 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JB Stone
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:53 pm Post subject: John Effing Kerry, the USEFUL IDIOT.... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
John Kerry, Useful Idiot - By Mark Alexander, Sept. 24th, 2004
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison
Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.
Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.
FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which the Left often cites as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.
English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."
More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."
Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Why? Perhaps it's because these men inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office. Indeed, while Kerry's handlers might try to cast their candidate as a man of the people, he is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim. Yes, John Kerry is the latest in a line of "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance. Is it any wonder, then, that the character and values of these inheritance-welfare liberals are all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare?
Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift.
Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals, chief among them John Kerry, still dominate the Democrat Party and continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund). V.I. Lenin knew precisely what he was talking about when he famously dubbed Western Leftists "useful idiots."
As this Election Day approaches, we're left to wonder whether America has learned its lessons, or whether our great nation is still under the spell of its useful idiots. Here in our humble shop, we hope that an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.
Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot |
MORE AVAILABLE HERE:
http://FederalistPatriot.com
These are the Originators of the "Indict Kerry" petition
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Father Knows WORST...????
As early as prep school, John Kerry showed signs that he shared his father's suspicions about America's cold war foreign policy. In a debate at St. Paul's in the late '50s, he argued that the United States should establish relations with Red China. During his junior year at Yale, he won a speech prize for an oration warning, "It is the specter of Western Imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism, and thus it is self-defeating." And, when he was tapped to deliver a graduation speech in 1966, he used the occasion to condemn U.S. involvement in Vietnam, intoning, "What was an excess of isolationism has become an excess of interventionism."
| Quote: | Kerry's World: Father Knows Best
(The New Republic) This column from The New Republic was written by Franklin Foer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/02/opinion/main603542.shtml
By the time John Kerry's father, Richard, published his only book, The Star-Spangled Mirror, in 1990, he should have been a mellow man. Nearly 30 years had passed since his retirement from the Foreign Service, where he'd filled mid-level posts in Washington, Berlin, and Oslo. His central issue, the cold war, had followed him into retirement with the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and rise of glasnost in Russia. When the 75-year-old Kerry wasn't working on his book, he could be found building model ships and sailing off Cape Cod. If he had any reasons for professional bitterness, they should have long since faded.
None of these facts, however, becalmed him. His book has a young man's brash, polemical tone. The Star-Spangled Mirror is a critique of moralism in America's foreign policy -- and, more than that, it is a critique of America's national character.
"Americans," he writes, "are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white." They celebrate their own form of government and denigrate all others, making them guilty of what he calls "ethnocentric accommodation -- everyone ought to be like us." As a result, America has committed the "fatal error" of "propagating democracy" and fallen prey to "the siren's song of promoting human rights," falsely assuming that our values and institutions are a good fit in the Third World. And, just as Americans exaggerate their own goodness, they exaggerate their enemies' badness. The Soviet Union wasn't nearly as imperialistic as American politicians warned, Kerry argues. "Seeing the Soviet Union as the aggressor in every instance, and the U.S. as only reacting defensively, relieves an American observer from the need to see any parallel between our use of military power in distant parts of the world, and the Soviet use of military power outside the Soviet Union," he writes. He further claims that "Third world Marxist movements were autonomous national movements" -- outside Moscow's orbit. The book culminates in a plea for a hardheaded, realist foreign policy that removes any pretense of U.S. moral superiority.
Despite its blunt arguments, The Star-Spangled Mirror received little attention. Foreign Affairs greeted it with a 90-word summation in its review section. But the work of Richard Kerry, who passed away in 2000, will soon experience posthumous reconsideration. It won't be because of the renewed relevance of his arguments (although his book does read like a contemporary brief against neoconservatism). It will be because his son is a leading candidate to run U.S. foreign policy.
According to the conventional telling of John Kerry's biography, largely told by Kerry himself, his foreign policy views were forged in the Mekong Delta. During his disillusioning four-month combat stint on a Navy Swift Boat, the limits of U.S. power were revealed to him. As Newsweek argued in a cover story last month, "Kerry's policy views, as well as his politics, were profoundly shaped by the war." But, for all the neatness this narrative provides, it overlooks an entire chapter in Kerry's intellectual history: his childhood. In fact, Kerry's foreign policy worldview, characterized by a steadfast belief in international institutions and a suspicion of U.S. hard power, had fallen into place long before he ever enlisted. As Kerry's biographer, the historian Douglas Brinkley, told me, "So much of his foreign policy worldview comes straight from Richard Kerry."
