Over the Waves Archives
Updated 10/31/04
As always there is a massive amount of great
stuff here, so read on please! Thanks Kahuna! DebV
Kahuna’s Update
There are those of you who feel that my
thoughts concerning "SMOKE AND MIRRORS" Kerry and his Socialist
Communistic rhetoric, have a number of you looking at me quizzically. What you
ask? An American presidential candidate having socialist Communist views? Yes,
I say he indulges in such subterfuge that masks the foundation of his policies
with claims of helping the lower classes at the expense of the richest. What do
you call that? I find it quite easy to spot wealth redistribution! Thank you,
we must continue to inform the uninformed.
What a man!!!! Below is the text of an important speech given earlier today by
the President in New Jersey -- yes, New Jersey (keep an eye on that state). It
ranks among the most powerful speeches the President has given this year. It
outlines the President's four commitments to winning the war on terrorism:
protecting the homeland; staying on the offense against the enemy overseas;
working with allies and leading the world with clarity; and advancing the cause
of freedom and democracy. It also demonstrates, in vivid detail, why John
Forbes Kerry is not up to the task of facing the challenge of our time. The
President bases his judgment on Senator Kerry's 20-year Senate record and his
liberal cast of mind - both of which are indisputable. The contrast between the
President's record and the record of Senator Kerry is striking.
It's also worth noting that in the last two weeks of this election, the
President continues to make substantively important and carefully argued
speeches. But see for yourself.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Evesham Recreation Center
Marlton, New Jersey
October 18, 2004
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thanks for coming. Thanks for the warm welcome.
It is great to be back in the state of New Jersey. Oh, I know it might surprise some to see a Republican
presidential candidate in New Jersey in late October. The reason why I'm here,
with your help we'll carry the state of New Jersey in November.
We are now 15 days away from a critical election. Many important domestic
issues are at stake. I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job creation,
broader health coverage and better public education. Yet all the progress we hope to make depends on the security of
our nation. America is in the middle of a global war on terror, a struggle
unlike any we have ever known before. We face an enemy that is determined to
kill the innocent and make our country into a battlefield. In the war on
terror, there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory. For the
sake of our future and our freedom, we will fight this war with every asset of
our national power, and we will prevail.
During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.
Yet, beneath that surface were currents of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. In 1993,
terrorists made their first attack on the World Trade Center. In 1998,
terrorists bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And then came the
attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of 17 American sailors. In
this period, America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and
symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans
became more ambitious, and their attacks became more deadly.
Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something
that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the time that my
opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we
didn't know it. A time when some thought terrorism was only a
"nuisance." But that very attitude is what blinded America to the war
being waged against us. And by not seeing the war, our government had no
comprehensive strategy to fight it.
September the 11th, 2001 changed all that. We realized that the apparent
security of the 1990s was an illusion. The people of New Jersey were among the
first to understand how the world changed. On September the 11th, from places
like Hoboken and Jersey City, you could look across the Hudson River and see
the Twin Towers burning. We will never forget that day, and we will never
forget our duty to defend America.
Out of the horror of that day we also saw good emerge. America has seen a new
generation of heroes -- police, firefighters, members of the military.
Americans have felt a new sense of community in neighborhoods and across our
country. We've been reminded that all of us are a part of a great American
story that is larger than our
individual lives. And we have been reminded of our solemn responsibility to
defend freedom.
September the 11th also changed the way we should look at national security.
But not everyone realizes it. The choice we face in this election, the first
presidential election since September the 11th, is how our nation will defeat
this threat. Will we stay on the offensive against those who want to attack us
--or will we take action only after we are attacked? Will we make decisions in
the light of September the 11th, or continue to live in the mirage of safety
that was actually a time of gathering threats? And in this time of choosing, I
want all Americans to know you can count on me to fight our enemies and defend
our freedom.
Winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words repeated in
the election season. America needs clear, moral purpose and leaders who will
not waver, especially in the tough times. And winning the war on terror
requires a strategy for victory. Unlike my opponent, I understand the struggle
America faces and I have a strategy to win.
Our first duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland. This morning at
the White House, I signed a strong law that will make our nation more secure.
With the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we are providing essential
funding for Coast Guard patrols and port security, for the Federal Air Marshal
program, and for technology that will defend aircraft against missiles. We're
adding new resources to patrol our borders and to verify the identity of foreign
visitors to America. We need to know who's coming in and out of our country.
The new law includes vital money for first responders, and for better security
of chemical facilities and nuclear plants and water treatment plants and
bridges and subways and tunnels. All these measures show the unwavering
commitment of our government. We will do everything in our power to protect the
American people.
The law I signed today is part of a broad effort to defend America against new
dangers. After September the 11th we created the Department of Homeland
Security to make sure our government agencies are working together. We're
transforming the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorism.
Through Project BioShield, we are developing new vaccines and treatments
against biological attacks. We've trained more than a half million first
responders across America.
To protect America, we passed the Patriot Act, giving law enforcement many of
the same tools to fight terrorists that they already had to fight drug cartels
and organized crime. Since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals
have stopped terrorist activities in Columbus, Ohio; San Diego, California;
Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Buffalo, New York and other places,
including New Jersey, where we apprehended an arms dealer who was allegedly
trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to terrorists. My opponent voted for the
Patriot Act, but now he wants to weaken it. There are plenty of
safeguards in this law, making sure that civil liberties are protected and
searches are authorized by court order. By seeking to dilute the Patriot Act,
my opponent is taking the eye off the ball. The danger to America is not the
Patriot Act, or the good people who use it; the danger to America is the terrorists.
And we will not let up in this fight.
To protect America, our country needs the best possible intelligence. Chairman Tom Kean and other members of the
September the 11th Commission made thoughtful and valuable
recommendations on intelligence reform. We are already implementing the vast
majority of those recommendations that can be enacted without a vote of
Congress. We're expanding and strengthening the capabilities of the CIA. We've
established the Terrorist Threat Integration Center so we can bring together
all the available intelligence on terrorist threats to one place. But other
changes require new laws. Congress needs to create the position of the National
Intelligence Director and take other measure to make our intelligence community
more effective. These reforms are necessary to stay ahead of the threats. I
urge Congress to act quickly, so I can sign them into law.
My opponent has taken a different approach, and it shows in his record. Just
one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, Senator
Kerry proposed a $6 billion cut in the nation's intelligence budget. But the
majority of his colleagues ignored his irresponsible proposal. In 1995, he
tried to cut intelligence funding again -- and this time he could not get a single
member of the United States Senate to support his bill. And that's an important
difference between us. Senator Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American
intelligence. I am working every day to strengthen American intelligence.
In a free and open society, it is impossible to protect against every threat.
So, second, we must pursue a comprehensive strategy against terror. The best
way to prevent attacks is to stay on the offense against the enemy overseas. We
are waging a global campaign from the mountains of Central Asia to the deserts
of the Middle East, and from the Horn of Africa to the Philippines. These
efforts are paying off. Since September the 11th, 2001, more than
three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to
justice. The rest of them know we're coming after them.
