I've kinda held off on any of my writing stuff till i see if i have power
its supposed to come tonight now
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Next time you here a bush awol comment
John Kerry signed an agreement as part of his naval officer commission to serve at least 3 years on active duty and the remainder of his obligated 6 year service in the Ready Reserves. Ready Reserves are those who must attend drills.
It bears repeating: Kerry obligated himself to at least 3 years active duty, and the remainder of his 6 year obligation in the Ready (not Standby) Reserves.
He further agreed that while in the Ready Reserves (from discharge to 1972) he would perform no less than 48 drills per year and up to 17 active duty days per year, or alternatively, 30 active duty days per year.
None of Kerry’s released records shows any evidence of his performing these Ready Reserve obligated days in 1970 through 1972, after which he was transferred to the Inactive Reserves. The only Performance of Duty form released covers 1966. There should be one for every year.
Nor is there any excusal from drilling status in his records, or alternatively, pay and attendance records indicating that he performed any drills in 1970-72 as required of a Ready Reservist.
It was George Bush's alleged non-performance of his obligated reserve duty that caused all the furor last February, yet Kerry apparently cannot show his performance of his obligated Reserve duty.
The Kerry campaign has said that his separation from active duty put him in the inactive, non-drilling Naval Reserve so he could run for Congress. This is NOT true, as follows:
Kerry’s transfer from the Ready Reserves to the Standby (Inactive) reserves did not occur until March 1972, NOT upon his release from Active Duty to run for Congress (1969/70).
Furthermore, Kerry’s official transfer from the Ready Reserves to the Standby (Inactive) Reserves was not formalized until July 1972.
Contrary to what Kerry's campaign flacks say, the wording on his Release from Active Duty (to run for Congress) does NOT put him in the Inactive Reserves - it puts him in Inactive Duty status, which includes Ready Reserves with attendant drill obligation. BIG difference - though the confusion is understandable
So John Kerry can be claimed just to be as AWOL
and also the following is important
Also, if the timing of these records is correct, as a drilling Ready Reserve naval officer, in 1970-72 he was somewhat restricted by military regulations in what comments he could make in public regarding statements on the military leadership and the National Command Authority. Yet this is the period of his most public protests and anti-war demonstrations.
In fact, his hairdo alone in the 1970-72 period would not meet Navy standards, and he would be sent home from drill if he had ever attended one.
so, no we don't have biased media
and all the stories about kerry's vietnam period are lies.. he was completely honorable
Work is overrated anyway
Work is overrated anyway
My Programmed mental aspects are telling me I am not at work, those parts of me that are born from a thousand and more repetitions. The parts of me that hold my fear and anxiety are clawing away, seeking to run home to some sense of safety and to protect the homestead. But reason and will in this situation must trump, must take control.
I se the Internet clandestinely and illicitly, working towards saiting those sectors of my brain who call to leisure, and to monitor the storm for that throne of fear and paranoia. That, that and my work I find often mentally taxing just to do on a normal day and trudge through it as best I can.
I read an article about the evolution of Super-Hero movies. And it really got me thinking, how the super hero stories are a modern mythology. How the old stuff, not some of the tripe we have today, is our modern mythology. How it communicates fundamental values, concepts, and senses of identity to us on a cultural level. Things like Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, Spiderman, Superman, Batman, the X-Men, and others all fit this genre.
Nothing passing in the way of real news from the campaign, or for that matter on the slow trudging hurricane both things slowly threatening destruction, but possibly making no real impact to me.
Sadly this did not take away enough of my worktime.
My Programmed mental aspects are telling me I am not at work, those parts of me that are born from a thousand and more repetitions. The parts of me that hold my fear and anxiety are clawing away, seeking to run home to some sense of safety and to protect the homestead. But reason and will in this situation must trump, must take control.
I se the Internet clandestinely and illicitly, working towards saiting those sectors of my brain who call to leisure, and to monitor the storm for that throne of fear and paranoia. That, that and my work I find often mentally taxing just to do on a normal day and trudge through it as best I can.
I read an article about the evolution of Super-Hero movies. And it really got me thinking, how the super hero stories are a modern mythology. How the old stuff, not some of the tripe we have today, is our modern mythology. How it communicates fundamental values, concepts, and senses of identity to us on a cultural level. Things like Star Wars, Star Trek, The Matrix, Spiderman, Superman, Batman, the X-Men, and others all fit this genre.
Nothing passing in the way of real news from the campaign, or for that matter on the slow trudging hurricane both things slowly threatening destruction, but possibly making no real impact to me.
Sadly this did not take away enough of my worktime.
Some SHOCKING news from cnn
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While not directly calling the crisis in Darfur a genocide, the U.S. State Department has said that interviews with Sudanese refugees indicated attacks against the regions' black Africans appeared to be racially motivated.
what you mean just because the word for Black Africans in Arabic is "SLAVE" that they aren't being tolerant
i am shocked
Ok folks here is the Larrycane update
After work I'll lock my stuff down
we are in a "watch" area for tropical storm conditions, but that entirely depends on the exit track
I'll be online as long as power and connectivity permit
we are in a "watch" area for tropical storm conditions, but that entirely depends on the exit track
I'll be online as long as power and connectivity permit
Friday, September 03, 2004
The Hurricane you are trying to reach has been disconnected....
well, it'll hit the other coast and i MIGHT see tropical storm conditions but i will see heavy wind and rain
Blah.. what a buzz kill
(no, i don't like the storm coming here.. but i don't like wasting time preping for it for nothing)
Blah.. what a buzz kill
(no, i don't like the storm coming here.. but i don't like wasting time preping for it for nothing)
Campaign 2004-The first real day
Day One of the “Real Campaign” and my thoughts.
Have you ever done things you regret? Have you ever been at a place on the road of life you looked up and said “ Dear god how did I get here.” I have, and I have to say I have spent the last 2-5 years of my life correcting for it. I think we all know the President has in his life. I think we all have heard the story about George Bush the drinker, George Bush the rumored drug user, George Bush the party animal.
In the 60s and 70s a lot of people made choices about Vietnam. Some folks sought deferments, John Kerry and Dick Cheney both did. Dick got his, John didn’t. Some people went into the National Guard. In some states it took a lot of people special connections to get into the guard, but according to some historians in other states getting into the guard was easy. You could still have gotten sent to Vietnam if you were in the National Guard like George Bush and Dan Quayle. Some people signed up for the Reserves, especially the Navy reserve which had a higher probability of being stateside or in other service, John Kerry followed that path and ended up serving in Vietnam. It would have been more likely for a Guardsman to serve in Vietnam then a Naval reserve officer, but some went and some didn’t. Some men joined the Coast Guard. Some Coasties took care of our soldiers in the war zone. And some served here at home. Some men ran off to Canada, a lot of those men are still there. Some men were never drafted, but never volunteered. Some choose to volunteer rather then be drafted.
That’s a lot of choices regarding Vietnam, and a lot of people who probably have different thoughts on it. Do all those men think they made the right choice? Do all those men in hindsight wish they made another choice? Are some men haunted by their bad choice, and have made a change in their life? Absolutely, that’s the way a lot of people are about their bad choices. Are some people defined, and tested and refined by their good choices? Most certainly, this has been the case in any age. So, which is better of the two? The man who took the right path, or the man who took the wrong path and learned from his folly? Can no change in you life undo the wrong choices?
John Kerry would say no to that last question. Because he choose to go to Vietnam in 68 he is a leader, and Bush and Cheney are not. To my mind, I would rate the man who made the right choice about an even keel with the man who learned from the wrong choice, maybe it is because in my life I have been in both of those situations. There is a liberating wisdom in failing, and making a self-correction.
You attack the Valor of men who choose not to serve in a society based on choice. But now, evidence from your own website suggests you wore a false decoration of that same valor. These come from a credible news organization, and access to your own records.
Does having served in combat make one a better leader? Does command of a small boat (less then 10 men) relate to a government with finances in the billions? Or does running a strong and successful company, or a smaller government mean more in the field of leadership?
Has he attacked the President for legitimate failures from his perspective, absolutely he has. But the venom of that particular attack from an era long gone erodes the ethos of his case. You can say the President has shown a failure to lead on Health Care, Prescription Drugs, the Environment, Jobs, the Budget, and other socio-economic issues. But you then have to say this is a contrast to my plan. This is what the president did when he laid out his own vision for the next four years.
George Bush and the GOP has defined National Security and Defense as the trump issues of this campaign. They have said in the world of post 9-11 it can’t be about “The Economy stupid” if there is no country to have an economy. You can disagree with that case all you want, but make a case why it shouldn’t be the trump issue. Or make a case why your policies would be better. Voting for the war, even knowing the facts we have today, back then proves that you don’t have a real separate vision. “The French and Germans will respect me more.” Is a great argument until you call those nations who disagree with you bribed or bullied. I hate to say this, bribing and bullying has been a part of diplomacy since the art was first invented. Make your own proposal, or say it shouldn’t be the number one issue. But in either strategy give us a reason why. Saying you won’t be questioned by those who didn’t choose to sign up for the Navy reserve when their deferment was denied does not make the case that you will be more diplomatic and have a more honest form of governance.
In your senate Career you voted against major defense programs, you proposed scaling them back. That is a legitimate case against your ability to defend this country, and is not rebutted by saying “Dick Cheney did it when he was defense secretary.” Some of us were alive then and remember the discussions about a “Peace dividend” about how the cold war was over and we needed to put that money back in our country. That came from your party, and to some degree that came from the American people. With those demands the Pentagon had to cut some money, and as a manager that was Dick Cheney’s call, that was his leadership. He was making the best of the situation he had to deal with. Back then we did not hear John Kerry talking about building an army for future conflicts, we heard a John Kerry talking about funding urban programs. This is a legitimate critique of the choices you made and you have a choice. Defend your choices, say you were right and why you would make or not make those choices again. Or say that in that climate those were the right choices, but not in the climate of today. Saying one thing in the past and one thing now is a harmful thing to a candidate for public office, but ignoring legitimate questions says quite another.
You fought hard to stop Communist Vietnam from being sanctioned for some of the brutal actions of their regime, you went to show solidarity with the sandinista’s, you supported the Nuclear Freeze, and during the cold war as a public official took actions to approach that war not from a position of strength but from a position of passivity. Many people of degrees of intellect agreed with that point of View Senator Kerry, but Ronald Reagan didn’t. Reagan’s tough and muscular policy was as revolutionary as Nixon’s policy of Détente. Since Reagan’s policy worked and brought the soviets to the table most folks agree that was the right choice. Do you? Does that non-intervention philosophy that we see going back to your Anti-War period still remain into the 90s and the new threats we face? The critique has merit; the questions deserve an answer from you Senator Kerry.
Your service on the Senate Intelligence committee was questioned, when records could be released to exonerate you exist you refuse to take them. When a major terrorist incident, and intelligence failure happened you missed out on the public hearings. Even if you made ever classified briefing during that investigation, what does that say to the American people? George Bush spent time in the Florida Class room on 9-11-01 making people feel secure; your absence from hearings to find out why our security failed us does not suggest that. When you refuse to open up these records, you look like some one to hide. When you refuse to answer these charges it damns you a second time.
Using your own logic, I should not trust the man who made the wrong choice, who took the opportunity of a peace dividend instead of redoubling our war machine. But you could argue that no one saw these events coming, I took this machine apart and I will work to fix it. That is a credible argument, but you are not even entering the stage. If you wish to attack bush for refusing to address the economy your refusal to seriously address the national security of this country is fair game.
