So Why Does Kerry Own Wal-Mart?

THE DRUDGE REPORT suggests that there’s more than a touch of lying going on from the Kerry camp of late, as regards Wal-Mart….

Teresa Heinz Kerry blasted WAL-MART last week week — but an investigation reveals she has over $1,000,000 in WAL-MART stock, and purchased a ton of it throughout 2002!

04/04/02: Purchase: $500,001 – $1,000,000
04/05/02: Purchase: $500,001 – $1,000,000
06/04/02: Purchase: $15,001 – $50,000
06/06/02: Purchase: $50,001 – $100,000
11/13/02: Purchase: $50,001 – $100,000
11/14/02: Purchase: $15,001 – $50,000
11/14/02: Purchase: $15,001 – $50,000

Outside the Beltway today has a link to an Thomas Freidman article I find interesting… and it’s one you’llnot hear the Democrats speak of until they by some work of evil, get themselves elected:

“I’ve been in India for only a few days and I am already thinking about reincarnation. In my next life, I want to be a demagogue.
Yes, I want to be able to huff and puff about complex issues – like outsourcing of jobs to India – without any reference to reality. Unfortunately, in this life, I-m stuck in the body of a reporter/columnist. So when I came to the 24/7 Customer call center in Bangalore to observe hundreds of Indian young people doing service jobs via long distance answering the phones for U.S. firms, providing technical support for U.S. computer giants or selling credit cards for global banks

Well, he answered patiently, “look around this office. All the computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The phones are from Lucent. The air-conditioning is by Carrier, and even the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water in India, people want a trusted brand. On top of all this, says Mr. Nagarajan, 90 percent of the shares in 24/7 are owned by U.S. investors. This explains why, although the U.S. has lost some service jobs to India, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. What goes around comes around, and also benefits Americans.”

Some of my notes about Canada’s events last summer, which bear directly on the discussion here:

Much discussion on the net and in the media in the last week or so, as regards the ruling of Canada’s Supreme Court regarding homosexual marriage. I wonder sometimes if they really thought this one through. There’s a major difference, I think between a ruling that is legally correct, and one that is socially and culturally correct. If destroying the culture is the target, that there could hardly be a more effective tool to that end, than using law and the courts. And I fear that our rights to speak out on such matters, both in Canada, and here in the US, are in trouble if things don’t change soon. So, I’ll make use of the right now, lest it disappear.

Consider that to make marriage for homosexuals possible, the law regarding marriage for EVERYBODY needs be changed. Do the proponents of this idea think that the laws will not change the behavior of both homosexuals (as intended) and heterosexuals? What unintended consequences to the vast heterosexual majority (97%) in our society will ensue? Or perhaps the consequences are not unintentional. Hmmm.

Anyway; What happens to the traditional, (and heretofore, legally acknowledged) roles of fatherhood and motherhood? Consider the legal confusion in a homosexual divorce when both partners claim to be the mother, for example. As a result of increasing liberal encroachment, wedding vows are being taken less and less seriously. (stats) Does this push us over the edge in that regard? Watch the words “Husband” and “Wife” disappear from our ‘official’ speech because some government hack rules them to be discriminatory.

Yes, that blithering idiot Jean Chretien is mumbling about how Churches will be exempted from being forced into recognizing these ‘unions’. However, reality rears it’s head.

Do any of you recall the case in Western Canada, (Saskatchewan, I think) wherein the court ruled that the provincial hate crime laws applied to a man who took out an ad whose only content was four bible verses, condemning homosexuality… and if I recall rightly, there’s currently a bill in the Commons which echoes that provincial statute on which that ruling was based? Does Jean Chretien plan to blot those laws? I doubt it. The argument resulting from such an act, would be between Chretien and the Canadian Human rights commission, (who also seems to feel the Church’s stand on homosexuality a criminal matter). It would be loud, and almost interesting, but in the end, unavailing, even if he were so inclined. So, we can take his comments as worthless political positioning… positioning under the nearest cover.

The usual argument offered by homosexuals about ‘freedom” and “constitutional rights’ rings hollow, here. Much as some would have you think so, the constitution of Canada, nor that of the US, was written in a social or cultural vacuum. The very purpose of law… IE; the idea behind the concept of law itself, was to provide the culture a means to reinforce and expand it’s influence. Of course there are those governments that lost sight of that fact, and tried to alter the society by means of law. Each of them failed, as did the cultures and societies the governments involved were supposed to be protecting.