After September the 11th, we set a new direction for American policy and
enforced a doctrine that is clear to all: If you support or harbor terrorists,
you're equally guilty of terrorist murder. We've destroyed the terror camps
that train thousands of killers in
Afghanistan. We removed the Taliban from power. We have persuaded governments
in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the enemy and join the fight. We
ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, which sponsored terror. Iraq's new
government under Prime Minister Allawi is hunting down terrorists in Iraq. We
sent a message to Libya, which has now given up weapons of mass destruction
programs and handed nuclear materials and equipment over to the United States.
We have acted, through diplomacy and force, to shrink the area where the
terrorists can operate freely, and that strategy has the terrorists on the run.
My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding on the war on terror. A reporter
recently asked Senator Kerry how September the 11th changed him. He replied,
"It didn't change me much at all." His unchanged world view is
obvious from the policies he still advocates. He has said this war is primarily
an intelligence and law enforcement operation. He has declared, we should not
respond to threats until they are -- quote -- "imminent." He has
complained that my administration -- quote -- "relies unwisely on the
threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations." Let me
repeat that. He says that preemptive action is "unwise," not only
against regimes, but even against terrorist organizations. Senator Kerry's
approach would permit a response only after America is hit.
This kind of September the 10th attitude is no way to protect our country. The
war on terror is a real war, with deadly enemies, not simply a police
operation. In an era of weapons of mass destruction, waiting for threats to
arrive at our doorsteps is to invite disaster. Tyrants and terrorists will not
give us polite notice before they attack our country. As long as I'm the
Commander-in-Chief, I will confront dangers abroad so we do not have to face
them here at home.
The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist leader we face
in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American hostages, the one
responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks against Iraq is a man
named Zarqawi. Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan
that trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons, until coalition
forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received
medical care and set up operations with some 2,000 terrorist associates. He
operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq. He ran camps
to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until
coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. With nowhere to operate
openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq.
Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry
believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a
"diversion" from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and
defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror.
If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq,
does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives?
Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent
civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing these terrorists far
away, our military is making the United States of America more secure.
Third, to win the war on terror, America must work with allies and lead the
world with clarity. And that is exactly what we are doing. The flags of 64
nations fly at U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, Florida,
representing coalition countries that are working openly with us in the war on
terror. Dozens more are helping quietly in important ways. Today, all 26 NATO
nations have personnel either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. America's allies
are standing with us in the war on terror, and we are grateful.
My opponent promises that he would do better with our allies. Yet, he's decided
that the way to build alliances is to insult our friends. As a candidate for
President, Senator Kerry has managed to offend or alienate almost every one of
America's fighting allies in the war on terror.
He has called the countries serving alongside us in Iraq -- quote -- "a
trumped-up coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the
extorted." He has dismissed the sacrifice of 14 nations that have lost
forces in Iraq, calling those nations "window dressing." In our
debate a few weeks ago, he declared, "when we went into Iraq, there were
three countries -- Great Britain, Australia, and the United States." He left out Poland, one of the first
countries to see combat on the first days of hostilities in Iraq. He never
shows respect for some of the 30 nations that are serving courageously in Iraq
today.
Senator Kerry even has disregarded the contributions of Iraqis who are fighting
for their freedom. When he speaks of coalition casualties in Iraq, he doesn't
count the hundreds of Iraqis who have given their lives fighting the terrorists
and the insurgents. When Iraq's Prime Minister came to Washington to address
Congress last month, Senator Kerry did not show up. Instead, he called a press
conference and questioned the Prime Minister's credibility. The Prime Minister
of Iraq is a brave man, who survived the assassins of Saddam. The Prime
Minister of Iraq deserves the respect of the world, not the scorn of a
politician.
As part of his foreign policy, Senator Kerry has talked about applying a
"global test." As far as I can tell, it comes down to this: Before we
act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need permission from foreign capitals.
Yet, even the Gulf War coalition in 1991 did not pass Senator Kerry's global
test. Even with the United Nations' approval, he voted against removing Saddam
Hussein from Kuwait. If that vast, U.N.-supported operation did not pass his
test, nothing ever could. Senator
Kerry's global test is nothing more than an excuse to constrain the actions of
our own country in a dangerous world.
I believe in strong alliances. I believe in respecting other countries and
working with them and seeking their advice. But I will never submit our
national security decisions to a veto of a foreign government.
Fourth, we will win the war on terror and make America safer by advancing the
cause of freedom and democracy. Free societies are hopeful societies, which do
not nurture bitterness, or the ideologies of terror and murder. Free
governments in the broader Middle East will fight the terrorists, instead of
harboring them. And this is why a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan are vital to
peace in that region, and vital to the security interests of our country.
After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward freedom
will not come easily. Yet, that progress is coming faster than many would have
said possible. Across a troubled region, we are seeing a movement toward
elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion of peaceful reform.
The election in Afghanistan less than two weeks ago was a landmark event in the
history of liberty. That election was a tremendous defeat for the terrorists.
My opponent has complained that we are trying to -- quote -- "impose"
democracy on people in that region. Is that what he sees in Afghanistan,
unwilling people have democracy forced upon them? We removed the Taliban by
force, but democracy is rising in that country because the Afghan people, like
everywhere, want to live in freedom. No one forced them to register by the
millions, or stand in long lines at polling places. On the day of that historic
election, an Afghan widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside
her. She said this -- she said, "When you see women here lined up to vote,
this is something profound. I never dreamed this day would come." But that
woman's dream finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle
East.
The dream of freedom is moving forward in Iraq. The terrorists know it, and
they hate it, and they fight it. And we can expect more violence as Iraq moves
toward free elections. Yet, every day in Iraq, our coalition is defeating the
enemy's strategic objectives.
The enemy seeks to disrupt the march toward democracy. But an Iraqi independent
electoral commission is up and running, political parties are planning
campaigns, voter registration will begin next month – and free and fair Iraqi
elections will be held on schedule this coming January.
The enemy seeks to establish sanctuaries in Iraq from which to commit acts of
terror. But Iraqi and coalition forces are on the offensive in Fallujah and
North Babil, and have restored government control in Samarra, Tall Afar, and
Najaf.
The enemy wants to make Iraqis afraid to join security forces. But every week,
more and more Iraqis answer the call to arms. More than 100,000 soldiers,
police and border guards are already trained, equipped and bravely serving
their country. And well over 200,000 will be in place by the end of 2005.
The enemy seeks to break the will of the Iraqi people. But as Prime Minister
Allawi told the Congress, Iraqis are hopeful, optimistic and determined to
prevail in their struggle for liberty.
After the enemy has failed in so many goals, what can these killers do now?
