thought he would turn the whole country Catholic? These are the same folks that fear Bush’s moral convictions, only now they are greater in number, more extreme in their secular beliefs, and they control the Democratic Party.

Few Presidents have spoken more of their religion than JFK, and he would be no more welcome in the DNC today than George W. Bush. This is not just an image problem, this is a major philosophical shift in the heartbeat of the Democratic Party, and Americans figured that out.

Clinton went on to say, "If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault."

Again, he limits his diagnosis to the Party “image”. But the fact is the Party philosophy matches today’s image perfectly. They don’t believe in faith, or family, or hard work, or even freedom.

Instead, they have built their Party on a platform of secularism, same-sex unions, free stuff and in general, socialist principles. The American people didn’t misinterpret this in the 2000, 2002 or 2004 elections, they just flatly rejected it.

Spotted Al Gore was too left of center for America in 2000, but the DNC didn’t get the message, so they lost more congressional seats in 2002. Now John Kerry and John Edwards were too left of center for America in 2004, and they still don’t get it.

Already they are ramping up to run someone even further left in 2008, America’s surrogate Marxist, Hillary Clinton. Whether America is ready for a female President or not, clearly demonstrated in the last three elections is the fact that America is not yet ready for a Marxist President. Hopefully, it never will be!

Even worse, like other socialists around the globe, Democrats look at that big red map and conclude that the race was close. That all those red “hillbilly” counties that cover the map from sea to shining sea, are just too backwoods ignorant to know that they should welcome a secular socialist society with open arms.

Now clearly, somebody is “out of touch” with America, “out of sink” with true American values and principles, and it defies any form of logic to think it is all those folks who live in all those red counties.

They figure all us backwoods folks don’t know what the word “progressive” means. But it turns out us hillbilly’s can do a little cipherin’ of our own. All we have to do is look at the policy platform of the modern DNC, and we can see that “progressive” means “secular socialism”, a Godless society run by Godless men who appoint themselves God.
For such a hifalutin bunch of pantywaists, Democrats sure is slow to catch up with us bible thumpin’ baccer spittin’ hillbillies, ain’t they? Forest Gump was quicker on the uptake than these pompous windbags. Maybe they need someone to draw them a picture…?

A classy bunch they are too… (Click this one with discretion; they ain’t so classy after all)
Yep, it’s going to be entertaining watching these pretentious secular socialist puff-bags attempt to re-invent themselves between now and the next election.
We’ll have to keep in mind that it is only a re-invention of their “image”, because none of them folks who live in those little blue counties see anything wrong with their anti-American flag-burnin’ blame America first stinkin’ thinkin’. So they are not likely to change anything that matters any time soon.



Nov 5
These are the scum bags they call democrats.
"We still got work to do"


These photos were taken at the post-election anti-Bush rally
in San Francisco on November 3, 2004.


The rage and frustration of another Bush victory was more than many San Franciscans could take. As soon as Bush's re-election was confirmed in the middle of Wednesday, November 3, people started gathering at Powell and Market streets. By 5pm the crowd had swelled to several thousand.

The photographs below were taken at the rally and at the march that followed. Captions are provided only where needed.
















Succinct.









Many protesters there simply could not accept what had happened. They paraded around with their election messages calling for Bush's defeat. I call them "November First people."

Still living in denial.




One group carried signs depicting famous revolutionaries and communists.

The most incomprehensible sign of the evening.

After night fell, around 6:30pm, the rally turned into a march to Mission and 24th streets. I heard murmurs that it might degenerate into a riot.

I fell in with the "Black Bloq," a group of anarcho-fascists whose only goal is to commit violence and incite chaos. I marched with them for hours as they chanted, "Tonight, We're gonna, Fuck! Shit! Up!" and "Hey hey, Ho ho, this civilization's got to go!" and "Shoot Bush, not dope!" and "No Bush, No Kerry, Revolution's necessary."

The Black Bloq folks hate San Francisco's touchy-feely leftists as much as they hate George Bush.

