Get ready and saddle up!~!

Newly discovered documents show that the young John Kerry didn’t just meet with the Communist Vietnamese in Paris. He took orders from them. His activities, when he returned home and denounced his country and fellow soldiers, delighted the Vietnamese Communists and gave them hope that they could defeat America and enslave millions of Vietnamese in a genocidal slave state that persists to this day.

Is this the man you want to see in the White House? Do you want to wake up on November 3 and hear that John Kerry, Communist stooge, is the president-elect?

Top of the fold -- Bush lied, he misled us...

At least, that has been John Kerry's most oft-repeated assertion for the last six months.

It is no coincidence that Kerry would use such a claim as the foundation of his campaign rhetoric. In fact, it is enlightening. You see, campaign hacks for a challenger use focus groups to determine their candidate's most distinguished flaw, and then tutor their candidate on how to cast the incumbent with a greater measure of that flaw. Clearly, John Kerry's most apparent liabilities are his lack of integrity and lack of fitness for command -- and there is plenty of evidence for both deficiencies.

Kerry insists, "I've never, ever used the harshest word ['lie']." But of course, that is a lie. Preceding that remark, he said, "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us." After it, he said, "[Bush] failed to tell you the truth. ... I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people."

A charter member of Kerry's Leftist cadre, Al Franken, wrote a book a few years back entitled, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Apparently, Kerry adopted it as his campaign playbook. While the "F" in JFK may stand for "fib," "fabrication," "falsehood," "fallacy," "feint," "forgery," "fake," and, phonetically speaking, "phony," it also stands for "flip-flop." Kerry's strategy to paint President George W. Bush as a liar is subterfuge to divert attention from Kerry's own extensive record of fibs and flips. As readers of this column well know, Kerry has been on both sides of just about every issue -- which is to say, he has lied to just about everyone at one time or another.

In this, the last...let's say almost the last, post before Election Day, 2004, it is worth reviewing a few of Kerry's lies -- in his own words. We don't have sufficient bandwidth to publish all of them, but those that follow are both representative, and typically transparent, of Kerry's mendacity.

Who can forget these memorable recollections from Kerry's "heroics" in Vietnam: "I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me. ... [American military personnel in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] 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 and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. ... There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed...."

He is still trying to make amends for those lies: "When it comes to war and peace, I will tell the truth to the American people.... For 35 years I have stood up, and fought, and kept faith with my fellow veterans. [Bush has] not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country."

On the economy, Kerry lies: "Now, the president has presided over an economy where we've lost 1.6 million jobs. The first president in 72 years to lose jobs. ... This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. ... This president chose a tax cut over homeland security. ... We didn't need that tax cut. ... I'm fighting for the middle class."

On social issues, Kerry lies: "They are going to privatize your Social Security. ... They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. ... I believe it's time to stop viewing innovative approaches as anomalies or threats to traditional public schools and begin seeing them as part of the future of public education. ... Public schools need resources and support, and vouchers drain them of both. ... I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. ... I have a plan to cover all [make that 25 of 45 million uninsured] Americans. ... I am not proposing a government-run [healthcare] program. It is not a government takeover. The government has nothing to do with it."

On the most important issue of the day, our worldwide war against Jihadi terrorists, and particularly the Jihadi warfront in Iraq, Kerry lies: "We were safer before President Bush came to office. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them. ... I sat with the French and British, Germans, with the entire Security Council. ... I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. ... America must fight and win two wars. The war in Iraq and the war on terror. ... President Bush likes to confuse the two. ... In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war [on terror] and the battle against the enemy. ... I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the [global] test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere. ... If George Bush were to be re-elected ... there is great potential [that he would re-instate the draft]."

And there's much more from Kerry on the war: "Osama bin Laden escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords. ... We are 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq. ... The war costs -- $200 billion. And it's in Iraq. And Iraq is not even the center of the focus on the war on terror. I don't think any United States Senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. ... My position on Iraq has been consistent. ... I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.... That's not a flip-flop. That's not a flip-flop. ... I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life. ... Let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq."

On the flip-side, Kerry has said of the war in Iraq: "Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people.... I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off.... I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11. ... I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq. ... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991. ... If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. ... The president always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country. ... I do not regret my vote [in support of the Iraq war]. ... I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. [My position] can't be clearer."

And Kerry's lies keep piling up.

In old news that was slated to be recycled by CBS talkinghead Dan Rather this Sunday (leaving too little time to debunk it), the latest, and perhaps last Kerry prevarication of this campaign (concerning some quantity of HMX and RDX explosives missing at al-Qa Qaa weapons installation south of Baghdad) was printed by The New York Times ahead of schedule. "Our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold," said Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday "60 Minutes" said.

Memo to CBS News President Andrew Heyward: Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

And speaking of decency -- or the egregious lack thereof -- Kerry was quick to spin the "story," blaming our military forces in Iraq, and their commander in chief, with dereliction of duty. Of the latter, Kerry said: "Now we know that our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics. This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration. The incredible incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk and put our country at greater risk than we ought to be. After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles -- where nearly 377 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. The missing explosives could very likely be in the hands of terrorists and insurgents, who are actually attacking our forces now 80 times a day on average."

Unfortunately for Kerry, et al., it only took a few hours to debunk this feeble crack at an October surprise.

As previously noted here, my well-placed sources in the region, and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO, estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided a large window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, I reported Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse.

Indeed, Kerry and his Leftmedia minions have it all wrong -- again. The NRO released photos of heavy trucks loading materials from the bunker in question at al-Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on 17 March 2003, three days prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq [http://federalistpatriot.us/news/alqaqaa.asp" title="http://federalistpatriot.us/news/alqaqaa.asp" target="_blank"http://federalistpatriot.us/n...]. And Kerry and company may have gotten additional facts all wrong. U.S. forces did find conventional weapons in the bunker in question but did not find what the UN's IAEA estimated to be three tons of HMX and RDX -- not 377 tons as claimed by Kerry.

Of course, 6,000 pounds of HMX and RDX is significant -- it only took one pound of this substance in the hands of Libyan agents to bring down PanAm 103 in 1988. Of course, we all know by now how accurate these weapons estimates have been -- and the UN was one step removed from the best intelligence available.

President Bush responded to Kerry's allegations, "Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign-policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts...."

Which brings us to the greatest of Kerry's lies this campaign season: "It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before."

Indeed, it did happen before -- Vietnam. Swift Boat Vet Robert Elder notes, "It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home, and at home John Kerry was the field general." (Kerry's extensive and well-documented record of anti-American activities over the past three decades are covered in "Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record..." and "John Kerry: More aid and comfort..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/" title="http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/" target="_blank"http://FederalistPatriot.US/a...)

Again, as President Bush noted, Kerry is "denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts...."

Kerry can't have it both ways. There is a direct correlation between his undermining of U.S. and Allied resolve in the war against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan -- and American and Allied causalities on that front. Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed in larger numbers because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting.

A few weeks ago, John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very correlation: "We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June."

As Kerry's use of the war for political fodder has increased in tenor, so too has the spirit of our Jihadi enemies. As noted recently by Mohammad Amin Bashar, a professor at Baghdad's Islamic University, "If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people." Abu Jalal, an Iraqi resistance leader, added, "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."

The net effect can certainly be felt in greater attacks on American and Allied casualties. Those casualties equal more votes for John Kerry. This was, and remains, the unavoidable consequence of Kerry's reckless campaign rhetoric. The blood of those American Patriots (like the blood of his "brothers" in Vietnam, after he used that war as fodder for his 1972 congressional campaign), is on John Kerry's hands. To be sure, this is the harshest of all condemnations. But it is also the truth.

Both Kerry and Edwards know the consequences of their actions. Fact is, they think the lives of American military personnel on the warfront with Jihadistan are second-rate to their political ambitions. He should be held accountable.

As for Kerry's claims, "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."

Indeed, Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi, Hu Jingtao, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan are all rooting for John Kerry to beat George W. Bush on Tuesday. What does that tell you, fellow Patriots?

A vote for John Kerry is a vote for a lie -- a fraud. It is a vote against liberty and freedom. But if the Democrat Party has been fully co-opted by Kerry's deceit, that assertion may be purely academic.

And a final note. "The BIG Lie," has been easy to fill every week since John Kerry won the Democrat primaries last March. The challenge with that section has been choosing which of Kerry's comments in any given week constitute the BIGGEST lie!

Boston Red Sox know a winner and they're voting for Bush!

Birds of a feather flock together - and winners know other winners when they see them:

ABC'S CHARLIE GIBSON: "Well, well said, Curt and Shonda. You both have certainly lifelong membership now in the Red Sox nation. It was a great thing to watch, and I think everybody - whether they were great Red Sox fans or not - had to admire what this team did. It was extraordinary, and one of the great stories of sport. And sport always produces such great stories. Curt, Shonda, great to have you with us. Congratulations."

CURT AND SHONDA SCHILLING: "Thank You."

CURT SCHILLING: "And make sure you tell everybody to vote, and vote Bush next week." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 10/28/04)

Lemme see, have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good.... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad....

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - Bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Milosevic in Custody but not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing! NOT!  The only thing that is good is if a democrat does it!!!!

WRONG!

Last March, Demo National Committee loudmouth Terry McAuliffe (also in the tenacious grip of PMS) estimated that Kerry would have to win the hearts and minds of veterans in order to defeat George W. Bush. So he wrapped Kerry in his embellished war record and, a month later, took a cheap shot at President Bush, proclaiming that he was AWOL during his last year of service as an Air National Guard fighter pilot.

Right about now, McAuliffe and Kerry are wishing they'd never fired that shot. Much to their surprise, several Vietnam veterans groups had the audacity to take a gander at Kerry's service record -- both his record of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by slandering his fellow veterans while they were still fighting or captive in Vietnam, and his contrived record of heroic acts as evidenced by his impressive list of military decorations. By early May, those veterans were firing back at Kerry and his cadre.

Initially, Kerry took the defensive: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard...criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served." (Oops, another cheap shot at our National Guard and Reserve forces.)

Fortunately, President Bush can account for his service. He wanted to fly fighter jets, he earned his wings, and he logged many air defense hours in an F-102 Delta Dagger with the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG. Mr. Bush's unit was subject to rotation in Vietnam under the Palace Alert Program (in fact, 15 F-102s were lost in Vietnam). With American involvement in Vietnam de-escalating by 1972, Bush was honorably discharged from his service with the ANG.

Of course, as noted many times before, George Bush's most distinguished military service has been in his role as Commander-in-Chief since the 9/11 attack on our nation -- one of the most difficult and challenging periods for any president since World War II.

Implicit in Kerry's warning, however, is the notion that he, himself, volunteered for service in Vietnam. Remember Bill Clinton's repetitive "Send me" paean at the Demo Convention? Try again. Kerry's anti-military sentiments were well known when he was a student at Yale. After graduating, Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment so he could study in -- where else? -- Paris. His deferment denied, Kerry then calculated that he could avoid Vietnam by joining the Naval Reserves rather than getting drafted into the Army or Marines, where he would, likely, see combat. Kerry's service record indicates that on 18 February 1966 he enlisted in the USNR under "inactive" status -- and was moved to "active" status after a slot opened for him in Officer Training School.

As fate would have it, Kerry ended up off the coast of Vietnam on the USS Gridley, while George Bush's ANG unit remained stateside -- yet both circumstances were far beyond the control of these two junior officers. As for Kerry's decision to transfer to Swift Boats (most likely because that enabled him to be in command rather than under command), he told the Boston Globe last year, "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling...." This puts the lie to any assertion that Kerry "volunteered" for dangerous swift boat duty while George W. Bush somehow slunk off to fly fighter-jets.

The second flipper is a paid party hack blogger that spams this site with endless postings that he grabs from the Dem-war-room ministry of propaganda. Most of his screeds aren't worth reading. Some are entertaining in the way you might want to guess which designer chemicals he experimented with to achieve the level of paranoia and delusional rantings he has posted.

Flipsidedown = Dem-party-hack-blog

Yeah this guy is worthy of the Oval Office...

And the Democrats think Bush says stupid things.....

John F. Kerry speaks:

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
- John F. Kerry   

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- John F. Kerry  

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
-  John F. Kerry    

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
- John F. Kerry   

"The future will be better tomorrow."
- John F. Kerry    

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
- John F. Kerry    

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
-  John F. Kerry   

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
- John F. Kerry    

"Public speaking is very easy."
- John F. Kerry   

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
- John F. Kerry    

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- John F. Kerry   

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- John F. Kerry   

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
-  John F. Kerry  

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and  water that are doing it."
- John F. Kerry    

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- John F. Kerry

» The More the Kerrier. On the road for his October 20 World News Tonight, Peter Jennings slanted a story against Ohio's black Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who "made a number of decisions regarding election law which have made other black leaders angry." Jennings snarkily summarized how Blackwell decided "that provisional ballots for people who showed up at the wrong polling station, or without an ID, would only be good at three locations. The Democrats sued him. A federal judge overruled him. Mr. Blackwell is appealing. Democrats say it's Republican trickery."

ABC's Peter Jennings relayed Democratic complaints about Ohio's attempt to stop Election Day fraud.

Three days later, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Blackwell, but ABC didn't report that. ABC has been less concerned about potential election fraud in Ohio, even though Sunday's Columbus Dispatch reported that "Ohio's voter registration rolls are dirty, containing more than 122,000 apparent duplicates." Sunday's World News Tonight skipped that bombshell, but anchor Terry Moran introduced yet another story about Democrats' "concern" that "in the key state of Ohio many of their votes could go uncounted."

    � �� For more, see the October 21 and October 26 CyberAlerts.

» Most "Worse Off" Under Bush. On the October 22 CBS Evening News, reporter Anthony Mason offered viewers a "Reality Check" on the candidates' competing economic claims, and he got right to the campaign's bottom line. "Is the average American better off now than he or she was four years ago?" Mason asked. "On average, Americans have more money. But most Americans are, in fact, worse off."

CBS's Anthony Mason used dubious data to tell viewers they were "worse off" under President Bush.

His proof? Mason claimed that "median household income...is now $41,550, $30 lower than it was four years ago." But the latest data from the Census Bureau, released August 26, found "real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318."

Are we supposed to trust the Census Bureau, or CBS News (aka See-BS)?

    � �� For more, see the October 23 CyberAlert.

Another stupid comment from a foreigner:

why don't you enable comments.. at least have the balls yourself to enable others to give their view... but you are only american, can't expect too much..

and you even paid for it too. who gave you the cheap grant, and why don't you see your soul to them next

This is exactly why comments are closed.  I don't have time to argue with idiots.  It gives me time to actually blog instead of respond to people calling me an asshole.  And btw, you are free to express your own views on your own blogs.  I haven't stopped you from doing anything.  You don't like what I have to say?  Then don't come here.

This is a blog where I express my own views; it's not a talk show.

BTW George Soros is paying a lot of hacks to spam the airwaves with their demo-slanted opinions, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  If somebody is spending their entire daying blogging, it's suspicious.  For somebody to say I've 'sold my soul' for a 'grant'~they really don't understand what's going on here in the US.  Soros is not paying for people to blog on the other side.  We do it because we really BELIEVE it, not because we've sold our souls to the devil.

Look at George.  He IS the devil.

Just take a look at one of their buttons.  Yeah that's a party I'd want to be affiliated with.  Hysterical idiots.

Read about how this idiot treats John O'Neil...if you can stand it.

John O'Neill noted that O'Donnell demonstrated the choice we face on Nov. 2--Kerry-supporting screamers like O'Donnell or an administration that can deal with the threats we face rationally.

Check it out here

I am a Navy veteran from the 1970's. I salute both your son and you for your service to America. I had no idea you had a son serving in the military. Please sent him my best wishes let him know he will be in my prayers daily. You too, brave Mom!

You are right about the idiots like flip, etc. They think it's all a game and that they can say or do anything without consequence. I'm willing to bet they're the people living in mom's basement!
----

Could not find it. Plus you've turned off commenting.

Don't let the bastards get you down.

Fight on!
----

There are many more, but many people here recognize this is a fight to the finishline and it will serve the dems right when Bush wins.

Comments are shut off.  Thanks to one particular spammer; I don't have time to argue with an idiot or an army of idiots, for that matter.  Flipsidedown sent me his best; a total idiot from New Mexico.  I WON.

If I ever open comments up again, be advised:  It is a privilege to post comments, it is not a right.  Privileges are revoked with inappropriate behavior and attacks upon the host.

We are still continuing our course here in ARashid district despite car bombs and IED. Soldiers are still focused on our mission and for that we thank you. The time has passed and thanks to your prayers we have not lost no one. Our third Platoon is called A/O Platoon Assault and Obstacle they provide most of the support to our company. But here in Iraq they were attached to help Base ops in building the Base Camp.

Looking for loose dirt or any signs of recent digging the Combat Engineers used mine detectors and mine proves to find the weapons cache and booby traps just in case. Since the information that they received said they were buried mine detectors help find any metal under the ground.

When the mine detector starts beeping it means there is something underground. Next they check with a mine probe to check for booby traps and then start digging. They found artillery rounds, mortar rounds and other ammunuition. The items were wrapped in plastic to ensure they will not get damaged.

When everything was collected the Engineers and EOD team took the cache to a open area and disposed of the items. All in a day's work that day they knew those rounds could not be used for IED.

1PLT Capture RPG and Rocket Launcher: 1 PLt captured several RPG launchers with ammo along with a homemade rocket launcher all in one night they disrupted a attack that was being prepared by insurgents but when they saw the military vehicles they left everything behind knowing one more minute and they would be captured. The rocket launcher was homeade with a control box to launch the rockets. Insurgents are adapting ways to use all ammo looted during the war. All illegal equipment that confiscated is immediately turned in to be destroyed to ensure it does not fall into the wrong hands again. Before pictures have to be taken for evidence and proof of evidence.

All in a day's work.

A lot of young people weren't around when Vietnam was happening or when our vets came home and they were spit on because of what Jane Fonda and John Kerry were doing back home, calling them baby killers and all.

Because of movies like Apocalypse Now and others, kids growing up after that time got a bad impression about what happened in Vietnam. 

But now, all that is changing.  Now, with Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, etc., Vietnam Vets are coming out into the open, wearing hats or other memorabelia showing they served, and are finally getting the homecoming and respect for their service that they missed out on some 30 years ago.

Read this post from the Koolaid Man.