Richard Kerry's father, a Czech Jew, fled Europe. The son, by contrast, embraced it. As a law student at Harvard in the late '30s, he read continental philosophers like Kierkegaard and histories about Bismarck and Metternich; he traveled to France, where he took sculpture classes and met his wife. Hoping to parlay his love of Europe into a career, he chose international law as his law school specialty. After World War II, which he spent in the Army Air Corps testing new airplanes at high altitudes, he moved his family to Washington to take a spot in the Department of the Navy's Office of General Counsel, hoping that his proximity to the State Department might help him land a job there.
Two years into his Washington stint, Kerry's relocation paid off. The State Department's Bureau of United Nations Affairs hired him to help work through the thicket created by America's adherence to a new set of postwar international agreements. According to Brinkley, the cosmopolitan Kerry was a true believer in the United Nations and the postwar promise of global government.
But, as much as he believed in the United Nations, it was not his prime passion. A devoted Europeanist, Kerry was more preoccupied with the devastation of Europe and the monumental task of reconstructing it -- a romantic project that enticed a generation of young diplomats, including George Kennan and George Ball. The appeal of the task wasn't just the economic and physical rebuilding of the continent. Kerry and others like him viewed themselves as building a new political order for the continent, a new method for arranging international affairs that would consign war to the dustbin of history. In the early '50s, Kerry became an enthusiast for NATO and the nascent efforts at creating a unified Europe.
In 1954, Kerry received an assignment that put him at ground zero of the cold war. He moved to Berlin to advise former Harvard President James B. Conant, whom Dwight D. Eisenhower had charged with overseeing the rehabilitation of West Germany. Once again, Kerry's job consigned him primarily to lawyerly work. His chief task was to devise answers to the questions created by Berlin's confused status. Martha Mautner, a political officer who served with Kerry in Germany, told me, "There were so many questions about the status of Berlin that the lawyers had to handle. There were Four Powers [the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union] running the city. What was its relationship to the Federal Republic?" But Kerry's interests extended far beyond these matters. During his tenure in Europe, he attended conferences in Paris, London, and The Hague, where he discussed with other mid-level diplomats the future of the transatlantic alliance and the possibilities of a new continental order. According to Brinkley, through these conferences, Kerry established relationships with a group of like-minded government officials, including the famed French planning commissioner (and intellectual architect of the European Union) Jean Monnet.
These conferences reinforced Kerry's belief that the preservation of the Atlantic alliance and the creation of a new Europe should be the overriding priorities of U.S. foreign policy. But the reality of U.S. policy was far different. For most of the Eisenhower administration, America's prime objective was containing communism. And, unlike the administration he served, Kerry believed that cooperation and diplomacy, rather than militarism, should resolve these tensions. In The Star-Spangled Mirror, he condemns the United States for "lecturing" European allies about the horrors of communism and accuses it of "bad manners" and "spoiled behavior." He writes, "At times we expected the allies unquestioningly to follow our leads; sometimes we failed to consult them in advance before reversing policies; at other times we ignored their requests."
Even at the time, Kerry wasn't quiet about his disagreement with the hard-line anti-communists. Although he had initially viewed Secretary of State John Foster Dulles as a kindred spirit and cultivated a relationship with him, Kerry felt uncomfortable with his rhetoric about "godless communism." (In his book, Kerry spends several pages arguing against Dulles's "intensely moralistic outlook.") According to Brinkley, Kerry bluntly told Dulles the shortcomings of his increasingly hawkish approach, undermining their relationship in the process. This was typical behavior for Kerry, who had a growing reputation for outspokenness. John Kerry's friend and former aide Jonathan Winer says, "[Richard Kerry] was a dissident in a time of conformity."
For all his impolitic instincts, Kerry's undeniable competence kept propelling his career forward. Following his posting in Berlin, he served as top aide to Georgia Democrat Walter George, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And, in 1958, he took what would be his highest posting in the Foreign Service, as Oslo's chief political officer, where he played a vital role in opening Norway to American spies and weapons. But his competence could get him only so far -- which is to say, it couldn't overcome his maverick reputation and win him a coveted ambassadorship. By the Kennedy administration, Brinkley says, Kerry sensed he had hit a ceiling in the Foreign Service. Kerry told his family, "They seem not to listen to what I have to say, so I'm going to quit." Brinkley adds, "He saw his role as becoming a protester, criticizing the government from the outside in lectures and his book."
