David Limbaugh Speaks On Kerry's Character, or Lack thereof...

-FLIP-FLOP FLUMMERY
By David Limbaugh

Ironically, the greatest beneficiary of John Kerry's reputation for flip-flopping is Mr. Kerry himself, because he's not so much a flip-flopper as a fundamentally dishonest person, which his reputation for flip-flopping tends to conceal. Of course, Democrats and the partisan media prefer to euphemize Mr.Kerry's frenetic policy changes, citing them as evidence of his mental acuity. He's not a flipper, but a genius. But if they really believed his flips were something to celebrate, they wouldn't have made such a colossal deal of his recent Iraq speech in New York.
Mr. Kerry made major news that day simply for stating his position on Iraq less equivocally than he's been willing to do in the past. Allhis supporters expressed a collective sigh of relief that he had finally arrived at a position that would substantively distinguish him from President Bush on Iraq. The partisan media looked on wistfully as JohnKerry finally said, "No, I wouldn't have gone to Iraq. ... America is not safer than it was before Saddam's removal. Bush is a lying scumbag ...blah, blah, blah." Nevertheless, liberals continue the charade that Mr. Kerry's customary refusal to stick with a position is a positive. Not long ago, a liberal elitist columnist spent his entire 700 words laboring to recast Mr.Kerry's embarrassing self-contradictions as the product of an enlightened thinker poised for leadership. Another suggested Mr. Kerry's 180-degree turnabouts show admirable flexibility in a man willing to examine newevidence and adapt to changing circumstances. Others have said Mr. Kerry's flops flow from his sophistication, complexity and ability to appreciate"nuance."
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart told Katie Couric that efforts to paint Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper are "silly" and "not really the case." I agree with Mr. Stewart that these efforts to paint Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper are silly, though not in the sense he surely means it, but rather because they trivialize a deeper flaw in Mr. Kerry. That is, when Republicans characterize Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper, they leave the impression he is merely wishy-washy, irresolute and indecisive.
While he certainly changes his positions almost as often as he takes a stance, I don't think his flips result from changes of heart, but thecold political calculations of a dangerously opportunistic customer. (If hetruly changed his mind as often as he changes his positions, we would haveconclusive evidence he is mentally unstable.) Mr. Kerry knows exactly what he believes, but often can't afford to be honest about it. But his real beliefs, more than his vintage vacillations, scare me most.
There's a big difference between changing one's mind to accommodate changed circumstances and reconsidering a position due to a change in the direction of the political winds. I don't have the space or patience to rehash all of Mr. Kerry's changed policies on Iraq, culminating in his confession to David Letterman that if he were president, we would not be in Iraq. But I am confident none of his flips were due to thoughtfulness, or even indecisiveness, but raw political expedience.
I have no idea if John Kerry truly ponders issues carefully and deliberately, Perhaps he does in contemplating his next checkers move. But frankly, on policy decisions, it is hard to envision him weighing anything other than their potential effect on his political fortunes, because, at his core, John Kerry is plainly a narcissist.
All indications are John Kerry is not a deliberative, thoughtful guy. Do you remember his reaction to the publication of the September 11 commission report? He was so anxious to use that report as a weapon against Mr. Bush that he advocated adopting all its recommendations before he had even had time to read them — heck, before Evelyn Wood would have had time to speed-read it.
I was struck by the sheer irresponsibility of Mr. Kerry's precipitous pronouncement on the report. No serious person could claim his headlong "lurch" to embrace the commission's recommendations was born of nuance, complexity, thoughtfulness, deliberation, flexibility or leadership. It was abject, reckless political posturing.
And when President Bush refused to uncritically and immediately ratify every syllable in the report, he was hardly hailed by the phonynuance idolaters for his thoughtfulness. Indeed Mr. Bush was under enormouspolitical pressure to throw all caution and leadership to the wind, but hestood his ground.
The partisan media aren't interested in thoughtfulness or nuance, but in portraying Mr. Kerry in the most favorable light. Given the man's nature, they have their work cut out for them.

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

NRO Article A Must Read...

KNOW THINE ENEMY
The beheadings are about them, not us.
By: Michael Ledeen, NRO Contributing Editor

We should have no trouble understanding this and drawing the proper conclusions. A movement that draws its foot soldiers from people who dream of beheading one of us is clearly a barbarous phenomenon, one that puts the lie to the notion that our enemies in this terror war are human beings driven to desperation by misery and injustice. Not at all: The recruiting films are aimed at subhuman homicidal maniacs who revel in bloody brutality. Given the human capacity to rationalize most any ghastly behavior, some of the killers' supporters — even in the Western intelligentsia — include misguided souls who are so confused they can accept and even justify barbarism in the name of the cause of the moment. There is nothing new in invoking ends to justify dreadful means. But in this case, the means — the beheadings — define our enemies and their followers.