Other charges are out there. You were given the opportunity to direct an investigation of one of the airports the terrorists used that dark day, and no one knows what you did with the investigation short of possibly giving it to the very agency he warned you was failing. Your saying to a group of Arab-Americans the Palestinian side in the security fence argument was right, then to a Jewish audience saying Israel was right. You’re naming two Anti-Israel politicians to be “peace envoys” but then blaming it on your speechwriters. Saying you told them to cut it out, but they did not. And when you saw it you did not omit it yourself.
All of these and numerous other points call into question your fundamental ability to defend this country as a President. And people who made the wrong choice are unable to make these points? John McCain who served admirably made them, General Tommy Franks made them, and many other men whose toga veralis is stained red in blood have made them as well.
Some one must have the moral clarity to demand an answer from you John, but you refuse to make it. And thus the Ed Koch-Ron Silver argument comes into play. The Democrats aren’t in the game for National Security this cycle and don’t deserve to be elected on that point alone.
Saying you, or President Bush, or any American leader has made the wrong choices for this country is not unpatriotic. In fact, legitimate questioning of our government’s polices is the height of patriotism. While no one said you were unfit for command, they rightly asked questions about your choices because a man’s past tells a lot about his likely future.
Bill Clinton in Arkansas Tom-cated around with women. Bill Clinton as president Tom-Cated with women. Bill Clinton rewarded cronies as Governor and as President. The negative things of his Presidency could be seen in the choices he made as Governor of Arkansas. The positive things in his presidency, his ability to adapt to changes also could be seen in his past as the Governor of Arkansas. Your past in the senate, your past as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts is relevant to how you would act as president.
You are running the same Kind of campaign your party has ran since 1968, and that approach failed you in every election cycle from then till now except two. In 1976 the corruption scandal from the Nixon administration was a dark blight on Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter nearly lost the election. In 1992 Bill Clinton won by saying in addition to all these laundry lists of programs, I will do it in a responsible manner. The American people want their cake, but they want it paid for in a way that will actually happen. That is why Bill Clinton was the first two term Democratic President since FDR. He told the people I can do this and be responsible. And when the will of the people changed, he adapted to that change.
Bush has not ran the nations books well, so why not challenge his numbers on these new programs he came out of his convention with. See if the Ownership society is bought on credit. When I saw this speech, this opener of your first campaign I was shocked to see you ignored the substance of this issue. Clinton won because he showed America could trust him to straighten up the financial mess, you haven’t made anyone believe they can trust you.
You started your campaign in a way that looked familiar to me. I traveled around the state as a Jurisdictional Officer for the Order of DeMolay. I more often then not after an event at two in the morning, or even midnight walked into a waffle house in Flora City Florida or some other urbane metropolis. This is not the way to present yourself to people who need to be sold on you and what your about. You need pressed close, you need to be well rested, and you need to be organized.
When you attack your opponents for a One-Liner fest such one-liners as “all hat and no cattle” don’t showcase your side well. Making a speech after your opponent, you need to know what he said. You can’t talk about being misled, when you say you would act the same even with the fullness of today’s knowledge. Why make the speech afterwards when you don’t know what happened?
Quote Job loss numbers, but realize they were lower then expected gains. Say he will have a negative job figure, but remember two hurricanes sacked the economy in that same month. There are two sides to every number.
In the first day of this campaign President Bush outlined a vision, a vision of larger government that works more conservatively. A Conservative Vision more in the mold of another JFK who was President, and who served with Valor on a navy boat. And on the First day of your campaign, after a very public reshuffling of your command staff what did you do? You attacked the President and Vice President in a way neither of them has directly attacked you. You claimed they conspired with the Saudi’s to hike oil prices, when any economically literate person knows isn’t true. You rambled and ranted, and said your opinion was infallible and above reproach. You attacked them for division and polarization without doing the same thing the president did to start his campaign.
You failed to lay out your orders when you “Reported for duty” but when George Bush went to the mound he knew what he had to do, and he threw his pitch. Without any question he is running to keep his job far better then you are running to take it. And this is the last attack I will lob at you right now. Your campaign has flubbed, lost direction, and languished because of every possible failure but one. The failure of the candidate, and this failure in leadership is seen as a thread in all the charges against you.
And, this is just day one.
Have you ever done things you regret? Have you ever been at a place on the road of life you looked up and said “ Dear god how did I get here.” I have, and I have to say I have spent the last 2-5 years of my life correcting for it. I think we all know the President has in his life. I think we all have heard the story about George Bush the drinker, George Bush the rumored drug user, George Bush the party animal.
In the 60s and 70s a lot of people made choices about Vietnam. Some folks sought deferments, John Kerry and Dick Cheney both did. Dick got his, John didn’t. Some people went into the National Guard. In some states it took a lot of people special connections to get into the guard, but according to some historians in other states getting into the guard was easy. You could still have gotten sent to Vietnam if you were in the National Guard like George Bush and Dan Quayle. Some people signed up for the Reserves, especially the Navy reserve which had a higher probability of being stateside or in other service, John Kerry followed that path and ended up serving in Vietnam. It would have been more likely for a Guardsman to serve in Vietnam then a Naval reserve officer, but some went and some didn’t. Some men joined the Coast Guard. Some Coasties took care of our soldiers in the war zone. And some served here at home. Some men ran off to Canada, a lot of those men are still there. Some men were never drafted, but never volunteered. Some choose to volunteer rather then be drafted.
That’s a lot of choices regarding Vietnam, and a lot of people who probably have different thoughts on it. Do all those men think they made the right choice? Do all those men in hindsight wish they made another choice? Are some men haunted by their bad choice, and have made a change in their life? Absolutely, that’s the way a lot of people are about their bad choices. Are some people defined, and tested and refined by their good choices? Most certainly, this has been the case in any age. So, which is better of the two? The man who took the right path, or the man who took the wrong path and learned from his folly? Can no change in you life undo the wrong choices?
John Kerry would say no to that last question. Because he choose to go to Vietnam in 68 he is a leader, and Bush and Cheney are not. To my mind, I would rate the man who made the right choice about an even keel with the man who learned from the wrong choice, maybe it is because in my life I have been in both of those situations. There is a liberating wisdom in failing, and making a self-correction.
You attack the Valor of men who choose not to serve in a society based on choice. But now, evidence from your own website suggests you wore a false decoration of that same valor. These come from a credible news organization, and access to your own records.
Does having served in combat make one a better leader? Does command of a small boat (less then 10 men) relate to a government with finances in the billions? Or does running a strong and successful company, or a smaller government mean more in the field of leadership?
Has he attacked the President for legitimate failures from his perspective, absolutely he has. But the venom of that particular attack from an era long gone erodes the ethos of his case. You can say the President has shown a failure to lead on Health Care, Prescription Drugs, the Environment, Jobs, the Budget, and other socio-economic issues. But you then have to say this is a contrast to my plan. This is what the president did when he laid out his own vision for the next four years.
George Bush and the GOP has defined National Security and Defense as the trump issues of this campaign. They have said in the world of post 9-11 it can’t be about “The Economy stupid” if there is no country to have an economy. You can disagree with that case all you want, but make a case why it shouldn’t be the trump issue. Or make a case why your policies would be better. Voting for the war, even knowing the facts we have today, back then proves that you don’t have a real separate vision. “The French and Germans will respect me more.” Is a great argument until you call those nations who disagree with you bribed or bullied. I hate to say this, bribing and bullying has been a part of diplomacy since the art was first invented. Make your own proposal, or say it shouldn’t be the number one issue. But in either strategy give us a reason why. Saying you won’t be questioned by those who didn’t choose to sign up for the Navy reserve when their deferment was denied does not make the case that you will be more diplomatic and have a more honest form of governance.
In your senate Career you voted against major defense programs, you proposed scaling them back. That is a legitimate case against your ability to defend this country, and is not rebutted by saying “Dick Cheney did it when he was defense secretary.” Some of us were alive then and remember the discussions about a “Peace dividend” about how the cold war was over and we needed to put that money back in our country. That came from your party, and to some degree that came from the American people. With those demands the Pentagon had to cut some money, and as a manager that was Dick Cheney’s call, that was his leadership. He was making the best of the situation he had to deal with. Back then we did not hear John Kerry talking about building an army for future conflicts, we heard a John Kerry talking about funding urban programs. This is a legitimate critique of the choices you made and you have a choice. Defend your choices, say you were right and why you would make or not make those choices again. Or say that in that climate those were the right choices, but not in the climate of today. Saying one thing in the past and one thing now is a harmful thing to a candidate for public office, but ignoring legitimate questions says quite another.
You fought hard to stop Communist Vietnam from being sanctioned for some of the brutal actions of their regime, you went to show solidarity with the sandinista’s, you supported the Nuclear Freeze, and during the cold war as a public official took actions to approach that war not from a position of strength but from a position of passivity. Many people of degrees of intellect agreed with that point of View Senator Kerry, but Ronald Reagan didn’t. Reagan’s tough and muscular policy was as revolutionary as Nixon’s policy of Détente. Since Reagan’s policy worked and brought the soviets to the table most folks agree that was the right choice. Do you? Does that non-intervention philosophy that we see going back to your Anti-War period still remain into the 90s and the new threats we face? The critique has merit; the questions deserve an answer from you Senator Kerry.
Your service on the Senate Intelligence committee was questioned, when records could be released to exonerate you exist you refuse to take them. When a major terrorist incident, and intelligence failure happened you missed out on the public hearings. Even if you made ever classified briefing during that investigation, what does that say to the American people? George Bush spent time in the Florida Class room on 9-11-01 making people feel secure; your absence from hearings to find out why our security failed us does not suggest that. When you refuse to open up these records, you look like some one to hide. When you refuse to answer these charges it damns you a second time.
Using your own logic, I should not trust the man who made the wrong choice, who took the opportunity of a peace dividend instead of redoubling our war machine. But you could argue that no one saw these events coming, I took this machine apart and I will work to fix it. That is a credible argument, but you are not even entering the stage. If you wish to attack bush for refusing to address the economy your refusal to seriously address the national security of this country is fair game.
Other charges are out there. You were given the opportunity to direct an investigation of one of the airports the terrorists used that dark day, and no one knows what you did with the investigation short of possibly giving it to the very agency he warned you was failing. Your saying to a group of Arab-Americans the Palestinian side in the security fence argument was right, then to a Jewish audience saying Israel was right. You’re naming two Anti-Israel politicians to be “peace envoys” but then blaming it on your speechwriters. Saying you told them to cut it out, but they did not. And when you saw it you did not omit it yourself.
All of these and numerous other points call into question your fundamental ability to defend this country as a President. And people who made the wrong choice are unable to make these points? John McCain who served admirably made them, General Tommy Franks made them, and many other men whose toga veralis is stained red in blood have made them as well.
Some one must have the moral clarity to demand an answer from you John, but you refuse to make it. And thus the Ed Koch-Ron Silver argument comes into play. The Democrats aren’t in the game for National Security this cycle and don’t deserve to be elected on that point alone.
Saying you, or President Bush, or any American leader has made the wrong choices for this country is not unpatriotic. In fact, legitimate questioning of our government’s polices is the height of patriotism. While no one said you were unfit for command, they rightly asked questions about your choices because a man’s past tells a lot about his likely future.
