Saturday, July 24, 2004
John Kerry Didn't Support the Troops
John Hawkins takes the poodle to task over his not supporting our troops in Vietnam. The CinC wannabe did in fact give aid and comfort to those that were killing his "band of brothers". Just ask some that did time in the Hanoi Hilton, how Kerry's words were used. Kerry is nothing more then a lying sack of shit, especially when he tries using his Vietnam military experience as a reason he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. As far as this Sailor is concerned, the poodle is not fit to command a garbage skow. - Sailor
John Kerry Didn't Support the Troops in His Post-Vietnam Days
Written by John Hawkins
Saturday, July 24, 2004
The most underreported and unexplored story of the entire presidential campaign has been John Kerry's time as an anti-war protestor. Here's a guy who is selling himself to the American public as Sgt. York reincarnated and yet the same press which spent weeks hyperventilating over the unsupported and insubstantial ''George Bush AWOL'' story has shown scant interest in digging into Kerry's Post-Vietnam days.
However, there are a plethra of great angles for front-page stories out there. Kerry spoke from the back of the same pick-up truck as hated anti-war protestor Jane Fonda, Kerry was present at a VVAW meeting where they ''discussed and voted (against) an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators,''' Kerry's first Purple Heart turned out to be an accidentally self-inflicted scratch that was fixed with a band-aid which is particularly significant since his three purple hearts got him out of Vietnam and into the anti-war movement well before his tour of duty should have ended, all of Kerry's former commanding officers think he's unfit to be President, Kerry claimed that he committed atrocities in Vietnam, etc.
If Kerry were a Republican instead of a Democrat--which would mean that the press would really go after him on this stuff instead of burying it--all the baggage from his time as a Vietnam War protestor would be enough to torpedo his campaign.
Think I'm exaggerating?
Well, imagine what would happen if Kerry's war record got the scrutiny it deserved. Think about what a month of articles featuring devastating quotes, like the ones compiled by groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, would do to the Kerry campaign if they regularly appeared on the front pages of the ''A list' papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune.
"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness." -- Richard O'Mara
"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best." -- Robert Brant
''In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I
and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities." -- David Wallace
''I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it." -Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
"(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry's words quoted to them by their interrogators?" -- Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey.
''John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW
to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?" -- John O'Neil in May, 2004
The fact that John Kerry, a man who trashed the military so badly in his testimony before Congress that the Vietnamese played Kerry's words to our POWs in an effort to break their will, is now portraying himself as a champion of the military who can be trusted to lead America because of his Vietnam war experience, is practically beyond belief. As Mark Steyn once said of Kerry, ''He spent the Seventies playing Jane Fonda and he now
wants to run as John Wayne.''
If Kerry wants to play up his combat time and his medals, I have no complaints. He did put his life in danger, he did win medals, and he deserves credit for that. But, there were a lot of soldiers who fought in the Vietnam war who fit that description and Kerry smeared their good names, trashed their reputations, and stood shoulder to shoulder with anti-war protestors who thought our soldiers were human garbage. As far as I'm concerned that in and of itself makes John Kerry unfit to be the President of the United States.
About the Writer: John Hawkins is a freelance writer and humorist who maintains an especially entertaining blog, Right Wing News, at: http://www.rightwingnews.com.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site
The Berger saga continues. Why did the poodle remove his anti-terror plan from his web site? Now why would the poodle do that? Could it be that the stolen documents were used to formulate that plan? This gets curiouser and curiouser.
Stay tuned on this one as well. - Sailor
Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site After Berger Revelation
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
July 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.
Republicans have suggested that the information contained in the documents was used to formulate Kerry's policy, but are limited in proving those charges because the material is still classified. The sudden disappearance of the policy from the campaign web site that coincided with Berger's dismissal supports Republicans' contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate's homeland security program.
The link to the policy is now defunct, but the original page was temporarily preserved in a Google cache. The Kerry release outlining the policy is also archived on the conservative discussion board FreeRepublic.com (web site).
Key portions of the policy removed from the web site included the following three passages:
-- Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security. Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America's economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry's plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.
-- Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities. John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible. A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility -- not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.
-- Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.
The Kerry campaign did not respond to a Talon News inquiry about the removal of the link from the web site.
Instead of reviewing documents for the 9/11 Commission investigation, Republicans suggested that Berger used the information from the National Archives to help the Kerry campaign.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, "Reportedly these documents related to homeland security and then suddenly we see that the Kerry campaign came forward with what may have been illegal documents. This is sensitive stuff and was a significant breach of security."
"Kerry knows better than to use these documents," Chambliss added.
Berger admitted to removing documents from the National Archives on five separate occasions, but maintains that it was "inadvertent."
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) believes otherwise, saying, "There is a curious connection between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security. It's disappointing what people might do as they try to take the president down."
Berger had been the dominant national security advisor to Sen. Kerry and was suggested by some as a potential Secretary of State in a Kerry administration, something that now appears unlikely no matter what the outcome of November's election.
When asked by NBC if he was aware of the investigation, Kerry said, "I didn't have a clue."
Democrats tried to deflect the damaging revelation by claiming its timing was politically motivated.
"Somebody leaked it obviously with an intent to do damage to Mr. Berger, and that's unfortunate," Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. "I think the timing of all this is curious. Berger deserves the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Justice Department to produce documents about any correspondence with the White House on the investigation. He is accusing Republicans of a "smear campaign" against Berger.
McAuliffe has great cause for concern since two important Kerry advisors have been damaged in the past two weeks.
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was discredited by a Senate Intelligence Committee report that contradicted Wilson's public statements about how he was selected for a sensitive mission to Niger in 2002 and the results of his report about Saddam Hussein's attempt to purchase uranium in Africa. Wilson represented his investigation as proof that President Bush misled the United States in making the case for the invasion of Iraq. An investigation into British intelligence confirms that Bush's claim was "well founded."
While political reactions to the Berger affair are predictably mixed, there is no doubt that the former national security advisor broke the law. The documents he removed carry the highest classifications for secrecy: code word clearance.
Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) called Berger's actions "just a third-rate burglary."
But former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy disagrees, calling it a grave transgression against national security. Liddy wonders why the Justice Department has not arrested Berger for having admitted to committing five felonies.
Liddy pointed out that Berger is the second Clinton official to face prosecution for withdrawing classified materials from secure premises. Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by President Clinton in the final hours of his second term and spared from suffering any punishment for having taken laptops with classified materials to his home in 1996.
Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) questioned Berger's motivation for the thefts.
He said, "What in heaven's name was he thinking? What is so important that he would risk both his reputation and prosecution to remove these documents? What's there to hide?"
He added, "There is no one with his experience who can claim that these are the actions of an absent-minded employee. Sandy Berger knows better."
Foley recalled the final days of the Clinton administration when he said, "And we thought it was bad when they were only stealing furniture."
Thursday, July 22, 2004
The Birth of Freedom Works
My congratulations and best wishes to a new, powerful voice for Conservatives. FreedomWorks. - Sailor
New group to counter liberals
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray are joining forces to counter MoveOn.Org and other liberal Democrat groups in the November elections.
Mr. Armey, chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), and Mr. Kemp, a co-founder of Empower America, are merging their two organizations into FreedomWorks to foster a "freedom agenda."
Billionaire currency speculator George Soros has pledged $15 million to liberal campaign groups, including those known as 527s for the tax-code section that regulates them, seeking to defeat President Bush in November.
"We believe that hard work beats daddy's money," Mr. Armey said. "MoveOn is doing all kinds of high-profile, big-dollar deals with money from George Soros and other rich Democrats."
"We can match that with people on the street who really care about Social Security retirement accounts, tax simplification, smaller government and freedom from frivolous lawsuits," Mr. Armey said.
The merger gives FreedomWorks the CSE membership of 360,000 activists and donors across the country. It also brings Empower America's donor network.
The merged group "will encourage Republicans — and Democrats — to take positions on issues of individual freedom that many of them have been reluctant to take publicly before," said Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks president and chief operating officer and CSE president.
Like many other "independent-expenditure" organizations formed to deal with the complicated provisions of last year's McCain-Feingold campaign-finance rules, FreedomWorks will have a complicated legal structure giving it nonprofit status as a 501(c)3, a 501(c)4, a 527 and a federal political action committee.
The new group, headquartered in Washington, will have a full-time campaign staff on the ground in the presidential battleground states of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as in Illinois and Texas.
Mr. Kibbe said the new organization will house "a sophisticated conservative political database containing over 600,000 activist names in all 50 states."
William Bennett, a former Cabinet official in Republican administrations and an Empower America co-founder, will be a senior adviser to FreedomWorks and will focus on school choice, another of the new group's policy priorities.
Former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatick, who was the third co-founder of Empower America, has not indicated what role she will play in the new group.
Mr. Kemp, who for more than 25 years has been one of the nation's leading advocates of economic growth through low tax rates, said that with the merger, FreedomWorks "builds on over 30 years of combined organizational experience."