NEVER IN MY LIFETIME has a presidential campaign tried to get a candidate elected by insulting America's best allies, at the same time as putting our sons' lives on the line. That's exactly what Sen. John Kerry has been doing for months now. And, as he has slid in the polls, Kerry's band of spinners has ratcheted up its ally bashing.

Why do I take deep offense to this?  Because I am the mother of a soldier in Iraq.  Yes, folks, those of you who have been bashing me as though I'm some twenty-something kid who lives in his mom's basement,--I AM THE MOM.  I am a Soldier's Mom who is PRO-BUSH. 

And you are putting my son's life at risk by talking against the war.

Senator Kerry is bashing the initiative that my son believes in, that my son is putting his life on the line for.  AND SO ARE YOU.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi came to Washington to assure Congress that progress in Iraq is real, and that elections will occur as scheduled. So the reaction of Kerry campaign honcho Joe Lockhart? "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand beneath the shirt today moving the lips," he said.

Cute. Allawi is Iraq's No. 1 terrorist target. He may not be a Boy Scout, but he is risking his life in order to bring democracy to his country. And Joe Lockhart chooses not only to insult Allawi, but to do so in a way that, if anything, makes Allawi's job harder by undermining his credibility.

Maybe Lockhart is too nuanced for me, but it seems odd to call a man a "puppet" for pushing for an outcome that is in his interest. Of course Allawi would prefer the leader who talks about establishing an autonomous Iraq over the candidate who talks about his plan for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. Allawi doesn't need a puppet-master to know who is better for him.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, who is training Iraqi forces, wrote in the Washington Post this that "more than 700 Iraqi force members have been killed and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and the military have been killed as well." I'm curious.

Are those 700-plus Iraqis puppets, too?

Kerry's sister, Diana Kerry, who is head of Americans Overseas for Kerry, told the Weekend Australian that Australia's support for the United States in Iraq is "endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multinational channels." Apparently, Camp Kerry thinks it can win new allies by bashing a government that has helped America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Listen to Kerry himself. The senator has said that, unlike Bush, he would build "a legitimate international coalition," implying that the U.S.-led coalition is illegitimate. Kerry also has dismissed the coalition as "unilateral" -- despite the fact (also missed by his sister) that 31 other countries have sent troops to Iraq.

While critics dismiss the allies as window-dressing, the Sunday Times of London reports that in August, British troops used up to 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Unilateral? Tell that to the 66 British troops who gave their lives, or the three Polish soldiers killed in Hilla on Sept. 12.

"I understand how to bring those countries back to our side," Kerry has said of the countries that did not join the coalition. His formula must be: Dismiss the British, Aussies, Poles and Italians -- for gun-shy France and Germany? Au contraire, Monsieur Kerry, all you've done is shown that you are a foreign-policy blowh ard who hardly notices the blood spilled by America's true friends.

The New York Times reported that, according to the sage Lockhart, Camp Kerry introduced a new theme for the debates: Bush is "using the war on terror as a political tool and a political weapon'' in seeking to silence dissent.

Silencing dissent? Democrats have called Bush a liar, a killer, an idiot and their surrogate brethren have likened Bush to Hitler. What other names could the Dems have called Bush? In fact, what Kerry's band of blatherers calls silencing dissent is: criticism, because when people criticize Camp Kerry, Camp Kerry finally silences itself.

Asked whether it was appropriate for Kerry/Edwards to undermine Allawi, Sen. Ted Kennedy told CBS' "Face the Nation," that it was more than appropriate: "I think absolutely. I mean, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that dissent is the essential aspect of patriotism."

They could say they think the war was wrong, and leave it at that. But Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq. So his aides invent distinctions that make war harder for America's real allies, they make excuses for America's fair-weather friends, they advocate cutting and running from a war that has already cost more than 1,000 American lives, even though they are so smart they must be aware that a precipitous exit would make America less secure. They make it harder for Iraqis, Americans and U.S. allies to win the war. Then they call themselves patriots. Bah.

I call them traitors.  And the people who are supporting them are putting my son's life at risk.

A friend of mine has organized her family and they've been gathering stuff and sending packages (thanks Any Soldier) to Iraq for the kids who don't get much mail.  This is a note from Natasha.

On the website to help our armed forces with support who don't get any mail, you can get a good idea of the good we're doing in Iraq.  They send pictures and emails and letters back which are posted there.

Here's the link

If anyone is inclined, please send a note of support to any of the guys or gals over there.  It will just take a moment.~the Any Soldier website is to support our troops.

In the Terminator movies, Sarah Connor was the mother of a soldier in a future world war.  Tell me~did she shy away from her responsibility?  She didn't want it at first, she was angry, she cried...but after she accepted her role in the future, she stood hard and strong, learned how to fight, armed herself and trained her son for the future he would face.

She stood for her country and supported her son's role.

That is what I'm doing.  And that is why I relate to Sarah Connor.  (Even though she's a fictional character I relate to the story)

For those of you who think I'm bashing women, I'm the mother of a boy in Iraq who's serving our country as a soldier.  I am ashamed at what you're saying about the war and President Bush.  You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Maybe you've never seen a an American patriot before.  A patriot doesn't undermine our armed forces when we are at war.  You stand with them, as I stand with my son.  He believes in what he's doing over there.  If he should die, I will still stand beside him~this is what he believes in.

It's too bad that in this day and age people are against, against, against, instead of standing with our country at a time of crisis.

When he came back on leave for 15 days last month, he made sure he placed his vote for George W. Bush (absentee ballot).

Most of the people in the Armed Forces and their families are afraid that John Kerry will deliver on his promise to turn over our military to the United Nations and do not want to see him in office.

This is true, by the way, you can see the picture above his big fat head.

A typical backroom Blood for Condiments deal. You know, it's no coincidence that most people put ketchup on their french fries. The Culinary Coalition will make the Tri-lateral commission mere child's play. This goes directly to my concerns over flouridation and worries for my precious bodily fluids. Do they put flouride in Ketchup?

Kerry: Welcome gentlemen. I have looked forward to this day where we could come together and rebuild our alliances. It is my desire to see the United States of America rejoin the international community as a mature partner.

Chriac: As have I, mon ami.

Arafat: In the name of Peace, I greet you as "brother."

Kerry: [tearing up] This is truly a great day. Thank you for welcoming us back even in light of our war crimes in Iraq where we 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...

Chirac: Bon. I understand.

Kerry: The reason I called for your presence today is to discuss ways that we could prosecute a more thoughtful war on terror.

Arafat: Can we begin by not using this hostile term "terror"? I have always been fond of the expression "illegal hostilities."

Kerry: Yes, it does resonate with me as well. Thank you.

Jacques, let's turn our attention to the [smiling at Arafat] "illegal hostilities" in Iraq. In the spirit of cooperation, the people of the United States are requesting France's assistance to rebuild Iraq.

Chirac: My friend, were it that simple. While France stands shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, we find the entire approach lacking in ...

Kerry: Nuance?

Chirac: Exactement! Not enough nuance.

Kerry: Perhaps France could stand by the United States through the auspices of the United Nations? Would that provide enough nuance?

Chirac: You must know that this idea merits our consideration. However, this cowboy that preceded you caused great harm to the reputation of the United Nations. Such conditions would render France unable to wholeheartedly participate. If only some of the previous relationships could be re-established. If certain contracts were honored... that would provide the nuance we require.

Kerry: [sighing] Yes, nuance. Very well, if we provide this more sensitive approach, will France assist the United States through the United Nations?

Chirac: In the spirit of our great enlightened nations coming together, our assistance is something upon which you can rely.

Kerry: So France will send peacekeeping forces?

Chirac: Non.

Kerry: Will France vocally support our efforts?

Chirac: Alas, non. We cannot offer public support of this action in Iraq. Privately, however we stand with you like a brother.

Kerry: Excellent. Yassir, the very next item on the agenda is getting the Peace Process back on track. If I may offer the apologies of the American people, my predecessor handled negotiations in a fashion reminiscent of Jenghis Khan.

Arafat: There are so many wrongs that have been inflicted upon my people these last four years. This wall has been the biggest barrier to peace. The destruct... the creation of a Palestinian state is nearly impossible.

Kerry: Agreed. As a gesture of your sincere desire for peace, will you sign some treaties stating that you've renounced violence?

Arafat: Of course!

Kerry: This is truly an historic moment. The world will soon be safer and more sensitive.

FIN

Next: Kerry Meets Kim Jung Il

Rosie the Riveter has given way to Sally the Sniveler.
 
During World War II, young Rose Will Monroe was the face of American women in adversity: strong, supportive and resolute against the enemy forces that threatened our existence. Tens of thousands like Rosie rolled up their sleeves, gritted their teeth, and flexed their muscles in factories and shipyards and arsenals across the country.

They made rockets and rifles and bombs and boats. They painted and drilled and welded. When they got home to their kids, they cooked and cleaned and collapsed in bed after praying for their husbands and brothers and uncles on the battlefield. Rosie and her sisters in arms didn't have the luxury of complaining about their lack of "me time." There was a war to be won. And so, as this presidential campaign season has constantly reminded us, there is today.

But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers' union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.)

They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they're apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his "Star Wars" light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan).

In battleground states, the Kerry campaign has dispatched such incoherent nervous Nellies to scare the pantyhose off of young women and moms.

Kerry's sister, Peggy, landed in Ohio at a Women for Kerry rally to scare up female votes to oppose President Bush's "war against women." At a time when Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders, Peggy Kerry chose to whine about the alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries. "That is not fair," she said. "Let me tell you what my brother is going to fight for -- pay equity."

Meanwhile, a teacher for Kerry complained: "If we lose the White House again, it is very possible we will lose public education." In Michigan, actress/legal observer Christine Lahti rallied Kerry women by warning: "Listen up. If (Bush) is re-elected, he will appoint a (Justice) Clarence Thomas clone and reverse Roe versus Wade." The Kerry campaign has also sent actress Sharon Stone -- who recently blamed President Bush for preventing her from kissing fellow actress Halle Berry in the awful movie "Catwoman" -- to drum up female votes in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But if Hollywood had to crown a poster girl for the new Sally the Sniveler campaign, it would be Cameron Diaz. Rosie the Riveter delivered a unifying message to her fellow American women with simple, rousing clarity: "We can do it!" In stark contrast, here's a painful partial transcript of Diaz's vote-beseeching appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month:

Diaz: "We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo -- if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the . 

Winfrey: "It's your voice."

Diaz: "It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right."

We've come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war.

Click here to see Stolen Honor Wounds That Will Never Heal

"Reporting for duty"?

For a guy who's hitched his entire presidential campaign to his military service record, John Kerry sure is parsimonious when it comes to releasing that record. As noted in this column on more than one occasion, Kerry has consistently refused to sign a Standard Form 180 authorizing the Department of Defense to release all of his records.

George W. Bush's military records were so spotless that Dan Rather gleefully trotted out some fabricated documents in order to kick up a little dust. Of course, if Rather were a real journalist rather than just a TV talking head, he might actually develop a source who could find out what the remaining (approximately 100) pages in Kerry's DoD service jacket reveal.

What, exactly, is Kerry hiding? It is already common knowledge that most of his celebrated heroics were spurious, and that most of his medals were without merit (see "Kerry's Quagmire" at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/" title="http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/" target="_blank"http://FederalistPatriot.US/a... ). But given that the cat's already out of the bag, why not just sign the Standard Form 180?

For his part, Kerry claims he received an "Honorable Discharge" and that all his records have been released and are posted on his website, Kerry-04.com -- uh, make that JohnKerry.com. But Kerry has refused to say when he received an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, some of his military records are posted on his site -- but not all of them. Here, an experienced eye can read enough into what has been released by Kerry to develop a good profile of what hasn't been released.

It is our considered opinion, therefore, that John Kerry was separated from the military under a less than honorable discharge -- most likely a Dishonorable Discharge.

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.

Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.

Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.

Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge. His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter's EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.

However, according to legal scholars, John Kerry's meetings with enemy agents from Communist North Vietnam on multiple occasions between 1970 and 1972 are not covered under EO 4483. For that reason, we delivered to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday of this week a "Petition for Investigation and Indictment," calling on the Department of Justice to determine conclusively whether Kerry's actions, in direct violation of UCMJ (Article 104 part 904), U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953) and other applicable laws and acts of Congress, constitute treason. (To read the text of the petitioners' request, link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/letter.asp" title="http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/letter.asp" target="_blank"http://patriotpetitions.us/ke... )

Why prosecute Kerry now?

In October, 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his disputed Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. In response, the more than 180,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition chose to make Mr. Kerry's war record the centerpiece of their campaign to determine whether his actions are subject to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.

The pertinent language states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

While it is clear that no action will be taken on the petitioners' request prior to 2 November, we remain committed to holding Senator Kerry accountable for his actions regardless of the outcome of his presidential bid. Indeed, we are all committed to serving Kerry with an irrevocable dishonorable discharge from public office.

Here's an interesting site~there's too much evidence here to refute.

Bush's decision to go to war was justified.  Millions of Americans with an IQ over 80 realize this.

Senator John Kerry has proposed a plan to radically reform the U.S. health care system. If he is successful, millions of middle-income families will be enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Millions more will get their insurance through a system of managed competition modeled after the federal employee’s health system and similar to what Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. Most people would be forced from the private health plans they have today.

Here's the analysis.  It's not positive.

Most people in the nation's largest Vietnamese community respect that Kerry fought the communists during the Vietnam War.  It's what Kerry did when he returned from the battlefield that angers them. 

Many resent Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War as a young veteran and later, as a senator, engaging with Vietnam's communist leaders and not taking a tougher stance on human rights and democracy in their homeland. Bush also supported engagement with Vietnam, but Kerry gained notoriety in the Vietnamese community.

A spokesman for Kerry's campaign in California declined to comment.

In the decades since the communists prevailed in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, many with links to the South Vietnamese government and army, have immigrated to the United States. More than 1 million now live in this country. Orange County has the most people of Vietnamese descent — 130,000, according to the Census.

As voters, Vietnamese-Americans have traditionally backed the GOP because of its strong anti-communist stance.

"The segment of the community that participates remains in vigorous opposition to the communist government of Vietnam," said Christian Collet, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine.

Many older immigrants remember Kerry as the angry young veteran who railed against the Vietnam War and tossed his medals at an anti-war rally in Washington. He also is remembered as the Senate subcommittee chairman who two years ago blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act after it passed 410-1 in the House.

Well, Teresa Heinz Kerry's subdued act didn't last long did it? By now, you've all read Her Highness's condescending remarks about our First Lady Laura Bush. Teresa's boneheaded ""apology" was even worse than the initial comments. Teresa managed to snub not only millions of teachers and librarians and Mrs. Bush's 22 years of work as a mother, but also the hard work and dedication of all stay-at-home parents (moms AND dads).

Unbelievable! Will the Dems claim that this is a Karl Rove Dirty Trick, too?

Classy as ever, the First Lady said there was no need to apologize, that she had not taken offense, and that it isn't easy on the campaign trail. Throughout this election season, Mrs. Bush has shown nothing but dignity and good humor. She has been mocked as a Stepford Wife by the Left. Her intellect has been derided by the likes of Maureen Dowd and Bill Maher. She has stood by her husband and her country and demonstrated an unparalleled graciousness that the totally unhinged Teresa Heinz Kerry cannot buy and will never have.

Kerry's a 'common' man alright

The redesign on my other blog is complete, Caos Blog

Let me know what you think I should do with this one in 'comments'.

You're so vain-you probably think this song is about you, you're so vain....

"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.

"We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."

-- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

"Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."

-- Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."

-- Jeffrey Wainscott

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

"It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home ... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

-- Robert Elder

"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

"Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."

-- Joseph Ponder

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.

"Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."

-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

"Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."

-- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."

-- Barnard Wolff

"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.

"When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."

-- David Wallace

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

"In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.

"Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."

-- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

"This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

-- William Shumadine

"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. "

-- Richard O'Meara

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

-- Steven Gardner

"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.

"All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."

-- Robert Brant

"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.

"I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."

-- James Steffes

If we started singing one particular song while my dad was at the wheel, he nearly drove off the road.

"That song," he would say, "has a Socialist message." The song was Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land."

John Kerry has been singing this tune lately on his own road trips, and it will be no surprise if someone sings it when he's around.

"Recently," the New York Times reported, "Kerry has been strumming his guitar on the campaign plane and rehearsing, 'This Land is Your Land,' as if to underline at some future event that his campaign is a protest against a presidency that has created a land where the rich get the breaks and the rest get squeezed."

Sure enough, at a recent fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall, the candidate strapped on a guitar and joined wealthy entertainers in a sing-along of the tune. He also sang it at a Wisconsin rally.

I researched that song.

Guthrie wrote the song, I learned, as a rebuttal to Irving Berlin's "God Bless America." The liner notes to the CD Woody Guthrie--This Land is Your Land (produced by the Smithsonian Institution) say: "Woody's stated reason for writing it is possibly open to criticism--he said he was tired of hearing Kate Smith, one of the nation's most popular singers during the 1930s, sing 'God Bless America.' So he voiced a different perspective on the United States, ending each verse with 'God blessed America for me.'"

Guthrie's "different perspective" was indeed Socialist. Two verses of his original lyrics were:

"Was a big high wall there that tried to stop me/A sign was painted said: Private Property./But on the back side it didn't say nothing--/God blessed America for me."

"One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple/By the Relief Office I saw my people--/As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if/God blessed America for me."

Guthrie's first public recording of the song, released in 1951, dropped these verses. The sarcastic hook of "God blessed America for me" was changed to "This land was made for you and me." But the Smithsonian CD includes a rendition with Guthrie singing the lines attacking "private property," and the liner notes say "the 'Private Property' verse became a part of [Woody's son] Arlo Guthrie's and Pete Seeger's renditions of the song."

Guthrie wrote columns for Peoples Daily World, a Communist Party newspaper, but was never a member of the Communist Party. "Guthrie instead served as what the party called a 'fellow traveler,' a nonmember who generally agreed with the Communist Party platform but was not subject to party discipline," writes Ed Cray in his 2004 biography Ramblin' Man--The Life and Times of Woody Guthrie.

In 1945, Guthrie scribbled on the flyleaf of Karl Marx's Das Kapital: "The man that writes our best ballad will read this book from cover to cover . . . I'd like to try and write all of these things down in short words."

"While he was less disciplined than members of the party," writes Cray, "he nonetheless followed the party line, even to the extent of endorsing Communist North Korea's invasion of autocratic South Korea."