Bill Clinton in Arkansas Tom-cated around with women. Bill Clinton as president Tom-Cated with women. Bill Clinton rewarded cronies as Governor and as President. The negative things of his Presidency could be seen in the choices he made as Governor of Arkansas. The positive things in his presidency, his ability to adapt to changes also could be seen in his past as the Governor of Arkansas. Your past in the senate, your past as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts is relevant to how you would act as president.
You are running the same Kind of campaign your party has ran since 1968, and that approach failed you in every election cycle from then till now except two. In 1976 the corruption scandal from the Nixon administration was a dark blight on Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter nearly lost the election. In 1992 Bill Clinton won by saying in addition to all these laundry lists of programs, I will do it in a responsible manner. The American people want their cake, but they want it paid for in a way that will actually happen. That is why Bill Clinton was the first two term Democratic President since FDR. He told the people I can do this and be responsible. And when the will of the people changed, he adapted to that change.
Bush has not ran the nations books well, so why not challenge his numbers on these new programs he came out of his convention with. See if the Ownership society is bought on credit. When I saw this speech, this opener of your first campaign I was shocked to see you ignored the substance of this issue. Clinton won because he showed America could trust him to straighten up the financial mess, you haven’t made anyone believe they can trust you.
You started your campaign in a way that looked familiar to me. I traveled around the state as a Jurisdictional Officer for the Order of DeMolay. I more often then not after an event at two in the morning, or even midnight walked into a waffle house in Flora City Florida or some other urbane metropolis. This is not the way to present yourself to people who need to be sold on you and what your about. You need pressed close, you need to be well rested, and you need to be organized.
When you attack your opponents for a One-Liner fest such one-liners as “all hat and no cattle” don’t showcase your side well. Making a speech after your opponent, you need to know what he said. You can’t talk about being misled, when you say you would act the same even with the fullness of today’s knowledge. Why make the speech afterwards when you don’t know what happened?
Quote Job loss numbers, but realize they were lower then expected gains. Say he will have a negative job figure, but remember two hurricanes sacked the economy in that same month. There are two sides to every number.
In the first day of this campaign President Bush outlined a vision, a vision of larger government that works more conservatively. A Conservative Vision more in the mold of another JFK who was President, and who served with Valor on a navy boat. And on the First day of your campaign, after a very public reshuffling of your command staff what did you do? You attacked the President and Vice President in a way neither of them has directly attacked you. You claimed they conspired with the Saudi’s to hike oil prices, when any economically literate person knows isn’t true. You rambled and ranted, and said your opinion was infallible and above reproach. You attacked them for division and polarization without doing the same thing the president did to start his campaign.
You failed to lay out your orders when you “Reported for duty” but when George Bush went to the mound he knew what he had to do, and he threw his pitch. Without any question he is running to keep his job far better then you are running to take it. And this is the last attack I will lob at you right now. Your campaign has flubbed, lost direction, and languished because of every possible failure but one. The failure of the candidate, and this failure in leadership is seen as a thread in all the charges against you.
And, this is just day one.
I did a little early morning reading
From the hot sheets ( Blog and otherwise) and DUDE John, what's the deal.
Are you trying to lose?
I am going to ask this in all seriousness because thats what it seems like.
No one questioned your patriotism once at the convention in an offical "speaker" capacity ( you can look at the text of the speeches)
No one Questioned your fitness ( see the above)
But your putting up bogus remarks to a crowd of faithful who i bet, unlike me, didn't watch any of the republican convention believed the tripe.
I am going to say this
Based on what i have read, that midnight rant makes your fitness to be president a legitimate question.
Political playbook 101
Opponent attacks you on your record, you don't say that their words are irrelivent
look it up John
Are you trying to lose?
I am going to ask this in all seriousness because thats what it seems like.
No one questioned your patriotism once at the convention in an offical "speaker" capacity ( you can look at the text of the speeches)
No one Questioned your fitness ( see the above)
But your putting up bogus remarks to a crowd of faithful who i bet, unlike me, didn't watch any of the republican convention believed the tripe.
I am going to say this
Based on what i have read, that midnight rant makes your fitness to be president a legitimate question.
Political playbook 101
Opponent attacks you on your record, you don't say that their words are irrelivent
look it up John
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Ok Kids....
I posted on an Email list my thoughts on Kerry's acceptance speech.. expect me to post those here some time tommorrow.
and Saturday if i don't lose net connectivity ( or if i can hustle it on friday) expect my comment on the bush speech
but major comment
sweet monkey loving jebus that was long
and Saturday if i don't lose net connectivity ( or if i can hustle it on friday) expect my comment on the bush speech
but major comment
sweet monkey loving jebus that was long
Pataki: now thats what the keynote should have been
"We are all New Yorkers" and "Thank you"
good tone
Talking about how He, George Bush, and John Kerry all connect also the good and i think he covered what bush did
now, more to come with..... the president speaks~!
good tone
Talking about how He, George Bush, and John Kerry all connect also the good and i think he covered what bush did
now, more to come with..... the president speaks~!
Oi.. What are you guys doing....
George Bush tried to get the first African American EVER elected to an office in Midland TExas
and George Bush (through coat tails) got him to be the Highest Executive elected offical in the Texas State Government
ummm Why is this man not on live tv?
Why do i only see him on C-Span??
and George Bush (through coat tails) got him to be the Highest Executive elected offical in the Texas State Government
ummm Why is this man not on live tv?
Why do i only see him on C-Span??
More Proof in the Pudding
Bush and Cheney laid low during the Democratic convention because ( logically) they realized they would be thowing money into the wind by running ads and making major campaign stops during the democratic convention.
Now i look at these stops Kerry is making, other then the American Legion ( and only because of his war issues) none of them have gotten real coverage, most slightly less then the "truth squad" being run at the convention.
Not only is this not as class a campaign as Bush is running i have to ask, what the heck is Kerry thinking?
Kerry's commitment to defend this country is being questioned because
In the 80s and the 90s he took a lead in cutting back the defense and intelligence sectors.
in the 70s as a protestor he wanted to put the US army under UN command and scatter it about the world
his use of bogus testimony ( from the Winter Soldier hearings) to slander vets, stuff that was proven bogus in the 70s
his blocking attempts to punish the Vietnamesse communist government in the senate TODAY for their human rights abuses.
His making positive comments about FARC
his visiting the sandanista regime during the height of the Iran COntra issue
the fact he has never pushed for major aid to the vets in this country
the fact to many people he is viewed as white washing on the POW-MIA issue
and i can go on
as Lt. Governor of Massachucetts he authored an executive order to refuse to take any preperations for civil defense in the case of a Nuclear attack
the public meetings he missed of the intelligence committee, worse missing them after a major intelligence snafu ( the bombing of the first world trade center)
"I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq,"
So
#1) because you got shot at and such in Vietnam they can't question you on Foriegn and Military policy?
#2) YOU tried to get a deferment John and it failed
and
#3) when asked "Knowing then what you know now, would you still vote to use force" and you said yes. How can George Bush be misleading you if even today knowing the "facts" you would still do the same thing?
John as a Member of the US senate you did some things that puts your ability to defend this nation in the times we live in today as questionable
but instead of answering the question your saying because of your wounds of war they cannot be asked.
this is EXACTLLY why i am voting for George Bush
Had John Kerry manned up and been willing to rebut these charges they would go away.
But, John Kerry feels because he slandered our soldiers but was one he is beyond approach
sorry John Boy, it don't work that way
Now i look at these stops Kerry is making, other then the American Legion ( and only because of his war issues) none of them have gotten real coverage, most slightly less then the "truth squad" being run at the convention.
Not only is this not as class a campaign as Bush is running i have to ask, what the heck is Kerry thinking?
Kerry's commitment to defend this country is being questioned because
In the 80s and the 90s he took a lead in cutting back the defense and intelligence sectors.
in the 70s as a protestor he wanted to put the US army under UN command and scatter it about the world
his use of bogus testimony ( from the Winter Soldier hearings) to slander vets, stuff that was proven bogus in the 70s
his blocking attempts to punish the Vietnamesse communist government in the senate TODAY for their human rights abuses.
His making positive comments about FARC
his visiting the sandanista regime during the height of the Iran COntra issue
the fact he has never pushed for major aid to the vets in this country
the fact to many people he is viewed as white washing on the POW-MIA issue
and i can go on
as Lt. Governor of Massachucetts he authored an executive order to refuse to take any preperations for civil defense in the case of a Nuclear attack
the public meetings he missed of the intelligence committee, worse missing them after a major intelligence snafu ( the bombing of the first world trade center)
"I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq,"
So
#1) because you got shot at and such in Vietnam they can't question you on Foriegn and Military policy?
#2) YOU tried to get a deferment John and it failed
and
#3) when asked "Knowing then what you know now, would you still vote to use force" and you said yes. How can George Bush be misleading you if even today knowing the "facts" you would still do the same thing?
John as a Member of the US senate you did some things that puts your ability to defend this nation in the times we live in today as questionable
but instead of answering the question your saying because of your wounds of war they cannot be asked.
this is EXACTLLY why i am voting for George Bush
Had John Kerry manned up and been willing to rebut these charges they would go away.
But, John Kerry feels because he slandered our soldiers but was one he is beyond approach
sorry John Boy, it don't work that way
More Islamic moderation
hats off to the little green footballs guys
Qaradawi gave his opinion at a meeting Tuesday evening at the Egyptian journalists’ syndicate in Cairo.
“All of them (U.S. military personnel and civilians) are invaders who came from their country to invade our country and fighting them is a duty,” said his office director Essam Talima, quoting a fatwa or ruling on religious law by Qaradawi.
but of course, what about foriegners just working in there like..ooooh the french
“If those kidnappers care about the reputation of Islam then they should free the two French journalists,” the newspaper quoted him saying.
Qaradawi said the presence of the French journalists “broke the American monopoly on relaying information and facts (on the situation in Iraq) to the outside world.”
He also referred to France’s foreign policy in dealing with the Islamic and Arab worlds, which he said could serve as an example to other countries.
Thats right don't hurt our quislings
Qaradawi gave his opinion at a meeting Tuesday evening at the Egyptian journalists’ syndicate in Cairo.
“All of them (U.S. military personnel and civilians) are invaders who came from their country to invade our country and fighting them is a duty,” said his office director Essam Talima, quoting a fatwa or ruling on religious law by Qaradawi.
but of course, what about foriegners just working in there like..ooooh the french
“If those kidnappers care about the reputation of Islam then they should free the two French journalists,” the newspaper quoted him saying.
Qaradawi said the presence of the French journalists “broke the American monopoly on relaying information and facts (on the situation in Iraq) to the outside world.”
He also referred to France’s foreign policy in dealing with the Islamic and Arab worlds, which he said could serve as an example to other countries.
Thats right don't hurt our quislings
Hurricane 0-Larry 1 Round II
Ok, so Hurricane is coming across the other side of the state ( where we don't know)
it MAY make my saturday unpleasent or it MAY not.
But my sunday should be fine to work my extra shift at work
listening to the 5th circle of hell ( talk radio) i didn't really get Zell's words as hateful and angry. His words i think were very much full of a passion, a passion of disappointment and sadness.
we'll see how the rest goes tommorrow
i will post as long as i have a net connect
it MAY make my saturday unpleasent or it MAY not.