They can fill up our TV screens with horrible images of suicide bombings and
beheadings. These scenes are chaotic and horrific, but they're not a complete
picture of what's happening in Iraq. A recent poll found that more than 75
percent of Iraqis want to vote, and they have confidence in the electoral
progress. And more than 75 percent are hopeful about the future of their
country. The violent acts of a few will not divert Iraqis and our coalition
from the mission we have accepted. Iraq will be free, Iraqis will be secure and
the terrorists will fail.
My opponent has a different outlook. While America does the hard work of
fighting terror and spreading freedom, he has chosen the easy path of protest
and defeatism. He refuses to acknowledge progress, or praise the growing
democratic spirit in Iraq. He has not made democracy a priority of his foreign
policy. But what is his strategy, his vision, his answer? Is he content to
watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle
East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons
to kill without limit? Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run,
but we learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not
opposed at their source, they will find us where we live. America is safer
today because Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting terrorists instead of harboring
them. And I believe future generations of Americans will be spared violence and
fear as democracy and hope and governments that oppose terror multiply across
the Middle East.
Victory in the war on terror requires victory in Iraq. If a terror regime were
allowed to re-emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home, a source of
funding and vital support. They would correctly conclude that free nations do
not have the will to defend themselves. When Iraq becomes a free society at the
heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, and a model for hopeful
reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a
crushing defeat and every free nation will be more secure.
Unfortunately, Senator Kerry does not share our commitment to victory in Iraq.
For three years -- depending on the headlines, the poll numbers and political
calculation -- he has taken almost every conceivable position on Iraq. First,
he said Saddam Hussein was a threat, and he voted for the war. Then he voted
against funds for bullets and body armor for the troops he had voted to send
into battle. He declared himself an anti-war candidate. Months later he said
that knowing everything we know now, he would have still voted for the war. Then
he said the war was a "mistake," an "error," or
"diversion."
Having gone back and forth so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has
now flip-flopped his way to a dangerous position. My opponent -- my opponent
finally has settled on a strategy, a strategy of retreat. He has talked about
artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He has sent the signal
that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job is
not done. And that approach would lead to a major defeat in the war on terror.
So long as I'm the Commander-in-Chief, America will never retreat in the face
of the terrorists. We will keep our word to the Iraqi people. We'll make sure
Iraqi forces can defend their country. And then American troops will return
home, with the honor they have earned.
On each of the four commitments needed to prevail in the war on terror, there
is a clear choice before the American people. My opponent wants to weaken the
Patriot Act, and has a history of trying to undermine our intelligence
services. I will take every necessary measure to protect the homeland. The
Senator wants to wage the war on terror on the defensive. I will take the fight
to the enemy. The Senator insults our friends in the world and wants to please
a few critics. I'm working with our friends for the sake of freedom and
security. The Senator is skeptical and pessimistic about democracy in Iraq, and
critical of our efforts in the broader Middle East. I know that the advance of
freedom is the path to security and peace.
In all these areas, my opponent's views would make America less secure and the
world more dangerous. And none of these positions should come as a surprise.
Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate, Senator Kerry has been
consistently wrong on the major national security issues facing our country.
The Senator who voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq is the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his
entire career. He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down scud
missiles in Operation Desert Storm. He opposed the B-1 bomber, which was
critical to victory in the Afghan campaign. He opposed the B-2 stealth bomber,
which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban positions. He opposed the
modernized F-14D, which we used against terrorists in Tora Bora. He opposed the Apache helicopter, which
destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq.
The Senator who is skeptical of democracy in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for
a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and criticized the democracy
movement as "terrorism." His misguided policies would have impeded
the spread of freedom in Central America.
The Senator who claims the world is more dangerous since America started
fighting the war on terror is the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan's
policies of peace through strength actually made America less safe -- the same
Senator who said the Reagan presidency was eight years of "moral
darkness." In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he
cannot hide.
The Senator's long record shows a clear pattern on national security. He has
consistently opposed a stronger military. He has consistently looked for
excuses to constrain American power. He has consistently shown poor judgment on
the great issues of war and peace. When one senator among a hundred holds a
policy of weakness, it doesn't make a lot of difference. But the presidency is
an office of great responsibility and consequence.
I have a record in office, as well. And all Americans have seen that record.
September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I
will never forget. Bernie might remember the workers in hard hats that were
yelling at me and yelling at us, "Whatever it takes." A man grabbed
me by the arm, just coming out of the rubble and he said, "Do not let me
down." I have a responsibility that goes on. I wake up every morning
thinking about how to make our country more secure. I acted again and again to
protect the American people. I will never relent in defending our country,
whatever it takes.
In a new term as your President, we will finish the work we have started. We
will stand up to terror -- we will stand up for freedom. And on November the
2nd, my fellow Americans, I ask that you stand with me.
God bless. Thank you all.
If the benighted in the American electorate
were to bring about the election of Mr.
"Medals" Kerry to the presidency. That action would without doubt
send a clear signal to the nations of the world, of the weakness and moral
ambiguity that has taken over our country. At this time in history, as
international terrorist organizations compete for the next September 11, the
United States must have a president, willing to use its full military arsenal,
including nuclear weapons, to defend our nation. Though among many of the
liberal Democrats this is a foreign concept, along with protecting our borders!
It may be a bit dated but does anyone "REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR" ? Big
Kahuna
The pro-Kerry liberal Media Fund,
is resorting to hip ghetto slang to attack Republicans. They say that those
wealthy white guys, (as if this doesn't describe Kerry and John Edwards), are
causing every imaginable ill and misfortune in black America. Hell, we whites
are even causing black crime? These ads are essentially the voice of political
demagogues acting like a field boss trying to scare black folks from believing
there is a better life off the plantation. Blacks need to listen and think
about these ads carefully. What is Kerry for? No one will ever find out
listening to this ad campaign. There is not a single idea, or a single proposal
or single thought about what might be ailing blacks other than the fact that a
Republican is in the White House. The Democrats are running a campaign of lies
and fear with their fallacious message. This to a community crying out in
desperate need for real ideas! Kerry has attacked Bush foreign policy by
calling it "more of the same." In reality this is all that Kerry
offers black voters, more snake oil that pins the blame for all of the ills and
shortcomings of the Black community, on everyone in our society but the Blacks!
It's time for black children to stop hearing that they can't make it, and this
is exactly what they are hearing from Democrats because this creates a mind set
that keeps Blacks dependent on the supposed largess of the Democratic party.
It's time for blacks to take a hard look around at those of their race who have
made it big and try to emulate them rather then their constant whining about
how bad the white man is. They should more concerned with improving their own
lot in life rather than having a
Democrat in the White House." who once again will end up only paying them
lip service. "Laus Deo"
My God, folks. What has to happen here? Do you
have to be hit over the head by an anvil? Do you have to be slapped across the
face with a shovel?