You can bet there are a lot of families out there whose fathers fought against Communism in North Korea.

You can attribute success to American freedom, to the system of private enterprise and private property that Guthrie scorned in songs that futilely preached class war to the Greatest Generation.

If John Kerry, a son of privilege, poses as a tax-the-rich populist next week, then starts singing, "This Land is Your Land," I suspect many will think: He couldn't have picked a more fitting song

John Kerry's French cousin insists there's nothing gallingly Gallic about the Massachusetts Democrat.

"John Kerry is incredibly American," claimed cousin Brice Lalonde, mayor of Saint-Briac-Sur-Mer and environment minister under Socialist former president Francois Mitterrand. "He has absolutely nothing French about him."

The Associated Press reported today: "With the race for the White House turning nasty - and France-U.S. ties not quite mended from the Iraq war - Kerry's Gallic clan, when questioned, talks up his American-ness. Some are keeping a low profile, saying too much talk about France could be political arsenic."

Lalonde admitted, "I'm afraid to hurt him," but like other Frenchies has a Kerry bumper sticker pasted to his car.

Ian Forbes, Kerry's 85-year-old uncle who lives at Les Essarts, said: "Monsieur Bush is angry with France. We don't want to accentuate the connection between Johnny and France."

Curiously enough, Lalonde and company made no denials about Kerry being a socialist.

This is one of the funniest exchanges I've ever seen.

Original post:

Sen. John Kerry is impotent. Prostate cancer forced the removal of his prostate. Any man that has had this surgery knows the effect. At least (6) months in diapers, loss of ability to gain an erection and the depression that goes along with that. What I'm saying is that John Kerry is in effect half a man, he is depressed and angry because he can't pleasure his wife, or any other women in a normal way.

Ask yourself (both men and woman) how would it effect you,mentally and physically to lose the ability to have sexual relations for the rest of your life? 

Do we really want someone with that kind of frustration and anger with their finger on the botton?

it's impotent, not impitent. vote for bush if you don't like kerry and find something more humorous to post, please.

man you're a freak. what the hell is your point? Don't vote for Kerry if you dislike him... you wanna vote for an erected president? go vote for Peter North then!
how about having president elects measuring their dicks on national TV ?! the more inches the more ballots!
just shut up a**hole.

You call yourself stallion, so you must think your a real stud.
See how much of a stud you are after you've had your prostate hacked out! One out of five men do, so your chances are good.
Don't you think the emotional and psycological condition of a president is important? Kerry is a bitter angry impotent socialist.
Do you get the point now F***FACE?
You shut the hell up loser.

that was probably your first post on this forum and you spoke shit. good start for you!

John Kerry doesn't look like someone who suffers depression or an emotional trauma, unless you're confusing him with your stupid dad. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure of this prostate thing either so how about we try it on you fuckface? not only I'll hack your prostates off, but how about extra art of snatching your microscopic balls and stuffing them in your dirty mouth while we're at it? maybe that'll shut your uglyface! F**K YOURSELF DIRTY TWAT

Is this neccessary. You two bickering can't solve anything.

You only have one prostate jackass. If you want to give Kerry a Rim and Jerk job go right ahead. You talk tough, like Kerry and Edwards but we both know you don't have a spine
Just a little zit faced kid with nothing better to do on a Sunday.
Why don't you come back when you grow up a little bit

oh Gosh I'm scared!! tell you what dorf or dwarf! my single prostate hurts me a bit so how about you come massage it for me and SUCK MY d**k you dirty fag?! atleast I got one you dickless dwarf. talking about not doing shit on sunday, that's funny cuz I'm actually doing some work on my labtop you *uc*in loser, but I had to step in and respond to your stupid ignorant shit.

You are right (colinp). If someone disagrees with a post thats fine, but the personal attacks are just childish. I shouldn't have responded. I just ask that you consider the original post.

and I ask you to eat horse rectum before you post such crap.

here's something to think about... if you make fun of a person's diability, whether it's Kerry or whoever, you might end up getting it as a punishment. God does his work!

hey stallion... you just asked dorf to massage your prostate... you do realize what that means right? you're encouraging homosexual relationships, right here in a very serious forum I thought you were as anti-fag as they come... now it's clear to me that this 'lifestyle' stance of yours is actually just a calling card to get some richard whenever you want it. the web is your truck-stop bathroom and this forum is where you put out your signal. seriously - wanting dorf to put his finger in your a*s so he can rub on your prostate is pretty f*ckin sick? dude... take a break from the homo-erotic fantasies and get back to doing something constructive - like managing your gay porn site in between posting your picture on gay newsgroups.

BEFORE YOU GET REALLY PISSED OFF AT ME know this...
I'M ONLY JOKING WITH YOU NIBBLE-NUTZ!

Not that I am a Kerry fan, but I have to comment here. The fact that he doesn't have his prostate won't make any difference if he becomes our president or not. You can function normally without it, right? Isn't that what Viagra is for?
I don't think he's right for our country, I think he's full of empty promises...but I don't wish him any harm, so I hope his cancer is all clear and he has a healthy life.

I thought Kerry's impotence was due to his wife.

Nope,

that's why men have long tongues

I agree with Stallion. What the hell dorf? Thats the most ridiculous immature shit I've ever heard. Did you stop and think about the men that might be visiting the forums reading your pile of horse shit and being offended by you calling them 'half a man' because they were unfortunate enough to get cancer? You seriously are a child. Get back to what you obviously do best, masterbating while watching the discovery channel. F**k.

Just wanted to keep this at the top of the list so more people can read what dorf actually wrote.

d:
You just want to get me started on the eyebrow licking thing again.

I hope Kerry has a large stash of cigars ... ouch

I wish I could masturbate while watching the discovery channel but I can't because 8 months ago I had my prostate removed.
You all seem to think what I wrote was a personal attack on Kerry. It's not I'm speaking from experience. I wouldn't want me as President either.
What this has to do with being immature ,a child, the discovery channel, masturbating or being an a**hole I don't know, all I'm saying is that cancer took part of my life away and I know how it screws with your head.
Maybe Kerry is handling it better then me, but I don't see how. or how any man could. one out of five of you men are going to experience it some time in your lives then you'll see how immature it is. Enjoy it while you've got it!

Cao's Note:  I don't know...I think I'd like to see them measure their dicks on tv.

Homosexuality’s rapid rise from unmentionable vice to celebrated minority status is part of a campaign to subvert Judeo-Christian culture.

We [homosexual activists] have gone underground and we have people in every one of the Religious Right’s organizations. We’re on their mailing lists. We’re reading everything they’re putting out. We think the words from their mouths trickle down into violence. And when our evidence reaches a critical mass, we’re going to use the best attorneys in this country to bring a class action suit in 50 states to have it stopped.

— Homosexual activist Mel White
Larry King Live, August 13, 1993

Is it possible that someday it may be a crime to oppose homosexuality? Could the Holy Bible eventually be designated "hate literature," and preachers be accused of "hate crimes" for condemning the practice from their pulpits? Will parents be forbidden to teach their children to abhor homosexuality?

In Europe, preachers are thrown in jail for quoting Bible passages that say that Sodomy is a sin.  Is America next?

How on earth can you compare the narcissistic and ego egocentric scratching of an erotic itch with the marriage act! For most, marriage is a sacrament and conjugal love is blessed by the Church while homosexual acts are an unnatural perversion and condemned by the Church. The two cannot be equated in any sense.

Homosexual acts are esthetically disgusting, morally degrading and biologically disastrous. Further, whereas monogamy is the ideal (if not the practice) among most heterosexuals, rampant promiscuity and anonymous sex is the preference of homosexuals, at least until the age of 30 or 35, at which time they begin to suffer from the homosexual-inflicted ageism (as in sexism).

Revolutionary change has long been the program of the Left. Nevertheless, armed revolution of the sort advocated by Lenin and the other early revolutionaries proved to be an inadequate method for subverting the Judeo-Christian roots of classical Western culture. This point was not lost on Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. After a stint in the Soviet Union, Gramsci returned to Italy when it became apparent that Stalin was more dangerous than Mussolini. The Italian Communist soon angered the Fascist regime, and Gramsci was imprisoned. While there he wrote voluminously on revolutionary strategy. From this work came what his German disciple, Rudi Dutschke, referred to as "the long march through the institutions" — that is, the gradual subversion of the existing structures of Western civilization by the application of various forms of dialectical materialist theory. As there is no more fundamental institution than marriage, it stands to reason that this critical element of Western culture would find itself in the cross hairs of radical leftists, among whom can be counted the agents of the homosexual revolution.

The organized homosexual assault on traditional values began in earnest in the early years of the 1970s. According to pro-homosexual author Toby Marota, writing in his 1981 book The Politics of Homosexuality, that decade was of particular value as a formative era for the homosexual movement. "When the history of twentieth-century America is written," Marota argues, "the 1970s will be recorded as the decade in which gay life won legitimacy. People with homosexual feelings more easily, openly, and enthusiastically engaged in homosexual behavior, defined themselves as lesbian and gay, participated in the lesbian and gay male subculture, and insisted that their ways of expressing themselves sexually be respected by the people around them and by society at large." This change was given a huge boost by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, when that body removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. The decision was instrumental in beginning the process of sanitizing homosexual behavior.

The homosexual lobby, though, had much more in mind than just polishing the image of homosexuals. In fact, a key component of the lobby has always been its effort to change and subvert the existing structures of society. In 1972, for instance, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a "Gay Rights Platform" containing a variety of subversive policy goals. Among them:

• "Amend all Civil Rights laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation";

• "Permit homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces";

• "Decriminalize private sexual acts between consenting ‘persons’";

• "Repeal any legal restrictions on the sex or number of persons entering into a ‘marriage unit.’"

• "Federal encouragement and support for pro-homosexual sex education courses in the public schools";

• "Repeal all laws governing the age of consent";

• "Federal funding for homosexual advocacy groups";

• "Immediate release of all sexual offenders now incarcerated for crimes relating to sexual orientation";

• "Allow the immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens";

Thirty-two years ago, those goals would have seemed outrageously unattainable to the average American. Now in 2004, it is painfully obvious that the Lavender Lobby has achieved some of those goals, has partially fulfilled others, and is pressing forward with the remainder.

According to a recent edition of USA Today, in a typical display of media disinformation, the homosexual effort to legitimize homosexual "marriage" has "had more to do with happenstance than coordinated strategy." Contrary to that, as the 1972 "Gay Rights Platform" clearly shows, the effort, in fact, has been long in the making.

If the 1970s were the formative years for the homosexual revolution, the late 1990s and the first years of the 21st century have witnessed the movement’s coming of age. Having coalesced and grown like an abscess on the soul of the culture, the revolution was now prepared to make a concentrated push into the mainstream arena. The primary vehicle for this effort has been television.

Television is a remarkable medium. Unlike other means of communication, TV is innately passive. While written forms of communication require an active interaction between the text and the audience, television, even more so than radio, encourages passivity. The audience, rather than engaging the content, is simply a passive recipient and is not nearly as likely to view that content critically as would be expected with a textual document. This is particularly the case when a propagandistic message is masked as entertainment. Moreover, despite the proliferation of cable television stations, there is very little variation in content from one station to the next. This is largely due to the fact that only a handful of major media conglomerates control most of the networks and their content. Consequently, television can serve as an immensely powerful tool of enculturation. And this tool has been used effectively to indoctrinate millions upon millions of Americans with pro-homosexual propaganda.

In 1997, one of the most publicized events in recent television history occurred when Ellen DeGeneres publicly acknowledged on her self-titled sitcom, Ellen, that she was a lesbian. Numerous television media outlets, including 20/20, ABC World News, Prime Time Live, and Oprah heavily promoted the episode. The stunt largely backfired at the time, and the Ellen show, once popular, was soon off the air.

Ellen, though, was just the first in a growing wave of programming touting the homosexual movement. More recent network offerings following in the footsteps of Ellen include the sitcom Will & Grace, the popular show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (the premise of which is that homosexual men are more civilized than their heterosexual counterparts), and the Fox network’s "reality TV" show Playing It Straight. This last program features a group of men, some heterosexual and some homosexual, and a single young lady named Jackie. According to the program’s promotional materials, available on the Fox website, "The men will vie for Jackie’s affections by participating in group activities and one-on-one dates that will simultaneously tempt her heart and test her ‘gaydar.’" The premise of this show is that homosexual men will behave in the same manner as heterosexual men.

All three of these programs, combined with pro-homosexual themes in other shows and movies, contribute to the effort to acculturate, or accustom, the population at large to homosexuality. It is a strategy sketched out in detail by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their 1989 book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. The authors, in fact, called for the homosexual movement to use the media to promote homosexuality to the public. With the explosion of homosexual propaganda in the media in recent years, it seems obvious that the Kirk-Madsen strategy has been put into high gear.

The homosexual enculturation of the nation is well underway, particularly among the young, who are heavily influenced not only by pop culture but by what they are taught in the classroom. According to a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, 47 percent of individuals aged 18 to 29 support same sex "marriage," with 34 percent of those aged 30 to 49 in agreement. It is worth noting, however, that this survey consulted only 1,005 adults or, termed another way, only .00036 percent of the nation’s 293-million population.

Though these findings may very well be skewed to support the homosexual agenda, there is no doubt that the cultural subverters are trying to create the appearance of popular support to justify the new immoral order and to discourage opposition. The recent rulings in Massachusetts and elsewhere legitimizing homosexual "marriages," sudden as they may have seemed, have simply been enabled by the long-term strategy of enculturation carried out by the homosexual lobby.

This is something that should concern all Americans interested in the continuation of the United States as a free nation and in the perpetuation of Western civilization. As acclaimed science fiction writer Orson Scott Card has recently argued in a persuasive essay, traditional marriage "is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization." From this foundation, Card points out, children can be reared in a stable environment where they can learn the sex-roles that are so necessary to ensure future generations.

Card also notes that the perpetuation of civilization requires civilized behavior among individuals. Such behavior requires the suppression of tendencies that would be harmful to social order. Children in traditional families learn this behavior by witnessing their parents engage in the civilized behavior necessary to a successful marriage.

For all these reasons, and for many others, the God-ordained institution of marriage is a bulwark and an essential component of civilization. Now, as Card remarks, all of this is threatened. He argues, "homosexual ‘marriage’ is an … attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage." He added, "Just because you give legal sanction to a homosexual couple and call their contract a ‘marriage’ does not make it a marriage. It simply removes marriage as a legitimate word for the real thing." This is exactly what the homosexual lobby has done to the word "gay."

The radical march through the institutions has now brought the most fundamental institution of all, marriage, within the grasp of the radical homosexual lobby. Divinely approved marriage is a fundamental and irreplaceable pillar of Western civilization. Will Americans idly stand by and watch while a handful of perverted cultural demolitionists knock this pillar over? 

If a homosexual were fired for his stance on homosexuality or sexual "preference," the company fiasco would turn into a national fiasco playing out over the airwaves across the nation. The ACLU would get one of its best celebrity attorneys on it, the Human Rights Watch would demand more protection legislation, and the NEA would announce new brainwashing policies.

When conservatives with traditional values are fired from a company for their beliefs, the media coverage is dismal, to say the least. If you don't sell your soul to the left-wing agenda of humanism and the ideas of immorality, you're nothing but an intolerant whacko.

Having said that, have you heard of a man named Rolf Szabo? If you're not a regular reader of the new and alternative media, probably not. It was reported by WorldNetDaily.com that Szabo was fired by Kodak for not embracing the policy of accepting homosexuals and their practices in the workplace.

Yet, the company champions the values of “diversity”! So, logically, they go to terminate anyone with an alternative belief. This situation is laughable on the part of Kodak. After Rolf Szabo sent out a letter of objection, the manager of Eastman Kodak, Randy Bakel, sent out a memo saying, “While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs, when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak Values.”

What values might those be? The values of John Dewey and the Humanist Manifestos, no doubt. The fact is, these types of people demand tolerance and acceptance, but show intolerance and attempt to silence anyone with an alternative viewpoint.

This agenda to legitimize homosexuality in mainstream America is not just rampant in huge liberal corporations, but increasingly in public schools, too. This invasion into American culture is nothing short of an indoctrination of beliefs upon a once traditional nation.

In order to silence the other side of the spectrum, Kodak obviously made Mr. Szabo an example. Knowing that giving any dissent in Kodak, termination will follow; that tends to be a very effective silencer.

Mr. Bakel went on to say in the memo, “As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive Culture drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences.”

Have you ever noticed that Judeo-Christian, traditional, and conservative viewpoints and people never seem to be included in the “all-inclusive” groups or “diversity” groups, mainly among universities and corporations?

This, of course, is not new. Such groups have been actively opposing, protesting, and attempting to silence dissent for some time. Does Dr. Laura Schlessinger ring a bell? She was venomously boycotted by corporations, advertisers, special interest groups, and others when she launched her television program on UPN. She also had death threats upon her and her family. The end result was the termination of the show.

A termination. Death threats. End of show. Does this sound like striving for diversity to you? I think not. However, perception is reality, and the humanist left-wing groups are ingenious in their attacks on traditional organizations and people. They paint a picture for one to perceive. That picture communicates an agenda of name-calling and silencing.

Their friends in the media also play a key role in carrying out the plan. The news media are extremely biased in favor of the homosexual community.

This approach to debate is nothing but a close to debate. A stab at freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. And a relentless campaign to create a version of George Orwell's “Thought Police.”

Yes, Kodak, Human Rights Watch, National Organization for Women, American Civil Liberties Union, National Education Association, et al., you can silence Mr. Rolf Szabo, Dr. Laura, and others, but you will never silence the belief of traditional and American values.

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with sodomites.

What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist sodomite groups.

Preparing the Ground:

In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered."

In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several sodomite groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals.

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

In other words, the sodomites packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.

The APA Caves In:

The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically  bisexual.

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote.

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The Essential Point:

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.

Behind the Scenes:

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder."

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirds of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch.

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.

courtesy of: EWTN.com

Homosexual Orientation and the "Ten Percent" Myth  chapter 116, pages 10-12

What a PR nightmare it must have been for the Kerry campaign--News broke in May that Kerry flipped off a Vietnam Vet at the Vietnam Memorial Wall on Memorial Day, in front of a group of school kids.

Is it just me or has public swearing become the cornerstone of his campaign?

And now we find out that there's a picture of Kerry hanging in a Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters who played an essential role in undermining our war effort.