But my sunday should be fine to work my extra shift at work
listening to the 5th circle of hell ( talk radio) i didn't really get Zell's words as hateful and angry. His words i think were very much full of a passion, a passion of disappointment and sadness.
we'll see how the rest goes tommorrow
i will post as long as i have a net connect
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Also, the UN had serious Heel heat
i felt like i was Watching a WWE show. How Waffle chants were being slapped out
how i expected people to start chanting "WHAT"
how i expected people to start chanting "WHAT"
and Darth Cheney took the podium
I'd have liked Cheney to say more in his speech to the convention, but i have a very distinct feeling whomever is running this convention for the Republicans wants their question (and answer) of why you should vote for George Bush firmly in your head.
the Theme is "Bush is the leader we need right now, to do what we need."
with the all important subtheme "Kerry is a radical lefty who has been wrong and all the important calls for our national security."
And really, this is the only issue that at this point has real traction.
Do you want a President who pre-emptively takes out those who want to harm us, or a president who waits till harm happens. Thats the question the VP wanted you to ask yourself.
Do you want a President who will build a co-alition even if a few nations don't come along, or do you want a president who waits till the UN has it all signed and checked off.
and The President seems to be doing a good job so far with Trumping Kerry on this issue. Had Kerry Ran along a Lieberman line, as strong as the President on Terrorism and threats to this country, it'd be a whole other race.
and of course, selling George bush as a great guy, with a deep and thoughtful soul.
Cheney's speech was effective, it just really didn't go into what i wanted
the Theme is "Bush is the leader we need right now, to do what we need."
with the all important subtheme "Kerry is a radical lefty who has been wrong and all the important calls for our national security."
And really, this is the only issue that at this point has real traction.
Do you want a President who pre-emptively takes out those who want to harm us, or a president who waits till harm happens. Thats the question the VP wanted you to ask yourself.
Do you want a President who will build a co-alition even if a few nations don't come along, or do you want a president who waits till the UN has it all signed and checked off.
and The President seems to be doing a good job so far with Trumping Kerry on this issue. Had Kerry Ran along a Lieberman line, as strong as the President on Terrorism and threats to this country, it'd be a whole other race.
and of course, selling George bush as a great guy, with a deep and thoughtful soul.
Cheney's speech was effective, it just really didn't go into what i wanted
Zell V Obamba
I gotta give it to Obamba on a better overall speech, but i have to say Zell Miller gave out his soul on the podium.
I think Zell really gave out his heart and soul, and i think Zell Miller viewed himself like unto Wendell Wilke ( the republican canidate he evoked in his speech) he feels that the war was right, and we should back the president.
His speech only rates a good rating because of that clear emotional honesty that he had in his speaking, but it wasn't great.
I think he began to break from the democrats over how (as he percived it) they felt that you should take the political advantage during this time. I think to the age Zell Miller came from this ran contrary to who he is, and what he believes. I think thats what turned Zell into a DINO
I think if Bush had some one like Santorum speaking in the Keynote slot it would have been better, or the Senator from Minnesota... the guy who beat mondale who's name escapes me.
I think Zell really gave out his heart and soul, and i think Zell Miller viewed himself like unto Wendell Wilke ( the republican canidate he evoked in his speech) he feels that the war was right, and we should back the president.
His speech only rates a good rating because of that clear emotional honesty that he had in his speaking, but it wasn't great.
I think he began to break from the democrats over how (as he percived it) they felt that you should take the political advantage during this time. I think to the age Zell Miller came from this ran contrary to who he is, and what he believes. I think thats what turned Zell into a DINO
I think if Bush had some one like Santorum speaking in the Keynote slot it would have been better, or the Senator from Minnesota... the guy who beat mondale who's name escapes me.
First they came after Clinton, then Cheney
Whats Judicial watch doing now
take a look
Judicial Watch ratchets the inquiry up. They are not a 527 and they are
junk yard dogs when they get ticked off. It appears that judicial watch is
at it again.
August 18, 2004
By Fax & FedEx
Hon. Joseph E Schmitz ADM Vern Clark,
USN
Inspector General Chief of Naval
Operations
Department of Defense U.S. Navy
1000 Defense Pentagon 2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301 Washington, DC
20350
VADM Albert T. Church III, USN Navy Department Board of
Decorations
Office of the Naval Inspector General and Medals
1014 N Street SE, Suite 400 2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington Navy Yard Washington, DC
20350-2000
Washington, DC 20374-5014
Re: Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of
Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
Reference: a. SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G (Navy and Marine Corps
Awards Manual) dated 7 January 2002 (Excerpted at Exhibit 1).
b. 10 U.S.C. ' 6249 ("Limitation of honorable
service.")
Gentlemen:
Introduction
Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter "Judicial Watch") is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that investigates and
prosecutes government corruption. Judicial Watch, in the interests of the
American public, hereby files this formal complaint and request for
investigation, determination and final disposition of awards granted to
Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, U.S. Naval Reserve,
(hereinafter "Senator Kerry") under the provision of Paragraph 116
(Requirement for Honorable Service), SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G (Navy and
Marine Corps Awards Manual) dated 7 January 2002.
Background
The recent publication of the book, Unfit for Command by John E.
O'Neill and
Jerome R. Corsi, PhD (Exhibit 2), as well as a number of news media
interviews of former U.S. Navy officers and sailors who served with Senator
Kerry in Vietnam, raise extremely grave questions concerning the legitimacy
and propriety of the awards Senator Kerry received for heroism and wounds
received from enemy fire in combat.
Eyewitness accounts of officers, sailors and one medical doctor (who treated
a "wound" Senator Kerry allegedly suffered from enemy fire) refute Senator
Kerry's version of events in a number of instances. Questions of fraud,
false official statements and abuse by Senator Kerry must be answered.
Specifically, the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts awarded
to Senator Kerry during the period 2 December 1968 to 17 March 1969 appear
to be based upon Senator Kerry's false official statements, distortions of
fact and subornation. The evidence and testimony compiled in Exhibit 2 may
oblige the Secretary of the Navy to revoke Senator Kerry's awards.
A second and equally important matter concerns Senator Kerry's actions while
serving as a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve.
Dishonorable and possibly unlawful actions by Senator Kerry during the early
1970s - actions that manifestly benefited a foreign power with which the
U.S. was at war - are so grievously damaging to the dignity, honor and
traditions of the U.S. Navy and the American republic that the Secretary of
the Navy may be compelled to revoke Senator Kerry's awards.
This complaint and request for investigation is based on the public
statements of U.S. Navy flag officers, commissioned officers and sailors.
Combat veterans and career naval professionals have staked their personal
honor and lives to correct the record and reveal the full, complete and
accurate history of the events Senator Kerry has repeatedly leveraged for
personal political gain since 1970. In the least, the U.S. Navy and the
Department of Defense owe a full investigation to all those who fought and
died for this country.
Authority & Scope
These are matters of fraud, waste and abuse that bear directly
on the resources, policies, procedures, efficiency, good order and honor of
both the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy. The, as yet, unresolved
allegations include: false official reports and statements; dishonorable
conduct; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S.
government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of
U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) and U.S. Code.
As noted in the operative instruction: "Any award for a
distinguished act, achievement or service
may be revoked . . . after presentation by SECNAV, if facts subsequently
determined, would have prevented
the original approval of the award, or if the awardee's service after the
distinguishing act, achievement or
service has not been honorable." [Emphasis added] (See Paragraph 116.2 of
Exhibit 1) Further, 10 U.S.C. '
6249 states: "No medal, cross, or bar, or associated emblem or insignia may
be awarded or presented to
any person or to his representative if his service after he distinguished
himself has not been honorable."
[Emphasis added] Based upon the facts contained, inter alia, within Exhibit
2 we believe an investigation
is warranted at this time.
In accordance with Paragraph 116.3 of Exhibit 1, Judicial Watch submits this
formal complaint and request for investigation to the Navy Department Board
of Decorations and Medals via the Chief of Naval Operations for a
determination and final disposition of awards granted to Lieutenant (jg)
John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
Judicial Watch also submits this formal complaint and request for
investigation to the Inspectors General of the Defense Department and the
U.S. Navy, who each have the inherent duty and obligation to conduct
concurrent and independent investigations of the serious fraud, waste and
abuse matters alleged herein. Evidence and testimony is now publicly
available that Senator Kerry engaged in conduct violating law, rule, and/or
regulation and abused his authority. While a U.S. Navy regulatory remedy
may exist (via an administrative departmental board) for the correction of
award records, the matters presented in this complaint are sufficiently
serious to merit! the full and immediate attention and action of the
Inspectors General, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations. Subsequent
action by the Secretary of the Navy may also be required.
Fraudulent Medals:
With respect to Senator Kerry's justifications for award of the Purple Heart
(on three occasions) for wounds suffered at the hands of the enemy in
combat, and for award of both the Silver Star and Bronze Star for heroism,
your particular attention is called to Exhibit 2, Chapter 3, "The Purple
Heart Hunter," pages 29 - 49; as well as Chapter 5, "More Fraudulent
Medals," pages 71 - 95.
For example, Senator Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam,
Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired) stated the following on 4 May 2004:
"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he [Senator Kerry] 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."
Former Navy physician Louis Letson has reportedly executed a notarized
statement that states the injury Dr. Letson treated Kerry for occurred when
Kerry and two others (a fellow lieutenant and a crewman), seeing movement
from an unknown source, opened fire. Kerry's rifle jammed, and in the
absence of return fire, he resumed firing with a grenade launcher, spraying
his own boat and causing a tiny piece of shrapnel to be embedded in his arm.
The lieutenant and crewman, parties to the incident, accompanied Kerry to
sick call, where they disputed Kerry's claim that he'd been wounded by
hostile fire and provided an account of the actual episode to Dr.
Letson-after which Letson removed the! tiny fragment with tweezers and
covered Kerry's scratch with a band aid.
Another Swift Boat veteran, William Franke, from Coastal Division 11
(Senator Kerry's unit) stated the following concerning the legitimacy of
Senator Kerry's Purple Hearts:
"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded Kerry. His 'wounds' were
suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal.
That Kerry would seek the Purple Heart for such 'wounds' is a mockery of the
intent of the Purple Heart and an abridgement of the valor of those to whom
the Purple Heart had been awarded with justification."
Serious questions have also been raised about the awarding of
the Silver Star to Senator Kerry. Commander George Elliott, who wrote the
initial draft citation, confirmed that neither he nor anyone else involved
in preparing the recommendation were aware, prior to 1996, that Senator
Kerry was facing a single, wounded, young Viet Cong fleeing the area of the
engagement in a loin cloth. Commander Elliott indicates that he would not
have drafted a Silver Star recommendation had he been aware of the actual
facts. Senator Kerry's official reports supporting the award of a Bronze !
Star and his third Purple Heart contain similar exaggerations and
distortions (See Exhibit 2, page 85).
Van Odell served in the U.S. Navy from October 1966 to October 1972. He was
assigned to Coastal Squadron 1 on Swift Boats as a Gunners Mate in Vietnam,
on 9 January 1969. He provided the following statement concerning Senator
Kerry's third Purple Heart and Bronze Star award:
"During the period January 9, 1969 through July 1969 I served in Coastal
Division [CosDiv] 11 at An Thoi, Republic of Viet Nam. While assigned to
Cos Div 11 I served on PCF's 93, 35, and 10. I was on many of the river
patrols that John Kerry was also assigned. During this time I observed his
behavior and some of the incidents that are in dispute. My battle station
as Gunners mate was the twin 50-cal gun tub; this position was the highest
point on a swift! and allowed a 360 degree view of any action.