Luckily, the police came prepared, with officers lining the entire route, so the riot never materialized -- until the end, at the intersection of Mission and 24th, when the Black Bloq could no longer contain themselves. One of them threatened to attack a policeman, and was immediately arrested. The rest of the crew surrounded the cop in an angry mob.

Other cops swooped in and drove back the crowd. Here, the arresting officer drags the offender backwards toward the safety of the adjacent BART subway station.

As soon as the police descended the stairs into the station, the Black Bloq swarmed over the railing and rained firecrackers, rocks and traffic diverters down on the officers.

The BART staff panicked and decided to close down the station entirely. I ran to the other station entrance and saw that all the passengers were being quickly evacuated.

After a while the main entrance quieted down -- all that was visible were three traffic diverters that had been hurled at the cops.

Still frustrated, the Black Bloqers cried out, "Get the McDonald's!", but again the police were waiting for them. After seeing this row of cops protecting the building, the Black Bloqers backed off.

Their blood lust was satiated when someone started burning George Bush in effigy.

The crowd howled and screamed in excitement.




After the effigy was burnt to a crisp, the evening came to a shattering conclusion as the protesters ignited an upside-down American flag and cheered in ecstasy while the flames leaped into the night sky.



Patriots 51…Socialists 48
J.B Williams

“We the People” made history on November 2nd 2004 in so many ways. We turned out in record numbers to decide the future of our nation. By doing so, we took control of our country at a time when many believed control had been lost to the politicians, the corporations, or the special interest groups. We proved who runs this country, and the lessons are clear…

Since FDR, there has been a slow constant march towards socialism in America. American’s are the most socially conscious people on earth, but that doesn’t mean we believe in socialism as a form of governance. We know what socialism is, and we are aware of its record of failure around the globe. We have watched the DNC adopt a socialist doctrine, even watched as the socialist and communist party’s endorsed the DNC candidate in 2004, and on November 2nd, “we the people” said no!

The socialization of America depends on the movement first succeeding at a few other things. Neither socialism nor communism will be accepted in a nation of free moral people. No matter which God one believes in, belief in God’s dominion over man removes any possibility of man’s dominion over man. So for socialism to be accepted, America must first agree to become a secular nation. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

In order to become a secular nation, separation of church and state has to become law. We have all listened to Ivy League professor’s pontificate about the idea of separation of church and state in America, but we all know there is no such thing. We also know there is no real difference between people with no moral foundation at all, and people who can separate themselves from their moral convictions at will. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

A secular nation replaces moral and ethical values with the concept of an open society whereby all ideals, no matter how immoral, no matter how perverted, have equal merit and Rights. Idea’s like Gay Marriage, Pedophilia and Bestiality are given equal status with traditional family values. Some want to separate these ideas as though some are more immoral or more perverted than others. But in all cases, they represent unnatural sexual urges and none of them belong on an equal footing with traditional family values. On November 2nd, 11 states addressed these ideas and in all 11 cases, “we the people” overwhelmingly said no!

Abortion, the taking of innocent life for the purpose of sexual convenience has been accepted in this country for more than 40 years. No law was passed making it legal, no Constitutional Amendment exists making it a Right, and if it were put to a nation wide referendum, it would be outlawed from sea to shining sea. People who can do this, or who openly promote it, will pay a heavy price for their actions and so will all of us who sit quietly by, and allow it to continue. In a secular nation, murder is no problem, but on November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” proved that America is not yet a secular nation.

America is not only the nation that feeds itself; it’s the nation that has fed the world for more than 100 years. Most countries in the world are either third world dictatorships, or socialist forms of limited self-governance. Every nation envies the wealth and power of America, and many wish to bring America down to their level in every respect. All of our power is a result of and dependent upon our economic power. That economic power exists because of our economic freedom, and socialists threaten that freedom, and the power and security it provides.

More than $4 billion was spent in the 2004 election to fill a $400,000. a year position. An obscene amount of “illegal” money from God knows where or who, with God knows what kind of strings attached, was funneled into our honorable system by dishonorable people through 527 organizations attempting to supercede the will of the American people. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!
Billionaire socialists like George Soros, secularists with anti-American agenda’s attempted to purchase the White House for their lap monkey John Kerry, and “we the people” said no!