This may be a PR nightmare, but on the inside, his campaigners and his dopey, ill-informed supporters will wear this as a badge of honor. It's cool to swear in public in front of kids, it's cool to find out the enemy was thanking you for aiding and abetting them. Heck last year the Bali bomber thanked "anti-war" protesters for their support and I wouldn't be suprised if the leaders of Iran, Syria et al. hold the "anti-war" left in the same regard.

Call our President a dope, a simp, an idiot, a moron or a dolt but you wont find him flipping anyone off in front of little kids and you most certainly won't find his mug on a "war crimes" wall of a former enemy heeping praise upon him and the skunks who sought to undermine and destroy this country.

Kerry's growing reputation for slipperiness brings to mind not only Bill Clinton, but the other great fibber of the 1990s, George Costanza. On one "Seinfeld" episode Jerry asks George to help him pass a lie detector test. George demurs from trying to convey so much of his life's work in a just few lessons. But he does leave Jerry with one crucial piece of advice: "If you really believe it . . . then it's not a lie."

According to a new biography of Kerry by three Boston Globe reporters, "He is trailed by a reputation for political opportunism. . . . Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong ambition" for the White House. So, what is it that John Kerry really believes in? John Kerry. Anything else is subject to debate.

Had the Swift Boat Vets not made their commercials, would the nation be debating John Kerry's character? Would the nation be aware of the many controversies involving Kerry's abbreviated tour of duty in Vietnam? Would the nation be conscientiously revisiting Kerry's outrageously anti-American, anti-military remarks and conduct upon returning from Vietnam? Would the No. 1 best-selling book in America be "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi?

I don't think the answer to any of those questions would be a conclusive and resounding "yes." And that strongly suggests to me that the Swift Boat Vet ads have played a pivotal role in the national debate this presidential election.

Would we, in a free society, have it any other way? Would we prefer to squelch debate? Would we prefer to put strict limits on what is discussed in a presidential election campaign? Would we prefer to have the two major-party candidates and their campaigns set the rules of engagement?

Those TV commercials, even though they did not get the airtime of MoveOn.org's anti-George Bush ads, helped achieve a kind critical mass that propelled long-standing questions about John Kerry's character and conduct to the front-burner of the national consciousness.

How did Kerry respond to this political crisis – and what does it suggest about the way he might govern as president?

• He tried to prevent the ads from appearing.
  
• He tried to smear those attacking him as paid, political partisans and liars.
  
• He joked about it on Comedy Central.
  
• He sent Max Cleland to deliver a message to the president at his ranch.
  
• He spun, backtracked and changed his story.
  
• He ordered his campaign to dig up "dirt" on the vets critical of him.

In short, he did just about everything except answer the specific charges and important, serious questions raised.

Why? Does this tell us something about John Kerry? Does this give us any insight into how he would deal with crises as president? If he tried to "kill the messenger" as a candidate, what will he do as president?

The way Kerry has responded is most reminiscent of the behavior of another recent president. When critics like me revealed dark and ugly little secrets about former President Clinton, he used all the power – legitimate and illegitimate – of his office to destroy his "enemies." The White House kept dossiers on his crtitics and distributed their lies and deceptions to friendly reporters only too willing to do their political bidding. Clinton even used the Internal Revenue Service's audit power to target those who refused to buckle under other extraordinary pressures.

Kerry has the same personality, the same character, the same blind ambition, the same lack of respect for the law and morality.

Just imagine the squealing you would have heard from Kerry if former President Nixon had used the immense power of the White House to stop Kerry from raising his issues in 1971. Imagine the outcry. Imagine the whining and the groaning and the gnashing of teeth we would have heard.

And Nixon must have been sorely tempted given that Kerry was accusing him of conducting a policy of genocidal war crimes.

How ironic that Kerry came to the national attention 33 years ago by championing the complaints of 150 "Vietnam vets," many of them phony, of course, while now he's doing everything in his power to stifle the free expression of 254 real Vietnam vets.

Kerry's reaction says almost as much about his character – or lack thereof – as do his own phony military record, his own treasonous statements in 1971, his own failed political record and his own unfamiliarity with the truth.

My "Open Society" will pay for my world

So when the billionaire financier said: “he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing the speech in August by Malaysia´s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, "Jews rule the world by proxy"; why should anyone empathize or embrace Soros’ culpability?

The Soros duplicity is marked with the same betrayal as the framing of the eternal political conflict. The financial desolation that Soros leaves in the wake of his deceitful transactions is the proof. Ignoring this reality does not make it disappear.

Soros wants to drug you so you can’t think, terminate you when you can no longer pay tribute, force you to intermingle with alien invaders and emasculate you to an unnatural equality. If that isn’t the plan of the devil, what else would you call it?

..."The only explanation for the Daddy Warbucks of the Democratic Party . . . to step out from behind the curtain 35 days before the election is his obvious concern for his investment in (Democratic presidential candidate) John Kerry (news - web sites)," the statement read, an allusion to the 12 million dollars that Soros has contributed to the Kerry campaign.

"I am not a politician," a subdued Soros told reporters. "I am totally out of my normal role standing here. Nobody would get far with my advice."

Then why give it?  Soros blasted the US-led war on Iraq (news - web sites), conducted by the Bush administration as an extension of the "war on terror," which he says makes the United States less safe, not safer.

But Soros was unprepared when asked if he thought the more than 1,000 US soldiers who died fighting in Iraq gave their lives in vain. ....

WOW. What a freak! 

That man is a posterchild for civilian ownership of .50bmg rifles. He tries to buy his preferred candidates into power and toys with the economies of entire nations like he is some sort of god.

Who are his candidates?  There are only a handful.  They are:  Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Bob Graham, D-Fla.; John Kerry, D-Mass.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos; former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Barack Obama.

I am sure the MSM will post his anti-christian rants (not). If the public knew 20% of his hateful anti-christian rhetorics he wouldn't get 2 minutes of air time.  Don't know if you've noticed one of his goals is to remove all traces of people with faith~Christian faith. 

Here I'm only pointing out recognition of the obvious~that perhaps the liberal democrats are TOO STUPID to realize. Sounds to me as though the libs here are just swallowing all that crap that the media feeds them as though it's gospel.  If you do a little research, you'll realize how ridiculous that is.

The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington. He should know. His magazine sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, “The Sunshine Boys?” Inside, an article carrying Thomas’ byline contrasted how “Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine.” The cover story touted how Kerry and Edwards “became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.”

Newsweek’s competitor, Time, also gushed about the Democratic ticket, dubbing them, in the headline over their story, “The Gleam Team.”

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz also realized the media’s championing of the Democratic ticket and made it a focus of his Sunday Reliable Sources show on CNN. The on screen topic cues: “Edwards Lovefest?” and “Media’s Dream Team.”

Kurtz’s Washington Post on Sunday well illustrated the media’s infatuation with Kerry and Edwards. “Kerry Vows to Restore 'Truth' to Presidency,” announced a July 11 front page headline. Inside, on page A-8, a headline declared: “Kerry, Edwards Revel in Brotherhood of Campaign.” The subhead: “Energy, Enthusiasm Infectious as Democrats Take Message to Battleground States.”

For the front page story by Jim VandeHei and Dan Balz: www.washingtonpost.com

For the inside article by the same two reporters, but with their names flipped: www.washingtonpost.com

On Inside Washington, a weekend discussion show taped at and run by the Gannett-owned CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, WUSA-TV, and carried by many PBS stations across the country, Thomas pointed out the boost to the Kerry/Edwards ticket provided by the press corps: 

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

The week’s Newsweek, dated July 19, certainly backs up Thomas’ contention. Over a smiling picture on the cover of Kerry and Edwards, Newsweek ever hopefully asks: “The Sunshine Boys?” To see the cover: www.msnbc.msn.com

Inside, at least in the Web-posted version, the headline reads: “Warming Up Kerry.” The subhead: “Blue skies: Their energy was infectious, but their numbers barely moved. Can Kerry-Edwards convert smiles into votes against Team Bush? Game on.” Howard Fineman and Richard Wolffe asserted at one point: 

“Indeed, Edwards's ingratiating incandescence has already brightened Kerry. The two became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.”

Whatever that means.

For the article in full: www.msnbc.msn.com

“The Boyish Wonder” is the headline over a story on which Thomas shared a byline with Susannah Meadows and Arian Campo-Flores. The subhead: “Happy warrior: He was no superstar. But John Edwards's determination and ability to read the defense took him to the top.” The trio began the laudatory piece: 

“In politics, self-made men seem to fall into two categories: sunny and dark. Both Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon began as farm boys, but while Ike radiated corn-fed smiles, Nixon seemed to be constantly brooding over some slight. In the 2004 election, Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine...”

For the second Newsweek story in full: www.msnbc.msn.com

Osama bin Laden could have made a good living as a political consultant if he did not choose to kill babies instead. The al Qaeda/Ba'ath Party strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is, at core, a political one. They seek not just to pull Iraq into chaos, but to defeat President Bush as well.

Every bomb, terror attack, suicide raid or urban guerilla offensive is aimed squarely at ending Bush's political career. Ironically, the real test of American resolve will not be our willingness to stay in Iraq, but our desire to keep Bush in office.

The history of terrorists messing around with the political systems of their victim countries is a long one. The Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Tet Offensive in January 1968 set in motion a chain of events that led to Sen. Eugene McCarthy's excellent showing in that year's New Hampshire primary, Robert F. Kennedy's entry into the presidential race and, finally, Lyndon Johnson's withdrawal from the contest.

In 1994, when Yasser Arafat wanted to defeat the moderate Labor Party in Israel so he could posture himself in opposition to the hard-liners, he resorted to terror attacks in Israel right before the election. The carnage so shocked Israeli voters that they turned against the frontrunner — Labor candidate Shimon Peres — and elected Likud hard-liner Benjamin Netenyahu instead.

In March of this year, al Qaeda turned the Spanish election on its head with its railroad bombing and defeated the favored candidate from the party of pro-Iraq war President Jose Maria Aznar and elected an anti-war socialist instead.

But to fathom the al Qaeda/Ba'ath strategy, we need to remember how the Iranian militants manipulated the hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980 to defeat their bete noire, President Jimmy Carter. By dangling and then retracting the hope of releasing their hostages, they made Carter look weak and overmatched. Once Reagan won, they quietly let the hostages go. As he was sworn in, they were flying home and Carter was frantically handling the wire transfers of funds to pay their ransom.

Al Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party want to defeat Bush to avenge his tough stance against them after the 9/11 attacks. They know that John Kerry would usher back the Clinton days of timid U.S. reaction and that the Democrat's likely repeal of vital sections of the Patriot Act would open the door for their terror strikes in America.

The thugs want Bush out and are determined to ratchet up the cost of the Iraq War to bring about his ouster. That's why they will target any American they can. By having the troops continue their current activist role in Iraq, Bush is sticking to his policies at the risk of committing political suicide.

Turning sovereignty over to Iraq didn't stop the terror attacks. But they will decline only after Bush is either re-elected or defeated. It is the elections in the United States, not those in Iraq, that the enemy most seeks to influence.

Bush's surrogates should bring to America the message that the terrorists would be overjoyed to see the end of his presidency.

During the Cold War, American politicians regularly used to campaign as the candidate the Russians wanted to lose. Bush's people should begin to speak of the message a Kerry election and a Bush defeat would send to the terrorists. The Spanish example is worth citing.

It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out. It might profit Bush's supporters (though not the president himself) to point out this obvious fact to the American people.

Tom DeWeese, the gloriously outspoken president of the American Policy Center, has written a blazing column bemoaning the ongoing dismantling of the United States of America.

I'm going to quote liberally from Tom's column, because he says what needs to be said and says it loud and clear: Unless we reverse the policies that are bankrupting large segments of the nation's industries that provide jobs, food, and natural resources such as lumber, coal and oil, the United States is going to sink to the level of a Third World country.

As I have said before, the American people are going to have to deal with the Marxist cabal that has been successful in imposing a whole slew of insane restrictions on American productivity. We are going to have to gear up for a fight to the finish with these people, and if we want to win we're going to have to go about it with the same courage and determination our fellow Americans displayed on the beaches of Normandy and the sands of Iwo Jima.

There can be no turning back if we want to regain and preserve the magnificent heritage our ancestors bestowed on us. And we can no longer wait – the time is now.

Just what am I talking about? I'll let Tom DeWeese answer that.

"To sustain the highest standard of living the world has ever known, America must have its farms, ranches, mines, and productive forests. The vital commodities these elements of the economy produce are the targets of environmental radicals and the web of federal regulations they've been instrumental in creating," Tom writes.

But there has been a sustained and covert assault on the exploitation of these resources by a Marxist elite masquerading as dedicated lovers of the environment. Unwilling to display their hand openly, they have employed a gradual approach, clamping the shackles of repression on America a chain link at a time.

Says DeWeese: "Banning these industries outright would meet too much resistance. Instead, powerful government regulations, guidelines and punitive taxes are being used to slowly diminish and then drive them out of businesses. Fully a third of all federal regulations and laws are devoted to the 'environment.'

"As an industry disappears from a region, the land it formerly occupied is removed from any further production. It then joins millions of other newly created non-productive acres under control of the National Park Service or the U.S. Forest Service. After that, no human use is permitted."

In a mournful dirge DeWeese intones the casualty list of America's battle with the environmentalist regulators:

* A mere fraction of America's timber resources formerly harvested from federal lands is now permitted. "The number of forest acres shrink every year, despite the fact that America is home to 70% of the forests that existed when the Pilgrims arrived. As this is written, fully 247 million acres (33.5%) are reserved from harvest by law or represent slow-growing woodlands unsuitable for timber production."

Shockingly, there are bans in effect that forbid even the removal of dead trees and those downed by storms.

"Between 1992 and 2000, the years of the Clinton-Gore administration, more than 300 timber mills were closed in the northwestern states alone, at a cost of an estimated 130,000 jobs.

"Entire communities that depended on timber revenue have been destroyed. Since 1990, timber harvest on federal land has declined from 12 billion board feet a year to barely 2.5 billion board feet in 2000. This nation is actually importing timber!"

As a direct result of the war on the timber industry, home building costs in the U.S. have jumped by as much as $10,000, depriving low-income families of the dream of home ownership and condemning many of them to lives in crowded slums.

* The idiotic restrictions have also skyrocketed the price of harvesting lumber: "It now costs more to harvest fewer available trees. In upstate New York, in just one year, the cost of raw hardwood jumped 60 percent."

Far from being a program to protect the environment, this ban on harvesting timber from public forests is nothing less than "a planned attack on an essential American industry," De Wesse writes.

"While sawmills stand empty and jobs disappear, the dead trees attract insects and disease, affecting the remaining healthy trees, and endangering the forest more severely as the result of government-mandated forest management practices."

Thanks to the restrictions that have produced millions of acres of unhealthy forests, millions now burn every year, destroying trees that could have been used for productive purposes. "As this is written, the Department of the Interior is recruiting and training thousands to fight the fires they know are coming. These are fires that could be avoided with proper forest management."

* Uncle Sam now controls huge areas of the United States. "The total acreage of public land in Washington [alone] is 42,606,080. Of this, 2,599,250 acres are controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, 25,492 acres are in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Area Preserves and 46,892 acres are in DNR Natural Reserve Conservation Areas.

"Citizen access to these federal areas is severely restricted or prohibited. Now, under a green-driven 1990 program called the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) the state government is in an all-out drive to buy or take more and more land.

* Uncle Sam's thirst for water is never satisfied. "On the Great Plains the battles for water rights and grazing rights (the bedrock of the ranching industry) is little understood but potentially devastating to America's ability to feed itself."

Water and grazing rights, DeWeese explains, "are supposed to be guaranteed to those ranchers who operate on public lands. Those agreements go back over one hundred years to the days when the western territories became states.

"Under those agreements, negotiated in good faith with state and federal authorities, they were not to be subject to question. Water and grazing rights are considered by ranchers to be just as sacred as any homeowner's deed of private property."

Yet the Department of the Interior has been attempting to hike grazing and water fees so high that ranching and farming in these areas would be simply impossible. "If the battle is lost it will mark the end of America's cattle and sheep industry, and the destruction of family farms. The land where those ranches and farms now stand will become unproductive, barren wilderness controlled by the federal government."

De Weese wonders if, in their absence, we can continue to feed ourselves, "let alone the rest of the world? Meanwhile, in tandem with this federal assault on cattle ranching, animal rights activists like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) advocate the elimination of meat consumption. This is no coincidence.

"If the United States had been invaded by a foreign enemy who had seized our lands, we would be at war today, but in Clinton's first term more than 141 million acres were taken by the federal government. In 1999 Clinton removed more than 2.3 million acres from access to mineral exploration. While this once-productive land was turned into wilderness, many roads, bridges and even some dams were closed or eliminated. Tax bases were destroyed, turning whole communities into virtual ghost towns.

"Piece by piece each of these moves by the federal government, aided by the environmentalists, dismantles American infrastructure. The plan, created by radical environmentalists is called The Wildlands Project. It is being implemented by the U.S. government. If successful, it will return 50 percent of the nation to wilderness. It will forcibly remove Americans living in every State of the Union requiring them to give up their homes and move into government-approved human habitat areas."

All of these nightmarish things are happening while Americans sit back and allow their God-given heritage to be stolen from them. There's little time left before America's infrastructure collapses under the weight of these insane restrictions on our natural rights.

Concludes DeWeese: "Now we must lay siege to our elected representatives in Congress and the new administration to end it. America is being dismantled and all that is necessary for this to continue is our silence, our compliance, our willingness to let someone else fight this battle."

And who could forget the overblown Iran-Contra affair, the attempt to arm the Contras through a deal to swap arms for hostages with the mullahs in Iran.

What might be hazy in the memory after 20 years, however, is the Keystone Kops, I-want-to-play-president role of the freshman senator from Massachusetts, John Forbes Kerry.

Still humming his “Give peace a chance” mantra from Vietnam days, Kerry jumped into the fray, pre-empting President Ronald Reagan, butting aside the State Department and wrecking havoc with U.S. Constitution, according to a recent timely look back at the fiasco by Michael Waller, writing for Insight on the News.

Waller poignantly reminds us that in those days before the rise of Osama bin Laden, the country’s front lines were drawn against the old Soviet Union and its dangerous inroads into the American hemisphere and elsewhere around the globe. The Evil Empire was hard at work sponsoring pro-communist guerrilla forces such as the Sandinistas.