FreedomWorks.com
More Troubles in Utopia
Dick Morris reports on the schism between the Clintons and the Kerry/Kennedy factions of the Dem Party. This will get very interesting. Keep your eyes glued to this one. - Sailor
KENNEDY V. CLINTON: THE DEM DIVIDE
By DICK MORRIS
New York Post
July 21, 2004 -- JUST as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other.
The Kerry campaign's recent effort to keep Hillary out of the convention's spotlight prime time, coupled with the selection of Sen. John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, are opening shots in this fight, which will likely escalate into a full-fledged feud.
When Kerry chose Edwards, a charismatic future contender for the presidency, he knew he was investing in an opponent for Hillary when she goes for the top job herself. If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008; if he wins, she'll run in 2012. Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat.
Hillary, of course, was entitled to a prime-time speech. Apart from her husband, she is the most popular Democrat in the nation and she has addressed both of the last two conventions. The fiction that the women Democratic senators caucused and decided to anoint Maryland's Barbara Mikulsky to speak for them fooled nobody. To suggest that Hillary should mutely stand behind Mikulsky nodding in agreement was a statement to the Clintons: This isn't your party anymore.
The split began in the fall of 2003, when Kerry was floundering in the face of the Howard Dean surge. The Clintons had bet on Kerry and even sent Chris Lehane (who had played a key role in their Lewinsky-impeachment defense) to be the Massachusetts senator's chief campaign consultant. But as Kerry faltered, the Clintons bailed out on his candidacy and pushed Gen. Wesley Clark into the race as their candidate.
The former president was quoted in public as saying that his wife and Gen. Clark were the two most outstanding Democrats in the nation. Clinton loyalists like Bruce Lindsay and Harry Thomason took their cue and went to work for Clark (a fellow Arkansan). But the unkindest cut of all was when Lehane walked out of the Kerry campaign, attesting to the senator's lack of viability and joined up with Clark.
In rushed Ted Kennedy to save the day, sending Mary Beth Cahill of his Senate staff to steer the faltering Kerry campaign. Kennedy's pivotal role was evident from his up-front and public position by his Massachusetts colleague's side on the night Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. As Kerry was all but clinching the nomination, who introduced him to the victory rally? Ted Kennedy.
Throughout their administration, the Clintons cold-shouldered Kennedy — realizing that the average American voter saw him as radioactively liberal. In the 1996 campaign, we went into overdrive to be sure that Kennedy would have no prime-time speaking role, even though he had usually had the spotlight to himself at past Democratic conclaves.
As Bill Clinton veered to the center, he increasingly parted company with Ted Kennedy and became the senator's factional antagonist within the party. The gap was bridged somewhat in the impeachment fight, but has come back with a vengeance now that Kennedy is using Kerry as an alternative to the Clinton domination of the party.
Indeed, insiders in the Kerry operation were quoted anonymously as saying that Kennedy had warned against putting Hillary on the ticket.
The increasing tendency of the Kennedy-Kerry operatives to shut out the Clintons from the campaign highlights the Clinton conundrum: They desperately want Kerry to lose, but can't say so in public.
Bill Clinton's publication of his memoirs a few weeks before the Democratic convention was clearly a move to slow down Kerry's momentum. The book's timing forced Kerry to designate Edwards much earlier than is traditional, so as to stop the former president from hogging the spotlight. Kerry will probably pay for his premature selection in decreased viewership during his convention now that it is drained of any suspense.
The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list — even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill — is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred.
Sandy Berger’s Heavy Lifting
The spin and damage control is in full swing by the libs and dems over their fair haired boy's, Sandy Berger, theft of classified, code worded documents. Of course old Sandy claims it was inadvertant. Still, the documents he took are still missing. Why is that? Could it be that Sandy delivered them to his new boss, the poodle, to be used as campaign material? Or is it because these documents are quite scathing of Sandy's former boss, Billy Clinton. As usual the lib/dems are whining that the Reps leaked the investigation, but I have heard it was the lib/dems that did the leaking. This should be very interesting as it develops. Here is Byron York's take on this. - Sailor
Sandy Berger’s Heavy Lifting
The troubling details of the Archives document removal.
Byron York
National Review OnLine
In Washington this morning, government officials are trying to piece together the facts of the Sandy Berger case in an attempt to understand what the former Clinton administration national-security adviser was trying to accomplish when he took highly classified documents from the National Archives.
Berger, who yesterday quit his position as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign, was appointed by former President Clinton to vet Clinton-administration documents before those documents were turned over to the September 11 investigating commission. Berger claims that as he went through a large number of documents last fall, he inadvertently put a few in his briefcase and took them home. "In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the September 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."
But it appears that some of the evidence in the case casts doubt on Berger's explanation. First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives — a common method of safeguarding classified information — and Berger's admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.
Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.
Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)
The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.
It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.
The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000. At several points in the September 11 commission hearings, Democrats pointed to the millennium case as an example of how a proper counterterrorism program should be run. But sources say the report suggests just the opposite. Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck — a border agent in Washington State who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car — and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work. The report also contains a number of recommendations to lessen the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, but few were actually implemented.
The after-action review became the topic of public discussion in April when Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned it in his public testimony before the September 11 commission. "This millennium after-action review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role," Ashcroft testified. "It is clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government."
In May, a government official told National Review Online that the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions." The source said the report portrayed the Clinton administration's actions as "exactly how things shouldn't be run." In addition, Clarke was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot in his book, Against All Enemies.
It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Sandy's Super-Secret Skivvies Story
Doc Farmer jumps all over the Sandy Berger pilferring of classified materials. Naturally, the media is either trying to bury this or marginalize it. After all, Berger is a Clintonista, and therfore can do no wrong. This is not sitting well with Ron Kuby, noted radical lawyer, William Knuntsler protegé and frequent Clinton apologist.
"Nobody, nobody inadvertently picks up classified information and walks out with it. It isn't done," Kuby told his WABC Radio partner Curtis Sliwa.
"You cannot do this accidentally," he told Sliwa. "You can do it arrogantly, being so used to your top security clearance that you figure the rules don't apply to you - and I've seen that in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. But you don't do it accidentally."
Kuby insisted that even if Berger had simply removed the notes he made while viewing the secret Clinton administration terror documents, it would still be a crime.
"If you're taking notes about classified information, those notes are now classified. They're placed in a secure area. You can have access to them only while being viewed by a security officer. Nothing gets removed."
"It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it," he said.
Kuby said he learned about the security procedures first hand, when he was permitted to view classified information during his involvement in the trial of the first World Trade Center bombers.
"The rules are very strict," he said. "There's somebody monitoring you. The notes that you take on classified material themselves are deemed to be classified. You leave everything there."
"You're not permitted to remove anything from that room - period," he emphasized. "It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it."
If Ron Kuby is not buying into Berger's story, why would anyone else? Here is Doc's fine article on this. - Sailor
Sandy's Super-Secret Skivvies Story
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday July 21, 2004
Sometimes a story comes across your computer screen that just seems too weird. You know the ones I’m talking about. Woman lifts Volvo off trapped puppy. Man in Superman costume beats up motorists. Politician keeps promise. Columnist starts anti-defamation league for fat, bald, ugly guys. That sort of thing.
How about this one? High government official hides classified documents in his underwear.
I’d have an easier time coping with a story like this if it came from an august journalistic body like the Weekly World News (sample headline: Cheney Is Actually a Robot!) or the New York Times (sample headline: Rumor Has It Cheney Will Be Dumped – For a Robot). Nevertheless, when you see it even in (relatively) reliable news sources, it starts to weird you out a bit.
What’s weirder still, unfortunately, is the truth.
It would appear that Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor under Clinton, spent some time in the National Archives reviewing documentation prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. No problem with that, refreshing your memory is allowed (indeed encouraged) so that the evidence you give is accurate.
However, it’s not encouraged that you take the documents home with you. In fact, since the room is high security it would appear that such action is actively discouraged. Despite this, Mr. Berger (by his own admission) took several highly classified documents and shoved them in his jacket, his socks and, yes, his underpants.
Ick!
I’ve worked in banking for a good part of my career. Security, mainly. As such, I’ve spent a good amount of time in vaults and secure cash areas. I know that you have to verify the contents of the vault, but I also know you have to put some level of trust in the people who work in those areas. It’s the old Russian saying ''Doveryay, no Proveryay'' (Trust, but Verify). We would put cameras in the vault areas, not just to prevent theft but also in case of accident or illness (vaults are enclosed, remote places with few visitors).
But in all my years in security, I would never had thought it possible to check an employee’s drawers (the non-desk variety) for stolen cash.
When security types such as I gather for conferences, we always regale ourselves with the story of the really stupid criminals (fact is, there aren’t many smart ones) who rob a bank and stuff the money down the front of their pants. They run out, not realizing that they also have a ''bait'' pack that includes an exploding dye pack. We always suggest ways to update those dye packs--usually involving Tabasco....