I recognize there are many who would like to see the failure of our cultures happen, for their own reasons. But consider that history is replete with examples of governments, which ignored their base culture, and this destroyed themselves in the process.

All of this ignores the process of defining the behavior, which is needed if we’re to properly discuss what it is the courts and some legislatures are seeking to accommodate.

Take a little memory trip with me, back when the homosexual extra rights advocates were touting the idea that homosexuality was a natural phenom. Remember? There were some very high-level studies that were released about this time, that showed some very good promise of finding a cause.

Funny thing, though….

Once they started getting close… once the question of the cause being similar to something called Tourette’s syndrome, which is treatable, but not yet curable, came up….. well, suddenly, the homosexual extra rights advocates backed off of the argument as one would back off from a Palestinian bomber screaming “Allah is great!”, as if the thought of an actual cure horrified them. As well it might; no more special rights, and homosexuality moves form ‘lifestyle choice’ to ‘illness’.

Suddenly the bloom was off the rose, as far as the ‘homosexuality is a natural thing’ argument went… and suddenly their argument switched to what we on the right have been saying for decades… it’s a choice. It’s a choice they certainly have the right to make, at least based on our understanding of the issues thus far.

But for the sake of discussion, let us consider the Tourette’s victim further. The person has a choice; they can either chose to treat the illness as such, or they can say to hell with the rest of the world, label it a lifestyle, and try to get everyone else to accept it as such. Again, something they have the right to do, but I doubt that many will abide that right for long. Behavior has consequences, after all.

Consider the rather interesting parallels. Just as with the homosexual who claims to have been born into the homosexual role, such a person cannot be said to have entered the situation by choice. Yet, we as the rest of humanity, regard it like we do any other physical/mental malady… an illness to be overcome if possible. Treated with understanding, certainly… but treated. Drugs are able to limit the social consequences of the problem. Should the Tourette’s victim go off his meds, and insist that everyone else put up with the consequences of his illness as his chosen lifestyle? Tourettes is a natural occurrence, after all.

Now of course you’ll say Tourettes should be treated. And, you’re right. It should. Somehow, though, because we’re dealing with sexuality, suddenly this philosophy of treatment, goes out the window. Why? Put another way; The Tourette’s victim doesn’t stay off his meds, defying cures, and demand that we all accept his behavior as a natural lifestyle choice.

As homosexual columnist Camile Paglia wrote a couple of years back:

“Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the “reparative therapy” endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight.

Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus “queer theorists,” whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette’s thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external “politics,” all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men’s mouths on “Queer as Folk”? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.”

This says it all… and is particularly noteworthy since Paglia is homosexual, herself.

Now, as I pointed out in this column already, there are issues of rights involved, and nobody has the right to legislate the behavior. (At least, based on our current understanding of it)

There’s a major difference, however, between allowing the behavior, and justifying it, mainstreaming it, by means of law. Must we alter our traditions, beliefs and social structures and mores, thus destroying our existing culture, to be seen as non-judgmental… as if that was supposed to be a GOOD thing? I have said it for years in this column, that those who tolerate everything making no judgments about anything,, stand for nothing. Our cultures stand for something. When the culture is gone, what remains of western society? Canada’s government has in their attempt to get us to be more tolerant, asked us… no.. demanded of us, under threat of law, to take one more step towards cultural oblivion.

You’ll forgive me, please, if I refuse to march in their parade.

USELESS TOADY has an article up today taht gives us a gloom and doom

“Average gasoline prices in California and Hawaii have topped $2 for a gallon of unleaded regular, and Nevada is close at $1.968, AAA said Wednesday. AAA said regular averaged $1.681 nationwide, up 7.9 cents the last month. That’s 5.6 cents less than the record average of $1.737 reported last Aug. 30. EIA, using different data, lists the record as $1.747 last Aug. 25.”

However, a line buried in the story seems to me to place a different perspective on it all;

“Gas would have to average $2.89 to surpass the inflation-adjusted record of $1.417 in 1981.”

Alan Greenspan spoke the truth yesterday; Socialist Security isn’t.

And predictably, the Democrats, looking for some issue,/any issue to run on, went into full cry.

What the Democrats won’t tell you is this monster has us 26 Trillion dollars in debt, and that bill rises by the day.  If you mention it, they’ll go into their mantra about the President’s tax cuts for the ‘rich’…(damn, I must be rich… I’ll have to tell my wife…)

We’re never going to see dollar one from this farce. When are we going to wake up and demand that this thing be removed from our backs?