Enter stage left, John Kerry, who saw an opportunity to make political hay.

Before his latest stab at 15 minutes of fame was over, the novice on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had accused his own government of sponsoring terrorism, worked hand in hand with the nation’s sworn ideological enemies, damaged an FBI operation against a Colombian cocaine cartel and co-wrote a sham "peace" proposal aimed at disarming the U.S.-backed forces fighting to oust the Soviet-backed Sandinistas.

The Background on America's Chamberlains

President Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan majority in Congress were financing the Contras in Nicaragua in their fight against the Sandinista junta, which had been sponsoring communist guerrilla and terrorist groups from neighboring countries – lighting a powder keg that threatened the entire region.

Reagan was in the middle of a delicate balancing act - seeking the release of a $14 million appropriation for the Nicaraguan resistance. On the table: an offer to limit U.S. aid to the Contras to humanitarian assistance. The quid pro quo: the Sandinistas would agree to national reconciliation and free elections.

The scene was set for Kerry to bluster into the equation like a bull in a China shop.

Teaming with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the pair - without portfolio - traveled to Managua to chat with Sandinista junta leader Daniel Ortega.

The result: a meaningless document that State Department experts considered little more than an offer to the Contras to surrender. The Sandinistas made no commitment to national reconciliation, and that was the heart of the matter.

Nonetheless, Kerry raced back to Washington with the document he touted as a “peace proposal.” Indeed, Ortega promises a cease-fire, as long as the United States cut off all assistance, including humanitarian aid, to the anti-communist forces and their families.

“Here,” Kerry boldly pronounced to the Senate, “is a guarantee of the security interest of the United States.”

An Awkward Backlash

But few bought the grandstanding. Overnight, Kerry found himself not the returning hero and peacemaker but a pariah.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., accused Kerry and Harkin of “transgressing” against the Constitution by holding unauthorized negotiations with a foreign leader. (dejavu?)

A peeved Secretary of State George Shultz announced, “Those who assure us that these dire consequences are not in prospect [in Central America] are some of those who assured us of the same in Indochina before 1975. The litany of apology for communists, and condemnation for America and our friends, is beginning again.”

White House spokesman Larry Speakes rained more buckets on Kerry's parade: “The very hour the House was rejecting the aid package [to the Nicaraguan resistance], President Ortega was going to Moscow to seek funds for his Marxist regime.” Ortega had, indeed, announced a trip to the U.S.S.R. to petition for $200 million more in Soviet support.

Teddy K. and 'KKK' Byrd to the Rescue

A frantic Kerry had his staff seek out anybody willing to praise his efforts. The only takers were Sens. Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who styled the controversial mission to Managua as a masterstroke forcing a recalcitrant Reagan to parley with the commies.

Perhaps figuring that if he stood still, the unwelcome mantle of “soft on communism” would cloak his shoulders, Kerry decided that the best defense was a colorful and flamboyant offense.

The former prosecutor got busy in 1986, launching a full-scale “investigation” to discredit the Nicaraguan resistance and the Reagan administration. The aim: stitch together - by whatever means - an international criminal conspiracy.

Using the unlikely fodder of allegations in lawsuits, Kerry's probe predictably hit rough waters.

Kerry's Bribery Scandal and 'Illegal Racket'

According to Insight's report, a British soldier of fortune, Peter Glibbery, swore that Kerry staffers bribed him to accuse Sandinista opponents of crimes, only to recant the next day. A former French soldier named Claude Chaffard claimed that Kerry staffers promised to help him with U.S. visa problems and paid him money while he cooperated.

Such wrinkles certainly did not bolster Kerry’s insistent demands to the Republican majority's staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to crank up full hearings on his shadowy conspiracy theories.

In desperation to keep the raked muck churning, Kerry signed a letter used in a direct-mail appeal for an outside group to raise money. That outside group was Commission on United States-Central American Relations, which was reportedly a front of International Center for Development Policy and included as members open supporters of the Sandinistas, the communist Cuban dictatorship of Fidel Castro and the communist FMLN guerrillas of El Salvador, according to commission literature.

“It was a racket that was probably illegal at the time, and certainly would be illegal now,” a former Senate staffer with firsthand knowledge of the investigation revealed to Insight.

The work product of the “racket”: alleged widespread drug trafficking by the Nicaraguan resistance. It was enough to prod the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to create a subcommittee to investigate.

Kerry feverishly honed a theory that the Contras were nothing less than a major hub in an international cocaine-smuggling operation.

Underlings Damage Federal Investigation

But by the summer of 1986, the Washington Times was reporting that aides to Kerry “severely damaged a federal drug investigation by interfering with a witness while pursuing allegations of drug smuggling by the Nicaraguan resistance.”

The Times later followed up with a report, citing federal law-enforcement officials. The revelation: The FBI repeatedly had warned Kerry's staffers to back off because they were endangering a federal anti-drug operation. According to the report, an FBI informant became “spooked” and stopped cooperating after Kerry’s staff interfered – going as far as to change her story to include the Contras as part of the plot.

As was the case earlier, Kerry's ploy began to unravel. Drug traffickers "are selling a story to Congress and to the media that they have concocted to have their sentences reduced or to have their cases dismissed,” a Drug Enforcement Administration agent told the New York Times.

Eventually the DEA and Justice Department dismissing the claims of one of Kerry’s star witnesses, accused cocaine trafficker Jorge Morales, that the CIA and Nicaraguan resistance forces were involved in large-scale drug trafficking.

Kerry Covers for Cocaine Commies

Thickening the unsavory brew, the Washington Times then revealed that Kerry had concealed evidence of Sandinista drug trafficking and had deleted information from his staff report of the previous October to pin the blame on the Sandinistas’ U.S.-backed opponents.

The camera-hogging Kerry suddenly made himself scarce. He refused to speak to journalists seeking to question him.

“Sen. John Kerry is coming under increasing fire from federal law-enforcement officials,” the Associated Press reported. “The officials have said Kerry’s work was based largely on unsubstantiated allegations from informants, most of whom already have been interviewed by federal law-enforcement officials and some of whom have previously been found to be unreliable. A number of them are charged with various crimes or are in jail.”

Unrepentant, Kerry switched again to the attack mode for defense, trying to connect drug dealers to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was campaigning at the time to succeed Reagan as president of the United States.

In May 1988, Bush accused Kerry of leaking unsubstantiated allegations that his office approved drugs-for-weapons deals to arm the contras. No evidence ever surfaced to confirm the claims.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on Kerry’s subcommittee, publicly accused Kerry of abusing the subcommittee to damage Bush and to help the flagging presidential campaign of Kerry’s longtime friend, mentor and ally Michael Dukakis. McConnell charged that Kerry had given credibility to witnesses who were critical of President Reagan and Vice President Bush but failed to summon others to testify who would rebut the criticisms.

Concluded Insight's report: “The politicization of the current 9/11 commission, and the attempts by Democratic partisans to prove that the current president, George W. Bush, failed to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks when he could have stopped them, seems to be a repeat of the Kerry subcommittee’s modus operandi of 1987-88.”

McConnell perhaps summed things up best when he told the Boston Globe: “I think the integrity of the Senate investigative process and the objectivity, fairness and balance of this particular effort have been compromised for political purposes.”

John Kerry Pro Communist Through and Through

Let's see he diss's our allies calling them the coalition of the coerced~oh yeah.  Good move, Kerry.  He has private and secret meetings with representatives from uh-

COMMUNIST CHINA--

He takes money for his campaign from the mullahs in Iran, (so he's in bed with terrorists)

...the leaders that recognize him and are publicly saying that they want him to win are...the Soviet Union, Cuba,

Socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain

anti-Semitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed

the world’s most die-hard Stalinist, North Korean Communist dictator Kim Jong Il

And you guys are complaining that "THE WORLD" wants Kerry?

Yet, a careful examination of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the term “health care” isn’t even mentioned. Why? The answer is a simple one: Unlike American politicians today, our Founders didn’t believe that people have a right to health care.

Let’s first keep in mind that our Constitution, unlike the Cuban one, does not grant rights to anyone. The U.S. Constitution implicitly recognized the principle that Thomas Jefferson had enunciated in the Declaration of Independence — that man has been endowed with certain fundamental rights that preexist government (and endowed by our creator [or God]) and that these rights include not health care (or food or education) but rather life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The purpose of government, the Declaration said, is to protect the exercise of these rights. Thus, the cornerstone of the American political system is that government is not the source of people’s rights but simply the entity charged with protecting the exercise of those rights.

While our Constitution does not give people rights, it does delineate the powers of the federal government. The idea was that if the Constitution did not grant a certain power, then the federal government was prohibited from exercising it. A careful search of the Constitution fails to reveal the grant of any governmental power to provide health care to the citizenry.

If people have a right to health care, then it stands to reason that others are required to provide it. After all, it wouldn’t be much of a right if people weren’t guaranteed it. And the only thing that can guarantee such a right is the coercive apparatus of the state. The fact that Cubans have a “right to heath care” is the reason that the Cuban government provides health care to the citizenry.

A right to health care would entitle me to walk into any physician’s office and demand to be treated for free. The law would require the physician to comply with my demand. I could enter any pharmacy and demand any drugs I wanted for free, and the pharmacist would have to give them to me. Every hospital would be at my beck and call, required by law to serve me. It would be my right.

As America’s Founders understood so clearly, this type of “right” is not liberty but rather the opposite of liberty, because it forces one person to work for or serve another person. Liberty entails every person’s right to live his life without being coerced to serve another.

Of course, government can disguise the process by taxing the citizenry to reimburse the physician, pharmacy, and hospital. But the assault on the concepts of liberty and the pursuit of happiness is just as egregious. When their money is taken from them to pay for other people’s health care, people’s range of choices — that is, their freedom — is diminished.

Moreover, as everyone knows, each new government intervention into health care creates a host of new problems, which then require more intervention. The result is an ever-growing expansion of government control over this crucially important part of our lives.

The enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s was an assault on both the philosophy of our Constitution and the economic principles of the free market. It also constituted an abandonment of a principle that the American people had held dear for more than a century — that people have a right to freedom but not a right to health care. Rather than continuing down the Cuban road to national health care, Americans would be better served demanding an end to Medicare and Medicaid and all other governmental involvement in health care.

Ok, you supposed defenders of freedom and the constitution....where do you stand on gun ownership?  Kerry doesn't think you should own any guns.  And don't give me any of that disarmament crap...The right to bear arms is a constitutional issue, it's the Second Amendment, for crying out loud.  Just like all the other issues having to do with the constitution, both Kerry and Edwards vote against your constitutional rights time after time.

Americans deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about any politician who wants to occupy the Oval Office. We believe presidential candidates should provide all available information to help our citizens make this important decision. President Bush even released his dental records to answer concerns about his military service. Now, it's Senator Kerry's turn. Senator, release your files. ALL the files, including your FBI files.

NEVER IN MY LIFETIME has a presidential campaign tried to get a candidate elected by insulting America's best allies, at the same time as putting our sons' lives on the line. That's exactly what Sen. John Kerry has been doing for months now. And, as he has slid in the polls, Kerry's band of spinners has ratcheted up its ally bashing.

Why do I take deep offense to this?  Because I am the mother of a soldier in Iraq.  Yes, folks, those of you who have been bashing me as though I'm some twenty-something kid who lives in his mom's basement,--I AM THE MOM.  I am a Soldier's Mom who is PRO-BUSH.  Senator Kerry is bashing the initiative that my son believes in, that my son is putting his life on the line for.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi came to Washington to assure Congress that progress in Iraq is real, and that elections will occur as scheduled. So the reaction of Kerry campaign honcho Joe Lockhart? "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand beneath the shirt today moving the lips," he said.

Cute. Allawi is Iraq's No. 1 terrorist target. He may not be a Boy Scout, but he is risking his life in order to bring democracy to his country. And Joe Lockhart chooses not only to insult Allawi, but to do so in a way that, if anything, makes Allawi's job harder by undermining his credibility.

Maybe Lockhart is too nuanced for me, but it seems odd to call a man a "puppet" for pushing for an outcome that is in his interest. Of course Allawi would prefer the leader who talks about establishing an autonomous Iraq over the candidate who talks about his plan for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. Allawi doesn't need a puppet-master to know who is better for him.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, who is training Iraqi forces, wrote in the Washington Post this weekend that "more than 700 Iraqi force members have been killed and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and the military have been killed as well." I'm curious.

Are those 700-plus Iraqis puppets, too?

Earlier this month, Kerry's sister, Diana Kerry, who is head of Americans Overseas for Kerry, told the Weekend Australian that Australia's support for the United States in Iraq is "endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multinational channels." Apparently, Camp Kerry thinks it can win new allies by bashing a government that has helped America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Listen to Kerry himself. The senator has said that, unlike Bush, he would build "a legitimate international coalition," implying that the U.S.-led coalition is illegitimate. Kerry also has dismissed the coalition as "unilateral" -- despite the fact (also missed by his sister) that 31 other countries have sent troops to Iraq.

While critics dismiss the allies as window-dressing, the Sunday Times of London reports that in August, British troops used up to 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Unilateral? Tell that to the 66 British troops who gave their lives, or the three Polish soldiers killed in Hilla on Sept. 12.

"I understand how to bring those countries back to our side," Kerry has said of the countries that did not join the coalition. His formula must be: Dismiss the British, Aussies, Poles and Italians -- for gun-shy France and Germany? Au contraire, Monsieur Kerry, all you've done is shown that you are a foreign-policy blowh ard who hardly notices the blood spilled by America's true friends.

The New York Times reported that, according to the sage Lockhart, Camp Kerry introduced a new theme for the debates: Bush is "using the war on terror as a political tool and a political weapon'' in seeking to silence dissent.

Silencing dissent? Democrats have called Bush a liar, a killer, an idiot and their surrogate brethren have likened Bush to Hitler. What other names could the Dems have called Bush? In fact, what Kerry's band of blatherers calls silencing dissent is: criticism, because when people criticize Camp Kerry, Camp Kerry finally silences itself.

Asked whether it was appropriate for Kerry/Edwards to undermine Allawi, Sen. Ted Kennedy told CBS' "Face the Nation," that it was more than appropriate: "I think absolutely. I mean, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that dissent is the essential aspect of patriotism."

They could say they think the war was wrong, and leave it at that. But Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq. So his aides invent distinctions that make war harder for America's real allies, they make excuses for America's fair-weather friends, they advocate cutting and running from a war that has already cost more than 1,000 American lives, even though they are so smart they must be aware that a precipitous exit would make America less secure. They make it harder for Iraqis, Americans and U.S. allies to win the war. Then they call themselves patriots. Bah.

I call them traitors.

In the mid-80s the Senate Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations was set up with John Kerry's help. What became known as the "John Kerry Committee" quickly became a vicious means of opposing President Reagan's policy of ridding Central America of Marxist-Leninist thugs.

Leaks from the committee charged that there was a CIA/Contra operation running drugs into the US. The leaks were clearly designed to subvert Reagan's anti-communist policies in the region by linking the CIA with drug-running. (Incidentally, John Kerry and his pals never examined Castro's drug-trafficking activities).

There was no doubt at the time that leaks were coming from Kerry staffers. But where did Kerry and his staffers get the idea that the CIA was running drugs? It originated with the infamous pro-Soviet Institute for Policy Studies.

Kerry is one of Institute's most partisan supporters, as is Senator Harkin (Sen. Tom Harkin tries to censor Rush Limbaugh). John Kerry put Gary Porter, a fellow of the IPS, on his payroll as a legislative aid. This is of particular interest because Kerry's anti-defense and intelligence voting record exactly mirrors the IPS's anti-defense and anti-intelligence proposals, which in turn toed the Soviet line.

It was the pro-Castro Richard Barnet, cofounder of the IPS, who accused the CIA of being a "criminal enterprise that must be dismantled". Kerry agreed with Barnet to the extent that even after the 1993 Twin Towers bombing he still tried to slash intelligence spending.

Porter and Peter Kornbluh, another pro-Soviet member of the IPS, helped arrange Kerry and Harkin's 1984 trip to Managua, the result of which persuaded the Senate to vote against the Contras.

In 1985 the IPS produced a slanderous document called In Contempt of Congress. It was published with the aim of completely derailing Reagan's policy of defeating the attempted Marxist-Leninist conquest of Central America.

No one was surprised when Kerry enthusiastically endorsed this pro-Soviet slander against Reagan. The previous year the IPS published Changing Course: Blueprint for Peace in Central America. This was another pro-Soviet document that totally ignored Soviet and Cuban meddling in the region, including arms shipments.

By pure chance the document also managed to overlook the pertinent fact that IPS was actively supporting these Marxist-Leninist thugs, even to the extent that Saul Landau, a prominent member of the IPS, collaborated in torture and murder by the Sandinistas secret police.

In 1983 the Sandinistas arrested, tortured and then shot Victor Frances. Although Landau was aware of what was done to Frances he still collaborated with Lenin Cerna, the Sandinistas secret police chief, in editing footage of Frances' phony confession. The footage was then used for US TV audiences. In my opinion, this makes Landau and the IPS a party to Frances' murder.

As a dedicated communist and a personal friend of Castro the murder of Frances in the name of a 'progressive' cause would certainly not bother Landau or the IPS.

This is what Brian Crozier had to say about John Kerry's IPS playmates:

"The IPS is the perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB."

Crozier is a fellow of the prestigious Institute for the Study of Conflict and one of the West's leading experts on the Soviet Union. Richard Barnet saw Crozier's criticism of the Institute's pro-Soviet activities as an opportunity to use Britain's draconian libel laws to silence him. (In Britain, as is the case in Australia, truth is no defence in defamation actions).

However, when the IPS discovered that Crozier had been collecting enormous amounts of information on the IPS, some of it from defectors, the blustering Richard Barnet withdrew the action. The possibility that those documents and affidavits would be made public in a British court was something that the IPS could not risk. Nevertheless, Barnet still had the effrontery to claim victory over Crozier!

John Kerry is not guilty of being anti-American because he associated with anti-Americans. The fact is that he has spent years collaborating with people who have been active agents of a foreign power: first for the Soviet Union and now Cuba.

Whichever way one examines the mountainous evidence of the anti-American activities of the IPS, one and only one conclusion can be drawn: the IPS is an agent of influence for Fidel Castro. So why has John Kerry been collaborating with it?

Little wonder that he and his media allies have been desperately hiding his IPS links and what they mean for American national security.