Who would have thought we would have to consider such a thing for classified documents? Especially from people who were supposed to be in a position of high trust?
The news media’s coverage of the Sandy Berger case has been surprising. The fact that they’re even mentioning it at all is the surprise. You can bet your sweet bippie that if Dr. Condoleezza Rice had been stuffing documents, the media would be all over this like Clinton on an intern. However, the media is doing their best to excuse Mr. Berger’s actions. So in that way, they’re staying true to form.
Some are even going as far as saying that what Mr. Berger did wasn’t really a crime. Despite that some documents are missing. Despite his protestations of no ill intent.
If I go into a jewelry store and start stuffing diamond necklaces down my drawers, I’m pretty sure that’s a crime. If I visit a vault and line the inside of my trousers with presidential portraits, I’d wager that I’d be spending the better part of a decade inside a 8 by 8 apartment with steel bars, steel beds, a steel toilet, and a roommate named ''Killer.''
However, if I’m a lib/dem/soc/commie who worked for Slick Willie, and I stole classified documents, apparently I would get sympathy from an understanding news media and a number of Democratic National Committee representatives.
What is wrong with that picture?
It’s a good bet that those ''missing'' documents will never be found. In some ways, this is most unfortunate, because that data may have shown just how much the Clinton administration knew about Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps incriminating, perhaps vindicating, it’s impossible to know at this juncture.
However, it may also be quite fortunate that the documents are gone forever. At least, it’s fortunate for the clerk at the National Archives, who would have to receive them. If they are found again, I hope they give the poor schmuck some rubber gloves...
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8401
"Nobody, nobody inadvertently picks up classified information and walks out with it. It isn't done," Kuby told his WABC Radio partner Curtis Sliwa.
"You cannot do this accidentally," he told Sliwa. "You can do it arrogantly, being so used to your top security clearance that you figure the rules don't apply to you - and I've seen that in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. But you don't do it accidentally."
Kuby insisted that even if Berger had simply removed the notes he made while viewing the secret Clinton administration terror documents, it would still be a crime.
"If you're taking notes about classified information, those notes are now classified. They're placed in a secure area. You can have access to them only while being viewed by a security officer. Nothing gets removed."
"It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it," he said.
Kuby said he learned about the security procedures first hand, when he was permitted to view classified information during his involvement in the trial of the first World Trade Center bombers.
"The rules are very strict," he said. "There's somebody monitoring you. The notes that you take on classified material themselves are deemed to be classified. You leave everything there."
"You're not permitted to remove anything from that room - period," he emphasized. "It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it."
If Ron Kuby is not buying into Berger's story, why would anyone else? Here is Doc's fine article on this. - Sailor
Sandy's Super-Secret Skivvies Story
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday July 21, 2004
Sometimes a story comes across your computer screen that just seems too weird. You know the ones I’m talking about. Woman lifts Volvo off trapped puppy. Man in Superman costume beats up motorists. Politician keeps promise. Columnist starts anti-defamation league for fat, bald, ugly guys. That sort of thing.
How about this one? High government official hides classified documents in his underwear.
I’d have an easier time coping with a story like this if it came from an august journalistic body like the Weekly World News (sample headline: Cheney Is Actually a Robot!) or the New York Times (sample headline: Rumor Has It Cheney Will Be Dumped – For a Robot). Nevertheless, when you see it even in (relatively) reliable news sources, it starts to weird you out a bit.
What’s weirder still, unfortunately, is the truth.
It would appear that Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor under Clinton, spent some time in the National Archives reviewing documentation prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. No problem with that, refreshing your memory is allowed (indeed encouraged) so that the evidence you give is accurate.
However, it’s not encouraged that you take the documents home with you. In fact, since the room is high security it would appear that such action is actively discouraged. Despite this, Mr. Berger (by his own admission) took several highly classified documents and shoved them in his jacket, his socks and, yes, his underpants.
Ick!
I’ve worked in banking for a good part of my career. Security, mainly. As such, I’ve spent a good amount of time in vaults and secure cash areas. I know that you have to verify the contents of the vault, but I also know you have to put some level of trust in the people who work in those areas. It’s the old Russian saying ''Doveryay, no Proveryay'' (Trust, but Verify). We would put cameras in the vault areas, not just to prevent theft but also in case of accident or illness (vaults are enclosed, remote places with few visitors).
But in all my years in security, I would never had thought it possible to check an employee’s drawers (the non-desk variety) for stolen cash.
When security types such as I gather for conferences, we always regale ourselves with the story of the really stupid criminals (fact is, there aren’t many smart ones) who rob a bank and stuff the money down the front of their pants. They run out, not realizing that they also have a ''bait'' pack that includes an exploding dye pack. We always suggest ways to update those dye packs--usually involving Tabasco....
Who would have thought we would have to consider such a thing for classified documents? Especially from people who were supposed to be in a position of high trust?
The news media’s coverage of the Sandy Berger case has been surprising. The fact that they’re even mentioning it at all is the surprise. You can bet your sweet bippie that if Dr. Condoleezza Rice had been stuffing documents, the media would be all over this like Clinton on an intern. However, the media is doing their best to excuse Mr. Berger’s actions. So in that way, they’re staying true to form.
Some are even going as far as saying that what Mr. Berger did wasn’t really a crime. Despite that some documents are missing. Despite his protestations of no ill intent.
If I go into a jewelry store and start stuffing diamond necklaces down my drawers, I’m pretty sure that’s a crime. If I visit a vault and line the inside of my trousers with presidential portraits, I’d wager that I’d be spending the better part of a decade inside a 8 by 8 apartment with steel bars, steel beds, a steel toilet, and a roommate named ''Killer.''
However, if I’m a lib/dem/soc/commie who worked for Slick Willie, and I stole classified documents, apparently I would get sympathy from an understanding news media and a number of Democratic National Committee representatives.
What is wrong with that picture?
It’s a good bet that those ''missing'' documents will never be found. In some ways, this is most unfortunate, because that data may have shown just how much the Clinton administration knew about Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps incriminating, perhaps vindicating, it’s impossible to know at this juncture.
However, it may also be quite fortunate that the documents are gone forever. At least, it’s fortunate for the clerk at the National Archives, who would have to receive them. If they are found again, I hope they give the poor schmuck some rubber gloves...
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8401
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
This Just In....CPUSA Endorses Kerry
It was bound to happen, sooner or later and now it has. The Communist Party of the USA has endorsed the poodle. That says it all. - Sailor
Perspective: Communist Party USA supports John Kerry
By D.P. HEIMBOLD
St. Augustine
The southern Democrats must be thrilled by the news that the Communist Party of The United States of America, CPUSA, is publicly supporting the election of John Kerry.
The CPUSA has made available on its Web site, cpusa.org, an advertisement entitled Top Ten Reasons To Defeat Bush. This advertisement can be downloaded. The communist party urges readers to place this ad in local newspapers throughout the country to defeat President Bush.
Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like.
At first, I thought "this is only a coincidence." The Democratic party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, I wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of his letter:
" The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November ..."
Next, I discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is " Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American.
"Let America be America Again" sounds good but is a rambling, gloomy poem. Interestingly, another poem by Langston goes as follows;
"Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord, God, Jehova, Beat it on away from here now.
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all -- A real guy named Marx, communist, Lenin, Peasant, Stalin, Worker, ME -- I said, ME!"
Then, if this was not enough to convince me that the Democratic party has lost it, a third discovery!
A Vietnam vet group took a trip to Communist Hanoi to investigate a report that John Kerry was in the "Hanoi Hall of Fame." Yes, there is a museum in Hanoi with a section dedicated to foreign activists who help defeat the United States Military in Vietnam. Of course, you would expect Jane Fonda's picture to be there. But, alas, there is John Kerry's picture shaking the hand of a communist official.
Never has there been such a tragedy.
Never has there been such a threat to America. The Democratic party has been taken over by the far, far left!
Not only the communists but the homosexual activists who are appalled that George Bush is married to a woman! They are enraged that the president wants a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage between a man and woman.
Then we have the ACLU running to a federal activist judge with every piece of legislation that doesn't fit into their leftist agenda. They support every Democratic socialist whim. The removal of the Ten Commandments is their top priority!
Why can't our children read? The liberal NEA runs the government schools. You can't mention God or the Ten Commandments, but you can teach Islam and have the children pray to Allah and pass out condoms. The teachers union is solidly behind the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.
How about the AFL-CIO? Solidly Democratic. How about the press? Solidly behind the left.
Case in point: Viacom owns CBS and Dan Rather. Dan is really the president of the American Leftist Establishment. Every night Dan informs the country what we, the troops and the president did wrong that day. His boss, Viacom, just happens to own the company that published Richard Clark's attack on George Bush and company. Clarke was the hero of the 9-11 hearing. Viacom pushed up the publication date of Clark's book to coincide with the hearings.