Richard Kerry, whose own father committed suicide, was not a very effusive parent. When his twelve-year-old son John lay quarantined with scarlet fever at his Swiss boarding school, Richard Kerry didn't make the trip from Berlin to visit him. But there was at least one subject that fostered easy conversation between the two: foreign policy. "It allowed them to break through an emotional wall," says Brinkley. "They talked about foreign policy the way most fathers and sons talk about football." Well into his Senate career, John Kerry would phone his father to ask his opinion about international issues ranging from arms control to Central America. Watching the conversations, Winer says, "I saw two people talking about policy very seriously with unexpressed affection."
From the start, Richard Kerry turned his oldest son into his foreign policy protιgι. As Newsweek's Evan Thomas has written, "The Kerry dinner table was a nightly foreign-policy seminar. While other boys were eating TV dinners in front of the tube, [John] Kerry was discussing George Kennan's doctrine of containment." His father introduced the adolescent boy to such luminaries as Monnet and West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Later, when he was at Yale, John Kerry traded letters with Clementine Churchill, Winston's wife.
As early as prep school, John Kerry showed signs that he shared his father's suspicions about America's cold war foreign policy. In a debate at St. Paul's in the late '50s, he argued that the United States should establish relations with Red China. During his junior year at Yale, he won a speech prize for an oration warning, "It is the specter of Western Imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism, and thus it is self-defeating." And, when he was tapped to deliver a graduation speech in 1966, he used the occasion to condemn U.S. involvement in Vietnam, intoning, "What was an excess of isolationism has become an excess of interventionism."
If Richard and John Kerry were not in perfect political sync, it was because the father, in an inversion of the usual dynamic, was more radical than the son. John Kerry, for instance, had grown enthusiastic about John F. Kennedy and his robust, anti-communist foreign policy. Indeed, it was his fervor for Kennedy's "bear any burden" call to service that largely inspired Kerry to join the Navy. Richard Kerry, by contrast, was more skeptical about New Frontier idealism. In a 1996 interview with The Boston Globe, he groused, "[John's] attitude was gung ho: had to show the flag. He was quite immature in that direction." When John Kerry came back from Vietnam, his father pushed him to be more outspoken in his opposition to the war. "When Kerry refused to speak out against the government [while in uniform], suddenly his father felt like he was being a wimp," says Brinkley. "[So he] encouraged his son to take off the uniform and to become a critic."
John Kerry, of course, did exactly this, first in Vietnam Veterans Against the War and eventually in the U.S. Senate. From the moment he arrived in Washington, Kerry promised that "issues of war and peace" would remain his passion. And, from the start, this meant that he would criticize Ronald Reagan's war against communism, especially when it was fought through proxies in the jungles of Central America. In 1985, he traveled to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandanista government, telling The Washington Post, "I see an enormous haughtiness in the United States trying to tell [the Sandinistas] what to do." Soon after his return, he pressured Congress into investigating the administration's illegal funding of the Contra rebels, opening a trail that culminated in the exposure of the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. And, a few years later, in the late '80s, he repeated this success, launching an investigation that revealed that another of the administration's favorite anti-communists, the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, had been deeply enmeshed in drug-trafficking. Kerry was also skeptical enough of U.S. power that he voted against authorizing a popular intervention -- the Gulf war -- and opposed a 1995 resolution that would have allowed the arming of Bosnians.
There are differences, to be sure, between Richard and John Kerry. Over the course of his political career, John Kerry has occasionally endorsed the use of force, as in the cases of Panama and Kosovo, and he has always found a rhetorical place for morality in his foreign policy pronouncements. But, more often than not, even as John Kerry stumps for president, the similarities shine through. Last month, for example, Kerry charged that the administration's "high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate-change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point." It should be no surprise to hear John Kerry worry about European allies and to strike such liberal internationalist notes. These ideas aren't just deeply felt; they're in his blood.