Although the Swift Boat Veterans have done sterling work, despite the Democrats' thuggish efforts to smear and silence them, they have only revealed one part of Kerry's appalling character. There is another side of Kerry that has yet to be revealed.

Given what is known about him, one would have to be insane with an irrational hatred of Bush to put one's life and liberty in the hands of John Kerry.

Insurgents are dying because of their religion, you idiots.  Blame their ideology for what they're doing.

The Qu'ran has over 100 verses that talk about killing the infidel, and guarantees them a place in paradise (as close to heaven as they get) if they die in the cause.

The Nick Berg tape was a call to the body of muslim believers to draw the sword and start killing the unbelievers in earnest. 

Guess what?  This is RAMADAN, their holy time.  From now until the end of November, they believe the gates of hell are closed.  Last year, there were over 200 incidents (like suicide bombers) in the Iraqi theatre~it is recorded fact that Islamist extremists go all-out during Ramadan to kill and be killed.

The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned governmental leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam. In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends....Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them....Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5, 29, 41, etc.). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.

And if you do, you are renouncing the holy prophet and you yourself become an unbeliever~and that means you realize you could be killed.

The Arabic message accompanying the video images of the beheading of 26-year-old Nick Berg by terrorists in Iraq is described by translators and experts in Islam and the Quran as a "how-to" training tape for the murder of non-Muslims by other terrorists around the globe.

While it is President Bush's assertion that the assassin and speaker is al-Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; we must realize it is a call for similar acts of slaughter against infidels. The grisly film included a statement, signed off with Zarqawi's name.

Zarqawi claimed Berg's beheading in the film, and was probably the one who did the cutting.

The author of the text makes reference to the ‘patience' of slaughtering, Nick Berg is just an example.

While parts of the video of the gruesome murder of the American radio tower contractor have been broadcast internationally, strangely, the Arabic message accompanying it has not been scrutinized by the Western media.

While many have heard Berg introduce himself and his family, fewer have heard the longer, Arabic-language message from the killer. The message itself has little to do with Berg.

The author goes to great pains to convince the Ummah (the body of Muslim believers) that the time for negotiations with unbelievers is over, and was not impromptu, but a carefully crafted message. The author of the text is probably an imam or scholar or someone who studied in a maddrassa. (As was proven last week, Zarqawi's holy man, Shami was probably the one who wrote this text.)

"Are you not fed up with the jihad of the conferences and the battles of giving sermons?" the speaker said. "Has the time not come for you to lift the sword with which the master of the messengers was sent?"

This reference to Islamic conferences is ridiculing the notion that holy war can be waged with sermons and teachings alone. He uses this as a pun. Jihad is supposed to be for the purpose of killing the non-believers and the scholars are using it simply to kill their own ideas. The battles of giving sermons is another pun: The scholars are putting the battle in words when it needs to be in real life in their hands.

This is a full call to arms: Lift the sword. The 'master of the messengers' refers to Allah, that is, in the writers mind all the messengers of the past were given the ability to fight the non believers and so to the Ummah has it today.

"And we hope, that you will not place yourself in a dilemma (after seeing) what we will do, as you usually do to please the American," continues the Arabic speaker in the tape.

He is clearly offering direction about the way of jihad today – through the example of beheading Berg.

The author introduces his soliloquy by demonstrating he is not nationalistic in his approach, but rather honoring Islam. It is a religious salutation – one designed to show he sees himself as a champion of Allah.

He cites Surah Al Tawbah 9.5 of the Quran, a verse dealing with the battle between the Mushriq (non-believers or pagans) and the Ansar (believers). He is addressing only the Ummah, the body of Muslim believers. It is not a message for non-Muslims. What is about to be shown is for their benefit. But it is a message that non-Muslims MUST HEAR.

It is a message of rejoicing, glad tidings and jubilation, not one of anger, he says.

"The tide has turned, and like the battle of Badr, where Muslims were outnumbered, Allah has given them victory," he says. "Two reasons are given for this rejoicing: The daylight has now come forth, and the winds of victory have come upon them."

All the glory is given to Allah in the message. The victory is at hand, was predestined. The author of the message, is aware that some in the Islamic world are uncomfortable with seeing pictures of Muslims tie bodies around cars and dragging them through the streets of Fallujah.

The author wishes to comfort those fears and explain that this all was planned in advance and that instead of being uncomfortable, people should rejoice.

The speaker also directly addresses young people in the maddrassas who are watching the jihad across the world – simply studying Islam on the sidelines and not joining in the killing.
"And how can a free Muslim sleep close-eyed whilst seeing Islam being slaughtered, and he sees the bleeding of honor, and the images of shame, and the news of satanic abuse on the people of Islam, men and women, in the prison of Abu Ghraib," he says.

To the writer, what is happening across the world is that Islam itself is under attack. The pictures are simply a part of that attack.

"So where is the jealousy, and where is the zeal, and where is the anger for the religion of Allah?" the speaker asks. "And where is the jealousy over the honor of the Muslims, and where is the revenge taken for the honor of the Muslim males and females in the prisons of the crusaders."
He implores the elders and the teachers to recognize that the real energy of jihad and Islam is within the youth.

"Has the time not come for you to learn from them the meanings of tawwakul (reliance on Allah), and to seek guidance from their actions lessons in sacrifice and forbearance, until when will you remain like the women, not knowing better than to wail, and not knowing a path except the path of screaming and crying?" exhorts the speaker.

Interestingly, the speaker references United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa.

"So this (scholar) appeals to the free-men of this world, and the other seeks tawwasul (help) from Kofi Annan, and a third calls for help from Amr Musa, and a fourth calls for peaceful demonstrations," relates the speaker in the tape.

But all these scholars are all mistaken. They must not have read Surah 8.35, which is a call to arms. His solution, therefore, is to encourage the scholars to go back to the Quran, which calls for the rising up of the youth and the Ummah to fight and kill.

The speaker describes what is about to happen – the beheading of Berg – as an act of supreme mercy.

"Those who are about to do this act are not savages, but actually are merciful," and the example is what happened at the battle of Badr, where the prisoners were all slaughtered – killed with patience.

The Great Battle of Badr took place on the 17th of Ramadan, two years after the Hijra. This was the first battle that the believers ever engaged in with the disbelievers, and it is, by far, the most famous and most renown. What to do with the prisoners was a major issue for Muhammed and comes out in 8.67-68 in the Quran: "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is Almighty, All Wise. Were it not a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took."

Prisoners of war constituted a problem awaiting resolution because it was a new phenomenon in the history of Islam. Muhammad consulted Abu Bakr and Umar bin Al-Khattab as to what he should do with the prisoners. Abu Bakr suggested that he should ransom them, explaining this by saying: "They are after all our relatives, and this money would give us strength against the disbelievers, moreover, Allah could guide them to Islam." Umar advised killing them, saying, "They are the leaders of Kufr (disbelief)."

The Prophet preferred Abu Bakr's suggestion to that of Umar's. The following day, Umar called on Muhammad and Abu Bakr to see them weeping. He showed extreme astonishment and inquired about the situation so that he might weep if it was worth weeping, or else he would feign weeping.

"As for you O dog of the Romans Bush, then have tidings of what will displease you, and await with the assistance of Allah for hard days, and you will regret – you, and your soldiers – on the day you set on the soil of Iraq," the speaker continues.

President Bush is seen as the leader of the Romans, a veiled reference to the Christian concept that the Romans killed Jesus of Nazareth with the help of the Jewish authorities. The usage of this phrase in an Arabic environment is most likely due to the popularity of the "Passion of the Christ" movie, via which the authors may be suggesting that Bush, like the Romans, are led by Jews, and that Islam is now being sacrificed.

The speaker also addresses another world leader – Pakistani President Pervis Musharaf:

"And another message for the treacherous stooge, Pervis Musharaf, then we say to him: We are in the highest of desires, awaiting your soldiers. For by Allah, we will seek them before the Americans, and will avenge for the blood of our brothers in Waana and other than it."

Having attempted negotiation – the exchange of Berg for prisoners at Abu Graib – the speaker states the only way left is to kill. Thus, the only payment now that is valid is blood.

"So kill the mushrikeen (unbelievers), wherever you see them, take them, and sanction them, and await them at every place," says the speaker.

I believe people need to be warned of this danger. Obviously Nicholas Berg was not.

At least one U.S. military intelligence source agrees. He says the lesson of the Berg murder is simple: If you are about to be captured by Islamist terrorists--resist, at all costs.

"Not even one more American should be killed in this manner," he says. "Better to die fighting back than to be another example."

He cited a report about an al-Qaeda training video discovered in Afghanistan. Analysts who viewed the tape and shared it with law-enforcement personnel around the U.S. concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorists are not only planning attacks with weapons of mass destruction but are preparing to kill Americans with drive-by shootings and home break-ins, through ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations on golf courses.

They plan kidnappings in the U.S., too, warn the experts. But they will not be seeking ransoms. Analysts point out that all scenarios involving prisoners and hostages ended in execution. None included plans for negotiated settlements for escape by terrorists.

"They plan to kill the prisoners and die in place," wrote John Holschen of Insights Training Center, who produced a report on the tape for military and law-enforcement officials.

The Berg video narration climaxes with the citation of Surah al Tawba 9.5.

A call to kill all non-Muslims and those they perceive challenge Islam. By concluding with this ayat, he wants the Ummah to know that Nick Berg is not being killed simply because he is a prisoner. He is being killed because he is not a Muslim.

Hehehehehe...I've been receiving a lot of flack for not having my blog open for comments.  I'm going to publish some of this and then YOU figure it out.

A couple of these are courtesy of your neighborhood democrat cyber terrorist from the outside, an unidentifiable poster.

~

You're a liar, a thug and an asshole spreading lies. Your family must be comprised of idiots. Go back to worshipping your Adolf Hitler Shrine in your Mommy's basement!

~

Heh heh, they think he's a better candidate because his plan is to do what Bush is doing but better. If I were stupid, I'd vote for him too.

BTW, are you ever going to open up comments on your blog?

~

Its nice to see you're tough enough to allow people to comment on your blog.

~

Guess what, people?  I've received 3x as many positive comments about my posts through PM's-- I just don't want to deal with these nutjobs.  OK?  It's a free country, last time I checked, we have the OPTION to be 'hosts' and receive comments.  I opt not to do that because of crazy hacking idiots who can't keep a civil tongue in their mouths.

Anybody notice how ridiculous the liberal rants are getting out there?  The voice of desperation is showing....

It's nice to see how tough the libs are~they can't take it, can they?

what's even better is how much it's getting under their skin.

Oh, let's get it on...let's get it on Click on the link

Politicians are funny people. They talk and talk and talk. They love to be heard. But sometimes they forget that people not only listen to what they say, but remember. Today the liberal left is savaging the President and his Administration over going to war with Iraq. They claim that his reasons for going to war were invalid, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq posed no threat to the United States. They are two-faced liars. When Slick Willie was in office, and when they thought it would help their popularity, they told an entirely different story.

Let's hear it from their own forked tongues:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002

"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life."
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002

"Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem alone; he is the world's problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone."
Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003

GAWD I LOVE THAT PIC

Look at his little sunflower.  AWWWWWW.

I vote for Bush~they're 'makin' it.'

The Kerry pic makes me think of what's running through Teresa's mind...."Don't kiss me now, dog breath!"  It's just not sincere.  I think they're both in it for what they can get out of it.  When someone is that rich-when he never has to work another day in his life, do you honestly think he's out to help the American people?  He doesn't know who the "people" ARE!  Kerry has no work ethic (does he even care about his contituents?  Who does he think got him into office?)-Mr. Kerry was absent 60 percent of the time in the Senate, totaling 246 votes; Mr. Edwards has missed 133 votes, which is 32 percent.

The chairman of a pro-Iranian democracy group is charging that the campaign of Sen. John Kerry has been accepting political contributions from a lobbying group promoting the agenda of the mullah rulers of Iran. Aryo Pirouznia, leader of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iraq (SMCCDI) says that backers of the regime in Tehran are channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Kerry campaign.

During a press conference in Washington on Thursday, Pirouznia identified several individuals who have close ties to the Democratic presidential candidate. The most prominent of them is Hassan Nemazee, a New York investment banker and a member of the board of the American-Iranian Council (AIC). A chief goal of the lobbying group is the removal of U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Once nominated by President Bill Clinton to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina, Nemazee has raised more than $100,000 for Kerry. Nemazee withdrew his name from consideration following allegations of improper business dealings.

On March 19, 2004, Nemazee was listed as a vice chairman by the Kerry campaign, and on June 18, 2004, CBS News reported that Nemazee was part a group that raised more than $500,000.

Other key Kerry fundraisers with similar ties include Susan Akbarpour, a recent immigrant from Iran whom the campaign lists as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 and her husband, Faraj Aelaei, a telecommunications executive raising the same amount.

Iran has been alternately threatening to develop nuclear weapons and insisting that it needs uranium for energy production. During the first presidential debate, Kerry suggested that he would provide nuclear fuel to Iran.

Kerry was critical of President George W. Bush, who called Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil" along with North Korea and Iraq when it was controlled by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Kerry lamented that the U.S. passed up an opportunity to join the Great Britain, France, and Germany in engaging Iran.

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

The Democrat's web site reiterates the "global test" he proposes for the mullah government. Kerry's plan is to "call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear."

In one of his public statements about Iran, Kerry said, "I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago."

Following Kerry's advocacy on behalf of the communist government of Vietnam, Hanoi awarded a contract to Boston real estate firm Colliers International. At the time, the senator's cousin Stuart Forbes was head of the company.

The Kerry campaign won't comment on the individuals in question.

I keep reading headlines here about the mysterious world leaders who support Kerry and that the "World" doesn't support Bush.

Ever consider what international govern ments support John Kerry?  How about COMMUNIST CHINA?  Could this be where he got his Communist Chinese&nb sp;Assault Rifle?  Hard to tell, since his ties with the communists go back for so long.

Kerry has a secret relationship with Beijing. During the late 1990s, John Kerry traveled to Beijing on behalf of a firm associated with the Chinese military and today he does not want to talk about it.

Yet the Massachusetts-based firm of Boston Capital and Technology openly advertised its connection to Sen. Kerry and also admitted selling advanced U.S. space technology to China. Boston Capital's Web site noted that the firm was "China Advisor to U.S. Senator's commercial agenda for China."

"Advised, assisted, and executed Minister level commercial agenda for U.S. Senator. Advanced Senator in China for all Minister level meetings, coordinated and acted as liaison to:

The U.S. State Department, The U.S. Embassy in Beijing, The Department of Commerce, and all relevant Chinese authorities," states the Web site.

According to the company's Web page, BCT "acted" as a China adviser to "U.S. High Technology's Corporation technology transfer efforts in the People's Republic of China. They were responsible for technology transfer for full-scale manufacturing in China of technologies in telecommunications and satellites."

"Each production package sells for $15-$20 million. The Corporation has successfully transferred these [satellite] technologies to several Chinese manufacturers now in production," states the Boston Capital & Technology Web site.

The Bush administration's position on space technology exports to China is a matter of public record. President Bush has resisted the big money trying so hard to help the Chinese military.

In contrast, Sen. Kerry's position remains secret. Both the senator's campaign and the senator's office refused repeated requests to answer questions. The Kerry policy toward the Chinese military space program is written on large donation checks and remains behind the closed doors of a secret meeting in Beijing.

Like Al Gore and other self-described environmentalists, Kerry has a radical agenda that would devastate the U.S. economy in favor of the likes of communist China, yet he enjoys the gas-guzzling modern conveniences that greens denounce. Kerry, a delegate to the environment-destroying Earth Summit in 1992 (where he met his future wife, left-wing activist Teresa Heinz, the multimillionaire widow of GOP Sen. John Heinz), the Kyoto climate talks in 1997 and the Hague Conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2000, has attacked President Bush for withdrawing from the anti-U.S. Kyoto Protocol. This treaty, which then-President Bill Clinton had signed, would impose severe restrictions on the United States but not Third World polluters that already enjoy huge trade surpluses with the U.S.

At the end of the day, politics reflect a philosophy. Kerry's philosophy, as well as his wife's, is very clear: Both have supported issues and causes that are at best socialist and at worst anti-American. In 1970, Kerry told the Harvard Crimson: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." Though less direct, his current campaign speeches carry the same message.

The demonrats, think that's something to be proud of?

A Kerry presidency, like Clinton's, would be a "twofer." You get two for the price of one – Bill and Hillary, John and Teresa. Neither makes any apologies for their support of projects and causes that are blatantly socialist – or worse. If America is ready to abandon its founding principles and move into the global socialist community, then John and Teresa are ready to lead the way.

Here's my take on that:

Honor doesn't count for much in a lot of professions or companies, but it counts for just about everything in the military. The military sees John Kerry as a liar, a betrayer and an opportunist and there is not much worse in the eyes of the military than an opportunist. Opportunists get people killed - whether they are Officers, Sergeants or Presidents.

Keeping your eye on the big picture - on what's really important to everyone. This is what real leaders do.

Is that what John Kerry would do?

Whether or not he is elected- the warriors will still serve. The idea of America - that all men are free - is too precious to abandon.

And for the pinkos here who are against the war, have nobody in their family who has ever served and no connection or understanding of the military outside of what they see on See-BS...

The desperate commies are working in violent ways to defeat George Bush.  When you considered some anti-war activists shot up a GOP office and burned GOP signs...these people are SKERRY.  And they're funded by Teresa Heinz Kerry and George Soros.

Communist Party USA ~Take a look at the Communist party's website and look at the top ten reasons to defeat George Bush.  Sound familiar?  It's the same reasoning the democrats are using.  So are the democrats the unofficial mouthpiece for the communist party?

I'm not joking.

Take a look at some of this hogwash:

Code Pinko

A Closer Look AT Code Pink

The Ruckus Society

Kerry Hires Online Chief From Moveon.org And Guess What?  He was Ruckus Society Trained

Kerry's New Hate America Man

FEC Complaint Against Zach Exley

Wow Kerry is stupid enough to hire a guy like that...well I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise...there are probably some of these people blogging here....Should give you an idea why when you do a search sometimes the websites are re-directed to other non-related websites. 

Some people are aware of some of this action and the dishonest terrorist type activities they involve themselves in-

Thank God for the Sheepdogs in our ranks-

The following essay was written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.)   This article is posted on Blackfive.

On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves
By Dave Grossman

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."...

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust, or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.