Oh, by the way, Viacom not only owns CBS and Dan Rather, but MTV!
Yes, the same MTV that featured Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl half time!
Hollywood? There might be one or two votes for Bush from the filmmakers. But don't count on it. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" propaganda film hurt the president. Impressionable youth fall victim to lies.
But, not to worry.
Truth means nothing to the Left.
The quality of character of the Hollywood crowd is best illustrated by the recent antics of the starlet Britney Spears. After her 24-hour marriage, Britney is now engaged to a loser who left his unmarried, pregnant girlfriend and little child. There was not one eyebrow raised by the Hollywood-infatuated Network News. This is normal behavior for the left.
The deck is really stacked against the re-election of President Bush.
Now even the mass murderer Saddam Hussein agrees with Kennedy and Kerry that the president is a criminal. Before the election in November the press will clean up Hussein to look like a saint and George W. Bush a gangster.
John Kerry promises to save the union by going to the UN. Kerry may have to deal with Muslim Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, who received "consultant" fees from Swiss company, Cotecna, which oversaw Iraq's Oil-For-Food program. Some of the $10 billion that was funneled through the "family run" UN program ended up in al Taqwa and Asat Trust, two of al-Qaida's front organizations. Funny, there are al-Qaida in Florida and the UN, but not in Iraq! Alas, but who is chopping off heads in Iraq?
While the bulk of our National Guard are over seas fighting terrorist, every leftist weirdo is coming out of the closet to hi-jack the November presidential election.
The question is: What are the "real" southern Democrats going to do?
Will they join the CPUSA, NEA, ACLU and a host of other radical leftist groups or help save the country from this mob.
Link provided by GOC in NC
Thanks Marine! - Sailor
Perspective: Communist Party USA supports John Kerry
By D.P. HEIMBOLD
St. Augustine
The southern Democrats must be thrilled by the news that the Communist Party of The United States of America, CPUSA, is publicly supporting the election of John Kerry.
The CPUSA has made available on its Web site, cpusa.org, an advertisement entitled Top Ten Reasons To Defeat Bush. This advertisement can be downloaded. The communist party urges readers to place this ad in local newspapers throughout the country to defeat President Bush.
Remarkably, the "Top Ten Reasons" of the Communist party are identical to those of the Democratic party; out-sourcing, homosexual rights, abortion and the like.
At first, I thought "this is only a coincidence." The Democratic party of the United States couldn't be in lock step with the Marxists! So, I wrote to a spokesman of the CPUSA in Georgia and here is part of his letter:
" The CPUSA supports the John Kerry campaign with donations and volunteer effort. We believe that defeating George Bush is the single most important issue this November ..."
Next, I discovered that one of Kerry's campaign themes is " Let America be America Again." This slogan was borrowed from a Communist poet, Langston Hughes. This is not common knowledge to the average American.
"Let America be America Again" sounds good but is a rambling, gloomy poem. Interestingly, another poem by Langston goes as follows;
"Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord, God, Jehova, Beat it on away from here now.
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all -- A real guy named Marx, communist, Lenin, Peasant, Stalin, Worker, ME -- I said, ME!"
Then, if this was not enough to convince me that the Democratic party has lost it, a third discovery!
A Vietnam vet group took a trip to Communist Hanoi to investigate a report that John Kerry was in the "Hanoi Hall of Fame." Yes, there is a museum in Hanoi with a section dedicated to foreign activists who help defeat the United States Military in Vietnam. Of course, you would expect Jane Fonda's picture to be there. But, alas, there is John Kerry's picture shaking the hand of a communist official.
Never has there been such a tragedy.
Never has there been such a threat to America. The Democratic party has been taken over by the far, far left!
Not only the communists but the homosexual activists who are appalled that George Bush is married to a woman! They are enraged that the president wants a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage between a man and woman.
Then we have the ACLU running to a federal activist judge with every piece of legislation that doesn't fit into their leftist agenda. They support every Democratic socialist whim. The removal of the Ten Commandments is their top priority!
Why can't our children read? The liberal NEA runs the government schools. You can't mention God or the Ten Commandments, but you can teach Islam and have the children pray to Allah and pass out condoms. The teachers union is solidly behind the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.
How about the AFL-CIO? Solidly Democratic. How about the press? Solidly behind the left.
Case in point: Viacom owns CBS and Dan Rather. Dan is really the president of the American Leftist Establishment. Every night Dan informs the country what we, the troops and the president did wrong that day. His boss, Viacom, just happens to own the company that published Richard Clark's attack on George Bush and company. Clarke was the hero of the 9-11 hearing. Viacom pushed up the publication date of Clark's book to coincide with the hearings.
Oh, by the way, Viacom not only owns CBS and Dan Rather, but MTV!
Yes, the same MTV that featured Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl half time!
Hollywood? There might be one or two votes for Bush from the filmmakers. But don't count on it. Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" propaganda film hurt the president. Impressionable youth fall victim to lies.
But, not to worry.
Truth means nothing to the Left.
The quality of character of the Hollywood crowd is best illustrated by the recent antics of the starlet Britney Spears. After her 24-hour marriage, Britney is now engaged to a loser who left his unmarried, pregnant girlfriend and little child. There was not one eyebrow raised by the Hollywood-infatuated Network News. This is normal behavior for the left.
The deck is really stacked against the re-election of President Bush.
Now even the mass murderer Saddam Hussein agrees with Kennedy and Kerry that the president is a criminal. Before the election in November the press will clean up Hussein to look like a saint and George W. Bush a gangster.
John Kerry promises to save the union by going to the UN. Kerry may have to deal with Muslim Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, who received "consultant" fees from Swiss company, Cotecna, which oversaw Iraq's Oil-For-Food program. Some of the $10 billion that was funneled through the "family run" UN program ended up in al Taqwa and Asat Trust, two of al-Qaida's front organizations. Funny, there are al-Qaida in Florida and the UN, but not in Iraq! Alas, but who is chopping off heads in Iraq?
While the bulk of our National Guard are over seas fighting terrorist, every leftist weirdo is coming out of the closet to hi-jack the November presidential election.
The question is: What are the "real" southern Democrats going to do?
Will they join the CPUSA, NEA, ACLU and a host of other radical leftist groups or help save the country from this mob.
Link provided by GOC in NC
Thanks Marine! - Sailor
Examining The Myths of the Vietnam War
As part of my little campaign to expose the poodle's record during his service in Vietnam and his post war antics, I am posting the following article. If you are a 'Nam Vet you may wish to contact the author with your war experiences. The Washington Dispatch
Thanks to my friend Missy for alerting me to this story. - Sailor
Examining The Myths of the Vietnam War
Commentary by Geoff MetcalfJuly 19, 2004
The Washington Dispatch
Notwithstanding the John Kerry posturing about how his veteran status somehow ingratiates him to the veteran community (he served in Vietnam you know?)…the cold reality is, most veterans revile Kerry. There is a deep-seated, unbridled antipathy that veterans (and especially Vietnam veterans) hold for the ‘man who would be commander in chief’.
If the mainstream media tries to ignore what will be happening during the week of the DNC, they will have a real hard time denying the liberal/democrat label facts in evidence suggest.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were the first to come out noting their mission “is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty as a member of Coastal Division 14 and Coast Division 11.” They added, “Since many who are involved with Swiftvets.com themselves had swift boat duty and knew Kohn Kerry personally, they are in a unique position to provide such information.”
There is a long list of veterans who have signed their name to the organizational mission.
And they are not the Lone Ranger. For at least the past three months Stephen Sherman (the de-facto historian for VN-era Special Forces) has been putting together a conference including a significant list of Vietnam era luminaries.
From July 26th-29th (coincidentally concurrent with the Democratic National Convention in Boston), an unprecedented conference featuring Vietnam veterans who have authored books about the war and other scholars and educators will gather at Boston’s Simmons College, just down the road from the DNC Convention.
Sherman notes, “As Senator John Kerry is about to be nominated for President, in great part based on his Vietnam service, it is important for the American people to understand what ‘Vietnam’ was really about and to dispel some of the common misconceptions about why we went to war, what we did, and what went wrong, and why it mattered.”
Reportedly, on the last night of the DNC convention, an undisclosed number of Vietnam Veterans intend to endorse Kerry. A longer significant list of others will not.
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), says, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coastguardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
Kerry’s former commander, Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired), said, "During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"
John O’Neill, spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said, "We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." Roger that!
During the four days of the DNC Convention, Sherman and his group will be at Simmons College delineating a compendium of facts that contradict the preconceived opinions and prejudices of John Kerry and his gang.
This is NOT a partisan attack. It is in no way connected with the GOP. These are distinguished, committed patriots (like Jon R. Cavaiani, Medal of Honor Recipient) who have a REAL problem with Kerry.