It follows that there is no policy that will successfully end their jihad against us short of total surrender and mass conversion to their brand of Islam. They see us, quite explicitly, as animals who deserve slaughter. The terrorists' recent response to Tony Blair's statement that he would not negotiate with them was eloquent: We are not interested in negotiations, they said. Either the British withdraw or we will slaughter the hostage.

Do not think for a moment that the beheadings are a unique form of viciousness aimed only against Americans or American allies. Beheading has been a common form of execution of Islamic (and Christian, and Bahai, and Zoroastrian) enemies, and I have no doubt the jihadists have beheaded more of "their own" than of ours. It is not about us, it's about them.
Our debate, however, is not about them; it's about us. Should we permit the horrible videos to be broadcast? Does it not risk either dulling our sensitivities or truly terrifying our own people? The very nature of this debate shows how far we have strayed from the understanding we gained on September 11, 2001. That day we saw scenes every bit as horrible as the beheadings, and we recognized that we were facing a war that would have to be fought to the finish. The people who were burned or crushed in New York and Washington, those who jumped to certain death from the Twin Towers — they provided the clearest possible documentation of what awaited us all if we did not win.

The opponents of our campaign against the terror masters immediately recognized that it was crucial to cancel that message, to dilute it with nuance and deception, and the first step in their campaign was to stop broadcasting the images of 9/11. They justified it by saying they did not want to shock the American people, that the pictures were too horrible, that we needed to move on. In like manner, they now say that the beheadings should not be shown, because they too are too shocking, too upsetting to our sensitivities. Others say they should not be shown because in showing them we risk becoming indifferent to such acts, losing our sense of shock and our will to resist.

This is all nonsense. We cannot wage an effective war unless we understand the nature of our enemy. If we do not grasp that the terrorists' ranks are full of people who are there precisely because they are thrilled by the prospect of beheading human beings, we will fail to see the war through to its necessary conclusion. The beheadings are about them, not us. They show us very important things we need to know: What they are, what they want, what they will do if we do not stop them.

Two factoids from recent days should enhance our understanding. The first is a story about a man recently released from Guantanamo who showed up back in Afghanistan, working to kill Coalition soldiers. A fine triumph of legal nicety! The second has not yet been published, so far as I know, but it helps us understand a bit more about the terror network. It turns out that many of the hostages in Iraq are taken by "common criminals," who then sell the hostages to the terrorists so that they can behead them. I suspect, for example, that the Italian women held by terrorists in Iraq fell victim to such a gang.

It is folly to think of the terrorists and their masters in the various capitals of the region as people merely trying to avenge injustice or settle old grievances. The only way sensible people can come to believe that is to censor the evidence — by taking the scenes of 9/11 and the beheading videos off the air, by filtering the utter barbarity of these people through the use of uncharged words that lose their emotional impact.

Don't worry about our sensitivities. Show us — we need to see — so that we bring our full political and military might to bear and end this thing as quickly as possible.

Faster, confound it.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters.
Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

Media Executive "Gets It"

Post From Bill Stanley: A Letter of Appreciation By A Media Executive

Dear Mr. Lamb and Dr. Williams

I want to thank you for the efforts of you and your friends who have been circulating the memo's on John Kerry's Vietnam service record. I have never seen such a sustained and effective effort mounted against such daunting odds. I think you have no idea how unwelcome this story was in so many newsrooms across America.

While I give great credit to the "bloggers" and a site like "Drudgereport" for keeping the story alive I think it has been the individual efforts of you, your friends, and other Vietnam vets that have moved the debate..

I hope you all have read Colbert King's Washington Post op-ed piece of a week ago. King was not swayed by the Swiftboat ads. He was swayed by the honest and deep held beliefs of so many Vietnam vets about the actions of Senator Kerry during the war. Colbert King is a gifted writer and I have found in many ways, a very honest man. That he now see's the "light" on Senator Kerry for Vietnam is a powerful statement of the individual efforts of so many of your associates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48884-2004Sep24.html


As for your frustration with major media. You come from a world of "no man left behind". Most journalists come from the school, another person another story. While one might excuse this in a war weary correspondent, it is more likely found among six-figure earning media elites who reside in major cities (people like me). It is precisely for this reason that they didn't get your story. Yes, there is a leftist bias in media, but instead of conspiracy look for incompetence and arrogance.