Have you heard the latest from The Poodle? John Kerry has a 20-year record in
the United States Senate, along with two decades of public statements to go
with it, but so far the press has given him a complete pass on his comments
regarding the use of American armed forces outside our borders. The media
continues to toe the Democratic company line that The Poodle went to Vietnam,
got a few medals, and that means that he's fully qualified to be the Commander
in Chief. That liberal record in the Senate and his history of public
statements are just small footnotes.
The Washington Post ran a story yesterday about John Kerry's approach to
foreign policy. Here's one paragraph from that article:
"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained
that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the
course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the
possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying
in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean
dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we
can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "
Read it again, folks. Then read it
again after that. This isn't some ancient yammering from Kerry back in the
1970's. This is contemporary Kerry. This is Kerry after having served a decade
in the Senate. This is Kerry saying that it's OK for Americans to die fighting
for a cause ratified by the United Nations, but not OK for American soldiers to
sacrifice their lives just fighting for the United States ... fighting for
their country. America is not worth dying for. Dying for the United Nations is.
This is a virtual repeat of Kerry's statement in the 1970's that it was his
belief that U.S. troops should only be deployed outside of the United States
with the permission of the United Nations. Oh, to be sure ... he's tried to
back off from that statement during this presidential campaign, but I have this
nasty tendency to believe what people tell me
when they're not running for office, rather then when they're fishing for my
vote. Now we see that Kerry reiterated his feelings just ten years ago!
Put these statements together with some other favorites . . . the famous
"global test" line for instance. Can it be any more clear? Kerry is,
as I have been warning for six months, soft on sovereignty. Kerry, as
president, would feel compelled to play a grandiose game of international
"Mommy May I?" before he takes steps to protect this country and its
citizens. Oh ... and don't forget that Kerry feels that terrorism was just a
mere nuisance prior to September 11th. Tell that to the families of the Marines
who died in the Khobar towers, the families of sailors killed on the USS Cole,
and the families of those who died in the first attack on the World Trade
Towers.
And did you hear Kerry yesterday? He was addressing the question of whether or
not he would have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. He says he would
have, but only if he had been able to develop the appropriate international
coalition. That means France and Germany. Well, there was no way in hell France
and Germany were going to
participate in dethroning their Sugar Daddy ... so that means that if it had
been Kerry's call, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq
today. But wait! There's more! Please remember that Kerry also voted against
removing Saddam from Kuwait! The reality is that if the great and wonderful
John Kerry had been making the decisions Saddam would today be ruling over both
Iraq and Kuwait .. and God only knows what else.
What does it take to make you Democrats understand? What does it take to make
those of you with those Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers and yard signs
understand the danger that this man presents to our country? Do you really
believe that the American Commander in Chief should seek some sort of global
permission, or the blessings of the United Nations before he can act in the
defense of our homeland and our neighbors? Do you really believe that it OK for
Americans to die in battle, just so long as they're fighting under the flag of
the United Nations?
You hate Bush? You hate his swagger? You despise his smirk! You think he stole
the election? Fine! Is that hatred strong enough for you to jeopardize the
safety of our country just to wipe that silly grin off his face? Is that
burning hatred so strong that you can sit back and say "well at least Bush
isn't the president" after the next terrorist attack
on our homeland?
Look at this man! I used to think that he was just an empty political vessel.
Not so. John Kerry is a dangerous politician bent on granting to the majority
of Europeans that which they desire so strongly, a weakened United States. He
denigrated our servicemen and women when he returned from Vietnam, and he
dishonors them and all that they stand for now by saying that while it is OK
for them to die for the United Nations, their lives should not be put on the
line for their own country. This is a man who truly believes that the United
States is little more than a member "state" of the great and exalted
UN. This country's salvation may lie in you having one quick pang of
consciousness when you walk into that voting booth on November 2nd. When you
stand there ready to cast your vote you'll have the spirit of international
Islamic terrorism on one shoulder trying to guide your hand toward a vote for
John Kerry. On the other shoulder will be the ghosts of the Khobar Towers, the
USS Cole and of 9/11 urging you to set your petty hatreds aside and vote for
the only man who you truly know will take the fight to the Islamic terrorists ...
regardless of whether or not Kofi Annan approves.
Generations of Americans are depending on you to do the right thing.
Updated 10/22/04
He throws away someone else's medals.
He drives someone else's SUV.
He marries someone else's wife.
And he inherits someone else's money.
I think we should all vote for him to be president of someone else's country.
Kerry's lying supporter, Alston, Never Served
Under Kerry in Viet Nam! For those of
you who have not been fully following the Swift Vet's story, one of Kerry's
traveling campaign entourage (David Alston) claimed he was under Kerry's
command on a PCF and found Kerry to be a great leader. He even gave a speech to
that effect at the Democratic National Convention, where he said the following:
"I know him from a
small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled together, serving our country.
There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a 50 foot, twin engine craft known as a
'Swift Boat.' We all came from different walks of life, but all of us -
including our skipper, John Kerry – volunteered for combat duty. And combat is
what we got."
However, one intrepid blogger now has proven
that to be a lie! Alston never served under Kerry because Alston was wounded
and out of action before Kerry took command of Alston's boat. Here is the final
bit of proof (published early this morning), I suggest you go to Captain's
Quarters to find all the previous analysis leading up to this astonishing coup
de gras (pass the word):
Alston Never Served Under Kerry!
Thanks to reader Lori in Texas, I think we've just about pieced the record
together on David Alston and his supposed service under John Kerry's command.
Lori points out a sympathetic article on Dale Sandusky, one of the few Swift
boat veterans supporting Kerry and one that served on his boat, specifically
gives the timing on Kerry's command of PCF-94:
In January 1969, Sandusky's boat, PCF-94, came under attack during one such
ambush. Lt. Ted Peck, the officer in charge, and another crewman were seriously
wounded. Sandusky had to take command. The boat was sinking and on fire, but
Sandusky steered it back to safety. They counted 155 bullet holes in the boat
and found a live enemy rocket in the main cabin. It had come to rest in a sack
of potatoes. For his actions, Sandusky would receive the Bronze Star. With
their officer headed home, the crew of PCF-94 needed a leader. And Lt. j.g.
John Kerry, whose crew on PCF-44 had rotated back home, needed men to lead.
"I was sure glad he came along," Sandusky said, "because to be
honest, I didn't want to take command." From Jan 30 to March 13, 1969,
Kerry and the crew of the PCF-94 would conduct 18 missions in the Mekong Delta
river system. In that time, Kerry would earn a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and
add two Purple Hearts to the one he received earlier.
Bingo! Yachtzee! Alston received his serious wounds in that same exact battle
that took Peck out of service. On January 29th, Alston was medivaced out to a
hospital with head wounds and no records indicate that he ever returned to the
unit. Kerry took command of PCF-94 the next day.
Alston never served a day under Kerry's command.