Franklin Foer is associate editor at TNR. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 
Let's SEE....If I were King of the Forrrrrreeeessssttttttt........  |
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Too bad the Wizard couldn't give him a CONSCIENCE...!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sometimes you gotta WONDER if ANYTHING goes through this guy's mind at ALL....????
| Quote: | 
"99 Purply Hearts on the wall.....99 Purply Hearts....You take one down and throw it around.....98 Purply Hearts....."
|
I guess we'll NEVER know....!!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gocars
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 101
Location: El Paso, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think some enterprising company should come out with a urinal anti-splash pad that has a likeness of Kerry's stupid face on it. Nowdays I'm spending a little more time in front of the porcelain and it sure would be great to dribble on someone I despise so much!
gocars
101st Airborne
'Nam 67-70
U.S. Army Rangers Lead the Way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lthrneck
Lieutenant
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I finally got my dog trained properly...
_________________
"Old Breed, New Breed, There's not a DAMM bit of
difference so long as it's the MARINE Breed"
- Lt. Gen Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Semper fi
uuurah
Carry On!!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I finally got my dog trained properly... |
I am TOTALLY shocked, dismayed, and disappointed in YOU....!!!
How could you POST such a thing....????
The LEAST you could do is:
A. Get a taller dog.
B. Knock the sign over for him
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lthrneck
Lieutenant
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
yea, just wait till you see what he does to the Whitehouse if Kerry get's elected.
_________________
"Old Breed, New Breed, There's not a DAMM bit of
difference so long as it's the MARINE Breed"
- Lt. Gen Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Semper fi
uuurah
Carry On!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Questioning Kerry's patriotism
Posted: October 29, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
It's time to stop pussyfooting around with John Kerry.
This guy is a malapropism away from the presidency.
And what we learned about his character this week needs to be shouted from the housetops across America because it doesn't appear my colleagues in the press are willing to share the information with the public.
Documents prepared by the Communist North Vietnamese government in 1971, and later captured by U.S. forces, show unmistakably that Kerry was operating under the direction of the enemy. He was being steered by Hanoi. He was being coached by the Viet Cong. And he was taking this direction, this steering and this coaching willingly.
In case you missed it, you can find all the gory details in a report in WorldNetDaily earlier this week. It's fascinating reading. But it is more than that 72 hours before Americans decide who is going to be the next president.
Think of what I am saying: A man who came to prominence and notoriety in American life, and who is now on the threshold of winning the White House, was actively aiding and abetting the enemy just 33 years ago. He was a tool. He was an agent. He was working for the other side.
That's why I say it is time to stop playing rhetorical games with respect to Kerry.
There is only one word in the English language that adequately describes what he was in 1971 and what he remains today for capitalizing on the evil he perpetrated back then. That word is "traitor."
Apparently there is some unwritten code of dishonor among my colleagues that restricts them from speaking so plainly. They don't want to be accused of "questioning Kerry's patriotism." In my mind, there is nothing to question. The man hates America. There is simply no other explanation for what he did then and continues to do today.
Recently, the most decorated living American soldier, Col. George "Bud" Day, compared Kerry to Benedict Arnold. There is only one difference between Kerry and Benedict Arnold. The latter was a genuine war hero by all accounts a brave fighting man who became a turncoat. Kerry was, at best, an undistinguished soldier, a malcontent, who groped for medals by writing his own after-action reports, hyped his own self-inflicted wounds, left action after four months in the field and then openly joined the enemy.
He became, arguably, the most important human asset in the public relations arsenal of the Vietnamese Communists.
Kerry knew and the Vietnamese knew that American military forces could never be defeated on the battlefields of Southeast Asia. So they set out to defeat them in the world of politics and public opinion. They set out to destroy America's will to fight. They set out to undermine America's morale and self-confidence.
And it worked. It worked brilliantly so brilliantly that Kerry was rewarded for his treacherous behavior with a successful political career.
But now the truth is out there for all to see. The smoking-gun documents produced by Kerry's own friends and allies in Hanoi have betrayed him. All that remains left for Americans is to recognize what those documents mean.
They mean the man so close to becoming commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States is the man who betrayed those forces in 1971 the man who betrayed his comrades in arms, the man who betrayed his country.
It's time to call a spade a spade. Kerry is a traitor. What he did was treason. Period. End of story.
If what he did in 1971 knowingly cooperating with the enemy, traveling to Paris to meet with its agents at least twice, taking instructions from them on what to do to undermine the U.S. cause in Vietnam was not treason, then we might as well throw the word out of the English language. If we can't use it in this case, we simply can't use the word any more.
America's mistake was not locking this guy up in the stockades in 1971 and throwing away the key. Now, we as a nation, are on the verge of paying the price.