Socialist media elite’s like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, and Hollywood socialists like Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, George Clooney and Alec Baldwin combined their efforts of mass disinformation, converting what was left of a liberal news media into a pure socialist propaganda machine. The quality of information being delivered to the American people by these folks was on par with Baghdad Bob.

They worked in tandem with the Kerry campaign, creating anti-Bush and anti-American headlines, even using forged government documents, and reinventing old news stories in an attempt to unseat a President who stands in the way of their socialist agenda for America. To their surprise and dismay, on November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

Members of the European Union, and the UN, all of whom had been exposed for their corrupt protection of the world’s most brutal dictator, acting against America and the free world in their own greedy self-interests at the expense of millions of Iraqi’s, attempted to inject their will into the American election. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

Osama Bin Laden himself, marginalized by the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, relegated to the status of video terrorist, attempted to inject his will into the American election too, just as he did successfully in Spain. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

They told us that 254 decorated Swift Vets were all liars, and that former POW’s were all liars too. They told us not to pay any attention to Kerry’s record as the most liberal member of the US Senate. They told us we didn’t need or deserve to see Kerry’s military records, and that his meeting with the North Vietnamese in France was a chance social event, even though his following false testimony before congress in 1971 was read right from the pages of a Viet Cong propaganda document.
On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” once again said no!

“We the people” said no to all of this, and for that, I am a proud American today. But we only said no 51 to 48, a dangerously slim margin of true Patriots over Secular Socialists, which means, there is much work to be done in our country.

America’s moral majority took a stand, drew a line in the sand, and said this is the point at which the march towards secularism and socialism stops in our country. Our country is divided, 51 to 48, right down the line that separates morality from immorality. We know where the secular socialists live, in all the little blue counties on that election map. Our goal between now and 2008 must be to turn those blue counties red.

The red counties represent real American values of freedom over free stuff, the idea that right and wrong exists, and the understanding that America’s promise of personal liberty far outweighs any promise of temporary government issued economic security.

The red states don’t hate the wealthy, no matter how poor they are. They don’t believe anyone owes them anything, other than an equal opportunity to make their lives whatever they want it to be. They don’t believe America should be run by the UN, or that America should reduce itself to equal status in the world in order to eliminate the rightful envy of the world.

They believe in America, and all of the American ideals that made America the greatest nation on earth, and they are clearly committed to preserving real American values, whatever the cost.

The DNC is already talking about running Hillary Clinton in 2008, signaling that they still don’t get it. Hillary is left of Kerry and Edwards, a ticket that was already too left for America. She is left of her husband Bill, who was to the right of Kerry and Edwards, and who never received 50% of the popular vote.

On November 2nd, 2004, George W. Bush received more votes than any Presidential candidate in U.S. history, more than Reagan, and he was the first President to receive a clear majority of the peoples support since his father did in 1988.

At the same time, an already Republican House and Senate gained an even broader majority, leaving the DNC completely out of power, even losing their leadership, Tom Daschle in the process.

The message could not be clearer, yet the DNC, media elite’s and Hollywood socialists refuse to learn the lessons of the last several elections. The most divisive, intolerant, and hate filled group in America, now calls for unity from the conservative leadership. But this is no call for unity; it’s a call for mercy from the Right who has complete control in America today.

The mandate is on the Right, and the conservative leadership has an obligation to those who put them in power to not only preserve, but to advance the conservative agenda of returning America to its rightful place in the world. They have an obligation to lead America back to its moral heritage, away from the brink of secularism and socialism.

In the coming months, the mainstream media must be reformed from top to bottom, replacing propagandist with real news reporters who value “true and accurate” reporting over “fair and balanced” reporting. 527 groups and the likes must be put out of business for good; eliminating any possibility of another international coup attempt.

Congress must be forced to place all pending legislation and voting records online where anyone can access the performance data of those we elect to do our nations business, so that never again, will the people be locked out of the halls of congress where deals are cut that undermine the interest of the people who pay the bills.