Will the mainstream report on ‘Examining The Myths of the Vietnam War’, or will they embrace the revisionist history and fictions of the Kerry cabal?
Thanks to my friend Missy for alerting me to this story. - Sailor
Examining The Myths of the Vietnam War
Commentary by Geoff MetcalfJuly 19, 2004
The Washington Dispatch
Notwithstanding the John Kerry posturing about how his veteran status somehow ingratiates him to the veteran community (he served in Vietnam you know?)…the cold reality is, most veterans revile Kerry. There is a deep-seated, unbridled antipathy that veterans (and especially Vietnam veterans) hold for the ‘man who would be commander in chief’.
If the mainstream media tries to ignore what will be happening during the week of the DNC, they will have a real hard time denying the liberal/democrat label facts in evidence suggest.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were the first to come out noting their mission “is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty as a member of Coastal Division 14 and Coast Division 11.” They added, “Since many who are involved with Swiftvets.com themselves had swift boat duty and knew Kohn Kerry personally, they are in a unique position to provide such information.”
There is a long list of veterans who have signed their name to the organizational mission.
And they are not the Lone Ranger. For at least the past three months Stephen Sherman (the de-facto historian for VN-era Special Forces) has been putting together a conference including a significant list of Vietnam era luminaries.
From July 26th-29th (coincidentally concurrent with the Democratic National Convention in Boston), an unprecedented conference featuring Vietnam veterans who have authored books about the war and other scholars and educators will gather at Boston’s Simmons College, just down the road from the DNC Convention.
Sherman notes, “As Senator John Kerry is about to be nominated for President, in great part based on his Vietnam service, it is important for the American people to understand what ‘Vietnam’ was really about and to dispel some of the common misconceptions about why we went to war, what we did, and what went wrong, and why it mattered.”
Reportedly, on the last night of the DNC convention, an undisclosed number of Vietnam Veterans intend to endorse Kerry. A longer significant list of others will not.
Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), says, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coastguardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
Kerry’s former commander, Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired), said, "During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"
John O’Neill, spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said, "We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief." Roger that!
During the four days of the DNC Convention, Sherman and his group will be at Simmons College delineating a compendium of facts that contradict the preconceived opinions and prejudices of John Kerry and his gang.
This is NOT a partisan attack. It is in no way connected with the GOP. These are distinguished, committed patriots (like Jon R. Cavaiani, Medal of Honor Recipient) who have a REAL problem with Kerry.
Will the mainstream report on ‘Examining The Myths of the Vietnam War’, or will they embrace the revisionist history and fictions of the Kerry cabal?
Another One Bites the Dust!
Looks like Linda Ronstadt did a Whoopi Goldberg and got herself fired from the Aladdin hotel here in Fabulous Las Vegas. Already I have seen liberal whining on this, including one yahoo who claimed that the GOPer that owns the Aladdin is a poor businessman. He further claimed that this was just an excuse to can Ronstadt. Of course, he doesn't know whether the owners of the bankrupt casino are Republicans, so I suppose he back to the Karl Marx playbook, you remember that one, corporations are bad. This fellow thinks that any business or corporation had to be owned and run by a Republican or Conservative. Go figure.
Seems many people had been leaving Ronstadt's show early, demanding their money back, simply because the show sucked. With the prices charged for these shows here in Vegas, who can blame them. Ronstadt had been panned in local reviews.
Now the media, being liberal and all, picked up on her anti-Bush tirade as the reason for her firing. Well, that was only part of it. Ronstadt also trashed Las Vegas, "She said Vegas isn't the best place to perform anyway," Squyres said. Ronstadt also trashed the Aladdin management. You Linda, you trash the boss, you get your ass canned.
Linda also had trouble with 'Blue Bayou', according to the Las Vegas Sun. "She stumbled over the lyrics, seemed to gasp for breath at one point and ended the song in Spanish, screaming the words rather than singing them." Also the Sun printed, "Her performance was uninspired and generally flat. She lacked stage presence, doing little more than sleepwalk from song to song."
So Linda got fired, and the only person she has to blame for it is Linda Ronstadt.
Sailor
Monday, July 19, 2004
New York ruckus brought to you courtesy of Teresa Heinz-Kerry
Found this article about how the Ruckus Society is training protesters to disrupt the GOP Convention in NYC. Seems the article claimed that Teresa Kerry, through her one of her foundations, has provided significant funding to the Ruckus Society. A little research shows that the Tides Foundation and Tides Center donated $204,828.00 to the Ruckus Society from 1999 - 2002. Some other notable donations came from the Ben and Jerry Foundation($111,000.00), the Turner Foundation($115,000.00) and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Trust($10,000.00). - Sailor
New York ruckus brought to you courtesy of Teresa Heinz-Kerry
by Judi McLeod
She may sport fashionable togs rather than a face mask, but the chaos expected during the upcoming GOP convention, is partly courtesy of the stylish Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
The Ketchup Queen financed the shadowy Tides Foundation to the tune of $4 million to date. The Tides Foundation funds the Ruckus Society, a notorious group of anarchists who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots.
This summer, the Ruckus Society has been training protesters for the GOP Convention. Included in their how-to Book for Dummies are mass sit-ins, blockades and pie throwing at high-level officials enroute to Madison Square Gardens.
With the money of Mrs. John Kerry, Ruckus Society members live up to their name of being ready to create a ruckus anywhere, but they’re bound to be more careful in New York than they were in Seattle. And it’s not because they are afraid of The Terminator who’s scheduled to give one of the GOP’ keynote addresses. It’s because they don’t want their rioting, looting, sit-ins and blockades to leave the impression that the Dems and their gaggle of Hollywood supporters are the bad guys. It’s the Johnny America shout mimicking Paul Revere: "The Republicans are coming! The Republicans are coming!" that they want to stick in the public mind.
In Ruckus Society Director John Seller’s own words: "The Republicans would love to have images coming out of New York City that make them look like the reasonable ones like they’re about responsibility and law and order and creating a safe society, and that the left was unreasonable and violent."
Rhetoric aside, with tactics like dog decoys intended to deliberately miscue bomb sniffing dogs in their bag of dirty tricks, tossing marbles under the hooves of police horses and using homemade slingshots to pelt the noble beasts, radical protesters should be prepared to wear the unreasonable shoe that best fits them.
While some 600,000 passengers travel to Penn Station on regular working days, protesters are hoping that their handiwork will see the necessity of having to evacuate Madison Square Garden.
All lessons being taught to willing protestors at the Ruckus knee are ones to make it less easy for the New York Police Department to maintain public safety.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney calls radical protesters what they are, "criminal conspirators".
"There’s a cadre, if you will, of criminal conspirators who are about the business of planning conspiracies to go in and cause mayhem and cause property damage and cause violence in major cities in America that have large conventions and large numbers of people coming in for one reason or another."
Nothing, least of all commonsense will stop the radicals who are on a mission the equivalent of telling the not so long ago besieged Big Apple to get out of town by sunset.
"We will draw our examples and inspiration from the brave shapers of history who came before us and those who put their bodies on the line to gain independence," was one of the loftier protester warnings on the Internet.
Ruckus Society patron Teresa Heinz-Kerry was a flower child of the 60s when she worked as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva. It was when she was hanging out for an Earth Day rally in 1990 that she first ran into the guy with the same initials as JFK.
The socialite, who partly financed the coming ruckus in Madison Square Garden, is not likely to risk her public safety by being in New York. Her protest days long over, for Teresa Heinz-Kerry the Aug. 31 Day of Civil Disobedience will be as tame as the ketchup bottle on the kitchen table as she watches events from one of her half dozen mansions.
Source
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Elton attacks 'censorship' in US
Seems Elton John is accusing the US of 'censorship' In an article posted by the BBC, old Elton goes off on a diatribe against Americans exercising their right to free speech, simply because it does not meet with his approval. Well Elton, here is a definition of censorship;
Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Function: noun
: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
Now no where in your little diatribe do I see anything remotely close to this definition. Do you mean that Americans exercising their right of free speech is censorship? Below is the article from the BBC. I will be adding my own comments, which will be, as usual, will be in Navy blue. - Sailor
BBC News
Elton attacks 'censorship' in US
Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious," he told New York magazine, Interview.
Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics",
The singer likened the current "fear factor" to McCarthyism in the 1950s.
Well Elton, what Administration bullying tactics? There have been none. Your cronies on the Left have and continue to exercise their right to free speech, but this time other Americans, who do not agree with them have exercised their right to free speech. That is hardly McCartyism, since McCarthy was a duly elected Senator. This is just other Americans voicing their disagreement with your left wing pals.
"There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn't say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American," he told the magazine.
So Elton, because these Americans do not agree with the left, they should just shut up? Now who wants censorship? Strikes me as you do, Elton.
The singer said things were different in the 1960s.
"People like Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, The Beatles and Pete Seeger were constantly writing and talking about what was going on.
Backlash
"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.