During the month of March our crew was given a river patrol mission along
with several other boat crews on the Bay Hop River. During our run in, and
part of the run out of the river, we encountered no hostile fire.
As we exited the river PCF 3 was the lead boat, we were second in the line,
PCF 51 was astern of our craft. The other boats were lined up beside us
including Kerry's boat PCF 94. During the transit we encountered a fishing
weir (gill net) stretched across the middle of the river with just enough
room on either side to allow a Swift boat to pass. We passed the fishing
weir river left. As the 3 boat passed the weir on the narrowest part of the
river it was hit by a mine, which lifted it completely out of the water.
I immediately began firing my twin 50's towards river left to suppress any
fire. I fired a couple of hundred rounds and realized we were not receiving
any return fire from either bank. The other boats quit firing and we
commenced rescue operations for the PCF 3 crew and boat. WE DID NOT RECEIVE
ANY FIRE FROM EITHER BANK. [Emphasis in original] Our boat picked up
members of the disabled PCF-3. I continued to watch all the area for any VC
activity and witnessed the majority of the events of the day.
John Kerry received a Bronze Star for this incident, claiming that he saved
Jim Rassman's life, at the risk of his own, while receiving hostile fire.
That simply did not happen."
As there was no hostile fire, Senator Kerry's Purple Heart for this incident
must be investigated as well. Indeed, the evidence suggests the wound for
which Senator Kery received the Purple Heart was self-inflicted (See Exhibit
2, page 78).
Dishonorable Commissioned Service:
According to publicly available records, Senator Kerry was
released from Active Duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive) on
3 January 1970. On 1 July 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive). While a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve,
Senator Kerry traveled to Paris, France and met with official delegations
from the Dem! ocratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the
Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The Vietnamese
Communists eagerly met Senator Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious
propaganda victory (See Exhibit 2, page 126 - 129).
These acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual
citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. ' 953) and the
constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in
wartime (Article III, Section 3). Additionally, as a commissioned officer
of the Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry was subject to the UCMJ, and likely
violated Article 104 ("Aiding the Enemy") through his actions with the North
Vietnamese/Viet Cong delegation.
Senator Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese
Communists to Washington, DC and held a press conference. At that press
event, Senator Kerry advocated a Vietnamese Communist "peace proposal"
calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and payment of war damage
reparations to the Communist government. Senator Kerry engaged in this
advocacy on behalf of a foreign power with who we were at war while
continuing to hold! a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.
A detailed treatment of Senator Kerry's dishonorable service during the
period from 3 January 1970 through 16 February 1978, when he was incorrectly
granted an "Honorable Discharge," can be found in Exhibit 2, Chapters 6 -
10, pages 99 - 185.
For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, the former Commander of Coastal
Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115 characterized Senator Kerry's
performance as follows:
"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 bi! as 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."
Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired) (under whose command
Senator Kerry served during a Swift Boat operation from 5 - 7 March 1969)
found Senator Kerry to be "like a child with an attention problem," who
simply would not obey orders. Captain Plumly reported Senator Kerry's poor
performance to Admiral Roy Hoffman (quoted above). Captain Plumly assesses
Senator Kerry as follows:
"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, [having] disdain for authority, disruptive,
but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant
supervision.'"
Conclusion:
Serious, credible reports of dishonorable conduct; false
official reports and statements; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty;
misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and
multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and U.S. Code by Lieutenant (jg) John Forbes
Kerry, USNR (Senator Kerry) are now before you.
These reports are specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, the timeframe
and location. There are corroborating witnesses. These witnesses have made
public statements detailing their specific knowledge of wrongdoing by
Senator Kerry. The claims against Senator Kerry - both concerning his
fraudulently obtained awards for valor and combat wounds, as well as his
dishonorable and potentially illegal conduct as a commissioned officer of
the Naval Reserve - are gravely serious matters that demand your immediate
and direct action.
This formal complaint and request for investigation, determination and final
disposition is consistent with and satisfies the reporting requirements of
Paragraph 116.3 of SECNAVINST 1650.1G. It is also in accordance with
specific reporting guidelines and subject matters enumerated on the
Department of Defense Inspector General Internet site and the Naval
Inspector General's Internet site. Therefore, we urge you to take action
based on this complaint and investigate these allegations concerning Senator
Kerry immediately.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Thomas Fitton
President
take a look
Judicial Watch ratchets the inquiry up. They are not a 527 and they are
junk yard dogs when they get ticked off. It appears that judicial watch is
at it again.
August 18, 2004
By Fax & FedEx
Hon. Joseph E Schmitz ADM Vern Clark,
USN
Inspector General Chief of Naval
Operations
Department of Defense U.S. Navy
1000 Defense Pentagon 2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301 Washington, DC
20350
VADM Albert T. Church III, USN Navy Department Board of
Decorations
Office of the Naval Inspector General and Medals
1014 N Street SE, Suite 400 2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington Navy Yard Washington, DC
20350-2000
Washington, DC 20374-5014
Re: Request for Investigation, Determination and Final Disposition of
Awards Granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
Reference: a. SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G (Navy and Marine Corps
Awards Manual) dated 7 January 2002 (Excerpted at Exhibit 1).
b. 10 U.S.C. ' 6249 ("Limitation of honorable
service.")
Gentlemen:
Introduction
Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter "Judicial Watch") is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that investigates and
prosecutes government corruption. Judicial Watch, in the interests of the
American public, hereby files this formal complaint and request for
investigation, determination and final disposition of awards granted to
Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, U.S. Naval Reserve,
(hereinafter "Senator Kerry") under the provision of Paragraph 116
(Requirement for Honorable Service), SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G (Navy and
Marine Corps Awards Manual) dated 7 January 2002.
Background
The recent publication of the book, Unfit for Command by John E.
O'Neill and
Jerome R. Corsi, PhD (Exhibit 2), as well as a number of news media
interviews of former U.S. Navy officers and sailors who served with Senator
Kerry in Vietnam, raise extremely grave questions concerning the legitimacy
and propriety of the awards Senator Kerry received for heroism and wounds
received from enemy fire in combat.
Eyewitness accounts of officers, sailors and one medical doctor (who treated
a "wound" Senator Kerry allegedly suffered from enemy fire) refute Senator
Kerry's version of events in a number of instances. Questions of fraud,
false official statements and abuse by Senator Kerry must be answered.
Specifically, the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts awarded
to Senator Kerry during the period 2 December 1968 to 17 March 1969 appear
to be based upon Senator Kerry's false official statements, distortions of
fact and subornation. The evidence and testimony compiled in Exhibit 2 may
oblige the Secretary of the Navy to revoke Senator Kerry's awards.
A second and equally important matter concerns Senator Kerry's actions while
serving as a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve.
Dishonorable and possibly unlawful actions by Senator Kerry during the early
1970s - actions that manifestly benefited a foreign power with which the
U.S. was at war - are so grievously damaging to the dignity, honor and
traditions of the U.S. Navy and the American republic that the Secretary of
the Navy may be compelled to revoke Senator Kerry's awards.
This complaint and request for investigation is based on the public
statements of U.S. Navy flag officers, commissioned officers and sailors.
Combat veterans and career naval professionals have staked their personal
honor and lives to correct the record and reveal the full, complete and
accurate history of the events Senator Kerry has repeatedly leveraged for
personal political gain since 1970. In the least, the U.S. Navy and the
Department of Defense owe a full investigation to all those who fought and
died for this country.
Authority & Scope
These are matters of fraud, waste and abuse that bear directly
on the resources, policies, procedures, efficiency, good order and honor of
both the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy. The, as yet, unresolved
allegations include: false official reports and statements; dishonorable
conduct; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S.
government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of
U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) and U.S. Code.
As noted in the operative instruction: "Any award for a
distinguished act, achievement or service
may be revoked . . . after presentation by SECNAV, if facts subsequently
determined, would have prevented
the original approval of the award, or if the awardee's service after the
distinguishing act, achievement or
service has not been honorable." [Emphasis added] (See Paragraph 116.2 of
Exhibit 1) Further, 10 U.S.C. '
6249 states: "No medal, cross, or bar, or associated emblem or insignia may
be awarded or presented to
any person or to his representative if his service after he distinguished
himself has not been honorable."
[Emphasis added] Based upon the facts contained, inter alia, within Exhibit
2 we believe an investigation
is warranted at this time.
In accordance with Paragraph 116.3 of Exhibit 1, Judicial Watch submits this
formal complaint and request for investigation to the Navy Department Board
of Decorations and Medals via the Chief of Naval Operations for a
determination and final disposition of awards granted to Lieutenant (jg)
John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
Judicial Watch also submits this formal complaint and request for
investigation to the Inspectors General of the Defense Department and the
U.S. Navy, who each have the inherent duty and obligation to conduct
concurrent and independent investigations of the serious fraud, waste and
abuse matters alleged herein. Evidence and testimony is now publicly
available that Senator Kerry engaged in conduct violating law, rule, and/or
regulation and abused his authority. While a U.S. Navy regulatory remedy
may exist (via an administrative departmental board) for the correction of
award records, the matters presented in this complaint are sufficiently
serious to merit! the full and immediate attention and action of the
Inspectors General, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations. Subsequent
action by the Secretary of the Navy may also be required.
Fraudulent Medals:
With respect to Senator Kerry's justifications for award of the Purple Heart
(on three occasions) for wounds suffered at the hands of the enemy in
combat, and for award of both the Silver Star and Bronze Star for heroism,
your particular attention is called to Exhibit 2, Chapter 3, "The Purple
Heart Hunter," pages 29 - 49; as well as Chapter 5, "More Fraudulent
Medals," pages 71 - 95.
For example, Senator Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam,
Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired) stated the following on 4 May 2004:
"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he [Senator Kerry] 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."
Former Navy physician Louis Letson has reportedly executed a notarized
statement that states the injury Dr. Letson treated Kerry for occurred when
Kerry and two others (a fellow lieutenant and a crewman), seeing movement
from an unknown source, opened fire. Kerry's rifle jammed, and in the
absence of return fire, he resumed firing with a grenade launcher, spraying
his own boat and causing a tiny piece of shrapnel to be embedded in his arm.
The lieutenant and crewman, parties to the incident, accompanied Kerry to
sick call, where they disputed Kerry's claim that he'd been wounded by
hostile fire and provided an account of the actual episode to Dr.
Letson-after which Letson removed the! tiny fragment with tweezers and
covered Kerry's scratch with a band aid.
Another Swift Boat veteran, William Franke, from Coastal Division 11
(Senator Kerry's unit) stated the following concerning the legitimacy of
Senator Kerry's Purple Hearts:
"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded Kerry. His 'wounds' were
suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal.
That Kerry would seek the Purple Heart for such 'wounds' is a mockery of the
intent of the Purple Heart and an abridgement of the valor of those to whom
the Purple Heart had been awarded with justification."