Interesting discussion over at Drezner’s place.

I joined in with a response I’ve been pondering for some time, and thought I’d post here some of my comments in that thread. They’ll appear a little disjointed here, but you’ll get the idea.

…

A trend seems brewing in this discussion; Blame religion and it’s teachings for the movement for this amendment.

One point that seems to be going missing here is the role of culture, of which religion is only a part.

I’ve pointed out here in the past that only around 50% of Americans consider themselves religious. Yet the polls seem to suggest numbers of people against “gay marriage” to be around 75-80% in some polls and never below 70%.

Seems clear there’s more than just religion at work here.

By the same token, however, there’s more than mere law at work here, as well. Consider; if we read the constitution the way the four idiots in Mass. did, there’s no legal reason to keep a man from marrying his daughter, or his son, for that matter. We’ve not seen any challanges along this line yet, but we know it’d be coming should this ruling stand. Further, we’ve already seen challanges to anti-poligamy statutes, based on grounds not all that dissimilar to the case brought in Mass.

And finally, it should be noted that the Mass case was, in fact activist judges.. one of which called marriage a ‘stain on our legal system, which needs to be eradicated’.

….

At it’s most basic, this is a question of what role government has to play in the protection of the culture.

I have always held that politics,and government are (in their best and and original use) a tool toward the end of giving the existing dominant culture a mechanism in which to work it’s collective will. Stated differently, the primary purpose of any government that wants to survive for long, is to support the culture that gave it life.

Think; Was culture and invention of government, or was government an invention of culture? Clearly, the latter. If so, then it follows that culture raised up government for the above stated purpose.. as a mechenism to support the culture. Thereby, I submit that supporting the culture is a valid role for government.

Now, I certainly admit, in fact I’ll loudly point out, that this original goal/purpose of government goal can be and is preverted by using the power of government toward other goals. Hitler is an example of this, as are Soviets and American liberals.

All of these use(d) government not to reinforce the culture as was the original purpose of government, but by means of government might, changing the existing culture.

Such governmentally imposed changes never last long. The governments collapse, else the government *and* the culture collapses. Either way, the government that does not fufil it’s primary purpose doesn’t long survive.

What needs to be guaraded against then, in our case, is that the government not be used against the dominant culture, and it’s values, lest we cease to exist as a culture, and as a people, as so many cultures have done before us, at the hands of governments who were supposed to uphold them. I submit that has been occurring all too often in the last 60 years or so, here in the US…. and that applies rather well to this case in Mass, and to the SF situation, as well.

I know folks may be a little uncomfortable with that, but please consider;

If our legal and moral rights, as I suggest, decend from the culture, and it’s values, it’s morality, then what guarantee of our rights do
we have, if that culture ceases to exist, by means of either government fiat, or inattention?

This is, it seems to me what those who use the power of government in an attempt to alter the values of the culture, as in this case, do not reckon with. Libertarians also seem to fail to reckon with this point.

Or, perhaps some of them do, and those rights disappearing is a goal for them. There’s a lot of evidence for the latter. (Such as for example, the Judge in the mass case suggesting that Marrige needed to be destroyed as an institution.)

Sullivan today, is predictably peeing his pants.

What an idiot.

No, Andrew, the President didn’t declare war, he answered the challanges to our culture from idiots such as yourself, and correctly so.

“After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,” the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. “Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

You accuse Mr. Bush of tamping with the constitution.
You’re the one doing the tampering, Andrew. How is it this wasn’t a constitutional issue for over 200 years?
How is it one of the authors of that constitution, arguably the most liberal of the lot, Thomas Jefferson, thought homosexual behavior a HANGING offense against society? How is it you ignore the messge keeps getting ignored?

I think you’ll find him to be far MORE popular because of this. The bottom line here is you’re wrong.
Period.

Blogger Captain Ed adds:

However, it still should be left to the people to determine the laws under which they will be governed. The Constitution was crafted to require this process, and judges only reviewed the laws to make sure that they did not directly contradict the Constitution itself. Since the 1950s, for better and for worse, the American judiciary has taken it upon itself to craft its own legislation from the bench in the guise of intellectually murky “interpretations” of Constitutional provisions, invoking emanations from penumbras in order to create what the justices saw as a greater social good. But that’s not their job — that’s the job of the Legislature. Judicial activism is an arrogation of power away from elected representatives, who are held responsible to the people on a regular basis, and into the hands of those who hold lifetime appointments, and whose decisions cannot be overruled except by other judges.