May God open America's eyes next Tuesday. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bump....never mind....didn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Kerry's non-honorable discharge
Exclusive: Earl Lively makes solid case senator left Navy under a cloud
Posted: October 31, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Earl Lively
© 2004
There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge without the felony conviction and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!
Kerry's oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent researcher, Thomas Lipscomb, saw through the scam and exposed it in a New York Sun story on October 13. Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.
SPONSORED LINKS
The New York Times Home Delivery
Your exclusive source for the most current political, national and international news, including Campaign 2004. Now have The New York Times delivered to your home starting at just $2.40/wk.
www.nytimes.com/sb-subscription
Give Bush the Boot
Help take back America! Donate $50 to MoveOn PAC. With your support, MoveOn PAC will undertake a groundbreaking, precinct-level, neighbor-to-neighbor campaign to leave no voter behind.
www.moveonpac.org
What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the document) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry's six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge under less-than-honorable conditions, as unfit for military service.
I was a colonel assigned as Director of Operations of Headquarters, Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush was a lieutenant in the Air Guard. Since 1999, I have been besieged by the media, from the London Guardian to CBS's Sixty Minutes, NBC, the Boston Globe, and others, with allegations and questions about Lt. Bush's service in and discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and USAF. I recently appeared on Fox & Friends twice to shoot down CBS's phony memos about Lt. Bush and allegations about his discharge. In the interest of fairness and equal time, it is time scrutiny of John Kerry's discharge(s) is demanded.
The Navy is stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch for the rest of Kerry's records not surprising, because ever since the Tailhook flap, the Navy has had a P.C. virus. Feminist Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) figuratively castrated the Navy's top brass, and the Navy cringed from political correctness. Pressure and morale at the top was so low that the Chief of Naval Operations committed suicide. The Navy doesn't want to admit it succumbed to political pressure to restore honors stripped from a discredited turncoat. In hiding the truth, the Navy Department dishonors even the lowest-ranking sailor who ever swabbed a deck.
Senator Kerry has said that his medal certificates were reissued because he lost them (and his dog ate his homework, I suppose). Rewards are certified in one's permanent personnel record jacket. If you lose a medal, you can get a replacement medal if your records show the award. The only way awards would have to be reissued is if they were rescinded and deleted from your records. And this narrows the possibilities down to a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge. As Mr. Lipscomb noted, "There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged.
(W)hen a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued." Military sources tell me that an undesirable discharge under other-than-honorable conditions would also result in a loss of benefits and awards. Kerry could have received a dishonorable discharge, but that would have required a court martial and a felony conviction that might be harder to conceal, so the undesirable discharge is more likely.
The experience of my thirty-plus years in the Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Air National Guard tells me that the late-issued honorable discharge was obviously a cover-up whitewash. Ditto for the re-issuance of Kerry's medals shortly after he became a member of the "ol' boys club" in the Senate.
One of the top dogs in that club, Sen. John Warner, has amnesia about "any representation" about Kerry receiving a less than honorable discharge, even though he was Nixon's Secretary of the Navy when Kerry delivered his diatribe against the Navy and other services in the Senate in April, 1971. In May of 1970, Kerry conferred with the Viet Cong in Paris, and in July of 1971, he demonstrated in Washington to sell their peace proposal while he was in the Naval Reserve. This variety of amnesia is common among Republicans asked to stand up and testify to Democrat crimes and injustices (see the GOP Senators' "support" of the House impeachment prosecutors).
The Nixon/Ford presidency gave way to Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1977, which tends to explain the six-year delay in getting the revised discharge. Mr. Lipscomb adds some insight:
"Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge."
A document on Kerry's website is a form letter from W. Graham Claytor, Carter's Secretary of the Navy, which grants his Honorable Discharge.
Secretary Claytor's letter says that this action to award an Honorable Discharge Certificate is taken in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163, which deal with grounds for involuntary separation of a reserve officer and provide for the action of "a board of officers" to examine an officer's records and review previous actions. Obviously, this was the aforementioned board for appeal resulting from President Carter's executive order. Unless Lt. Kerry had previously received an undesirable discharge, he had nothing to appeal and would not have come before this board.
When he became a Senator in 1985, his clout as a senator got his medals back, even though Reagan was president, but the restoration of the medals was one more piece of evidence, as Mr. Lipscomb noted, that Kerry's previous discharge was not honorable.
A man who evidently has been found unfit for military service could become Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It is time for the facts hidden in his records to be disclosed.