In fact, Kerry received a replacement, Fred Short, on 28 February as a
replacement for Alston. Now what does that tell us about Kerry and his Viet Nam
narrative?
1. He and Alston conspired to deceive people about Alston's service under
Kerry. That conspiracy was intended to give John Kerry cover against exactly
the kind of campaign he faces from the other Swiftvets.
2. The "end of January" language on Kerry's website was intentionally
vague in order to fuzzy up the timeline and keep Alston's true status a secret.
Obviously, Sandusky remembers the dates well enough, and Kerry could easily
have gotten them from him if he wanted to be as specific as his other dates on
the timeline.
3. The DNC either were saps - or actively participated in the conspiracy - in
order to assist Kerry in his Viet Nam mythology. Otherwise, why would they have
allowed David Alston to speak at the convention about his experiences serving
with John Kerry on the boat?
4. Kerry's band of brothers have some complicity in this cover-up as well.
Those who served on PCF-94 surely remember that Alston never served under
Kerry; Sandusky specifically recalls Peck being wounded and removed from command,
but he wouldn't remember that Alston left at the same time?
5. One could argue that they served on the same boat, of course, and I look
forward to that Clintonian parsing used in Kerry's defense. After holding Alston up as an expert on his
leadership, he'll be hard pressed to explain how that expertise came to Alston
from a hospital bed miles away from Kerry and his old PCF.
If this gets out to the mainstream media, this story kills Kerry's campaign.
This isn't just a guy embellishing his war record -- this is a deliberate and
longstanding attempt to mislead and defraud people by creating his own
witnesses after the fact. That he could have done such a clumsy job should
disqualify him for higher office on that basis
alone.
Kerry is really a piece of work. What a
nightmare he would be as President! God forbid! bk
When you realize how benighted, so many of the
electorate are, then consider the unwillingness so many of the young who have
an aversion to defend this country, is it any wonder that the utterances of
that paragon of prevarication "Medals" Kerry and his sycophantic
followers saying that the draft is coming. This has the young and spoiled,
worried, that they may have to step up to the plate and perform as their
fathers did. They enjoy freedom and privilege. Just aren't ready to defend
those blessings!
America’s main enemy is right in our midst and
will bring about the downfall all that most of us hold holy. Who is this enemy
you ask? It's the liberal mainstream press! BK
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in
which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next
day imposes a 17% premium increase; the biggest in history? That ad is a stroke
of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed,
as do many of his misstatements (LIES).
It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the
issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but
was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President
Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was
scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush
had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry
during the Clinton administration.
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance (WHY NOT) of the American people.
Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! This is another bit of Veritas
that liberals will find hard to accept. Assuming they ever know of it! I hope
you all will give this wide dissemination. PLEASE!
There should be no question in our collective
minds, that we have God, Honor and hope aside from plain decency and everything
that is virtuous and right on our side? I also hold a firm belief that a
majority of the Iraqi people feel that we are there to free them not
occupy! With these thoughts in mind I feel that our President Mr. Bush and we
Americans MUST not waver. We Americans are no strangers to noble causes and
this ranks with the most noble we have ever waged in our entire history!
This is a nasty war that has to be won, not only for Iraqi freedom but OUR
survival. It most be won, second best won't count!
We MUST have the will to fight the suicide bombers, kidnappers and
decapitators, in the same no holds barred way they are coming at us! There is no question that our military can
do the job if the self serving politicians stay out of the way! We must not
ever succumb to the thinking of the bleeding heart, kissy face liberals who
think this enemy
is too tough for us and we should pull out run away. To hell with national
honor and what we have accomplished! NO WAY AMERICA
"SI VIS PACEM" "PARA BELLUM "
Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the
nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making
misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement
community. Both on the campaign trail
and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he
has the support of the majority of
these brave men and women.
"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's
Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to
point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President,"
Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support
him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably
comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."
Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry
touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police
would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the
record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders including
helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also
successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of
officers killed in the line of duty.
"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the
actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was
out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry
and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was
beginning to believe t herewereonly98membersoftheU.S. Senate."
Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his
position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of
his support from police. "First, if a police officer is killed by an
AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury
said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in
the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it
came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law
enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."
"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would
refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the
law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my
fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there
for us."
The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor
organization, with more than 318,000 members.
You or we, must not delude ourselves, that
diversity has been achieved, when you have a room full of people who all look different
but think and share the same thoughts. There are none more successful at
bringing this charade together than the Democrats. The results have fooled so
many into accepting these groups as a consensus of public opinion. However, in
reality, they represent nothing more than a thinly disguised Democratic
mantra! The faces may be different but their idea is monolithic. Do as we say
not as we do! The country can go to hell in a basket as long as they retain
their power base. If this gives cause to wonder, I suggest that listening VERY
closely to Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Edwards and the Clintons, Hillary and Bill,
as they expound on their vision of America. It's their power base first and
America second. Just a thought.
"I think we have more machinery of
government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
AMEN!!!! bk
The moment when John Kerry invoked the name of
Ronald Reagan to explain how he would unite and lead the Western alliance. Try
to remember the massive -- and decisive -- rebuilding of American defenses
during the Reagan Years, John Kerry was against it, proposing to slash the
Reagan defense budget by $200 billion over four years. Even Senator Kerry now
admits that his opposition to a long list of weapons systems was
"ill-advised" and "stupid." I for one am willing to take
his word on that fact!! ßk
Nobody in our present day America seems to
notice that the traditional meaning of greed has gone by the wayside. In my
youth the word meant wanting more and usually it was something that belonged to
somebody else! Willie Hutton was a greedy man and robbing banks was his
solution. In my day if you cheated someone a person out of his money or
property this was greedy. However now in this the Age of Socialism, greed came
to mean my or our, wanting to keep our own property, especially our money. From
the socialist standpoint, prevalent in the minds of so many of our politicians
today, everything sort of
belongs to everyone, and the government should be the one to decide who gets
what! It worked beautifully in some countries (many that no longer exist) where
the proletariat seemed to live happily in their ignorance. Russia could serve as a great example. However,
we Americans aren't enchanted by all-out socialism, even in it's disguised
form, presented by the likes of 'Medals" Kerry, Ted (world class tippler)
Kennedy and
that sycophantic cabal of liberal followers! Their piecemeal approach to
liberalism and socialism by showing us, how unfair it is that some people own
property and have more of the worlds goods than others. However, don't ever forget that this does
not apply to them! This also explains why the have nots form such a large base
for the Democratic
party. IMHO! BK
I for one will NEVER forget that
moment when Larry King asked Kerry recently about being
briefed by the Bush administration on the possibility of new al Qaeda attacks.
"Medals" Kerry said:
"They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."
We must understand that to protect us from
harm isn't half a important as his quest for the White House, and that pretty
much says it all. Folks, the entire election could turn on that one sentence.