Think of it this way, in 1970 I will bet you at least 60%-70 of the reporters covering a presidential race were veterans. Today I would wager it it is less than 5%. How could we ever expect them to get upset about a world they know so little about. And for them to admit they don't get it is a leap of admission I assure you will never happen.

I don't know what will happen on election day, but if anything has turned this race it has been a return of some old vets. I have never seen anything like it.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop.


Rgds

Mark Simon, Group Advertising Director
Apple Daily Newspapers,

This Letter To John Kerry says it all...

Dear Senator Kerry: Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect. You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy. In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days, including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handily charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early. That's why you were so adamant about getting that 3rd. one! In fact you DEMANDED you receive one! My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets leftbehind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the Vietnamese regime! You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIA's as "Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos". That's YOUR OWN Words! As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment,and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war' only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win? Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight? Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No!

Sincerely, Michael Connelly, Dear Senator Kerry: Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect. You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy. In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days, including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handily charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early. That's why you were so adamant about getting that 3rd. one! In fact you DEMANDED you receive one! My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets leftbehind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the Vietnamese regime! You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIA's as "Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos". That's YOUR OWN Words! As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment,and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war' only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win? Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight? Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No!

Sincerely, Michael Connelly, Dallas Texas February 14, 2004

Forward this to EVERYONE you know--we can NOT afford to have this man as the President of the United States!!

Some Key Factors President Bush Should Home in on in the September 30th Debate

President George W. Bush must press John Kerry on Kerry's often, since 1971, repeated contention that American troops should only be deployed by the United Nations. President Bush must make it clear that by putting American Troops under the United Nations' banner American troops would be subject to third world leaders' deployments rather than America's security interests throughout the world. By Kerry's view America's troops would be deployed under a foreign flag, which is contradictory to the laws and Constitution of the United States and defies the oath which every member of the military takes upon entering the military. Kerry has demonstrated throughout his military and political career outright contempt for authority, the laws of this country and the United States Constitution. NO PRESIDENT should ever be allowed to hold the precepts upon which this country was founded in contempt.
President Bush has vowed to never allow U.S. troops to be subjicated to the United Nations. President Bush has vowed that America will never be subserviant to the United Nations as long as he is President. This should be all important to every American who values our nation's sovereignty.

The Editor, Michael Turley

Notes To Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Honor All Vets

Your supporters in webland are abuzz about this Ann Coulter column -- and proud of you.Excerpt: "..The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up....

"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40581

Tom

The Attack upon Our Warriors begins again...

DECORATED SOLDIER HURT

Barton Cannot Return To Iraq Due To InjuriesPOSTED: 5:54 pm EDT September 20, 2004UPDATED: 10:15 am EDT September 21, 2004 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported. Soldier Reportedly Attacked was Foster Barton, 19, of Grove City, received a Purple Heart for his military service in Iraq. He almost lost his leg last month after a Humvee he was riding in ran over a landmine.Barton said he was injured again Friday night in a crowded parking lot as he was leaving the Toby Keith concert at Germain Amphitheatre. The solider was injured so badly that he can't go back to Iraq as scheduled."I don't remember getting hit at all, really," said Barton, a member of the 1st Calvary Division. "He hit me in the back of the head. I fell and hit the ground. I was knocked unconscious and he continued to punch and kick me on the ground."Barton and his family said he was beat up because he was wearing an Iraqi freedom T-shirt."It's not our fault," Barton said. "I'm just doing a job."According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.One witness, a friend of the alleged attacker, said Barton hit first. Police said they do not think that witness is credible since the six other witnesses said Barton was hit from behind.Barton's mother said she has a message for her son's alleged attacker, who police said ran into the crowd after the incident and was not arrested."He needs our prayers, just like the insurgents, because he's a coward," Cindy Barton said. After a two-week leave, Barton was supposed to return to Iraq Tuesday. But his broken nose will delay his return.Barton is waiting for doctors to tell him when he can return to active duty. He said wants to go back as soon as possible because his unit was just attacked. Eleven soldiers were wounded and two were killed, he said.

From The Editor: This soldier with honor was attacked by a thug too cowardly to defend our country. This is the ilk of Kerry and the peacenik thugs. I am not as forgiving as Cindy Burton. What this coward who attacked this brave young soldier needs is a good ole' country ass-whipping. Sneaking up behind someone to attack recalls a method we have seen used by the Kerry-DNC thugs. They threaten confrontation, then sneak off to plot ways to back-stab their opponents. Makes one wonder if the DNC and Anti-American are one in the same. Certainly all decent Democrats should be thinking about the sort of people their party attracts. The crowd that watched should be forced to watch this thug get his ass kicked, live and up close. Cowards always seem to run in packs, without which they could not get away with their assaults upon decent folks. Passive cowards always have the excuse that they don't want to be involved. Courage is not ever having an excuse for avoiding doing the right thing at the right time. It is true that there have been too many laws passed taking away Americans' right to defend themselves, but no self respecting man could possibly ignore standing up for what is right, no matter the cost.