There is much to be done, and conservatives have the mandate to get it done, so shame on us if we don’t. We are a moral nation, where secularists are welcome. There is no such place as a secular nation, where the religious are welcome. November 2nd must be the beginning, not the end…


The Day After
Kerry Campaign Party Turns to Tears and Bitterness
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com
Senior Staff Writer

November 03, 2004 Boston (CNSNews.com) - As President George Bush edged closer to the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure re-election, supporters of Democratic nominee John Kerry openly wept and consoled each other at the Election Night celebration in Boston's Copley Square. Some Kerry supporters called Bush's platform "all lies" and heckled a group of College Republicans who were passing through the crowd. A distraught woman confronted Democratic U.S. Rep. Harold Ford in the lobby of the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel and screamed, "Can you tell me why everybody made a mistake?" Ford responded, "Let me talk to the candidate before I make a comment. It's been a long day." Another woman standing near Ford began to openly weep at the prospect of a Kerry loss.

Former California Democratic governor Gray Davis spoke briefly with Ford and then essentially conceded the election to Bush and looked ahead to 2008. "We owe it to the people that we represent to reassess and try and fix what went wrong and come back with a winning coalition and strategy four years from now and try to figure out a way to win the country back," Davis said. When CNSNews.com asked why he had confidently predicted a Kerry victory just a few hours earlier, Davis responded, "I, like many people saw the exit polls, which saw Kerry ahead in every battleground state." "We believed they were a precursor of a great evening," a somber Davis explained. While Davis said he was "very proud of the campaign Kerry ran," he did criticize the party's efforts in southern states. "Part of [winning the White House] is certainly not writing off the South. It's too big a part of America just to concede to the other party and expect to win," Davis said. Davis praised Bush's re-election campaign. "The president has worked hard for his re-election since the moment he got to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Davis said. "He is surrounded by very smart people, they are very good practitioners of the art of politics," he added. 'It's all lies' Meanwhile, outside Kerry's Copley Square rally, a contingent of College Republicans from Northeastern University marched through the sea of Kerry supporters and got heckled. "You vote for Bush, you get what you deserve," shouted Kerry supporter Bob Bryant to the GOP contingent.

"Bush has put forward a platform that people tend to believe even though it's all lies. Bush is dishonest; he is not being honest with the American people," Bryant said. Another man shouted to the Republicans "This is why the rest of the world calls us ignorant Americans. You obviously don't read the newspapers or you would not believe as you do." A woman, unhappy the Republicans were there, screamed, "someone shut up those idiots.' Brian Henchey, one of the College Republicans marching through the crowd told CNSNews.com that he had "never seen more sad and depressed faces in my life than what I have seen here in Copley Square tonight." "I think our president is a strong man, he is a strong leader. He is what this country needs," said Megan, one of the GOP marchers. Kerry supporters from Ireland weighed in on why they believe Bush will likely be re-elected. "It clarifies the fact that American people aren't so smart. If I could, I would have voted for Kerry," said the woman.

Kerry Supporter Compares Conservatives to Hitler
 By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com
Senior Staff Writer

November 03, 2004 Boston (CNSNews.com) - A supporter of Democratic nominee John Kerry compared conservatives to Adolf Hitler in a series of interviews with the media at the Democratic Election Night party in Boston's Copley Square. Joe Pulliam of Bedford Mass., said "Thomas Jefferson - liberal, Abraham Lincoln - liberal, Jesus - liberal, Adolf Hitler - conservative. Hey where do you stand?" Pulliam told CNSNews.com. "All of these people are making liberal sound like a dirty word. It's not. It's the thing that built this country. All of these conservatives that want to grab freedom and democracy -- it's not theirs, it's ours. It's liberalism that made this country," Pulliam added. Pulliam, who carried a sign stating, "Al Franken fans for Kerry," went on to decry what he called the "incompetence" of the Bush administration. "Where has there not been incompetence in this faith-based presidency? It's just all based on faith. Let's hope it all works out. Let's do the dumbest thing you can possibly do -- the worst answer to any question and hope it works out" he said. "It's the incompetency stupid," he added. Pulliam echoed many of the Kerry faithful gathered in Boston when he described his reaction to a possible Bush victory.