Even the cretins in our country can understand that. I hope that those with their
hands in the inverted position can fathom the fact, if there is no country,
their
hands will never be filled! Spread it far and wide...ßk
If the multitude of benighted in the American
electorate were to bring about the election of Mr. "Medals" Kerry to
the presidency, that action would with out doubt send a clear signal to the
nations of the world, of the weakness and moral ambiguity, that has taken over
our country. At this time in history, as international terrorist organizations
compete
for the next September 11 and dream of killing all infidels, the United States
must have a president, willing to use its full military arsenal, including
nuclear weapons, to defend our nation. He must never but never apologize for
our strength. Though among many of the liberal Democrats this is a foreign
concept, along with protecting our borders! They seem
to prefer turning the other
cheek!
Bk
As a Christian, I do not indulge in
hating Muslims, when I ask and even suggest that they remove the hate from
their religion. In the schools beginning with kindergarten the young are taught
to hate Christians an all those in the west. They along with the adult
population are told how great their rewards will be if they kill Christians and
ignore the principles of human rights that are accepted everywhere else in the
world. But will Omar Ahmad and CAIR admit this? I doubt it. Ahmad, of course,
was reported as saying in 1998 that {"Islam isn't in America to be equal
to any other faith, but to become dominant"}. The Koran should be the
highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on
earth." He has since claimed that his remarks were misrepresented, but
there are too many who remember his statement though not his exact words. These
are the people that Kerry and his ilk wish us to try and better understand.
What in the name of all that is holy is so difficult to fathom about them
wanting us DEAD! bk
Sen. Kerry has walked the walk and talked the
talk of another past military commander, Benedict Arnold. Now, as an
anti/pro-war candidate for president, John Kerry has publicly acknowledged that
before carrying out an imminent strike against an adversary, he would first
seek world opinion (the United Nations).
On the other hand, our president will not bow to any America-hating,
back-stabbing, foreign-aid-hustling, Third World countries. Unlike John Kerry,
President George Bush will never compromise the sovereignty or integrity of
this nation for the sake of world opinion. President Bush
will continue to stand tall and resolved, as the father of our nation once did
as he crossed the Potomac with his troops. "LAUS DEO"
bk
Greetings to all!
This from Capt (ret) Larry Bailey, president of Vietnam Veterans for Truth. Please
pass on to your friends. I too feel we are at a very dangerous crossroad in
history and a wrong turn here could lead to great suffering, the likes of which
has not been seen since the our own Civil War. Iraq is only one theater in the
war on terror and while there will be more theaters of war--we do not want a
New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver or any other local battleground for killing
terrorists. Defeating John Kerry will give Viet Nam Vets the Parade and thanks
they never had!
Please go to www.operationstreetcorner.com and pick up your weapon in the fight
for truth.
H
"America! Not to put too fine a point on it, we are less than a month from
the election that may very well determine the future of Western Civilization.
Those of us in Vietnam Vets for the Truth have done all we know how to do to
ensure that John Kerry does not preside over the destruction of the American
republic. All, that is, except to go in massive numbers into the streets and
parking lots and convention halls of this country and confront those who are
not aware of the danger John Kerry poses to the USA. A few hundred patriots are
already involved in this project, and the results they have realized are
phenomenal! You see, most Americans don't really know anything about John Kerry,
and
it's our job to educate them about at least one aspect of the man-the lies he
told about Vietnam veterans in 1971--lies he still has not retracted or
apologized for. The volunteers of "Operation Street Corner" (OSC) are
reporting that most of the people they engage in conversation are not aware of
those lies, and that once they are confronted with them, they often state that
there's no way they can vote for John Kerry.
Our job is to mobilize hundreds of OSC volunteers to saturate this
nation with the message that John Kerry is a liar. We all know many other
examples of his lies, but we are at our most effective when we stick to his
"baby-killer," "throat-slitter," "rapist," and
other horrendous statements. This is all documented on www.wintersoldier.com.
If you've not gotten involved in this year's
campaign, now's the time. Please go to www.operationstreetcorner.com and learn
how we are doing this. YOU can change people's votes; YOU can cause the minute
vote shifts that can determine the result in your state; and YOU can save this
nation from the presidency of a man who has PROVED that he cares far more about
his own ego than the welfare of the rest of us." I have checked out OSC,
and I can promise you that it works. Give it a shot. As I said, cut and paste
the above into your own e-mail and get it rolling! And check out the OSC
website yourself-we have photos, testimonials, and how-to-do-it information
galore! We are going full-bore from now to November 2nd, the day which, for
Vietnam vets, will be this year's
Veterans Day. All best, Larry Bailey President, VVT
Sometimes the truth is hard to take but our
survival isn't. BK
It's Sunday – the day to communicate with our
God and thank him for all the blessings he
has bestowed on us, as a people and a nation, along with a man of strength and
character at the helm. It's also a good day to come to grips, with a most
horrible reality. The gruesome scene taking place in Russia, will bring about
some good if only the Americans, who subscribe to the Kerry liberal point of
view will pay attention. By being nice and reasoning with terrorist we can make
real strides toward peace?
Face it America we are in a fight for
survival! These animals have no scruples about killing anyone. Even helpless
children! They understand only one thing strength. They wish to eliminate us,
all who aren't of their persuasion and our kind of freedoms! Thank God Mr. Bush
understands this, and is taking the fight to them. It may even occur, to
the most ardent Bush hater, that we haven't had any sort of attack on our
homeland since Mr. Bush sent our military to kick the animals in their
"ASS!!" They have a healthy respect for those who will fight back and
send their "virgin lovers" to their rewards. We must take what has
happened in Russia, as a great object lesson. I for one would not wish
to be in the position of just giving pay back after our children have been
murdered! Dead children cannot be brought back with words or wishful thinking !
From what he has said on the stump, this is the sort of position that Mr. Kerry
advocates. A weak poser isn't what is needed at the helm of the ship of state,
at this moment in time. If there is any more to be said, then let me leave you
all with this thought. Picture that
school here in any one of our cities. Not pretty is it? It is never easy to
face reality! Our President is doing what is necessary! God Bless Him!!
bk
Zell Miller is a firmly dedicated
white conservative from the south with a strong southern twang in his
speech. Therefore he must be bigot and racist. At least that's what the
strongly biased liberal media would have the country believe. They devoted no
time refuting the content of Miller's speech, instead attacked with such fervor
his character (as
liberals are wont to do to all their critics). If you have doubts just ask the Swiftees. Of course to impress
the blacks they brought up the notion that Zell once opposed civil rights.
Therefore, he could be pigeon holed as a stupid angry white southerner, that in
their blindly partisan minds, could simply be discounted as an angry,
white redneck
with an ax to grind. This same media, correct me if I'm wrong, but they have
never ever brought up Robert Byrd's former KKK membership, when discussing his
many recent manic raving and ranting against President Bush? Not that it
will register it was you Democrats who were blocking the civil rights bill, and
it was the GOP that got it passed. A fact of history that from the Democrat
point of view is best forgotten!