There are nagging doubts as to what happened when he took his three purple hearts and left for the Reserves. For starters, why won't Senator John Forbes Kerry sign a release for all of his military records? And why isn't the Main Stream Media (MSM) all over that like they were with the President?

Scott A., a former SF Soldier, sends this article about Monsieur Kerry's records:

Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun October 13, 2004

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.

The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.

The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?...

Read the rest of the article here.

Hahahaha...there's a clue as to why he won't release his military records--no surprise here-

Kerry: I Love My Illegal Chinese Assault Rifle

John Kerry blasted President Bush....for failing to push for an extension of the assault weapons ban, saying he's never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer.

But that was before Kerry admitted in a magazine interview that he owns a Chinese assault rifle.

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry tells Outdoor Life in its October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Kerry Reenacted Vietnam Films?

RUSH: This is a world exclusive on the Drudge Report, apparently. We know some of this is true. We know that John Kerry took an eight-millimeter camera -- he bought an eight-millimeter camera at a P.X. in -- Vietnam and filmed himself in "moments of valor." What we are learning now is that some of these moments of valor were reenacted. "A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's swift boat charges that Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam portraying himself as the hero in these scenes. The footage is at the center of a growing controversy in Boston, because the official convention video introducing Kerry is directed by a Steven Spielberg protege, James Smoll, and some of the eight-millimeter footage that Kerry took himself, reenacted footage, may end up," in the movie tomorrow night. Secrecy surrounds this movie but "the Drudge Report's learned that Smoll was given hours of Kerry's homemade eight-millimeter films.

Sitting down for an in-depth interview for the New York Times Magazine, John Kerry told reporter Matt Bai something that's frankly... incredible:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Terrorists just a nuisance? Fighting terrorism like you fight the numbers racket? Welcome to the dreamworld of John F. Kerry.

This isn't the first time Kerry has tried to talk tough, and at the same time offered a revealing -- and devastating -- look into his fundamentally misguided world view. Here is what we already know about how John Kerry would fight the war on terror:

• During the second debate, Kerry says "I've never changed my mind about Iraq" while simultaneously claiming that Saddam Hussein "was" and "wasn't" a threat.
  
• During the first debate, Kerry says we must pass a "global test" before taking action to defend ourselves. He later says the test applies not only globally, but "elsewhere" too.
  
• Kerry says he will wage a "more sensitive" war on terror.
  
• Kerry says he isn't comfortable calling the war on terror a war.
  
• Kerry claims, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." (Video.)
  
• Kerry says the war on terror is more of a law enforcement than a military operation.

Read the rest of Matt Bai's piece for some more revelations on Kerry's lack of a clear vision for the war on terror, plus a top Kerry adviser claiming the war on terror isn't really a war.

The Arizona Republic's Doug MacEachern takes on Kerry's incoherence and mixed signals on Iraq -- specifically his August 9 statement that he would still have voted for war, and how it has been contradicted by everything he's said since.

John Kerry's vacillation on the war on terror is seen clearly by those who have experienced terrorism most directly:

"When you look across to the skyline of downtown Manhattan, you see a huge, gaping hole, which constantly reminds me the war on terror should be our first priority," said Dinorah Burgus, a 23-year-old registered independent from Jersey City.

"I don't think I have a choice but to vote for Bush in these uncertain times, because I don't think Kerry is that committed to the war," said Burgus, who voted for Gore in 2000.

"Bush is more gung-ho about [the war on terror], which might appeal to some people in New Jersey who lost loved ones in 9/11," said the 29-year-old chiropractor from South Plainfield.

Americans serving in the Guard and Reserves -- and their families -- are also more inclined to see President Bush re-elected:

"We're afraid that if Kerry becomes president, they're going to pull the troops out," said Stacey Clemente, the wife of a reservist. "And everything that has been done — all the sacrifices, all the progress made, all the work that's been done — will be in vain."

And don't miss this recent survey showing that members of our military support the President 4 to 1.

In Afghanistan, millions voted in free, democratic elections -- something that was unthinkable just four years ago. President Bush called yesterday's election "a marvelous thing" for Afghanistan -- and for freedom around the world:

President Bush said Saturday that the voting in Afghanistan was a remarkable achievement due in some part to his administration. "A marvelous thing is happening in Afghanistan," Bush told a breakfast fund-raiser for local Republican candidates. "Freedom is powerful. Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school, and their mothers were whipped in the public square, and today they're holding a presidential election."

Looking to some state polls, in Colorado, it's the President 52%, Kerry 44%. In Arizona, the President 55%, Kerry 41%. In Arkansas, the President leads 52% to 43%.

Also, the first post-debate Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll released shows the President extending his lead nationally to 51% to 46%.

"We must have done something to make them hate us"...lol~Oh no, what's that?  A white flag?

Yeah how about featuring Al Jazeera (the voice of Al Qaeda) in a skybox at the DNC?  As they say in the blogosphere, bwahahahaha!

Please explain to me what this guy's had done to himself. It's not a stretch to realize this guy's so vain he hired people to work their magic on his face and hair. I'm sure any woman has a better idea of the trickery involved. I've never seen a candidate taking so many beauty treatments. Up above shows a face peel, collagen injections in cheeks, botox and darker hair coloring? How come this clown doesn't get outed for the vain metrosexual he is really is? Only one man in four would vote for him if this happened.

Here's a "before".

Quote of the week...

"[H]is rhetoric doesn't match his record." --President George W. Bush

Memo to readers: If any of your friends or associates fall into that "Centrist" or "Undecided" category, MAKE SURE they know that John Kerry is an extremist. Make sure they know that he's the most liberal of our 100 senators, and that his trial-lawyerin' running mate, John Edwards, comes in at number 4. And make sure they know that the National Journal, which produces these comprehensive ratings every year, is perhaps the most respected non-partisan political journal in Washington.

As Wednesday night's final presidential debate so aptly displayed, John F. Kerry's populist rhetoric has reached nearly hysterical proportions. "In the past four years, in nearly every decision that he's made, President George W. Bush has chosen the powerful and the well-connected over middle-class Americans," Kerry said recently. "The only people George Bush's policies are working for are the people that he's chosen to help. They're working for drug companies. They're working for HMOs. And they're certainly working for the big oil companies."

"The powerful and well-connected"? This from the man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who doesn't blink at spending, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross-country for a trim.

Where it comes to John Kerry's economic vision for America, Caoilfhionn believes it's time to call a spade a spade. When Kerry spouts this "wealthy-versus-the-middl e-class" rhetoric, he's flying a Marxist flag, and many Americans seem to be none the wiser. Am I serious, you ask? Marxism?

[For more on Kerry's collusion with Europe's most dated thinker, read "John Kerry, Useful Idiot..." -- http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275" title="http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275" target="_blank"http://federalistpatriot.us/a...]

Stop for a moment to consider the language he uses (for all his faults, Kerry is no intellectual slouch). In Kerry's view, politics should be interpreted as a conflict between the antithetical interests of the wealthy and the ordinary American. To Kerry, a tax-break for a successful businessman amounts to an attack on a working American. Policies good for big business (as Bush's are) must, by definition, be bad for labor. Kerry is singing the Democrats' same old class-warfare song, designed to divide the country (and the electorate) in their favor. But does he really believe that business owners are diametrically opposed to the workers who make their businesses possible, and that workers are equally opposed to those who provide jobs to support their families?

He must, for this is the divisive picture he paints over and over: 'Bush favors the wealthy, while I'll fight for average Americans.' But if Kerry's premise is correct, then the only solution is to dismantle our economic system in favor of something as time-tested and successful as, say, Soviet socialism. A capitalist system depends fundamentally on the premise that free economic exchange benefits everyone, whether rich or poor. The problem, of course, is that this would mean that Bush's tax cuts really do make sense.

This perspective culminates in the Kerry-Edwards argument that Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" have produced a medical coverage nightmare for the middle class. Despite the sheer hilarity of this diagnosis, my concern is their proposed solution. They propose raising taxes on the rich and giving the proceeds to the middle class in the form of "better" health coverage. Incredibly, they don't even try to hide the connection. Kerry shamelessly asks for people's votes in return for his promise to take money from one group and give it to another. To quote one adroit observer, "That isn't waffling -- that's pandering!"

Consider countries that have implemented such policies in the past. Economic stalwarts like North Korea and the Soviet Union certainly ring a bell. Is the erstwhile Evil Empire now our role model? This is where domestic policy meets foreign policy. To be sure, Kerry's fraternizing with the North Vietnamese in 1970-71 is not unrelated to his present collectivist economic views. John Kerry betrayed his country then because he believed socialism offered a better way of life. Given his current rhetoric, it seems not much has changed in 33 years.

President George W. Bush, on the other hand, has consistently pursued a sounder economic policy, even if his articulation is often lacking. Here, he has steadily made his case on two fronts: first, by emphasizing the need for greater productivity as the heart of economic development; and second, by arguing that tax cuts are the best way to encourage productivity. History shows that the best thing the government can do with respect to economic policy is let the people keep their money, and then get out of the way. As the President said Wednesday night, "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives."

Unfortunately, the President's rhetoric sometimes has the unfortunate effect of masking much good in his economic policy; indeed, it often disguises -- and even undermines -- the very strength of this policy. To be fair, the limitations of the various media and debate formats -- 60-second debate responses and 15-second sound bites -- don't allow thorough explanations. In addition, at this late date in the campaign, both candidates are appealing to swing voters and moderating their explication in general.

Still, Caoilfhionn believes the President must more thoroughly elucidate the effectiveness of his economic policy.

The bottom line is that when Kerry attacks Bush with his class-warfare rhetoric, Bush must attack the folly of Kerry's position at its foundation. 'Of course the rich benefit from my tax breaks, as do all taxpayers! Beyond that, it only makes sense that a fair tax cut returns the most to the people who pay the most. If we want more jobs in America, we should let the people who create jobs keep their own money!' In the final days of this campaign, Caoilfhionn encourages the Bush campaign to speak the truth boldly to the American people, for I believe that the majority of Americans -- even those curiously undecided voters, bless their hearts -- still prefer economic freedom. Big corporations are not evil. Wealthy people are not evil, nor are pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, or -- the greatest "menace" of all -- multinational "outsourcers." Big corporations and big investors are in fact America's job and wealth creators. They're the ones among us who encourage productivity. It's Kerry's vision of BIG GOVERNMENT that presents the greatest threat to our national prosperity and liberty.

To wit, when Kerry lectured, "Every plan that I have laid out -- my healthcare plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans -- I've shown exactly how I'm going to pay for those," the President replied in fine style: "I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for. ... It's an empty promise. It's called bait-and-switch."

President Bush continued, "It's your money. The way my opponent talks, he said, 'We're going to spend the government's money.' No, we're spending your money. And when you have more money in your pocket, you're able to better afford things you want. ... My opponent talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric. He voted to increase taxes 98 times and to bust the budget 277 times." Well said, Mr. President, well said.

The fine moments notwithstanding, in the final days of such a campaign, rhetoric tends to hide many policy differences espoused by the candidates and their parties. We the people must not be lulled into thinking the differences between the parties no longer exist, that they're all in fact Republicrats. In truth, the policy differences are real and important, and underlying the candidates' economic policies -- as with their foreign policies -- is a deep ideological gulf that no bipartisan bridge can span.

In the end, actions can say so much more than words. According to Club for Growth President Stephen Moore, Kerry failed to make public all his tax records from last year, but according to those released, his household income was "$5.5 million last year and [he] paid $704,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%," Moore wrote. That's right -- Mr. Roll-back-the-Bush-tax-cu ts-for-the-rich (himself) is paying less in taxes than most middle class families. George and Laura Bush, on the other hand, paid roughly 30% on one-tenth the income that the Kerry's brought in. Presumably, this was all legal on Kerrys' part, but this is the guy complaining about "Bush's debt" and "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," too.

If this is any indication of Kerry's real perspective on the surly IRS and inequitable tax code, perhaps he should be voting four more years for W., too...rhetoric aside.

Perhaps it would be a good think to take note that I have 165,000+ reasons not to take crap from a liberal communist sympathizer and self-proclaimed expert such as DrForBush who, incidentally, is stupid enough to swallow the ridiculous media spin and be pro Kerry but isn't willing to look at the facts I've outlined about his record.  The facts are like a blogger roll...they go on and on...and I will continue to list them in a methodical manner.  It's because of idiots like DrForBush that comments are closed here.  I take no crap.  If I were to leave myself open to your ridiculous nonsense and try to respond, I wouldn't have time to think about my next blog post.  As I've said before, comments are closed here for a reason---I have another blog where I can manage comments, which is going through a significant redesign.  I am such a blogaholic that I have this blog here in the meantime~so go have some drinks with your gay friends, Doctor-go psychoanalyze someone who is willing to listen to your ridiculous socialist scumbag tirades.

I'm having so much fun pissing off the liberals here that I'll probably make this a permanent home...been making quite a few friends while I'm at it.

I consider it quite a compliment that DrForBush actually made me a subject in a blog post, lol!!!!

Thank you, Conservative Hitman, Camelface, Defensor, Taylor, Imahk, NoGuru, Stephen89702, and the rest....it's nice to find people with views in common--nice to have some tblog friends in the battle before the election-

• "When I hear Bush say: 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." This is not a reference to Kant and Schopenhauer.
  
  
• The comments of Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Atty.Gen. John Ashcroft on the need to fight an aggressive war on terrorism "are the views of extremists, not adherents to an open society."
  
  
• Having the chutzpah to blame the U.S. and Israel for the rise of global anti-Semitism, Soros has said: "There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush Administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that."
  
  
• Soros is a dyed-in-the-wool root-causer, "The war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. Correct the grievances on which terrorism feeds"--which, one assumes, include poverty, what Soros considers Israel's beastly treatment of the poor Palestinians, racial-profiling of Muslims and the drug war.
  
  
• Soros applies the same surrender logic to society's struggle against mind-altering, soul-annihilating substances: "The war on drugs is doing more harm to our society than drug abuse itself." Moreover, since "substance abuse is endemic in most societies...the war on drugs cannot be won." Then how explain the experience of the Reagan years, when anti-drug spending and prison sentences for pushers went up, and drug use declined dramatically.
  
  
• Despite the euphemisms to which he is addicted ("decriminalization," "harm reduction," "medical marijuana," etc.), in his book, Soros on Soros, G.S. let the syringe out of the bag: "I'll tell you what I would do if it were up to me. I would establish a strictly controlled distribution network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally available."

Far from his commercial portrayal as a purposeful warrior strolling boldly through the jungle, John Kerry was regarded by many Swiftees as a poor officer.

Tedd Peck, a Swift boat commander who operated with Kerry in Vietnam, asked Bill Zaldonis, a Kerry crewman and supporter, how he could possibly be in favor of Kerry.  When Zaldonis replied that he wanted a warrior for a president, Peck asked, "Yes, but who are you going to get?"

Admiral Hoffman characterized Kerry as a "loose cannon", while Captain Charles Plumly called him "devious, requiring constant supervision."

For the mere three months that Kerry was involved in duty in Vietnam, he left behind an amazing legacy of Beatle Bailey bumbling.  Steve Gardener is the sole crewman who was not swayed by Kerry during his many post-Vietnam years of solicitation aimed at gaining the support of his crew.  Today, Gardner asks, "How can Kerry possibly be commander in chief when he couldn't consistently command a SIX-MAN CREW?"  Gardner, a two-tour Swift Boat sailor who sat five feet behind Kerry in Vietnam and who saw many officers during his two years, judges Kerry to be by far the worst Swift Boat commander he saw in Vietnam:

"Kerry was erratic.  He hardly ever did what he was supposed to do.  His command decisions put us in more peril than he should have.  But mostly he just ran.  When John Kerry looked out the bow of the boat and he saw tracer fire coming after him, he'd turn and run."

There you have it, folks--a medal-throwing deceitful coward.

I should say we're nervous about the idiots who think this guy can run the country over Bush who already has a track record.

It is no wonder that our boys in uniform in Iraq prefer Bush over Kerry 4 to 1.

By Steve Moore, Club For Growth

Just as he has in stump speeches all year, John Kerry used Wednesday's final presidential debate to paint a wildly inaccurate portrait of U.S. economic performance under President Bush. "The American middle-class family isn't making it right now," he claimed.

The economy, as Kerry falsely depicts it, is in the worst shape it's been in many, many years. Bush, he claims, has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and the worst growth record since World War II.

As an antidote Kerry promises higher taxes on the "rich" (i.e. the small business owners who create jobs) and more big government programs.

But the hard facts refute Kerry's doom-and-gloom demagoguery.

In fact, considering the external shocks to our economy over the past several years--9/11, the stock market collapse, the recession, the corporate scandals--it is remarkable it is growing much at all, let alone at the fastest pace in the industrialized world.

Strong Growth

To be sure, Bush has made some damaging economic and fiscal decisions. These include the steel trade tariffs and a vast expansion in government spending that has caused debt and deficits to soar. For these transgressions, Bush deserves demerits. But Bush has gotten many policies right, not the least of which has been tax policy. The acceleration of growth and productivity and the rebound in the stock market correspond directly with the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts of May 2003.

So here is a quick summary of what is right about the U.S. economy in 2004:

1. The misery index (inflation plus unemployment rate) is about the same today as it was when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996 (8.4 versus 8.5) as Democrats proclaimed boundless prosperity. The misery index has not been this low in a reelection year for any of Bush's other predecessors back through LBJ.

2. The unemployment rate of 5.4% today is among the lowest of all our industrial competitors and compares favorably with a jobless rate of 8% on average in Europe. If we had an unemployment rate of 8%, it would mean 3 million more unemployed workers, which would be equivalent to putting every worker in the state of Colorado out of work.

3. Interest rates are still very low in historical terms--and that is despite high budget deficits. (Perhaps, just perhaps, the one does not cause the other.)

4. Our growth rate of 5.1% since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted is substantially higher than that of our competitors, and the standard projection of 4.5% growth for next year is almost twice the rate of growth that Europe is expected to achieve.

5. The stock market has risen at a brisk pace since the May 2003 tax cuts on capital gains, dividends, and income. Even though the 2004 stock market performance has been only so-so, the stock market has increased by more than 20% since the tax cut was signed into law.

6. Productivity rates have grown at a healthy pace of 4% since the tax cut was enacted.

7. Social statistics have also generally improved. Two are worth mentioning because they impact the economy. The violent crime rate has hit its lowest level in 40 years. The rate of births to unwedded mothers has finally started to decline after a 30-year surge in the wake of the Great Society welfare state.