He voiced concern that it appeared acceptable to speak out if you were pro-Bush, using the example of country singer Toby Keith, but not if you were critical of the President, as in the case of country rock band, the Dixie Chicks.
"On the one hand, you have someone like Toby Keith, who has come out and been very supportive of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - which is OK because America is a democracy and Toby Keith is entitled to say what he thinks and feels.
"But, on the other hand, the Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticizing the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he's freely elected, and therefore accountable."
Both Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks exercised their rights to free speech. Other Americans did as well. No one from the government came down on or in any way tried to silence the Dixie Chicks. So what you are really saying is that only those that agree with your world view have the right to free speech. Elton?
Sir Elton is currently in New York playing a series of concerts.
Let me lay this out for you Sir Elton. In America, everyone has the right to speak their mind. Your cronies on the left have and now other Americans have as well. Just because you do not like what these regular Americans have to say, does not make it censorship. It is obvious to me, you think only those that agree with you should be permitted to speak out.
Let me tell you some thing, for years the left has believed it was only their right to speak out, to protest and to espouse their socialist agenda. Those days are gone. It started with Conservative Talk Radio. At first, your bosom buddies on the left tried to laugh it off as a fad. Then, as Talk Radio grew in size and popularity, the left tried to disparage it and those who listened. That did not work, so the left tried it's hand at it creating Air America. Well Air America is about to go the way of the dinosaur. You know why it is failing, Elton? It is failing because all it has is the same old socialist nonsense and pure venom. You see Sir Elton, that dog just won't hunt anymore. It has no ideas, no open debate, just a washed up comedy writer and his underlings bashing away.
In 2000, the Right made you and the left wet your pants. They actually took to the streets to protest. Conservatives in suits and ties, in khakis and jeans took a page from your left wing book. It scares you to your core. Well listen up, the Right will no longer be docile, will no longer be quiet. We will be vocal, we will be in the streets and unlike the left, we will be peaceful.
You see Elton, the world has changed. No longer is information the strangle hold of the left wing media. You know them....the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC and yes even your beloved BBC. There are now other outlets to get the truth out, not just what you and the left want to get out. They can no longer distort the facts or ignore them totally. The times they are a changing to quote Bob Dylan.
Your day is gone Sir Elton. We are there now. We will be in your face to take you all to task. No more will we be silent. Be afraid, Elton, be very afraid. The truth will be heard, whether you and the left like it or not.
Sailor
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Silver lining in Iraqi clouds
Seems as if things in Iraq are not nearly as bad as the mainstream media have been reporting. Does anyone remember when these media outlets were screaming quagmire? - Sailor
Silver lining in Iraqi clouds
By Jack Kelly
Washington Times
The big news out of Iraq this week was the capitulation by the Philippine government Tuesday to the demands of terrorists, and the explosion of a massive car bomb Wednesday outside the "Green Zone" in Baghdad.
Terrorists who had kidnapped a Filipino truck driver threatened to kill him unless the Philippine government withdrew its troops from Iraq.
The damage was more symbolic than substantial, since the Philippines had only 51 soldiers in Iraq and they were slated to come home in August anyway. But the damage is real. We can expect there will be more kidnappings of the nationals of the smaller Coalition partners.
On Wednesday morning, a car packed with an estimated 1,000 pounds of explosive detonated near a checkpoint at the entrance to the Green Zone. Ten Iraqis were killed. Another 40, one of them a U.S. soldier, were injured. The news media described this, accurately, as the biggest terrorist attack since the handover of sovereignty on June 28. But few journalists noted this was because there has been very little terrorist activity since the handover.
Given less attention by the media was a series of raids by the Iraqi police in Baghdad Tuesday that netted at least 525 criminals. Since Saddam Hussein emptied his jails of some 70,000 hard-core criminals on the eve of the war, the Iraqi police have a long way to go to restore law and order. But the skill with which the raids were pulled off, and the courage displayed by the cops indicate they are off to a very good start.
StrategyPage.com, a Web site run by James Dunnigan, one of the keenest military analysts, reported this week foreign jihadis who have come to Iraq in response to al Qaeda's call are giving up and going home.
"Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda's suicide bombing campaign," StrategyPage said. "Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely than American soldiers to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary."
Local leaders in Fallujah, out of a combination of sympathy for the terrorists and fear of them, have so far been unwilling to back a military attack to clean out various al Qaeda, criminal and Ba'ath Party gangs, StrategyPage said. But if the leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, so the U.S. has been getting timely intelligence on when and where foreign fighters gather, which has made possible several successful air strikes.
"Al Qaeda has found the atmosphere even more hostile elsewhere in Iraq, and many of the terrorists have returned home. This is especially true of those who came from Saudi Arabia and Syria," StrategyPage said.
The Christian Science Monitor reported July 12 that factional fighting has broken out in Fallujah among the various terrorist groups. The Monitor story challenges the conventional wisdom that the failure of the Marines to crush the resistance in Fallujah in April (after the grisly murder of four U.S. contractors) was a setback for the United States.
"The city west of Baghdad is no longer a sympathetic rallying place for a unified Iraqi resistance," the Monitor said. "It is now seen as run by intolerant and exclusivist Sunni imams who are seeking to turn it into a haven for al Qaeda ideologues."
The formation of a mini-Taliban in Fallujah, coupled with rising hostility toward them elsewhere in Iraq, has caused foreign jihadis to concentrate there, where they can more easily be destroyed once Iraqi public opinion supports military operations against them.
It's becoming clear that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the al Qaeda chieftain in Iraq, was correct when he wrote in February: "If, God forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if God chooses us."
Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette.
Sick and Tired
I do not know about you, but I for one am sick and tired of Kerry and his willing accomplices in the media, trumping up his Vietnam War record, as if this is some mandate for the poodle to be Commander-in-Chief. Needless to say, the so called mainstream media, which in my opinion is nothing more then the propaganda arm of the DNC, has not bother to look into the poodle's post war activities. Kerry openly lied to a Senate Committee, curiously enough, he testified without being under oath, when he claimed he had knowledge of atrocities committed my American troops. He also claimed that this was standard operating procedure and that it was encouraged up the chain of command. Kerry's failure to report these atrocities he claimed to hear of to higher command makes him guilty of dereliction of duty.
Further, why hasn't the media inquired as to Kerry's military status when Kerry was in Paris, negotiating with both the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong? In fact, why was Kerry in Paris at all? It is prohibited by the US Constitution for Kerry to be negotiating with any country, let alone a country that was killing his "Band of Brothers".
Enough from me. To the end of showing exactly what Kerry truly stands for as far as the military and National Security are concerned, I have added the following sites to my blogroll;
Kerry Korner
POW/MIA Families against Kerry
Special Forces Vets against Kerry
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
WinterSoldier.com
Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry
These folks are doing what the media have failed to do; exposing Kerry's war record and post war activities for what they are. I urge all of you to visit these sites and see what the mainstream media is intentionally suppressing. - Sailor.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Good News! The Kids Are Alright
We hear so much form the left about 'the children'. Of course they mean when they say 'the children' what they want to do to indoctronate them. Well looks like that is backfiring on them. In a very insightful article on the next generation, Jim Glassman shows us why the next generation may be another "greatest generation". Not something you will see in the whining liberal news media. - Sailor
Good News! The Kids Are Alright
Jim Glassman
Tech Central Station
Extra! Extra! The big news of the past decade in America has been largely overlooked, and you'll find it shocking. Young people have become aggressively normal.
Violence, drug use and teen sex have declined. Kids are becoming more conservative politically and socially. They want to get married and have large families. And, get this, they adore their parents.
The Mood of American Youth Survey found that more than 80 percent of teenagers report no family problems -- up from about 40 percent a quarter-century ago. In another poll, two-thirds of daughters said they would "give Mom an 'A.'
"In the history of polling, we've never seen tweens and teens get along with their parents this well," says William Strauss, referring to kids born since 1982. Strauss is author, with Neil Howe, of "Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation."
In an article in the latest issue of City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, Kay S. Hymowitz writes:
"Wave away the smoke of the Jackson family circus, Paris Hilton and the antics of San Francisco, and you can see how Americans have been self-correcting from a decades-long experiment with 'alternative values.' Slowly, almost imperceptibly during the 1990s, the culture began a lumbering, Titanic turn away from the iceberg."
Adults are changing, but kids seem to have changed most -- and they may comprise the new "greatest generation," as Tom Brokaw called the World War II cohort. "What is emerging," writes Hymowitz, "is a vital, optimistic, family-centered, entrepreneurial, and, yes, morally thoughtful, citizenry."
That's trouble, I believe, for the Democratic party, at least in its current anchored-to-the-'60s version. It's possible that John Kerry will win in November because of the war in Iraq (though the smart money is on George Bush), but the long-term trend is clear. College freshmen who call themselves liberals outnumbered conservatives by about three to one in 1971; now the figures are roughly even. "Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large," writes Hymowitz.