Other comments:

Greatest Jeneration

Slings and Arrows

Will far- leftist Ralph Nader take votes away from whoever the Democrats cough up?

Probably.
Will it be as many votes as last time?
I don’t know, but I tend to doubt it.

Where it will *really* cost the Democrats is not what voters go directly to Nader, but what swing voters get turned off by the DNC’s swing to the left, trying to counter Nader. This factor is harder to measure because of the vaiables involved, but the bottom line is it’ll be quite a few, and those voters will vote for George W. Bush. Given the level of paranoia coming from the DNC these days, the Democrats certainly see this factor as a threat, though I guarantee you they’ll never frame it this way. The Democrats don’t want to turn of their leftist base.

Will Nader’s running matter in the outcome of this election?

No. George W. Bush will be re-elected with, or without Nader’s involvement. The only change will be width of the margin of victory for the Republicans.

The Idaho Statesman – Always Idaho: ”

Sen. John Kerry would appoint a salmon czar who would answer directly to him and his vice president if he’s elected president.
But neither he nor his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John Edwards, are willing to support studies of breaching four dams on the Snake River to aid the fish. “

More flip-flopping?

Josh Chafetz says very well over at Oxblog what I’ve been thinking for some days, now regards John Kerry:

He’s trying to claim that, because he’s a veteran, any discussion of his views on national security is off-limits, even discussions about the way he has voted during his years in the Senate:

Look, no one is attacking Kerry’s record in Vietnam. He served honorably, and he, like every veteran, deserves thanks and praise from every American for what he did there. But that doesn’t insulate him from criticism based on what he’s done since — his anti-war activities when he returned are fair game; his votes in the Senate are fair game; his statements on Iraq are fair game. Note that Chambliss’ comment talked about a 32-year history — 32 years ago was 1972 — after Kerry got back from Vietnam. Again, no one here is questioning his Vietnam service — they’re questioning his political activity since he returned. And it’s Kerry’s attempts to foreclose these policy discussions that are taking “the low road of American politics.”

However, I’ll take it one step farther than Josh does, here.

Kerry spent a total of four months in country. Four months.

During that time, he suffered three flesh wounds, two of them minor. When he got purple hearts for said injuries, they were given based on recommendations Kerry himself wrote.

Once he got his third Purple heart, he asked to be sent back. stateside. Even Adml Elmo Zumwalt stated flatly that he’d have problems in his political carrier based on his experiences in ‘nam.

Once he came back form ‘nam, he then proceeded to sit down before Congress and outright lie about a number of atrocities, committed he said, by American servicemen there. Yet, he never witnessed them In short Mr Kerry LIED, and slandered his fellow servicemen.

But, as Josh suggests above… The real issue is what he did since getting into office. This, it seems was very consistent with his anti-Americanism since coming back form ‘nam…  Kerry is on record as having voted against every single Pentagon weapons program during his tenure in the U.S. Senate.  Every single one.

This kind of wekaness at best, and in truth, anti-Americanism, is something I want nowhere near the reins of power.

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat has an article up today that raises the point of just how widespread the following for Gibson’s PASSION film is:

“Even the small Rialto Cinemas Lakeside theater, known for its foreign films, has sold $6,800 worth of tickets for ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ Nationwide, $10 million in advance tickets have been sold.
‘This is unheard of,’ said Ky Boyd, co-owner of the Rialto. He said what’s puzzling is that the movie is rated R for its violence and bloodshed. And the dialog is in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles.
‘The fact that it’s getting this huge interest across the board is just amazing,’ Boyd said”

Logically, one might ask the question: Given that these are both downright HUGE numbers, and for the most part, people who have not stepped foot into a theatre in years, (certainly, not in groups) one wonders if one effect of Gibson’s film is for Hollywood to seriously re-evaluate the kind of fare they’ve been putting out the last 20 years or so.

Put another way; I think the argument could be made here, based on the kind of response this film’s been getting, that evengelical Christians have been ignored by Hollywood.  The response this film has gotten, was had precisely because the usual Hollywood types got bypassed. Just as Gibson and his financial backers planned, I suspect.

I see where O’Riely is supposed to have him on, tonight. Too bad I’m working.

An excellent bit over at “A collection of Thoughts”. Jen Martinez fowards something which was forwarded to her. It’s excellent.

War Heroes do not return home from a war and attack their own country!