Kerry Campaign Launches Attack on All Veterans Groups Opposing Him

The Democratic National Committe has made no secret of their "Win at any Cost and Stop at nothing to Win," tactics since I was a kid in Kentucky. I can remember many of the underhanded tactics they used throughout the South. So it comes as no surprise that I now find myself and my brother Vietnam Veterans targeted for personal attacks by the Democrats. In the past I have always thought that both parties were equally guilty of these almost criminal attacks. Which is why I refused to support either of the major parties. What I have learned since the beginning of this presidential campaign has completely reversed my views of the parties and their tactics. The Democrats have demonstrated just how out of touch they are with reality. This new threat of personal assaults on the Vietnam Veterans who oppose their candidate just proves that they are from top to bottom unfit to be leaders in America. They seek support from the socialists and communist echelons and play to those they promise to support through raising of taxes. Their candidate says whatever particular communities he speaks in want to hear without telling them which way he voted on the issues they feel are most important. Kerry seems to have little regard for the truth on anything he professes. Now he and his Democratic thugs are launching personal attacks on the Vietnam Veterans who have had the guts to speak out about the truth we all know about John "The Pretender" Kerry. Many of these Veterans have already suffered the underhanded tactics of Kerry's DNC thugs.

I challenge The Pretender Kerry to an open forum or open court anywhere he should so chose. Cowards slink around behind their titles and hired thugs. Men of honor face their advisaries on level playing fields. To The Pretender I say, BRING IT TO ME LITTLE MAN, you are but a dispicable traitorous liar and coward. Every step, every flip to flop you make, every action you've taken to dishonor honorable men only proves your cowardice. To your thugs I say, come on, but don't go whining when you get your collective butts whipped with your own ammunition. I've met better men on tougher battlegrounds and you aren't capable of tying the shoes of the worst of them.

The Blog Editor, Michael Turley

More of Kerry's Fantasies...

Then there's this from my buddy Old Sarge...

John Kerry claims to have been in Safwan, Iraq on March 3, 1991 for the signing of the cease fire agreement. Interesting! Newspaper reporters have him attending a big party in Boston that night (the 2nd) and reported on him being there! He would have to been flying on the Concorde to get to Iraq in time for the signing, let alone to Safwan, which was still a war zone.. Maybe he was flying Teresa’s broom? John Kerry either has a terrible memory, or creates these fantasies in his mind as he does so many other things. It appears he was in Iraq later in the month, but not for the cease fire signing.... I have heard a rumor that he was also present for the surrender of the Japanese in WW II on the battleship Missouri, but that is another story! lol... See all the details of this in Captain Ed’s blog... http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

If Kerry weren't such a devious souless type I'd swear that he was doing acid for too long. This guy lies worse than a grade schooler and expects us to believe him. "The end justifies the means" must be his anthem. Either that or he is just a pitiful liar and lives in some sort of fantasy world. "duh?? Where was I doing what, when? Errr, well I was dreaming about being in........, doing........, it was seared..., seared..., in me just last night.

CBS Parent Company CEO Bombs Democrats

Guess Who's a GOP Booster? The CEO of CBS's parent company endorses President Bush. Friday, September 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT From The Asian Wall Street JournalWith the scandal at CBS still festering, questions are being raised about whether a felony was committed when the network broadcast apparently forged memos in an attempt to discredit George W. Bush. Yesterday, the chairman of CBS's parent company chose Hong Kong as a place to drop a little bomb. Sumner Redstone, who calls himself a "liberal Democrat," said he's supporting President Bush.The chairman of the entertainment giant Viacom said the reason was simple: Republican values are what U.S. companies need. Speaking to some of America's and Asia's top executives gathered for Forbes magazine's annual Global CEO Conference, Mr. Redstone declared: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom. "I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."Sharing the stage with Mr. Redstone was Steve Forbes, CEO, president and editor in chief of Forbes and a former Republican presidential aspirant, who quipped: "Obviously you're a very enlightened CEO."

From the Editor: Seems even Kerry's relatives aren't too happy with him.