 "I will be very disappointed, but shocked as well," he said.


Hillary 2008 Already in Gear
The outcome of yesterday's presidential election could determine whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will have a chance to return her family to the White House.
A victory by President Bush could establish New York's junior senator as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president. A win by Democrat John F. Kerry could put off a run for the White House by the former first lady for at least eight years, and maybe forever, pollsters and strategists said.


"The speculation starts as soon as Bush is declared a winner, and not at all if Kerry is," said independent pollster Lee Miringoff, head of Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion.

New York's voters are split on a Clinton run for the White House. She continues to evoke strong feelings – positive and negative – the way she did during her 2000 Senate campaign.

Richard Stager, a retired machinist from Fayetteville, said he would support a Clinton run for president.

"It's time we had a woman president," the 73-year-old said after voting for Bush yesterday. "God only knows the men are running this country into the ground."
Bob Gibson, a 57-year-old retiree from New York City, reacted strongly to the suggestion of another Clinton presidency. Gibson is a Democrat who voted for Bush.
"I can't stand Hillary," he said. "She reminds me of my ex-wife; what a phony."
Clinton has said she would be happy if Kerry won, served two terms, and handed off to Sen. John Edwards, the vice presidential nominee, for two more terms.

"That would be great with me," she said shortly after the Democratic National Convention. "I want a Democratic White House for as long as we can have one."
"If Kerry wins, Hillary loses," declared Republican operative Nelson Warfield. "Do the math. She's fresh and 57 today. After Kerry runs for re-election [in 2008], she's 65 and old news."

But one top Clinton adviser, Harold Ickes, said yesterday that two terms for Kerry was "not a show-stopper" if the former first lady later decides she wants to run for the White House.

Ickes said he did not know if Clinton wanted to do that.

"There is a myth abroad that the Clintons really didn't want Kerry to win," Ickes said. "Nothing could be further from the truth. ... From the beginning they have wanted a Democratic president."

But a Bush win does mean "the Democrats will be in somewhat of a disarray. She's the most logical person to pick up the pieces," said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic consultant who worked on President Clinton's 1996 re-election effort. "She has a national organization, a national fund-raising base, and she has the former president as her greatest ally."


Coming Soon To a Blog Near You

Hildabeast.com
We will nip this in the bud before it happens!


Election Day!!
                                         Bush Wins Big!!

Be Afraid   
By Shawn Macomber  
Published 11/2/2004 1:08:09 AM

 Unfortunately, it appears that when Elizabeth Edwards speaks some people actually listen. This sad fact might be innocuous enough if the aspiring Second Lady were trading parenting or dieting tips. But instead semi-reformed former Deaniacs and Kucinich Kids seem to have latched onto Edwards' recent promise to a worried supporter that post-election riots will not wrack the nation -- so long as the Kerry-Edwards ticket walks away with it.

The suggestion, of course, is that there indeed will be riots if John F. Kerry's boyhood dreams of ascending to his rightful position as ruler of the universe are squashed by the result of today's voting. It is just such a scenario for which a group called No Stolen Elections is currently preparing. The newly-minted organization has already gotten more than 17,000 of the young and restless to sign the following pledge:

I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the states where the fraud occurred or in Washington DC.

Among the better known John Hancocks adorning this pledge are those of Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, Gloria Steinem, Howard Zinn, AFL-CIO Organizing Director Stewart Acuff, NAACP chairman Julian Bond, Daniel Ellsberg, Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, and Barbara Ehrenreich, fresh from a stint as a New York Times substitute columnist. Oh, and clearly we wouldn't want to forget Adrienne Maree Brown, the dignified leader of the League of Pissed Off Voters.