Kerry “IS” scared of how his past actions will play with the public and he is very hopeful his past conduct will not become an issue. It will and has already started. He is counting on short memory. To bad for him. There is a lot of information related to his anti America activities in the past and how he benefited from such activities.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and Vietnamese-American Organizations Coalition Announce Plans For A Protest Demonstration Against John Kerry
Where: New York City, 373 Park Avenue South (between 26the and 27the Streets) across from Kerry’s campaign headquarters
Date: February 28, 2004
Time: 12:00 noon
Coalition spokesman:

Jerry Kiley, New York spokesman and demonstration coordinator can be reached at 845-947-3058.
Mike Benge, a US POW in Vietnam for 5 years is available for interviews at 703- 698-8256
Peter Nguyen, General Council of the Vietnamese Community of NY, will be available for interviews at 718-892-9500

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (V.V.A.J.K) has formed a national coalition with Vietnamese Americans for Human Rights in Vietnam. V
“We represent hundreds of thousand of American veterans who do not want to see John Kerry any where near the Oval Office,” said Ted Sampley, founder of V.V.A.J.K, and a U.S. Army Green Beret and veteran of two combat tours in Vietnam.

Said Sampley, “I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of US POWs left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of US veterans. Many Vietnam vets have been duped into thinking Kerry is their friend. He is not. To us, he is ‘Hanoi John'”

Dan Tran, a NASA engineer and president of the Vietnam Human Rights Project, said, “John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam.”

Mike Benge, former civilian Viet Nam POW says, “John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists than he fought against them in Vietnam.

“In the Senate, Kerry almost single handedly prevented a Vietnam Human Rights (and religious freedom) Bill from coming to a vote. Mean while the Vietnamese communists continue to wage a war of repression against our former South Vietnamese allies and a war of genocide against the Montagnard ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.”

Chau Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in NY said, Pastors, Priests, and Buddhist Monks are being held against their will and many are beaten close to death on a regular basis”

When Kerry returned from military service in Vietnam he became a national leader and spokesperson of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In this role, Hanoi John campaigned against the efforts of the United States to contain the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia. Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members marched in demonstrations under the flags of the Viet Cong enemy and displayed pictures of Ho Chi Minh. They mocked the uniform of
United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues, many marked with pro-communist graffiti.

In congressional testimony Hanoi John called the U.S. involvement in Vietnam “a genocide against the Vietnamese people” and referred to his former comrades as “war criminals.” The false image and social stigma portraying Vietnam vets as “drug-addicted baby killers and mindless drones” can be traced directly to John Kerry and his VVAW.

“It’s one thing,” said New York Vietnam veteran Jerry Kiley, “to oppose a war for moral reasons, but it’s dishonorable to take that extra step and support the enemy. That’s what John Kerry did.”

Dan Tran, speaking as a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry said, “On behalf of tens of thousands of Vietnamese-Americans, we are determined to demonstrate against Senator Kerry all across this nation”

The Coalition plans nationwide demonstrations against Kerry beginning with
the New York primary.

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.org

0222041417 Rochester,NY–

Let’s start with a premise:

War heroes do not fight for their country, and then return to spend the next 30 years or so attacking both the country’s actions and call it’s fighting men ‘war criminals’, while working tirelessly to hamstring that country’s actions and giving support to that country’s sworn enemies.

I will go one step farther. I will not only openly question Kerry’s commitment to the defense of our nation, I will openly question Kerry’s commitment to our nation, period. Mind, I do not dispute that he was in Vietnam and got himself decorated during that time.

John Kerry apparently assumes that service to one’s country while in Uniform entitles one to a lifetime of passes for all their future actions.

But as has been pointed out by others:

War Heroes do not return home from a war and attack their own country!

War Heroes do not return home and attack their fellow veterans and service members!

War Heroes do not throw their medals over a fence at the capital and then later admit they were not theirs to begin with! (hypocrisy??)

War Heroes do not give aid and comfort to the enemy and conduct events under the flag of the enemy!

War Heroes do not lie and paint “ALL” of their fellow veterans as war criminals, before a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee as he did on April 22, 1971.

War Heroes do not allow themselves and their conduct to be used as a propaganda tool by and for the enemy we are at war with.

War Heroes understand if you don’t like a policy, deal with the policy makers not falsely blame and accuse fellow veterans or those serving their country and simply following legal and lawful orders.