Serious questions have also been raised about the awarding of
the Silver Star to Senator Kerry. Commander George Elliott, who wrote the
initial draft citation, confirmed that neither he nor anyone else involved
in preparing the recommendation were aware, prior to 1996, that Senator
Kerry was facing a single, wounded, young Viet Cong fleeing the area of the
engagement in a loin cloth. Commander Elliott indicates that he would not
have drafted a Silver Star recommendation had he been aware of the actual
facts. Senator Kerry's official reports supporting the award of a Bronze !
Star and his third Purple Heart contain similar exaggerations and
distortions (See Exhibit 2, page 85).
Van Odell served in the U.S. Navy from October 1966 to October 1972. He was
assigned to Coastal Squadron 1 on Swift Boats as a Gunners Mate in Vietnam,
on 9 January 1969. He provided the following statement concerning Senator
Kerry's third Purple Heart and Bronze Star award:
"During the period January 9, 1969 through July 1969 I served in Coastal
Division [CosDiv] 11 at An Thoi, Republic of Viet Nam. While assigned to
Cos Div 11 I served on PCF's 93, 35, and 10. I was on many of the river
patrols that John Kerry was also assigned. During this time I observed his
behavior and some of the incidents that are in dispute. My battle station
as Gunners mate was the twin 50-cal gun tub; this position was the highest
point on a swift! and allowed a 360 degree view of any action.
During the month of March our crew was given a river patrol mission along
with several other boat crews on the Bay Hop River. During our run in, and
part of the run out of the river, we encountered no hostile fire.
As we exited the river PCF 3 was the lead boat, we were second in the line,
PCF 51 was astern of our craft. The other boats were lined up beside us
including Kerry's boat PCF 94. During the transit we encountered a fishing
weir (gill net) stretched across the middle of the river with just enough
room on either side to allow a Swift boat to pass. We passed the fishing
weir river left. As the 3 boat passed the weir on the narrowest part of the
river it was hit by a mine, which lifted it completely out of the water.
I immediately began firing my twin 50's towards river left to suppress any
fire. I fired a couple of hundred rounds and realized we were not receiving
any return fire from either bank. The other boats quit firing and we
commenced rescue operations for the PCF 3 crew and boat. WE DID NOT RECEIVE
ANY FIRE FROM EITHER BANK. [Emphasis in original] Our boat picked up
members of the disabled PCF-3. I continued to watch all the area for any VC
activity and witnessed the majority of the events of the day.
John Kerry received a Bronze Star for this incident, claiming that he saved
Jim Rassman's life, at the risk of his own, while receiving hostile fire.
That simply did not happen."
As there was no hostile fire, Senator Kerry's Purple Heart for this incident
must be investigated as well. Indeed, the evidence suggests the wound for
which Senator Kery received the Purple Heart was self-inflicted (See Exhibit
2, page 78).
Dishonorable Commissioned Service:
According to publicly available records, Senator Kerry was
released from Active Duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive) on
3 January 1970. On 1 July 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive). While a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve,
Senator Kerry traveled to Paris, France and met with official delegations
from the Dem! ocratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the
Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The Vietnamese
Communists eagerly met Senator Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious
propaganda victory (See Exhibit 2, page 126 - 129).
These acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual
citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. ' 953) and the
constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in
wartime (Article III, Section 3). Additionally, as a commissioned officer
of the Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry was subject to the UCMJ, and likely
violated Article 104 ("Aiding the Enemy") through his actions with the North
Vietnamese/Viet Cong delegation.
Senator Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese
Communists to Washington, DC and held a press conference. At that press
event, Senator Kerry advocated a Vietnamese Communist "peace proposal"
calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and payment of war damage
reparations to the Communist government. Senator Kerry engaged in this
advocacy on behalf of a foreign power with who we were at war while
continuing to hold! a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.
A detailed treatment of Senator Kerry's dishonorable service during the
period from 3 January 1970 through 16 February 1978, when he was incorrectly
granted an "Honorable Discharge," can be found in Exhibit 2, Chapters 6 -
10, pages 99 - 185.
For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, the former Commander of Coastal
Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115 characterized Senator Kerry's
performance as follows:
"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 bi! as 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."
Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired) (under whose command
Senator Kerry served during a Swift Boat operation from 5 - 7 March 1969)
found Senator Kerry to be "like a child with an attention problem," who
simply would not obey orders. Captain Plumly reported Senator Kerry's poor
performance to Admiral Roy Hoffman (quoted above). Captain Plumly assesses
Senator Kerry as follows:
"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, [having] disdain for authority, disruptive,
but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant
supervision.'"
Conclusion:
Serious, credible reports of dishonorable conduct; false
official reports and statements; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty;
misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and
multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and U.S. Code by Lieutenant (jg) John Forbes
Kerry, USNR (Senator Kerry) are now before you.
These reports are specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, the timeframe
and location. There are corroborating witnesses. These witnesses have made
public statements detailing their specific knowledge of wrongdoing by
Senator Kerry. The claims against Senator Kerry - both concerning his
fraudulently obtained awards for valor and combat wounds, as well as his
dishonorable and potentially illegal conduct as a commissioned officer of
the Naval Reserve - are gravely serious matters that demand your immediate
and direct action.
This formal complaint and request for investigation, determination and final
disposition is consistent with and satisfies the reporting requirements of
Paragraph 116.3 of SECNAVINST 1650.1G. It is also in accordance with
specific reporting guidelines and subject matters enumerated on the
Department of Defense Inspector General Internet site and the Naval
Inspector General's Internet site. Therefore, we urge you to take action
based on this complaint and investigate these allegations concerning Senator
Kerry immediately.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Thomas Fitton
President
YEah we can see now why more people trust CNN
CNN Refuses to Air Log Cabin Republicans' TV Ad
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
September 01, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group, is criticizing CNN for refusing to air a TV ad that urges Republicans to concentrate on what unites them rather than what divides them.
The ad is running on the Fox News Channel and other broadcast outlets.
"We are deeply disappointed that CNN has refused our voices the opportunity to be heard," the Log Cabin Republicans said in a press release.
"Last week we told the Republican Party that you cannot sugarcoat the vicious and mean- spirited [GOP] platform, and today we want CNN to know that you cannot sugarcoat the politics of fear and intolerance that lead to hate," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.
The Log Cabin Republicans' TV ad begins with footage from President Ronald Reagan's 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston. "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears," Reagan says.
The Log Cabin Republicans say the ad "offers a clear choice for the GOP: follow President Reagan's lead by uniting Republicans; or follow Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum's lead by dividing the GOP with an intolerant social agenda based on fear and exclusion."
The ad closes with images of the Rev. Fred Phelps holding a sign that reads "God Hates Fags," at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student murdered by two young men who attacked him because he was homosexual.
CNN claimed the images in the 30-second ad were "too controversial."
The Log Cabin Republicans say they support "fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans." The group says it also supports Republican Party positions on lower taxes, a strong national defense, personal responsibility and a commitment to individual liberty.
The group is at odds with social conservatives in the Republican Party, who oppose same-sex marriage and want to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent activist judges from redefining marriage.
Homosexual advocacy groups call the Federal Marriage Amendment discriminatory.
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
September 01, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group, is criticizing CNN for refusing to air a TV ad that urges Republicans to concentrate on what unites them rather than what divides them.
The ad is running on the Fox News Channel and other broadcast outlets.
"We are deeply disappointed that CNN has refused our voices the opportunity to be heard," the Log Cabin Republicans said in a press release.
"Last week we told the Republican Party that you cannot sugarcoat the vicious and mean- spirited [GOP] platform, and today we want CNN to know that you cannot sugarcoat the politics of fear and intolerance that lead to hate," said Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerriero.
The Log Cabin Republicans' TV ad begins with footage from President Ronald Reagan's 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston. "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears," Reagan says.
The Log Cabin Republicans say the ad "offers a clear choice for the GOP: follow President Reagan's lead by uniting Republicans; or follow Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum's lead by dividing the GOP with an intolerant social agenda based on fear and exclusion."
The ad closes with images of the Rev. Fred Phelps holding a sign that reads "God Hates Fags," at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student murdered by two young men who attacked him because he was homosexual.
CNN claimed the images in the 30-second ad were "too controversial."
The Log Cabin Republicans say they support "fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans." The group says it also supports Republican Party positions on lower taxes, a strong national defense, personal responsibility and a commitment to individual liberty.
The group is at odds with social conservatives in the Republican Party, who oppose same-sex marriage and want to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent activist judges from redefining marriage.
Homosexual advocacy groups call the Federal Marriage Amendment discriminatory.
Some good political Parody to make you feel better
Cheney Speech to Find Common Ground with Kerry
by Scott Ott
(2004-09-01) -- During his speech tonight at the Republican National Convention, Vice President Dick Cheney will extend an olive branch to Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry, praising his two decades of service in the U.S. Senate.
According to his prepared remarks, the vice president will also draw parallels between his Republican beliefs and Mr. Kerry's own principles.
Here's a brief excerpt of what Mr. Cheney will say tonight:
"As a conservative, I believe in getting government off the backs of the people. When I look at John Kerry's two decades in the Senate, I'm pleased to see that he sponsors almost no legislation, and rarely shows up for votes or committee meetings. Sen. Kerry has been a living example of less government, and for that I praise him."
"As a Republican, I believe in a strong military and vibrant global commerce, Sen. Kerry believes something similar. As I understand it, he even wants to strengthen our defense by outsourcing it to the United Nations. Now there's a free markets man for you!"
"As a Republican, I believe that you know best how to spend your money. For his part, John Kerry also believes that he knows best how to spend your money."
"As a Republican, I believe that teacher unions should be held accountable for results, and you may be surprised to learn that over at the Kerry campaign fundraising office teacher unions account for measurable results."
Link | Comment (19) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Says U.S. Will Win 'Court Battle on Terror'
by Scott Ott
(2004-09-01) -- "America will win the court battle on terror," if John Forbes Kerry is elected president, according to the Democrat candidate.
Evoking the memory of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Mr. Kerry released a statement designed to position him as tougher on terror than President George Bush.
"We shall not flag or fail against terrorism," said Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator. "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in the courtroom, we shall fight with subpoenas and pre-trial motions, we shall fight with clever arguments and emotional appeals, we shall defend our nation, whatever the cost may be--in actual or punitive damages. We shall plea bargain shrewdly and produce surprise witnesses and DNA analysis, but we shall never be paid unless we collect damages for you."
Link | Comment (42) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 31, 2004
Bush: RNC Doing Good Job 'Hiding Our Wackos'
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- President George Bush today told reporters on Air Force One that he's pleased with what he has seen of the Republican National Convention, and said party leaders are doing a "good job hiding our wackos from the cameras."
"If you watch the TV," said Mr. Bush, "You might think that the Republican party consists of reasonable fiscal conservatives with solid American values and a healthy concern for the defense of our nation. I applaud the convention organizers who are keeping the crazies under wraps."
The president added that for weeks he has worried that the Republican Convention would be "dominated by our rank-and-file wild-eyed neanderthal bigots who want to bomb the rest of the world back to the bronze age--in other words, the folks we call 'the base'."
Link | Comment (86) | TrackBack (2) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 30, 2004
Internet Turns 35, Moves Out of Parent's Basement
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- The Internet officially turns 35-years-old on September 2, and according to sources close to the world wide web, it may finally move out of its parents' basement.
Born in 1969, the Internet really came of age during the early 1990s. But with a tough job market, the Internet couldn't earn a decent living doing anything "legitimate," according to friends of the family.