The changes in politics are rooted in changes in values. Last year, the rate of teen pregnancy dropped to a record low. Better birth control is not the sole explanation; the proportion of teens who had intercourse fell from 56 percent in 1991 to 46 percent in 2001.
Kids don't want casual sex; they want families. Harris Interactive reports that 91 percent plan to marry and, on average, they'd like three children.
Already, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979) is more traditional than its parents. "The number of married-couple families, after declining in the '70s and '80s," writes Hymowitz, "rose 5.7 percent in the '90s." More brides are taking their husbands' names, and in 2000, the number of women in the workforce with infants dropped for the first time in decades. A study by Yankelovich found that 89 percent of Gen Xers think modern parents let kids get away with too much.
Twice as many Gen-X mothers as Baby Boomer mothers (born 1946-1964) spent more than 12 hours a day "attending to child-rearing and household responsibilities," according to a new survey by Reach Advisors, and roughly half of Gen-X fathers spent three to six hours daily on such tasks, another big increase.
Meanwhile, student marijuana use, which rose sharply in the 1990s, is on the decline, as is binge drinking. The juvenile murder rate fell 70 percent between 1993 and 2001; burglary is down 66 percent. Schools are safer, too.
What's going on here?
Hymowitz offers four explanations: 1) a "rewrite of the boomer years," with young people reacting critically to the world of sexual experimentation and family breakup and "earnestly knitting up their unraveled culture," 2) the trauma of 9/11, which has made kids more patriotic and turned them inward toward the comfort of family, 3) the information economy, which has given young people greater faith in their own chances to succeed, especially through self-reliance and entrepreneurship, and 4) immigration, which has produced what she calls a "fervent work ethic, which can raise the bar for slacker American kids, as any higher schooler with more than three Asian students in his algebra class can attest."
Whatever the reasons, the change in young people and their parents is very, very good news -- which is precisely why so much of the media is ignoring it.
Good News! The Kids Are Alright
Jim Glassman
Tech Central Station
Extra! Extra! The big news of the past decade in America has been largely overlooked, and you'll find it shocking. Young people have become aggressively normal.
Violence, drug use and teen sex have declined. Kids are becoming more conservative politically and socially. They want to get married and have large families. And, get this, they adore their parents.
The Mood of American Youth Survey found that more than 80 percent of teenagers report no family problems -- up from about 40 percent a quarter-century ago. In another poll, two-thirds of daughters said they would "give Mom an 'A.'
"In the history of polling, we've never seen tweens and teens get along with their parents this well," says William Strauss, referring to kids born since 1982. Strauss is author, with Neil Howe, of "Millenials Rising: The Next Great Generation."
In an article in the latest issue of City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, Kay S. Hymowitz writes:
"Wave away the smoke of the Jackson family circus, Paris Hilton and the antics of San Francisco, and you can see how Americans have been self-correcting from a decades-long experiment with 'alternative values.' Slowly, almost imperceptibly during the 1990s, the culture began a lumbering, Titanic turn away from the iceberg."
Adults are changing, but kids seem to have changed most -- and they may comprise the new "greatest generation," as Tom Brokaw called the World War II cohort. "What is emerging," writes Hymowitz, "is a vital, optimistic, family-centered, entrepreneurial, and, yes, morally thoughtful, citizenry."
That's trouble, I believe, for the Democratic party, at least in its current anchored-to-the-'60s version. It's possible that John Kerry will win in November because of the war in Iraq (though the smart money is on George Bush), but the long-term trend is clear. College freshmen who call themselves liberals outnumbered conservatives by about three to one in 1971; now the figures are roughly even. "Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large," writes Hymowitz.
The changes in politics are rooted in changes in values. Last year, the rate of teen pregnancy dropped to a record low. Better birth control is not the sole explanation; the proportion of teens who had intercourse fell from 56 percent in 1991 to 46 percent in 2001.
Kids don't want casual sex; they want families. Harris Interactive reports that 91 percent plan to marry and, on average, they'd like three children.
Already, Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979) is more traditional than its parents. "The number of married-couple families, after declining in the '70s and '80s," writes Hymowitz, "rose 5.7 percent in the '90s." More brides are taking their husbands' names, and in 2000, the number of women in the workforce with infants dropped for the first time in decades. A study by Yankelovich found that 89 percent of Gen Xers think modern parents let kids get away with too much.
Twice as many Gen-X mothers as Baby Boomer mothers (born 1946-1964) spent more than 12 hours a day "attending to child-rearing and household responsibilities," according to a new survey by Reach Advisors, and roughly half of Gen-X fathers spent three to six hours daily on such tasks, another big increase.
Meanwhile, student marijuana use, which rose sharply in the 1990s, is on the decline, as is binge drinking. The juvenile murder rate fell 70 percent between 1993 and 2001; burglary is down 66 percent. Schools are safer, too.
What's going on here?
Hymowitz offers four explanations: 1) a "rewrite of the boomer years," with young people reacting critically to the world of sexual experimentation and family breakup and "earnestly knitting up their unraveled culture," 2) the trauma of 9/11, which has made kids more patriotic and turned them inward toward the comfort of family, 3) the information economy, which has given young people greater faith in their own chances to succeed, especially through self-reliance and entrepreneurship, and 4) immigration, which has produced what she calls a "fervent work ethic, which can raise the bar for slacker American kids, as any higher schooler with more than three Asian students in his algebra class can attest."
Whatever the reasons, the change in young people and their parents is very, very good news -- which is precisely why so much of the media is ignoring it.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
The Unbearable Lightness of Being John Edwards
First of all, Whoopi 'Foul Mouth' Goldberg was dumped as spokesman for Slim Fast. They sure did cave fast! I will continue to boycott their products since the CEO and his wife are major contributors to the lib/dem/socialis/communists.
Remember back when George 41 selected Dan Quayle as his VP running mate? Remember how the left derided and smeared Dan as being a lightweight, stupid (begining to sound familiar?) and your basic blithering idiot? Can you recall how the left derided Bush 43 along the same lines? Well Dan Quayle had an excellent political track record and Dubya was Governor of one of the largest states in the Union. So, now, that begs the question on how the left can praise and support a candidate like Johnny 'the puppy' Edwards? The puppy is a political lightweight in every sense of the word. In his four plus years in the Senate he is a virtual unknown in terms of creating and pushing legislative through the Senate. He is also missing in action in terms of any clue on military, national security and foreign policy issues. The fact of the matter is had he run for re-election to the Senate from North Carolina, he likely would have lost. His approval rating was about 37%. So once again I ask, why is the left fawning over this guy? Posted below is an article on exactly how much a lightweight the puppy is. - Sailor
The Unbearable Lightness of Being John Edwards
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Published 07/15/2004
Tech Central Station
Most of the speculation that surrounds a Vice Presidential pick in an election year has to do with whether the number two candidate might help the ticket pick up some votes. This speculation is generally unwarranted -- not since Lyndon Johnson's presence on the 1960 Democratic Presidential ticket helped John F. Kennedy win Texas (by means fair or foul) has a Vice Presidential candidate exercised significant electoral influence to help win an election for his/her ticket.
But this doesn't mean that speculation and interest surrounding a Vice Presidential pick isn't justified. On the contrary, it is one of the most important events in the course of any Presidential race. A Vice Presidential pick gives the electorate a unique chance to see a non-incumbent Presidential candidate make an important Presidential choice. The most important factor in that choice must be whether the Vice Presidential pick will be able to succeed to the Presidency on a moment's notice, and do the job effectively.
By that standard, the selection of John Edwards as John Kerry's running mate has to be considered a poor Presidential pick on Kerry's part. Edwards is not without his gifts -- he has good looks, excellent oratorical skills, and an ability to connect with people. But he is rightly derided as one of the more non-substantive people in national politics today. John Edwards has held precisely one electoral office and he is not even finished with his first term in that office, and yet John Kerry proposes to place Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Edwards brings a lackadaisical approach to policy and substantive discussions that is most disturbing. The national decision on how to further reform our law enforcement response to home-grown terrorism will be a central issue facing either a second Bush Administration, or a Kerry Administration. And yet, Edwards appears to be genuinely clueless as to the issues involved. The issue of outsourcing and the changing face of American labor are key points of debate in the current Presidential campaign, and yet, Edwards's past comments on the issue of outsourcing have been completely debunked, and Edwards appears to be a newcomer to the issue of international trade in general. Edwards showed just how serious he was on the issue of reconstructing Iraq when he decided to vote against an $87 billion aid package needed to both aid in the reconstruction and to provide material assistance to U.S. troops. This stance only served to politicize an issue that should have united both Democrats and Republicans -- the reconstruction of Iraq. It was fundamentally unbecoming for any future Vice President (and Presidential aspirant) to so brazenly push the best interests of the nation aside in a matter of such seriousness.