Earl Lively is a former colonel who was assigned as Director of Operations of Headquarters, Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush was a lieutenant in the Air Guard. |
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41200 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
October 31, 2004, 12:42 p.m.
John Kerrys Other Vietnam War
Why would we trust this man to be our president?
By Stephen Morris
John Kerry has fought this election campaign as a political moderate. Certainly his main foreign-policy advisers are moderate Democrats. But that campaign posture disguises his 34-year record in public life which produced no legislative achievement, but featured a well-documented obsession with Vietnam and Cambodia that continues to the present day. Kerry made his four and a half months of service in Vietnam an electoral issue, but it's his 34 years of political activism on Vietnam and Cambodia that go to the heart of his political outlook and character.
In 1970, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy, Kerry undertook his own private meetings with the Vietnamese Communist delegations in Paris. He joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical-Left organization viewed favorably by Hanoi, membership of which was less than one half of one percent of the 2.8 million Americans who served in Vietnam.
Kerry is remembered and reviled by many veterans for his 1971 speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he accused American soldiers of committing widespread atrocities and war crimes. He specifically asserted that U.S. soldiers were not only carrying out the cruelest tortures, with full knowledge of their commanders at the highest level, but were also "murdering" 200,000 Vietnamese each year. Many of Kerry's sources the witnesses at the Winter Soldier Investigation paid for by Jane Fonda were later exposed as frauds who had never served in Vietnam. Kerry's blanket libel of American troops was in stark contrast with his silence over the well-documented record of atrocities by the Communists, which were a matter of policy.
But what has been largely overlooked in Kerry's 1971 speech is that he also supported the Vietnamese Communist cause, mouthing every plank of their political platform as his own. He not only favored immediate unconditional withdrawal of American troops, and creation of a coalition government. He also denounced the then elected government of South Vietnam, where political opposition thrived, as the "Thieu-Ky-Khiem dictatorship." By contrast he referred to the North Vietnamese Communist dictatorship by its Orwellian official title of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and to Hanoi's southern apparatus as "the Provisional Government."
Were Kerry's extremist views merely the misadventures of a war-embittered youth? Hardly.
When Kerry joined the Senate in 1985 one of his early appointments as legislative assistant on foreign affairs was Gareth Porter an academic with a long record of denying any evidence of major Communist atrocities in Indochina. Porter's 1976 book, Cambodia. Starvation and Revolution, denied that the Khmer Rouge holocaust was taking place. Of course Kerry himself had been conspicuously silent on postwar Khmer Rouge atrocities while they were happening.
Kerry continued to support some of Hanoi's foreign-policy interests in the Senate, even at the expense of his often-stated preference for the U.N. In 1990, in a rare act of post-Cold War political unity, the U.N. Security Council approved a plan to end the war in Cambodia with a U.N. Temporary Administration of Cambodia to organize elections. Yet Kerry opposed it. Instead, he wanted the Vietnamese-installed ex-Khmer Rouge Hun Sen to organize elections.
Kerry has been claiming credit for solving the problem of American POWs missing in Vietnam. This is false. Kerry had been determined for years to normalize relations with the government of Vietnam ending trade sanctions and opening up diplomatic relations. The demands of families of Americans missing in action, that Hanoi account for the fate of their loved ones who were known to have been alive when captured, but who never returned, had for years prevented U.S. moves to normalization. So in 1992 Kerry chaired the Senate Select Committee on POWs and Missing in Action from the Vietnam War. Kerry set the bar very low: Instead of focusing on what the Communists could do to explain what had happened to their American prisoners, Kerry focused on whether there was evidence of any Americans still alive in Indochina. Lacking sufficient intelligence from U.S. intelligence services, Kerry and his committee members decided to travel to Vietnam, ostensibly to see for themselves if any Americans were being hidden in various places where live sightings were alleged. The Vietnamese Communists were asked to make sites accessible. So the American media were invited to join the intrepid senators, traveling the Vietnamese countryside looking for American prisoners. This political theater would have been comic had it not been so pathetic. Why, if the Vietnamese government were secretly holding American prisoners, would it allow them to be discovered by visiting senators? Over the years, when foreign visitors, including humanitarian organizations, inspected their political prisons, the Vietnamese Communists would always empty the cells of emaciated Vietnamese prisoners and fill them with healthy, happy prison guards in disguise. Naturally, on this occasion the Vietnamese played along. No live Americans were found. In December 1992 the Senate Committee concluded that there was no evidence of Americans still living in Indochina. The path to normalization seemed clear until one stumbling block suddenly appeared.