So what exactly are these folks planning to make sure that "an unelected President does not enter the White House, like last time"? Well, the group has first of all established a "Fair Elections Advisory Council" of "international elections experts" to make a call on Election Day as to whether the vote was "stolen" again or not. If it has been -- and, let's face it, what are the chances any "international elections experts" are going to certify a Bush victory as just? -- No Stolen Elections will call its "Urgent Response Network" into action, "to converge in the states where the most serious fraud occurred, as well as in Washington DC." And the group is promising to make Florida circa 2000 look like a picnic.

"One thing that was missing from our side, but not from the conservative side, in 2000 was street heat," Steve Cobble writes on the group's website. "The GOP had their bourgeois riots, and their crowds were consistently bigger and more vocal, which helped frame in the media's mind the sense that their side had been wronged because Bush had won but Gore would not give up…We encourage people to work for regime change at home all day on November 2nd, election day, and then prepare to return to the streets on November 3rd (and perhaps beyond), at predetermined, symbolic, convenient locally-chosen sites."

All right, let's say what needs to be said: How bad can today's America really be if lazy lefty agitators can "work for regime change at home"? That's a pretty sweet gig compared to the depravities visited upon real activists with actual spines in countries such as Cuba -- a country, it is worth noting, the American hard-left continues to romanticize. Beyond that bit of absurdity, however, note that if Kerry wins the group has no interest in "counting every vote." Instead they suggest gathering instead to "celebrate Bush's involuntary retirement while also setting out a strong statement on the war in Iraq." Clearly, it is not the number of votes that concerns No Stolen Election, but the outcome. Are they interested in voter fraud if it results in a Kerry victory? Nope. These defenders of democracy will be too busy partying in the streets to riot over that.

In fact, No Stolen Elections' biggest fear seems to be that the saner elements in the Democratic Party will accept defeat. Cobble criticizes Gore for holding back activists in 2000, noting, "This was a mistake, and we don't believe the African American community or the unions will be willing to follow the campaign's lead again." Instead, Cobble said the activists will be in charge of these recounts.

"We must prod the Democratic Party to stand up this time, not just watch events occur in silence, as was largely the case in 2000," he writes. "We must encourage the few remaining respected blue-ribbon truth-tellers in our society to stand up and be counted -- people like Walter Cronkite, Jimmy Carter, Oprah Winfrey."

Oh, great. The inmates really are running the Democratic asylum this year, and they want to crown Jimmy Carter and Oprah Winfrey emperor and empress of U.S. elections. If we allow them to run the country, it won't be good for anyone. Before it's over George W. Bush could be in Siberian exile, while the much-despised Ralph Nader is forced to drive laps in a Ford Pinto while jeering activists hurl obscenities and tomatoes at him.

Brace yourself America. The aftermath of this election could be much worse than a floor covered in formerly hanging chads.


Shawn Macomber is a reporter for The American Spectator. He runs the website Return of the Primitive.


UPDATE: VOTES 'FOUND ON MACHINES' IN PHILLY BEFORE POLLS OPEN

Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- Republican poll watchers believed they found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered in heavy-minority locations throughout the city.

Republican poll watchers claim:

One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8.

Pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500...

A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day.

ANOTHER INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa..

ANOTHER: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa...

MORE...

The Kerry Campaign says reports of votes already on machines are 'false.'

"Serious news will not appear first on the DRUDGE gossip website," senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart told reporters.

Officially, election officials explain the discrepancy is being caused by a number showing how many times various machines have been used.

But officials could not explain why used machines in other locations were reportedly 'clean.'

Elsewhere, a gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and quickly surrounded the location...

Developing...

Would Kerry Sign bin Laden Non-Aggression Pact?
By Patrick Hynes



In fairness, Osama bin Laden’s latest message comes across more like an amalgam of Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative magazine and obese low-budget filmmaker Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 than a John Kerry speech. In his video, bin Laden marries an isolationist worldview with a distorted and confused understanding of the facts.

“Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaida. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn’t mess with our security has automatically secured their security,” the world’s most wanted terrorists told us, four days before the election. (One other thing became clear as a result of bin Laden’s latest tirade: he’s a babbling fool.)