Our shining city on the hill, where most if
not all of the Great Society's programs have failed because the reality is that
the gap between the have and have nots has become a chasm. This of course has
led to the realization that the PC kissy face crowd has been wrong! Their
humanist philosophy penalizes achievement and success and rewards laziness and
its big brother failure. This being done by the socialist approach of
redistribute wealth, rather than the tried and true American way - "get
off your derriere and create it". This has led to a demagogue heaven,
where PC rhetoric, rather than intelligent debate, has led to destructive PC
multiculturalism, rather than patriotism. I am
sorry to say it’s taking our great country into oblivion faster, than we like
to speak about. The youth of our country deserve a better legacy. If we get
back to the values (old fashioned perhaps) of the founding fathers, they can
have it.
To all of those benighted souls who still
believe in something for nothing. May I unequivocally state that
"Medals" the poser Kerry is simply a meal ticket for those, too
stupid to know when they are being pandered to, or don't care, in order to get
their federally subsidized hand out. He is really the tooth fairy of the hands
in the inverted
position crowd! It is the likes of him, along with the Teddy, Hillary and the
rest of the cabal supporting him, who are pushing this country toward pure
socialism and to the realm of oblivion. There we will join (God forbid) the
Romans, Greeks and others that destroyed their time in the sun - after allowing
the rabble and non-producers to dictate policy to those who pay the freight!
This will be the legacy of the liberal, PC crowd!
I am led to believe that yesterday
when former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland rode his wheelchair to the front gate of
President Bush's Texas ranch to protest attacks on his mentor, Democratic
candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record. (It's because Cleland, (NOT IN
COMBAT), lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, this is why the wheelchair!
However I will not pretend he is other than what he became after losing his
Senate re-election race two years ago: He is the quintessence of a bitterly
resentful, highly partisan and an effective wall around Kerry whenever his Nam
record is questioned! There is some irony in this, since severely wounded
Cleland, earned no Purple Hearts for his grievous injuries, (they were NOT
suffered in combat), Cleland is regularly called on to defend Kerry
- who received three Purple Hearts, but who it appears, seems not to have a
scar on his body to show for it.
Some veterans, including an impressively large number, who served with Kerry in
Vietnam, are of the opinion that all of the senator's medals weren't
earned! It would appear that all those who doubt the validity of Kerry’s medals
can't all be liars. This along with Cleland’s trip to the Bush ranch lends
merit to their doubts! And, for better or for worse, since Kerry has
made Vietnam service the focal point of his campaign, he must endure the close
scrutiny that he and that cabal around him will be subjected to!
"Medals" Kerry is not the man to lead this country in this time of
severe crisis. This
campaign has only just begun.
This reply is from Col. Cook a highly
decorated friend who had this to say about my views
Big K:
That is about a good description I
have ever encountered regarding Max Cleland. I believe he has always felt
that he was "deprived" because he could not qualify for the
PH. Guess he should have located Kerry and his "awarders" they
would have written him up.
I had a similar case in 1967--the
son of a serving admiral was injured at my camp--he was a Special Forces
LT...we had captured some enemy munitions which included hand grenades and he
came to me to ask if he could throw the grenades to be familiar with
them. I told him very strongly that he should not as some of the grenades
were made for booby traps and did not contain a fuse but detonated as soon as
the spoon was released. I told him that at one time I could tell the
difference by the markings (color coded) but that those things changed
with time and I would not trust them to be what I remembered and that we would
destroy them by placing a US grenade inside of a box of them with C-4
wrapped around the package., I went back to my hootch and shortly afterwards
heard a grenade detonate with screaming. Sure enough the knucklehead
decided he wanted to "experience " throwing a VC grenade and it
detonated in his hand. A short time later I received a request from my
C.O for a PH. I sent him a full explanation and stressed that there was
no enemy fire involved. He agreed with me and the PH was denied.
But several months later we learned that he was awarded the PH in a Navy
hospital and that the award was authorized by his father's personnel
officer. Sometimes!
I wrote him a letter that I had
hand delivered to him and told him that he should not have accepted the PH--he
never replied.
I suppose that today he may be one of John Fonda Kerry's supporters.
Why do I have no problem understanding this? The
difference between liberal and conservative couldn't be clearer. Liberals
believe that tax dollars are the property of [BIG BROTHER] the federal
government, who will spend more wisely than ordinary folks! (even though we
were smart enough to earn it) who are uniformed, stupid, or irresponsible.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believing in economic liberty, think that tax
dollars are the people's money. (For the politicians this is a novel thought)
The people also believe that Government works for them; they don't work for the
government.
The current mantra being sung, by the liberal
candle burning hand wringing crowd is, think about the children. Well let's do
that. If I may be so bold, lets ask about the children. These days who is
actually taking care of the children? Or to be more precise, is anyone taking
care of them? From where I sit, they are being farmed out to all sort of
programs run by strangers, to keep them busy, freeing(?) parents, who seem to
be but spectators! We must look back to the sixties when parents began sowing
the wild wind and if it felt good DO IT! They were our first adult delinquents
in my view. Then we had those paragons of erudition (?) the liberal judges who
in their wisdom (?) gave us Roe v. Wade. Speak about a pact with the devil that
opened the door to the hell we are experiencing today! It made the unborn so
much trash by making abortion legal and allowing mothers to kill their babies
with impunity. Some, (mainly women so misguided), thought this was their
emancipation and they were really free! Latest studies seem to prove this
wrong. In this PC society that has become addicted to euphemisms, abortion
really is about the murder of a baby by its mother! God only knows how many of
these babies, who were flushed down the drain, would have been major
contributors to our society? I may be wrong, but in my view. those who
take a different tack are denying the obvious! God gave we Homo-sapiens the
ability to reproduce, and if we choose to destroy rather than create, then there
is living with what you as a person have done! This leads us to the fact our
country is reaping the whirlwind! We live in a culture of death, where the
total disregard of values and respect for life, children, family, marriage, is
the norm! Even faith in God is being put to the test by being made
unfashionable. Our society is now so secular that what was once held in
high regard and esteem has disappeared or has been greatly diminished. Have you
become aware of how few people bother to say, "you have my word of
honor", when dealing with one another. Unless we as a people change course
and elect men or women that still have regard for those old values, we will go
the way of Rome and so many long gone civilizations! I have a strong visceral
feeling that even thought we have gone off track, it would be a terrible waste,
to never get re-railed! This great country must not fade into the fog of
history!