8. Financial wealth is way up for average middle-income families, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. Housing values have exploded since 2000.

Homeownership has risen to its highest levels ever and so has stock ownership. The boom in the stock market and housing market has helped improve mightily the balance sheet of the average household.

Bush's major failing has been in converting the budget surpluses of the late 1990s into staggering levels of deficit spending. Bush inherited a $200 billion federal budget surplus. Now we have a $400 billion deficit. At most, 25% of that debt surge is a result of tax cuts. Most of the debt explosion results from a spending bonanza on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

After four years, it is worth asking how Bush's overall economic performance ranks among other recent Presidents. The chart on this page shows Bush has a record comparable to the two Presidents re-elected in recent times: Bill Clinton (whose good economic record was really the work of a Republican Congress, see coverbox story) and Ronald Reagan. His record is far superior to the one-termers: Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr.

While Bush does not lead in every category, there's a lot here for him to be proud of. On the misery index, only Clinton had a comparable record among his six predecessors. On gas prices, Bush is not nearly as vulnerable as he might seem to the casual observer. Prices are about the same today as they were in 1984 when Reagan was re-elected. Mortgage rates are lower and homeownership is higher than in any of the other re-election years. Overall economic growth is running at a faster rate than in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.

The most significant number of all is the federal tax burden, the lowest it has been since 1955. Bush's tax policy is a success. The U.S. economy is now well into its recovery and is the engine driving global economic growth.

Not surprisingly, the media and John Kerry are hiding this good news. Republicans should trumpet it.

Of course world leaders want Kerry and are angry at Bush...for stalling their program of one world socialist government--and not going along with the UN program.  Of course they're angry!  I'm glad they're angry!

I don't want to get along with socialist leaders or dictators --America is America-right now-not Europe.

Although there are people that want us to belong to a world government under the FTAA.

We are the only free country in the world...even now.  Although under Kerry, that would rapidly go away.

Kerry would give that all up-my freedom and yours--and give up our military to the United Nations and wait until whatever we do in the international theatre passes the global test.  He's been voting for a weaker military for 20 years in the Senate.  His voting record reflects it.

Sorry -I don't agree with that.  We have freedom because we fought for it.  The Iraqis will have a better form of government than a dictatorship because they fought for it.-Just like we did.

The President's first obligation is to protect the American people and to adhere to his job as defined in the constitution.

Why doesn't anybody care about what's in the constitution anymore?

You know damned well that Kerry doesn't.

Anti-war activists of the same ilk as Teresa Heinz Kerry supports along with her little TIDES Foundation are just brain-dead socialist pimps-without a God-

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15109" title="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15109" target="_blank"http://frontpagemag.com/Artic...

Groups like the ACLU, which lobbies against Republican judicial appointments, or United for Peace and Justice, which is the umbrella group that organized the demonstrations against the war in Iraq and the protests against the Republican National Convention in New York, are “non-political” under the current tax code, qualifying as “charitable” and tax-exempt.

Sure look like political groups to me--they sure are going after a political agenda, and in a John Kerry kind of way...just like he did after Vietnam.

Just like the Ruckus Society.

Take a look at Communists for Kerry (great website to check out!) http://communistsforkerry .com/" title="http://communistsforkerry .com/" target="_blank"http://communistsforkerry .com...

"It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle.  We lost the war at home, and at home John Kerry was the field general."~Robert Elder

In June 1971, Lo Duc Tho arrived in Paris to join the North Vietnamese Communist delegation to the peace talks.  His arrival marked a change in the Communists' approach to advancing their goals through negotiation.  Lo Du Tho was, with Ho Chi Minh, one of the original founders of the Communist Party of Indochina and one of North Vietnam's chief strategists.

He arrived to join a comrade, Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, who had been a member of the Central Committee for the National Front for the Liberation of the South and was now the foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Vietnam.  The military arm of the PRG was widely known as the Viet Cong, and Madame Binh was recognized as the Viet Cong delegate to the conference.

On July 1, 1971, within days of Lo Duc Tho's arrival, Madame Binh advanced a new seven point proposal to end the war.  Central to this plan was a cleverly crafted provision offering to set a date for the return of US POWs in exchange for the Americans' setting a date to complete, unilateral military withdrawal from Vietnam.  In other words, America could have its POWs back if only we agreed that we lost, then surrendered, and then set a date to leave.

About one year earlier, two young Americans had also come to Paris, presumably for their honeymoon: John Kerry, a young clean shaven Navy war veteran, accompanied by his new wife, the former Julia Thorne, who could trace her lineage back to George Washington.  But honeymooning was not Kerry's only reason for traveling to Paris.  Kerry's presidential campaign has now acknowledged that he "talked privately with a leading Communist representative" there.

For decades the meeting had been only a rumor.  The rumor stemmed from a comment Kerry made in the less publicized question and answer segment of his April 22, 1971 testimony before the Fulbright Committee:  "I have been to Paris.  I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government."

On March 25, 2004, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe reported that Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the Kerry presidential campaign, admitted that John Kerry traveled to Paris after his May 1970 wedding and on that trip with his wife, had a brief meeting with Madame Binh, a meeting that included members of both the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the North Vietnamese) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Vietcong).  Meehan insisted that Kerry didn't go to Paris with the intention of meeting the Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference and that he did not involve himself in negotiations.  Kerry has insisted that tha meeting was solely for "fact finding" purposes.

On July 22, 1971, Kerry called a press conference in Washington DC speaking on behalf of the VVAW, and openly urged President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's seven point plan.

Madame Binh's proposal was crafted to send a strong emotional message to the American home front-that the only barrier to having our POWs returned was America's own unwillingness to set a date to withdraw, even if the proposed withdrawal amounted to a DEFEAT.  The Viet Cong proposal directly challenged the South Vietnamese prposal to set a date for a truce and a free election designed to unite the divided Vietnam.  The PRG and the Viet Cong already agreed with the premier of Communist China, Cho En-lai, that complete withdrawal of American military forces from Vietnam was the only precondition that would be discussed.

As the New York Times noted when reporting on the press conference, John Kerry suggested that President Nixon had refused to set a date for withdrawal because North Vietnam had not guaranteed the return of POWs.  Now that the Vietnamese Communists werre promising to set a POW return date, Kerry argued that Nixon had no reasonable course left except to set a date for withdrawing military forces.  Kerry failed to mention one consideration President NIxon most likely found compelling--that America's cause was just and that the interests of freedom might best be served by halting the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.  The United States, in President Nixon's view, had not fought the war to abandon our allies to Communism but to defend South Vietnam's right to self-determination.

Today, presidential candidate Kerry would have us believe that the only goal of his antiwar activities was to speak up bravely against a war he knew to be without justification.  All he wanted to do was to stop a war where military policies such as free-fire zones and tactics such as search-and-destroy led inevitably to war crimes, the killing of innocent civilians, and the burning of peaceful billages.  Kerry wants us to believe that he was always against Communists.  Yet, as you can see, this is not the case.

Loyal Americans think twice about violating the legal provisions against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. section 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3).  Anti-Communists do not openly support proposals that amount to an American surrender to Communist enemies, plus demand to pay war reparations.  There is no public record of what Kerry discussed with Vietnamese Communists in Paris in 1970.  Kerry's presidential campaign has refused to provide any detailed account of the discussion, nor has the campaign answered questions regarding who set up the meeting.  There must have been contact between Kerry or his representatives of the Vietnamese Communists.  Which Communists assisted Kerry in arranging his meeting with Madame Binh, and WHY?

Kerry may believe in his own mind that his participation in the antiwar cause lifted him to a new moral plane, one where he would not be restricted by conventional legal distinctions or commonsense understandings of patriotism.  Yet, the record shows that Kerry and the VVAW consistently coordinated their efforts with Communists, both foreign and domestic, represented the Communist positions, and repeated their grossly aexaggerated claims of American atrocities.  In fact, it is hard to find any disagreement whatsoever between Kerry's words and actions as a leader of the VVAW and those of the Hanoi and Viet Cong leadership.  Had Madame Binh herself been permitted to appear at the July 22, 1971, press conference instead of Kerry, the most noticeable difference in the argument presented might have been the absence of a Boston accent.

Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet intelligence officer to defect to the West, spoke in June 2004 about the KGB intelligence operation that he believed was the basis for the assertions of war crimes and atrocities at the heart of Kerry's '71 testimony to the Fulbright Committee.

For Pacepa, the case is clear.  Kerry's '71 accusations of war crimes in Vietnam sounded to him just "like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide through the Vietnam era."

The KGB had as a top priority the damage of American credibility in Vietnam.  To this end, the KGB spent millions producing "the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the US Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe."

According to Pacepa, Yuri Andropov, then chairman of the KGB, ordered agent Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Organization, to create the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization- "to aid or to conduct operations to help americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize the army with anti-American propoganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war."

The Communist party was funding the World Peace Organization to the tune of about $50 million a year at this time, according to Pacepa, with another $15 million allocated for the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam.  In the five years of its existence, the Stockholm Conference "created thousands of 'documentary' materials printed in all the major Western languages describing the 'abominable crimes' committed by American soldiers against civilians in Vietnam, along with counterfeited pictures."  The KGB's disinformation department manufactured these materials and KGB operatives in Europe and America printed up and distributed hundreds of thousands of copies.

Whether Kerry knew it or not (and I'm sure he did), his 1971 testimony to the Fulbright Committee was reciting the Communist party line chapter and verse.  Pacepa left no doubt as to his conclusion:  "As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America."

The public record shows that Kerry gave several speeches in 1972 representing the VVAW.  The New York Times reported on January 12, 1972, that Kerry had given a speech at Dartmouth College, representing himself as a spokesman for VVAW.  "John Kerry, the war critic and spokesman for VVAW, told a Dartmouth College audience of 300 here last night to get into politics and make the system work."

On January 26, 1972, the Times reported that Kerry again representing himself as a spokesman for VVAW, participated in a panel discussion organized by Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma in an event billed as "The Peole's State of the Union Address".  Ralph Nader participated alongside Kerry as a panelist.  The times reported Kerry's antiwar message, continuing to identify him with the VVAW.  "John Kerry, a leader of the VVAW, criticized the President for not ending the war at once.  'What was a mistake a year ago or a month ago or a day ago is a mistake now,' he said, 'and one simply does not send men to kill or be killed for a mistake.'

A full page advertisement in the Times on April 16, 1972, announced an Emergency March for Peace on Saturday, April 22, 1972.  The advertisement, paid for by a group named the National Peace Action Coalition, listed John Kerry as a speaker.  An Associated Press reported was issued on April 22, 1972, stating, "Antiwar protesters in New York planned a mile long march from the edge of Central Park to Bryant Park in mid Manhattan for a rally featuring speeches by John Kerry, a leader of the VVAW and Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska."

By the end of 1971, the VVAW was moving to an increasingly violent direction.  A group of sixteen VVAW demonstrators seized the Statue of Liberty in New York on December 26, 1971.  Al Hubbard, who even then was still representing himself as the executive secretary of the VVAW, explained the Statue of Liberty takeover to the press.  Through a spokesman at the HQ, Al Hubbard, a statement was issued that said: "We, as a new generation of men who have survived Vietnam, are taking this symbolic action at the Statue of Liberty in an effort to show support for any person who refuses to kill."

It was during this time--from July 8, 1972, through July 22, 1972, Jane Fonda made her infamous visit to Hanoi, where she delivered radio broadcasts to American and South Vietnamese military personnel encouraging mutiny and disertion, while repeatedly claiming that the US was responsible for war crimes and atrocities.  Fonda visited American POWs in Hanoi, reporting in broadcasts from Hanoi that the American prisoners were being 'well cared for' and that they wished to convey their 'sense of disgust for the war and their shame for what they have been asked to do.'  A photograph was taken of Fonda sitting in a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun, wearing a Vietnamese helmet, surrounded by North Vietnamese military.  Upon leaving Vietnam, Fonda accepted from her hosts a ring made from the wreckage of a downed American plane.

The record shows that up until the time he lost the 1972 congressional contest, Kerry continued to present himself as an antiwar activist.  Yet when campaigning for president in 2004, Kerry tried to advance the argument that he had resigned from the VVAW in November 1971.  The only reason to advance that lie was to hope that he would disavow VVAW radical activities that occurred during the time Kerry associated his name with theirs.

Too late, Johnny boy, you're busted.

Questions about the medal-throwing incident arose when Kerry ran for the Senate in 1984.  Thirteen years after the medal tossing demonstration, Kerry found it politically expedient to have his medals BACK--as evidence of his 'war hero' status that even in 1984 was at the core of his campaign.

Many people who visited Kerry's office reported surprise at seeing his medals framed and hanging on his wall.  At the demonstration, Kerry gave no explanation of what he was throwing over the fence.  A reasonable assumption was--he was throwing away his own medals, as were many of the other protestors at the event.  No, Kerry explained, he had thrown away only the RIBBONS he had been wearing on his fatigues, he didn't have the medals with him at the time, and there was not time to go home to New York to get them.

Another explanation crept in over the years.  Kerry said that yes, he actually threw away some medals, but they weren't HIS.  They were medals of some other two guys he met.  His own medals, he continued to insist, were always in safekeeping, hence, there was no surprise that they were now on his wall.

One more detail creeps in...sometimes the current location of the medals is described as not on the senator's office wall but in a desk drawer in his study at his home in Boston, or some other office location, but definitely not tossed over the fence.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the controversy again resurfaced when ABC News found a 1971 television interview Kerry gave--where he claimed that what he threw away during the protest were, in fact, his own medals.  As ABC News reported, "I gave back, I can't remember-six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in a November 6, 1971 interview on a Washington, D.C. news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints.

It picked up steam when he appeared on Good Morning America and called the whole question a "phony controversy instigated by the Republican party."  He was belligerent, insisting he was always accurate about what took place.  "I threw my ribbons.  I didn't have any medals.  It is very simple."  He also said that the military did not make a distinction between medals and ribbons, so he couldn't understand why the news media was making a big deal out of it.  "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through."  Now, campaigning as a war hero, Kerry wanted to maintain he had always been proud of his war decorations, even though that was not the impression he gave in the famous 1971 medal-tossing ceremony.

Sound familiar?  FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP--depending on the political climate of the time.

When ABC News confronted Kerry with the old videotape from the Viewpoints show, he appeared angry.  "This is being pushed yesterday by Karen Hughes (former director of communications) in the White House on FOX.  It shows up on several different stations at the same time.  This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard.  And I'm not going to stand for it," he told ABC's Good Morning America while still on air.  When pressed on the discrepancy, Kerry became more combative:

"George Bush has yet to explain to America whether or not -and tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty.  I'm not going to get attacked on something I did that is a matter of record."  Finally, insisting that he had never said he had given back his combat medals, he insisted, "Back then, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable."

But at the end of the interview, when he was off-camera, Kerry made an additional comment that was recorded as he was unclipping his microphone:  "God, they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee."

This should be recognizable as his fall-back position--a familiar response technique-shift the subject away from himself and the question he was asked, making the new focus on an enemy presumed to be attacking him.

What is clear is that in 1971, when Kerry was presenting himself as an antiwar activist, he encouraged the conclusion that he threw his medals away.  Ever since he began running for public office, Kerry wanted those medals back.

US servicemen were dying that day in 1971 when Kerry demonstrated in front of the Capitol, and Kerry insulted them by his own act of disrespect.  The core of John Kerry's protest in 1971 was what he told the Fulbright Committee:  He believed that the war was a mistake.  John Kerry wanted the war in Vietnam to end, regardless of the outcome.  That was his clear meaning, no matter what he threw over that fence.  John Kerry wants the American people to see his medals on his wall, as if they had always been there, not his ribbons thrown away in a trash bin.

But his words today about Iraq, ring hollow in retrospect.  And he is doing the same exact thing to his countrymen today as he did in 1971.

Quick-how many people knew that Kerry attended a meeting as a national leader for Veterans Ag ainst The War, at which the assassination of US Senators and other leaders was discussed and voted on?

There was a VVAW steering committee meeting in Kansas City in November, 1971.  Florida regional coordinator brought up an assassination plan that was first proposed during the April 1971 Dewer Canyon III event in Washington, D.C.  The VVAW was proposed to assassinate a group of US Senators who supported the war, including Senator John Tower of Texas, Senator John Stennia of Mississippi, and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.  The Plan was called Operation Phoenix, tipping their hat to a CIA assassination program in Vietnam that had targeted Viet Cong leadership.

Known as Scott the Assassin, this man was a firebrand within the VVAW ranks.  He advocated the creation of VVAW assassination squads who could emulate the CIA Phoenix Program in Vietnam.  The idea, as proposed, was VVAW squads would kill politicians, who opposed ending the war, beginning with prominent senators.  The problem for John Kerry and the other VVAW members present at this meeting was that a conspiracy to commit murder may itself be a crime, whether or not any murder is committed.  Scott the Assassin had a well-known fasination with weapons, and his plot may have been more of a fantasy than a reality.  But still, those present listened to the proposal and even took a vote on it.  Those present, including Kerry, had an obligation to report the plot to authorities to avoid becoming complicit in a conspiracy to commit murder.

A spokesman from the Kerry presidential campaign simply denies that Kerry attended this meeting.  Interestingly, two members of the VVAW were willing to go on record stating that they remembered Kerry was there.

It is a constant source of irritation to me 1) that the liberals jump all over Bush for--what they initially supported after 9/11--but have since flip flopped--and 2) Kerry's voting record (at the far left of the democratic party on issues.)  What does it mean to be on the left bank?  It means you're a socialist scumbag who speaks French.  What does it mean to be John Kerry and a socialist?  It means you look like Lurch, you're a socialist scumbag and you speak French.  (And you have a wife who speaks 5 languages but swears like a truck driver)

~both of these individuals came into a billion dollar fortune left behind by a conservative republican.

What a fool he is to bring up Cheney's daughter.  Bwahahaha!  The liberals say he won the debate when he said THAT?  Yeah I'm sure he could have used some other pufter's name--any other pufter, but of course he had to use Cheney's daughter's name to 'get points' and see if he could incite some kind of reaction they could jump all over.

Mr. Kerry: We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was.

This is on the marriage between a man and a woman issue.  You know, I don't know why they're trying to re-define marriage.  Marriage in the dictionary is defined like this:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The whole reason for marriage for hundreds of years is procreation--it's for the creation and protection of children.  Where the two people