War Heroes do not create a situation when they return home that causes more death and severe torture of his fellow veterans still in combat or POW camps!

War Heroes don’t have friends and financial sponsors such as Jane Fonda who caused the additional torture of American POW’s.

War Heroes do not engage anti war activists to pretend they are veterans to give credence to their cause!

War Heroes do not make the lives of their returning comrades so miserable they are only called shameful names and ostracized from society in general causing many to commit suicide, and have a huge negative impact on their ability to move forward with their lives.

War Heroes do not work hard to create a society where other decorated heroes are afraid to admit they served this country let alone admit they are heroes themselves. Unless of course they are a part of his anti America band wagon.

War Heroes do not attack the military of their own country.

War Heroes do not create or promote an environment that makes members of the military feel ashamed of their service to their country.

Kerry complained via a letter to President Bush:

“As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation’s history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do.”

Fact is, though, that Bush is not the one who decided to open those wounds, but Kerry. Let’s call this what it is; Kerry’s the one who made his middle name ‘Served in Vietnam’ So, Kerry, really, are the one that started that one. What everyone to his right, and many to his left have done is to simply point out his voting record since that time.

Well, wait. Since Kerry brought it up, let’s examine his service for just a moment, shall we?

Kerry spent a total of four months in country. Four months.

During that time, he suffered three flesh wounds, two of them minor. When he got purple hearts for said injuries, they were given based on recommendations Kerry himself wrote.

Once he got his third Purple heart, he asked to be sent back. stateside. Even Adml Elmo Zumwalt stated flatly that he’d have problems in his political carrier based on his experiences in ‘nam.

Once he came back form ‘nam, he then proceeded to sit down before Congress and outright lie about a number of atrocities, committed he said, by American servicemen there. Yet, he never witnessed them. In short Mr. Kerry LIED, and slandered his fellow servicemen.

The real issue is what he did since getting into office. This, it seems was very consistent with his anti-Americanism since coming back form ‘nam… Kerry is on record as having voted against every single Pentagon weapons program during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. Every single one.

This kind of wekaness at best, and in truth, anti-Americanism, is something I want nowhere near the reins of power.

Apparently a lot of other people who served in Vietnam, don’t want him there, either.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (V.V.A.J.K) has formed a national coalition with Vietnamese Americans for Human Rights in Vietnam.

Dan Tran, a NASA engineer and president of the Vietnam Human Rights Project, said, “John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam.”

Mike Benge, former civilian Viet Nam POW says, “John Kerry has fought harder for the Vietnamese communists than he fought against them in Vietnam.

“In the Senate, Kerry almost single handedly prevented a Vietnam Human Rights (and religious freedom) Bill from coming to a vote. Mean while the Vietnamese communists continue to wage a war of repression against our former South Vietnamese allies and a war of genocide against the Montagnard ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.”

Chau Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in NY said, Pastors, Priests, and Buddhist Monks are being held against their will and many are beaten close to death on a regular basis”

When Kerry returned from military service in Vietnam he became a national leader and spokesperson of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In this role, Hanoi John campaigned against the efforts of the United States to contain the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia. Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members marched in demonstrations under the flags of the Viet Cong enemy and displayed pictures of Ho Chi Minh. They mocked the uniform of
United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues, many marked with pro-communist graffiti.

In congressional testimony Hanoi John called the U.S. involvement in Vietnam “a genocide against the Vietnamese people” and referred to his former comrades as “war criminals.” The false image and social stigma portraying Vietnam vets as “drug-addicted baby killers and mindless drones” can be traced directly to John Kerry and his VVAW.

“It’s one thing,” said New York Vietnam veteran Jerry Kiley, “to oppose a war for moral reasons, but it’s dishonorable to take that extra step and support the enemy. That’s what John Kerry did.”

Dan Tran, speaking as a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry said, “On behalf of tens of thousands of Vietnamese-Americans, we are determined to demonstrate against Senator Kerry all across this nation”

The Coalition plans nationwide demonstrations against Kerry beginning with the New York primary.

Finally, let’s remember that a war hero doesn’t take illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese. According to the LA TIMES…

Anyone still think Bush isn’t going to be able to defeat Kerry?

Bin Laden ‘surrounded’? :

“A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.
The claim is attributed to ‘a well-placed intelligence source’ in Washington, who is quoted as saying: ‘He (bin Laden) is boxed in.'”

If true, this would be faster than I had expected. Remember, I’d suggested in my New Year’s predictions he’d be caught before high summer.