Deo Vindice
Based on the best intelligence available from
many sources at the time, our country, rather than wait for one or two of our
cities to be blown to hell, went into Iraq for the best of reasons; to
end the threat of Saddam's WMD, which he had demonstrated no qualms about using
on his own people, and to end his support of terrorist groups. Those who say
Saddam wasn't hip-deep in terrorist activity are just plain wrong. The saddest
FACT about the Iraq campaign is that we DELAYED, it for about six months while
the UN fiddled and diddled about enforcing its disarmament resolutions. By
doing that, we gave up the advantage of surprise and let Saddam have time TO
MOVE his WMD and money and plan his own survival. We know that Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, the head al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, was there no later than
September 2002. We made another serious blunder by giving Zarqawi six months to
organize the insurgency that is now killing Americans. Iraq proved one thing:
the UN is truly a paper tiger and the antithesis of our policy of preempting
terrorist operations. We have to choose between being the screwer or the
screwee - or the diplomatic quagmire or preemption. Preemption is the
only sensible choice - if one desires to stay alive in a world of people who
wish us dead!
"DEO VINDICE" "LAUS DEO"
"What is
socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and
Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society
between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over
property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and
ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property
include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one
person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done
privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms:
income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats
who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.
Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and
giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats
and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to
poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings
to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of
congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of
slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of
one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the
tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to
another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food
stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to
serve the purposes of another. The moral question stands out in starker relief
when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not
represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money.
Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact
that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that
the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through
intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other
American." --Walter Williams
(BK Sometimes we
have to be hit in the backside to see and appreciate VERITAS!)
We, as a people, must realize how difficult it
is to defeat those who hold this view. "We will win because you love life
and we love death". I don't think that the Kerrys of this world can fathom
that, or handle it!
ßk
The Democrats do have a PROBLEM ACCEPTING
THIS. However as Friday use to
say" Just the facts mam!
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1
"In aggregate, the map of the territory
Bush won, was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great
country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."
That's the hands in the inverted position folks!"
Well those cretin paragons of liberalism in
the black caucus have succeeded in getting felons to vote, illegals vote, now
they want all the nations of the world (most of whom hate us, except when we
give them money) to oversee our election. Those congressmen voting for this
should be ignored after a serious reproof! Voted out of office if there is that
much good judgment among their constituents. How far can their loss of the last
election and hatred of Mr. Bush take them? This newest travesty from their
warped viewpoint, also shows a real disregard, for the country that gives all
jackasses a chance to come out of the stable and be heard! However only if they
have something sensible to say. BK
Just heard two black men at lunch air these
thoughts. "When are the whites politicians going to do something about the
Sudan and all the killing in Africa?" Boy! Does this prompt me to ask a not
so PC question. Where is Representative Charles Rangel, the Korean War veteran
who appears regularly on FOX News to bash and criticize President Bush and
whites in general? Where are those outspoken paragons of fairness, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton? Why haven't they called for an army of African-American
volunteers to go to Africa to protect the peace? Is it because Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Sharpton and Mr. Jackson fear that their lives would be in danger?
What about Kweisi Mfume, with his West African name? He who could be an
interpreter; or, even Julian Bond, since they both are Executive Officers
holding leadership positions in the NAACP?
It is because there is no money in it for them because the African
continent has been robbed and raped from within and without by so many of their
outstanding leaders. So, as they have so often in the past, they choose to go
where the money and the guilt are. Go to the whites and whine and demand. Send
American troops; send American money!
Why is it that Al Sharpton, who has been so
quick to point out that while the rest of us Caucasian homo-sapiens were living
in caves, the black Africans were busy establishing great societies, creating
new sciences, discovering newer philosophies, etc.; but when a black problem
crops up it becomes the white man's obligation to throw money and lives
into the fray to solve it for them? When a predominantly or historically black
university is on the verge of going belly-up because (of what I have read) of
incompetence, graft, corruption, and just plain theft, as in the case of
Central State University in Ohio we
white taxpayers were told it was our fault and it was our responsibility to
bail them out. The same situation exists in so many African countries now, and
these black American "leaders" demand that white America send in our
white troops to solve their problem for them.
Yes, that's right, our WHITE troops to solve it. Because contrary to the
hokum and "BS" misrepresentations made by these black
"leaders", it has always been white and black middle America, boys
from small towns that have served in the front lines, been killed and sent back
in body bags to be buried. THEY HAVING DIED PULLING BLACK AFRICAN CHESTNUTS OUT
OF THE FIRE! Now many of those paragons of black leadership want us to again
send our predominantly white troops into Africa to secure the peace. My
question though not PC is this, where are Messrs. Rangel, Jackson, Sharpton,
Bond and Mfume? The troops and the Africans will need their leadership and
counsel. C'mon guys, it's time to step
up to the plate. Show the rest of us "whitey", "red neck",
"racist", taxpayers and voters how you can rise to the occasion by
raising a volunteer army of 2,000 black Americans to go to Africa and keep the
peace. The vast number of healthy, unemployed, black youths and adult males in
the black sections of every American city should be an army recruiter's dream.
They would be this generation's African-American saviors of Africa. Show the
African people how you have made a success of your lives in America. After all,
these people are your ancestors and cousins from the America of yesteryear! A
fine example would be the first Liberians, who at least
had the fortitude to get on a ship and go back to their African homeland
continent and attempt to establish their own country. As for our current
African-American "leaders" who are so outspoken when it comes to bum
rapping whites, are they too cowardly and afraid to put themselves in harm's
way, for peace, liberty and freedom? Hey guys don't you think your poor,
unfortunate ancestors and cousins in the dark continent are worth your going to
help? If not, then there is no reason
why we should! Contemporary White America has done plenty!
Apropos
A doctor, while mending a rancher's palm cut
open by a confrontation with barbed wire, asks the old rancher what he thinks
about the Democrats nominating John Kerry for president. The rancher says,
"Well, poor John Kerry reminds me of a pole turtle." The doctor asks,
"What's a pole turtle?" The rancher replies, "Well, when you
drive those old dusty roads tending fences and cattle, you're bound to come
across a pond or two. And usually some young kids, with mischief on their
minds, will get a poor pond turtle and place it on a fence post. We call it a
pole turtle." "And why is John Kerry like a pole turtle?" asks
the doctor. The rancher says: "You know he didn't get there by himself; he
doesn't belong there in the first place; he can't get anything done while he's
up there; and, you just want to help the poor dumb cuss get down." Bk
In the new land of OZ, which is the John
Edwards America. The opportunity to get ahead, which has always been America’s
strength is being replaced! There is a new siren song that of a
guarantee. John Edwards promises that by saying, "That Help is on the
way"! His altruism in wanting to raise the minimum wage is to be
commended. However I for one find it difficult to fathom, how he can be deluded
into believing, that even the most unskilled of workers flipping hamburgers at
the local Wendys, can provide a family with a home, car, health insurance and
cable with at least one premium channel. I do feel and many agree with me,
that skilled political panderers like Kerry or Edwards have
little concern, or that it matters, that the unskilled workers in not
trying to better themselves contribute little! Demagogue that he is, has this
premise, that these workers (future constituency) need t