"We'll miss little Webby," said his father, "but we're hoping he'll find a way to make money outside of the gaming and adult entertainment industries. Now that he's out of the basement, we're hoping to put something more useful down there--like a sump pump."
Link | Comment (170) | TrackBack (2) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Demands Apology from 'Opinionated' First Lady
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today demanded an apology from First Lady Laura Bush for remarks that implied support for TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which are critical of Mr. Kerry's 1971 'atrocity' testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"In a word, Laura Bush is opinionated," said Mr. Kerry. "And I don't think America wants a First Lady who shoots from the hip, speaks her mind and essentially tells the world to shove it."
Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator, said he was "emotionally devastated" by Mrs. Bush's comment and called on President George Bush to "stop hiding behind surrogates and right wing attack dogs."
Link | Comment (120) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Proposes Deciding Presidency by Chants
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- On the eve of the Republican National Convention, as anti-Bush protestors gathered near New York's Madison Square Garden, Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry called for the abolition of the electoral college. Instead, he proposed that presidential elections "be decided by chants."
"We have heard democracy in action from the vox populi--the voice of the people--in the streets of New York City this weekend," said Mr. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam Veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator. "It's time to retire the antiquated electoral college system and let chants rule our nation."
Under the Kerry plan, political party leaders would select a chanting delegate from each state, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the District of Columbia. The day after the election, the chanters would assemble in Lafayette Park, near the White House, and begin unison shouting of their presidential preference using clever, rhyming couplets.
Judges from the United Nations would award points for creativity, volume and degree of difficulty. The Secretary-General of the U.N. would make the final decision.
"If we want to regain our credibility in the world," said Mr. Kerry, "We need the imprimatur of the U.N., and we need a system that doesn't disenfranchise those who can't read or can't follow directions. As Democrats, we have long believed that substantive change happens by chants."
Link | Comment (77) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 28, 2004
Kerry: Celebrities at Risk if Bush Reelected
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-28) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today warned that America faces "a celebrity exhaustion crisis" if President George Bush wins reelection in November.
"It's just another example of how this administration fails to care for the ordinary, needy people of this great country," said Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who is also a U.S. Senator. "Many celebrities--actors, musicians, comedians--already teeter on the brink of fatigue as they attend a plethora of Democrat fundraisers and anti-Bush protest events, and appear on TV news shows as political experts."
"I'm worried that they won't even make it through October, let alone four more years," said Mr. Kerry. "And if Janeane Garofalo, Bruce Springsteen, Moby, Ben Affleck or Margaret Cho wind up in some kind of 30-day recovery program or if their entertainment careers begin falter, they can send the bill directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. George W. Bush is wearing out these national treasures."
Mr. Kerry said if he's elected, the crisis will end, "because politically conservative celebrities are usually preoccupied with singing, acting or making jokes. In other words, they're not smart enough to get on a cable news show, or C-Span and debate Al Franken."
Link | Comment (321) | TrackBack (1) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
by Scott Ott
(2004-09-01) -- During his speech tonight at the Republican National Convention, Vice President Dick Cheney will extend an olive branch to Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry, praising his two decades of service in the U.S. Senate.
According to his prepared remarks, the vice president will also draw parallels between his Republican beliefs and Mr. Kerry's own principles.
Here's a brief excerpt of what Mr. Cheney will say tonight:
"As a conservative, I believe in getting government off the backs of the people. When I look at John Kerry's two decades in the Senate, I'm pleased to see that he sponsors almost no legislation, and rarely shows up for votes or committee meetings. Sen. Kerry has been a living example of less government, and for that I praise him."
"As a Republican, I believe in a strong military and vibrant global commerce, Sen. Kerry believes something similar. As I understand it, he even wants to strengthen our defense by outsourcing it to the United Nations. Now there's a free markets man for you!"
"As a Republican, I believe that you know best how to spend your money. For his part, John Kerry also believes that he knows best how to spend your money."
"As a Republican, I believe that teacher unions should be held accountable for results, and you may be surprised to learn that over at the Kerry campaign fundraising office teacher unions account for measurable results."
Link | Comment (19) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Says U.S. Will Win 'Court Battle on Terror'
by Scott Ott
(2004-09-01) -- "America will win the court battle on terror," if John Forbes Kerry is elected president, according to the Democrat candidate.
Evoking the memory of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Mr. Kerry released a statement designed to position him as tougher on terror than President George Bush.
"We shall not flag or fail against terrorism," said Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator. "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in the courtroom, we shall fight with subpoenas and pre-trial motions, we shall fight with clever arguments and emotional appeals, we shall defend our nation, whatever the cost may be--in actual or punitive damages. We shall plea bargain shrewdly and produce surprise witnesses and DNA analysis, but we shall never be paid unless we collect damages for you."
Link | Comment (42) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 31, 2004
Bush: RNC Doing Good Job 'Hiding Our Wackos'
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- President George Bush today told reporters on Air Force One that he's pleased with what he has seen of the Republican National Convention, and said party leaders are doing a "good job hiding our wackos from the cameras."
"If you watch the TV," said Mr. Bush, "You might think that the Republican party consists of reasonable fiscal conservatives with solid American values and a healthy concern for the defense of our nation. I applaud the convention organizers who are keeping the crazies under wraps."
The president added that for weeks he has worried that the Republican Convention would be "dominated by our rank-and-file wild-eyed neanderthal bigots who want to bomb the rest of the world back to the bronze age--in other words, the folks we call 'the base'."
Link | Comment (86) | TrackBack (2) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 30, 2004
Internet Turns 35, Moves Out of Parent's Basement
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- The Internet officially turns 35-years-old on September 2, and according to sources close to the world wide web, it may finally move out of its parents' basement.
Born in 1969, the Internet really came of age during the early 1990s. But with a tough job market, the Internet couldn't earn a decent living doing anything "legitimate," according to friends of the family.
"We'll miss little Webby," said his father, "but we're hoping he'll find a way to make money outside of the gaming and adult entertainment industries. Now that he's out of the basement, we're hoping to put something more useful down there--like a sump pump."
Link | Comment (170) | TrackBack (2) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Demands Apology from 'Opinionated' First Lady
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today demanded an apology from First Lady Laura Bush for remarks that implied support for TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which are critical of Mr. Kerry's 1971 'atrocity' testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"In a word, Laura Bush is opinionated," said Mr. Kerry. "And I don't think America wants a First Lady who shoots from the hip, speaks her mind and essentially tells the world to shove it."
Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator, said he was "emotionally devastated" by Mrs. Bush's comment and called on President George Bush to "stop hiding behind surrogates and right wing attack dogs."
Link | Comment (120) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Kerry Proposes Deciding Presidency by Chants
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-30) -- On the eve of the Republican National Convention, as anti-Bush protestors gathered near New York's Madison Square Garden, Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry called for the abolition of the electoral college. Instead, he proposed that presidential elections "be decided by chants."
"We have heard democracy in action from the vox populi--the voice of the people--in the streets of New York City this weekend," said Mr. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam Veteran and distinguished anti-war protestor who is also a U.S. Senator. "It's time to retire the antiquated electoral college system and let chants rule our nation."
Under the Kerry plan, political party leaders would select a chanting delegate from each state, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the District of Columbia. The day after the election, the chanters would assemble in Lafayette Park, near the White House, and begin unison shouting of their presidential preference using clever, rhyming couplets.
Judges from the United Nations would award points for creativity, volume and degree of difficulty. The Secretary-General of the U.N. would make the final decision.
"If we want to regain our credibility in the world," said Mr. Kerry, "We need the imprimatur of the U.N., and we need a system that doesn't disenfranchise those who can't read or can't follow directions. As Democrats, we have long believed that substantive change happens by chants."
Link | Comment (77) | TrackBack (0) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
August 28, 2004
Kerry: Celebrities at Risk if Bush Reelected
by Scott Ott
(2004-08-28) -- Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today warned that America faces "a celebrity exhaustion crisis" if President George Bush wins reelection in November.
"It's just another example of how this administration fails to care for the ordinary, needy people of this great country," said Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who is also a U.S. Senator. "Many celebrities--actors, musicians, comedians--already teeter on the brink of fatigue as they attend a plethora of Democrat fundraisers and anti-Bush protest events, and appear on TV news shows as political experts."
"I'm worried that they won't even make it through October, let alone four more years," said Mr. Kerry. "And if Janeane Garofalo, Bruce Springsteen, Moby, Ben Affleck or Margaret Cho wind up in some kind of 30-day recovery program or if their entertainment careers begin falter, they can send the bill directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. George W. Bush is wearing out these national treasures."
Mr. Kerry said if he's elected, the crisis will end, "because politically conservative celebrities are usually preoccupied with singing, acting or making jokes. In other words, they're not smart enough to get on a cable news show, or C-Span and debate Al Franken."
Link | Comment (321) | TrackBack (1) | Email Story | Buy Book | Top
Additional Endorsement
I endorse the man i voted for int he Governor's race 2 years ago one John Wayne Smith in his run for State House District 42
and i'll tell you about office Depot refusing to list him as a canidate when he is running against only one major party canidate
and i'll tell you about office Depot refusing to list him as a canidate when he is running against only one major party canidate
Look Who is Endorsing John Kerry (JP)
Look who wants Bush to lose
Michael Freund, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 31, 2004
The excitement is palpable. You can almost feel it in the air. The dictators of the Arab world just can't wait for George W. Bush to lose the US presidential election in November.
Gripped with fear as they watch Bush's democratic experiment in Iraq take shape, the tyrants and despots of the Middle East are pinning their hopes on Democratic challenger John Kerry to prevail.
After all, the last thing they want to see is a second-term Bush determined to reform the region, a development that would threaten their grip on power and stymie their efforts to obtain more lethal types of weaponry.
And so the rhetoric in the Arab world is heating up, pointing to a real desire to see the US president go down in defeat.
Take, for example, a recent article in the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly (August 12-18 issue) by Cairo University's Prof. Hassan Nafaa. Bush, he wrote, is a "wild eyed zealot" and an "evil fanatic" whose "departure from the Oval Office will mark the beginning of the decline of the forces of extremism and the rise of the forces of moderation."
A Kerry victory, Prof. Nafaa says, barely containing his glee, would mean that "US foreign policy will undergo a major shift that will ultimately impact positively on Washington's approach to the affairs of the Middle East."
In other words, a Kerry administration would be far more compliant as far as the Arabs are concerned.
An August 4 editorial in the Syria Times expressed a similar sentiment, urging Arab-Americans not to make "the very mistake they made in the past when they gave their votes to Bush the Junior" in the 2000 presidential election. Instead, suggested the government-run paper, a vote for Kerry this time would prove to be "a wise one."
Judging by their leadership, the Palestinians seem to feel the same way, with Yasser Arafat said to be among those who is rooting for a Democratic victory.
"Arafat is waiting for November in the hope that George Bush will lose the election to John Kerry," Israel's military intelligence chief Maj.Gen. Aharon Ze'evi Farkash told a cabinet meeting just over a month ago.
Following Arafat's lead, the official Palestinian media has made no effort to hide where its sympathies lie. On July 27, the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, for example, ran a political cartoon depicting an American soldier bleeding to death in Iraq, his final words being, "Don't Vote Bush."