At its core, bin Laden’s message offers Americans an olive branch, albeit a twisted, rotting one, covered with fire ants. You leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone, is his essential point. Is he trustworthy? If we pulled out of Iraq and the Middle East altogether could we count on perfect security?

Of course not.

But which candidate for president, Bush or Kerry, would be more likely to sign this non-aggression pact with the terror master? Undoubtedly, it is Kerry. And his frequent campaign utterances such as “the world is watching” during the final stretch of the race take on an ominous tone in light of bin Laden’s tape.

Kerry’s record in this regard shows him to be gullible, simple-minded, and easily manipulated in hands of evil men. Vladimir Lenin had a name for people like John Kerry, “useful idiots” he called them.

In 1970, while still a reserve officer with the U.S. Navy, John Kerry practiced self-appointed diplomacy and met with “both sides” of the Vietnam conflict in Paris. By “both sides” Kerry meant, of course, both sides of the Communist aggression, the delegations from North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The details of his visit are still closely guarded secrets.

But shortly upon his return to the United States, John Kerry became an Executive Board member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and their public relations tool. He even testified before Congress. But more than one patriotic American recognized the talking points from which Kerry was speaking as he urged Americans and their politicians to end the Vietnam conflict: Kerry argued an end to the conflict on the Communist Vietnamese’ terms.
In essence, John Kerry lobbied Congress on behalf of our Communist enemies.

Kerry continued his dimwitted appeasement along the Central American front in the Cold War. As a candidate for the United States Senate in 1984, Kerry was a defense-cutting, no-nukes, Dukakis protégé, a dedicated enemy of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy of containing the spread of international criminal Communism. But all the defense cuts, rhetoric, pickets and fear mongering he did in those days pales in comparison to the trip America’s Most Liberal Senator took to Nicaragua. “Senator Harkin and I,” Kerry said, “are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam." (Hmph, I didn’t know Kerry served in Vietnam. He should have made this a bigger issue in his campaign.)

Kerry cooled his jets in Daniel Ortega’s living room. Ortega, of course, was the head of the Sandinistas, the Communist regime run out of Havana and Moscow. Make no mistake, Ortega was a genuinely bad guy (still is.) His regime killed, imprisoned and harassed Christians, turned Catholic churches into Communist classrooms, banned any semblance of a free press and attempted to export brutal Communism to El Salvador.

Ortega promised Kerry he would adopt a ceasefire with the Contras and open negotiations toward free and fair elections if the United States rejected the Contras request for military and monetary aid. Again, we find Kerry essentially lobbying for a Communist thug in Congress. “The real question is, does this administration want to pursue negotiations, or is it committed to force?”

The Democrats in Congress, led by Kerry, accepted Ortega’s non-aggression pact. Shortly thereafter Daniel Ortega flew to Moscow and accepted one of those gigantic novelty checks to be used toward murderous weapons in the cause of spreading Communism.

It doesn’t end there. In his 1997 book The New War, John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a “statesmen,” while acknowledging he was, at one time anyway, a bad guy. So Kerry believed anti-Semitic, anarchical terrorist tigers can change their stripes. Is his assessment of Osama bin Laden as malleable?

This is not some defect of Kerry’s past life. Just this summer, Kerry called the rotten-toothed fanatic Muqtada al Sadr a “legitimate voice” in Iraq. This is the same al Sadr who urges death to Jews and to Americans daily.

Kerry looks at awful, murderous people and says hey, let’s talk this thing out. We at crushkerry.com are not prepared to believe Kerry is some Manchurian candidate, bent on giving America’s enemies another bite at our apple. But he is a naïf and a dimwitted cosmopolitan who does not understand that there are evil men in this world and they must be stopped.

And that is why Kerry must be stopped. If he wins, Americans will have signed an ill-advised non-aggression pact with Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida network of terrorists.





Next Page

Readers Comments - click the link to view

To Leave Comments click here-Leave a Comment

The information on this page is of public record and not meant to infuriate but to inform, I take no side one way or
 the other just nothing but the facts jack-Ron Leonard