Beyond being wrong on the issues, Edwards just seems to be out of his depth, as even fellow Democrats attest:
"He has all the ingredients you're looking for," said Senator John B. Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat. "But what is missing is a great deal of seasoning or experience in the business of government. I don't think it's just 9/11. You're talking about North Korea. You're talking about Afghanistan. You're talking about Iraq."
While it might be that Edwards was something of a late bloomer when it came to politics and government, it appears that his interest in politics and political issues has been superficial at best:
Will Americans really want a candidate who was so disengaged from government that he voted in only 7 of the 13 elections before his own race? Who has so little regard for his own political history that he cannot recall whom he supported for the nomination in 1992? ("My guess would be Kerrey," Mr. Edwards said of former Senator Bob Kerrey. "But I don't remember.")
Because of Edwards's relative lack of experience, it should come as no surprise that even Kerry family members were skittish about him being chosen as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that Kerry himself expressed concerns about Edwards's qualifications during the Democratic primaries -- concerns that Republicans are all too happy to throw back against the Kerry-Edwards campaign. And why shouldn't they? From discussing how we must deal with Iraq to discussing the issue of gay marriage, Edwards has been consistently found wanting in his knowledge of policy issues.
Edwards won national attention and acclaim thanks to his stump speech about "Two Americas" and thanks to his image as a former trial lawyer who is a champion for the average American. Of course, as a lawyer myself, I certainly don't begrudge Edwards his decision to follow a career in the law, and certainly, plaintiffs' attorneys are needed to keep excesses in check. But that does not justify Edwards's contribution to the propagation of unsound medical care thanks to his work in one particular trial. Edwards's "Two Americas" speech is similarly off-base. Indeed, if it is the case that the economy will grow faster this year than it has in the past two decades, Edwards's pessimistic speech and populist arguments will seem especially hollow.
America's first ever Vice President, John Adams, once remarked that "Today I am nothing, but tomorrow I may be everything." In an age where we are fighting a war against terrorists whose last attack in the United States sought to destroy major government buildings and kill government leaders, Adams's words serve emphasize the importance of selecting a Vice President who is knowledgeable about the issues. Instead, John Kerry has wasted his first Presidential choice by selecting a charming man who at best does not care, and at worst is genuinely confused about the policy issues of the day. Democrats will inevitably counter that George W. Bush was/is clueless as well, and if that is what they think, then they can cast their votes accordingly. But apart from this being nothing more than a fallacious tu quoque reply, it begs the following question: If Democrats are so repulsed by the caricature of an out-of-his-depth George W. Bush, then why did they agree so willingly with the choice of a Vice Presidential candidate who fits that caricature in so many ways?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
2004 Democrat Convention Schedule
Thanks to my good friend, Missy, for sending this to the Sailor via e-mail!
2004 Democrat Convention Schedule
Day One:
6:00 PM Opening flag burning ceremony
6:10 PM Opening secular remarks in lieu of prayer by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
6:20 PM Anti-war concert by Barbara Streisand
6:40 PM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
6:45 PM Seating of the delegates from Cuba and China
7:00 PM Tribute theme to France
7:10 PM Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund
7:25 PM Tribute Theme to Germany
7:35 PM Seminar on uses for aborted fetuses by Dr. Mengela
7:45 PM Anti-war rally moderated by Michael Moore
8:25 PM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:30 PM Terrorist appeasement workshop
9:00 PM Gay marriage ceremony (both male and female couples)
9:15 PM Tribute to the Iraqi insurgency by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins
9:30 PM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:40 PM Re-enactment of the famous medal toss by John Kerry
9:50 PM Cameo appearance by Howard Dean ("Yeeeeeearrrrg!")
10:00 PM Live abortion demonstration by NARAL
10:30 PM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:40 PM Pledge of allegiance to the UN
10:45 PM Multiple gay marriage ceremony (threesomes, trans-gendered and same
sex)
11:00 PM Keynote address - Supporting our soldiers by voting against pay
raises, supplies & weapons
11:25 PM Maximizing welfare workshop
11:45 PM Free Saddam rally
12:15 AM Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:25 AM Acceptance Speech by John Kerry
1:30 AM Hillary accepts a ride home from Ted Kennedy
(Okay, this last one is not on the official program, but a guy can dream
can't he?)
As liberals' champion, Kerry not the real deal
Imagine this, the Boston Globe claims the poodle is not a liberal. Well I suppose in a city like Boston, Mao would be a moderate and Castro a right winger. Just another example of media bias, the Globe trying to help the poodle shed his liberal cape. But we already know better. - Sailor
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
As liberals' champion, Kerry not the real deal
By Peter S. Canellos, Boston Globe Columnist | July 13, 2004
WASHINGTON -- John Kerry's version of Madonna's ''Reinvention" tour began last week with the selection of John Edwards as his running mate and will culminate in about two weeks with his acceptance speech at the FleetCenter.
Kerry's emergence from the shadows of the campaign trail occurs amid growing evidence that the country is open to an alternative to President Bush but doesn't have a clear picture of Kerry. Republicans have been sketching furiously to fill that blank page, drawing from a collection of liberal caricatures the way a tattoo artist chooses which dragon to paint on a fleshy forearm.
Meanwhile, real-life liberals have some qualms of their own. They've watched their supposedly liberal standard-bearer come out against gay marriage, declare that life begins at conception, join Bush in endorsing Israel's refusal even to negotiate over a Palestinian right of return, and slash back his promises on college aid and national service.
Then, last week, Kerry declared that he was in touch with the ''conservative values" of the heartland.
Don't expect any uprisings at the FleetCenter, even if Kerry gives the crowd even less to cheer about than the Bruins or the Celtics. Except for a few Massachusetts unions, the traditional Democratic agitators have decided to sublimate their demands to the purpose of defeating Bush.
Still, both sides are eager to discover Kerry's true north, and the location seems likely to disappoint both the Republican caricaturists and liberal idealists: Kerry isn't much of a liberal at all.
He's got a strong contrarian streak and has long sought to shake free of party dogma.
His skepticism of any received wisdom was duly earned in the Vietnam War, when he followed his own path and emerged morally unscathed -- just about the only prominent figure of the era to have done so.
As both soldier and protester, he escaped former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey's guilt over never having spoken out about civilian casualties, and he lacks the sense of moral compromise that follows those like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush who made decisions that kept them off the front lines.
Kerry's 20-year voting record in the Senate points in the liberal direction, but not all the time.
The National Journal assessment used to support GOP talking points and the Boston Herald's inimitable ''Left of Ted" headline -- using Ted Kennedy as a fixed point on the political map, like a 7-eleven on the corner of Bleeding Heart Boulevard -- is incomplete.
The National Journal rates senators in three major areas -- economic policy, foreign policy, and social policy -- but only if they voted on more than half the issues. Kerry spent most of 2003 on the campaign trail and amassed only enough votes to be assessed on economics. He wasn't even rated on foreign or social issues.
In other years, when he's been present to vote, Kerry has veered between his party's left wing and moderate center.
But even when Kerry chalked up a liberal voting record, he left plenty of evidence to suggest he was eager to break ranks, yet kept getting yanked back by the demands of his left-leaning state.
In 1992, before Clinton's Sister Souljah attack, Kerry made his own highly publicized break with liberal theology on race, bemoaning the lack of personal responsibility in poor urban neighborhoods and suggesting that affirmative action sent the wrong message to the underclass.
After days of rebukes up in Boston, Kerry didn't back down, but applied so many layers of conciliatory clothing to his remarks that any sharp edges got covered.
Then, after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Kerry acted like a man unchained. He professed to be ''delighted by the shakeup," which has tabled the liberal agenda for a decade.
Whether joining with Republicans to promote a budget-cutting plan or staring with incredulousness at a roomful of Boston reporters who questioned why he believed openly gay soldiers would harm the morale of the military, Kerry never seemed so happy as when challenging his hometown ideology.
Likewise, his efforts to expose the Reagan administration's ''secret wars" in Central America -- portrayed by Republicans as softness on communism -- were more an expression of his prosecutor's zeal to uncover lies and inconsistencies.
Like Republican moderates Arlen Specter and Rudolph Giuliani, and Democratic moderates Joseph I. Lieberman and Joe Biden, Kerry enjoys wagging a finger at powerful interests of any type, demanding truth and transparency.
Presidential campaigns either find their moment or dissolve, and Kerry's insistence on a rigorous means rather than a prescribed end provides a natural contrast to Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It doesn't offer an ideological counterweight to the Republicans so much as a side route around ideological roadblocks.
The relatively simple, unexciting guideposts Kerry has promised -- a return to ''pay as you go" economics, a foreign policy based on vigilance but also rigorous analysis -- is about all there is to his proposed administration.
John Kerry is neither a liberal dragon nor a liberal angel.
He's no liberal at all.
His dry husk of an agenda is all process and few goals.
But it's his unusual fortune to rise up against an administration widely accused of having too little process and too many goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)