In the winter of 1992-93, while a fellow at Harvard University, I was researching the history of the Vietnam War in recently opened Soviet Communist Party archives in Moscow. By chance I discovered a secret Soviet military-intelligence document concerning American POWs once held in North Vietnam. The Russian-language document asserted that in September 1972 hundreds more American POWs than Hanoi had admitted to holding were being secretly held in North Vietnam. If true, this meant that hundreds of living American prisoners were never released at war's end. In February 1993 I contacted the Clinton administration, and met Deputy NSC Adviser Sandy Berger in Washington about this. In April I provided the document to the New York Times. The front-page Times story created enormous media and public interest. Senator Kerry appeared on ABC's Nightline with me to discuss the issue. But he was skeptical then and showed no further interest until his public disparagement of the document's contents caused me to criticize him in the Boston media. Then Kerry suddenly took an interest, and phoned me, asking me to meet him in his Boston office on the weekend. There I told him, as I had told Sandy Berger in February, that this document was the tip of an iceberg. The ultimate fate of those missing Americans could be determined not from this document, but from other secret documents in other parts of the Russian archives to which I had not been given access. President Boris Yeltsin, eager for American assistance at the time, could give the U.S. access. I offered Kerry, as I had Berger, to help them in any way. Kerry said he would pursue the matter. But I never heard from him on this matter again. Kerry, it seems, only wanted to silence the source of a politically inconvenient controversy, which was impeding his political priority of normalization not determine conclusively the fate of hundreds of missing American heroes.
Ties with Vietnam were eventually normalized. And Kerry's support for the dictatorial regime his apparent indifference to human rights in Indochina continues to this day. Ever since the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in 2001 for Vietnam human-rights efforts, Kerry has bottled up this bill in his Senate committee, preventing it from reaching the floor for a vote.
He has treated Cambodia with the same disdain. The non-Communists, whom the U.S. government had been aiding during the 1980s (in the face of Kerry's rabid opposition), won the 1993 U.N.-sponsored elections. But the Vietnamese-installed Communist ruler, Hun Sen, whose forces the U.N. had failed to disarm, refused to accept the result, and demanded a share of power. The Clinton administration and the U.N. caved in to his threats. Still not satisfied, in 1997 Hun Sen launched a bloody coup d'ιtat to seize total power. Democratic opponents of the Communists were tortured to death in the most grisly manner. Yet Kerry still embraced the former Khmer Rouge commissar as Cambodia's legitimate ruler. Kerry's staff even blocked Sam Rainsy, the leader of Cambodia's terrorized democratic opposition, from testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Is this the kind of person that the American people would want to have making judgments about the direction of U.S. foreign policy? How could he be relied upon to make wise judgments about dealing with North Korea a nation in the process of acquiring a nuclear arsenal? North Korea is a totalitarian state that is related to the kinds of regimes with which John Kerry has shown such affinity over the years. North Korea's nuclear arsenal poses an immediate threat to Japan and South Korea, and it will soon have missile delivery systems capable of striking Los Angeles and San Francisco. And should the erratic tyrant Kim Jong-Il choose to proliferate nuclear weapons the way he has proliferated missiles, he could provide al Qaeda with the ability to devastate major American cities.
John Kerry's sympathy for totalitarian states in the past has resulted in the slander of millions of American Vietnam veterans, not to mention the betrayal of hundreds of missing American POWs. If he is elected president, in dealing with more powerful and dangerous totalitarian enemies like North Korea, his flawed judgment and values could have devastating consequences for all the people of America, and the world.
Stephen J. Morris is a fellow at John Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morris200410311242.asp
| Quote: | John Kerry has fought this election campaign as a political moderate. Certainly his main foreign-policy advisers are moderate Democrats. But that campaign posture disguises his 34-year record in public life which produced no legislative achievement, but featured a well-documented obsession with Vietnam and Cambodia that continues to the present day. Kerry made his four and a half months of service in Vietnam an electoral issue, but it's his 34 years of political activism on Vietnam and Cambodia that go to the heart of his political outlook and character.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB Stone
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Late breaking endorsement.....!!!!
| Quote: |
Infamous fugitive Osama bin Laden made what analysts call a "very high risk" move yesterday, sending a new video to the Al Jazeera television station beseeching followers to support John Kerry for U.S. President.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