And then, of course, there is Iran. The mullahs, whom Bush famously labeled part of the "Axis of Evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union Address, are also panting at the prospect of a Republican defeat.
Just last week, on a visit to New Zealand, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that the US government was "looking for excuses" to act against Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
A June 17 article in the English-language Tehran Times entitled "Pity the Next US President" was even more critical, comparing Bush and his neo-conservative advisers to "neo-Nazis" who have created a "stinking heap of a mess" throughout the world. "Kerry," the paper asserts, "is exactly what the US needs right now."
That the prospect of a Kerry presidency is evoking so much enthusiasm in the terror capitals of Damascus, Ramallah and Teheran is reason enough for Americans, and especially American Jews, to think twice before supporting the Democratic candidate. Why, after all, would Arafat, Bashar Assad and the ayatollahs want to see Kerry elected if they didn't have good reason to believe he would go soft on terror?
To be fair, Kerry has sought to dispel this image, taking a slap at the Saudi royal family in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month and subsequently criticizing President Bush for not imposing tougher sanctions on the Syrian regime.
But these statements did little to dispel the notion throughout the Arab world that Kerry is "their man." As Martin Sieff, United Press International's senior news analyst, recently pointed out, no one in the Arab world "really thinks Bush will change: And that is why so many old or former friends of the United States in the Arab world are praying for his defeat."
Nonetheless, it seems, a majority of American Jews continue to lean toward Kerry, as a recent poll by the National Jewish Democratic Council is said to have found. According to the survey, an astonishing 75 percent of US Jews back the Massachusetts Senator, while just 22 percent support Bush.
With the election just two months away, now would be a good time for America, and particularly its Jews, to start thinking long and hard about the choice they face in November.
Because if the ayatollahs are banking on Kerry to win, that certainly cannot be the right way to go.
The writer served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the prime minister's office under Binyamin Netanyahu.
Michael Freund, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 31, 2004
The excitement is palpable. You can almost feel it in the air. The dictators of the Arab world just can't wait for George W. Bush to lose the US presidential election in November.
Gripped with fear as they watch Bush's democratic experiment in Iraq take shape, the tyrants and despots of the Middle East are pinning their hopes on Democratic challenger John Kerry to prevail.
After all, the last thing they want to see is a second-term Bush determined to reform the region, a development that would threaten their grip on power and stymie their efforts to obtain more lethal types of weaponry.
And so the rhetoric in the Arab world is heating up, pointing to a real desire to see the US president go down in defeat.
Take, for example, a recent article in the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly (August 12-18 issue) by Cairo University's Prof. Hassan Nafaa. Bush, he wrote, is a "wild eyed zealot" and an "evil fanatic" whose "departure from the Oval Office will mark the beginning of the decline of the forces of extremism and the rise of the forces of moderation."
A Kerry victory, Prof. Nafaa says, barely containing his glee, would mean that "US foreign policy will undergo a major shift that will ultimately impact positively on Washington's approach to the affairs of the Middle East."
In other words, a Kerry administration would be far more compliant as far as the Arabs are concerned.
An August 4 editorial in the Syria Times expressed a similar sentiment, urging Arab-Americans not to make "the very mistake they made in the past when they gave their votes to Bush the Junior" in the 2000 presidential election. Instead, suggested the government-run paper, a vote for Kerry this time would prove to be "a wise one."
Judging by their leadership, the Palestinians seem to feel the same way, with Yasser Arafat said to be among those who is rooting for a Democratic victory.
"Arafat is waiting for November in the hope that George Bush will lose the election to John Kerry," Israel's military intelligence chief Maj.Gen. Aharon Ze'evi Farkash told a cabinet meeting just over a month ago.
Following Arafat's lead, the official Palestinian media has made no effort to hide where its sympathies lie. On July 27, the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, for example, ran a political cartoon depicting an American soldier bleeding to death in Iraq, his final words being, "Don't Vote Bush."
And then, of course, there is Iran. The mullahs, whom Bush famously labeled part of the "Axis of Evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union Address, are also panting at the prospect of a Republican defeat.
Just last week, on a visit to New Zealand, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that the US government was "looking for excuses" to act against Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
A June 17 article in the English-language Tehran Times entitled "Pity the Next US President" was even more critical, comparing Bush and his neo-conservative advisers to "neo-Nazis" who have created a "stinking heap of a mess" throughout the world. "Kerry," the paper asserts, "is exactly what the US needs right now."
That the prospect of a Kerry presidency is evoking so much enthusiasm in the terror capitals of Damascus, Ramallah and Teheran is reason enough for Americans, and especially American Jews, to think twice before supporting the Democratic candidate. Why, after all, would Arafat, Bashar Assad and the ayatollahs want to see Kerry elected if they didn't have good reason to believe he would go soft on terror?
To be fair, Kerry has sought to dispel this image, taking a slap at the Saudi royal family in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month and subsequently criticizing President Bush for not imposing tougher sanctions on the Syrian regime.
But these statements did little to dispel the notion throughout the Arab world that Kerry is "their man." As Martin Sieff, United Press International's senior news analyst, recently pointed out, no one in the Arab world "really thinks Bush will change: And that is why so many old or former friends of the United States in the Arab world are praying for his defeat."
Nonetheless, it seems, a majority of American Jews continue to lean toward Kerry, as a recent poll by the National Jewish Democratic Council is said to have found. According to the survey, an astonishing 75 percent of US Jews back the Massachusetts Senator, while just 22 percent support Bush.
With the election just two months away, now would be a good time for America, and particularly its Jews, to start thinking long and hard about the choice they face in November.
Because if the ayatollahs are banking on Kerry to win, that certainly cannot be the right way to go.
The writer served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the prime minister's office under Binyamin Netanyahu.
2nd amendment reasons not to vote for Kerry
In a 20-year career, Kerry voted with gun owners only four times, and each of those votes comes with qualifications. He voted:
against a bill NRA opposed for final passage only after Kerry helped sabotage the bill by adding anti-gun amendments (S. 1805)
for a non-biding sense of the Senate motion that had no actual impact (S. 2521 in 2000)
for a study of “armor piecing” ammunition—a vote he made moot a few minutes later by voting for a broad ban of center-fire rifle ammunition (Votes 27 and 28 in 2004 on S. 1805)
to allow airline pilots to carry firearms (vote 210 in 2002 on HR 5005).
This is from the Sportsmen for Kerry group
Kerry voted in 2004 to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by target shooters and hunters. Kerry voted in support of Ted Kennedy’s amendment to S. 1805 that would have banned rifle ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor. Congress has repeatedly rejected such a “performance-based” approach.
Kerry voted in 1985 to allow BATF to conduct unlimited warrant-less inspections of FFL holders. Well-documented and shocking BATF abuses of license holders were a primary reason the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was introduced in Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. Kerry was one of only 18 Senators to vote to allow such abuses—which liberal Democrat Congressman John Dingell called the acts of “jack-booted fascists”—to continue.
In 1993 Kerry was one of 30 Senators who supported an amendment to H.R. 2403 that would have increased the fee for a FFL by more than 37 times. The result of this amendment would have been to force many small or part-time firearms dealers out of business. This would have had a significant impact on both the availability and price of firearms particularly in rural areas of the nation.
Kerry voted in 1999 against an amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill that called for increased mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for the illegal transfer or use of a firearm. Instead of supporting this legislation that focused its impact on criminals, Kerry supported broad regulation of law-abiding gun buyers.
In contrast, the year before Kerry voted to impose excessive penalties of a year in prison and a $10,000 fine on an adult if a juvenile gains access to their firearm, even by theft, and then merely displays it in a public place.
and of course, from an unlikely source i find a real good refutation of the Anti-Second amendment position
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard," said Dershowitz, "don't see the danger of the big picture." He added, "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
Alan Dershowitz
against a bill NRA opposed for final passage only after Kerry helped sabotage the bill by adding anti-gun amendments (S. 1805)
for a non-biding sense of the Senate motion that had no actual impact (S. 2521 in 2000)
for a study of “armor piecing” ammunition—a vote he made moot a few minutes later by voting for a broad ban of center-fire rifle ammunition (Votes 27 and 28 in 2004 on S. 1805)
to allow airline pilots to carry firearms (vote 210 in 2002 on HR 5005).
This is from the Sportsmen for Kerry group
Kerry voted in 2004 to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by target shooters and hunters. Kerry voted in support of Ted Kennedy’s amendment to S. 1805 that would have banned rifle ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor. Congress has repeatedly rejected such a “performance-based” approach.
Kerry voted in 1985 to allow BATF to conduct unlimited warrant-less inspections of FFL holders. Well-documented and shocking BATF abuses of license holders were a primary reason the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was introduced in Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. Kerry was one of only 18 Senators to vote to allow such abuses—which liberal Democrat Congressman John Dingell called the acts of “jack-booted fascists”—to continue.
In 1993 Kerry was one of 30 Senators who supported an amendment to H.R. 2403 that would have increased the fee for a FFL by more than 37 times. The result of this amendment would have been to force many small or part-time firearms dealers out of business. This would have had a significant impact on both the availability and price of firearms particularly in rural areas of the nation.
Kerry voted in 1999 against an amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill that called for increased mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for the illegal transfer or use of a firearm. Instead of supporting this legislation that focused its impact on criminals, Kerry supported broad regulation of law-abiding gun buyers.
In contrast, the year before Kerry voted to impose excessive penalties of a year in prison and a $10,000 fine on an adult if a juvenile gains access to their firearm, even by theft, and then merely displays it in a public place.
and of course, from an unlikely source i find a real good refutation of the Anti-Second amendment position
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard," said Dershowitz, "don't see the danger of the big picture." He added, "They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
Alan Dershowitz
Kerry: Rewriting history
Its not Just enough for Kerry's offical campaign historian to make up his bio,
It isn't just enough for him to "find" in the Kerry archives excuses to cover for lapses in the story,
It isn't enough for John Kerry to use him as a scape goat as to why he won't turn over records ( a charge Brinkley says is false),
He now seems to have used evidence in hand of Kerry conflicting with the "offical" record of events from one of his medal controversys.... and used parts of it for other aspects of the book.
the story Kerry tells now is different then the eulogy, and slightly different then the offical history
yet anyone who disagrees with his view of history ( right now) is a Liar; part of the fear and smear campaign
this again points out a pattern of behavior in John Kerry, something you can see back 30+ years ago but continuing today.
He discredits and demonizes those who oppose him
he bullies and threatens people who could make him look bad.
Is this what we want as our president?
It isn't just enough for him to "find" in the Kerry archives excuses to cover for lapses in the story,
It isn't enough for John Kerry to use him as a scape goat as to why he won't turn over records ( a charge Brinkley says is false),
He now seems to have used evidence in hand of Kerry conflicting with the "offical" record of events from one of his medal controversys.... and used parts of it for other aspects of the book.
the story Kerry tells now is different then the eulogy, and slightly different then the offical history
yet anyone who disagrees with his view of history ( right now) is a Liar; part of the fear and smear campaign
this again points out a pattern of behavior in John Kerry, something you can see back 30+ years ago but continuing today.
He discredits and demonizes those who oppose him
he bullies and threatens people who could make him look bad.
Is this what we want as our president?
Things that did not need to be invented
"Dave.... I am sorry Dave i can't let you use me after Chili night...."
Wow, what a absolutely horrible idea
Wow, what a absolutely horrible idea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