Service Personnel Worry about Re-Enlisting Under Kerry

Seems that the professional sevice personnel are not re-enlisting until the results of the election. They voice one concern, John Forbes Kerry. They point out that they do not want to serve under the leadership of John Kerry should he be elected. This concern among professional armed service personnel is not isolated. In fact it seems that the overwhelming number of those who are due to re-enlist are not willing to be led by Kerry as Commander-in-Chief. Several have reported that Kerry's stated intent to deploy American forces only when under the auspices of the United Nations is unacceptable. Others simply state that Kerry is an unacceptable Commander-in-Chief.
This further's this blog editor's statements about Kerry deviding the nation, alienating us from our allies and lowering American's self esteem since his self serving anti-American activities 1970 through 1972. He has always been quick to criticise America, but slow to point out the falures of other ideoligies.
The best this patriot can hope for is that come November John Forbes Kerry will be soundly defeated in his ambition to become President and that the blunder of the Democratic National Committee will become notoriously referenced in our nation's history, ending Kerry's political ambitions in America. Maybe he will move to some communist country and stake a claim to their government's highest office. He has certainly served them well enough. And for America it will be "goodbye and good ridence."

Patriot's Perspective...

THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold -- John Kerry, Useful Idiot...
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison
Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.
Indeed, a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution. Though its author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution.
FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which the Left often cites as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Notably, the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx and FDR placed the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the state. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.
English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."
More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."
Clearly, Khrushchev was onto something. FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Why? Perhaps it's because these men inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office. Indeed, while Kerry's handlers might try to cast their candidate as a man of the people, he is anything but. Remember, this is a man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who spends, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross country for a trim. Yes, John Kerry is the latest in a line of "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance. Is it any wonder, then, that the character and values of these inheritance-welfare liberals are all but indistinguishable from the character and values of those who depend on state welfare?
Today, more than 70 years after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift.
Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, inheritance-welfare liberals, chief among them John Kerry, still dominate the Democrat Party and continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund). V.I. Lenin knew precisely what he was talking about when he famously dubbed Western Leftists "useful idiots."
As this Election Day approaches, we're left to wonder whether America has learned its lessons, or whether our great nation is still under the spell of its useful idiots. Here in our humble shop, we hope that an American majority will reject the candy of the inheritance-welfare liberals, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.
Another "Kerryism"
A few short months ago, Kerry professed: "Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
More to the point, Kerry said, "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president." Duh?

Retired General Tommy Franks on Kerry

Statement By Gen. Tommy Franks (Ret.) On Senator Kerry's Speech On Iraq
ARLINGTON, VA – Gen. Tommy Franks (Ret.) today issued the following statement on Senator Kerry's speech today on Iraq: "Senator Kerry's contradictions on Iraq are the wrong signal to send to our troops on the ground, to our coalition partners, to the Iraqi people and to the terrorists seeking our destruction. On the eve of Prime Minister Allawi's visit to the United States, Senator Kerry today said that America and the world are 'less secure' now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. "The American people disagree and last December, so did Senator Kerry. At the time he said that those who believe the world was safer with Saddam Hussein in power 'don't have the judgment to be president.' I agree."

Get Out The Vote

>From the guys at Vietnam Veterans for Truth---------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Dear friends:We need to keep John Kerry out of the White House. Here's what you can do tohelp.Call AT LEAST 10 people you know who would likely vote against John Kerry.Remind them voter turnout will be the key to winning this election and asktheir promise to take the trouble to vote. Then ask them to call AT LEAST 10people they know would likely vote against John Kerry and make the very samerequest. Then call them back Nov 1 to remind them, and ask them to pass on thereminder in the same fashion.If everyone called at least 10 people who called 10 people who called 10people . . . our turnout would assure John Kerry never occupies the OvalOffice.In case you need a reminder why this is important, click herehttp://kerrylied.com/otherdocs/flash.htm In case you need even more, go to this page assembled by our POWshttp://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/samples.asp and select "WinterSoldier" with John Kerry's face. Note the guy in the bandana, his name isSteve Pitkin, and he has confessed all he said about atrocities in Vietnamwere lies, coached by John Kerry, who knew they were lies. John Kerry thentestified to the Senate knowingly using those lies. Kerry met with the enemyin Paris while he was a Naval Reserve officer, and returned to publiclypromote the Communist talking points. All this while that same enemy waskilling our boys in Vietnam.John Kerry played on people's fears to promote his own political advantage33 years ago, regardless of the danger to our troops. He's doing the samething today, this time with Iraq.Don't tell me you're too busy. Your country needs you because the mainstreammedia won't tell the public the truth. Get off your butt and pick up thephone._______________________________________________Terry L. Garlockfind Terry's book at http://home.mindspring.com/~tgarlock/_______________________________________________

IF

Rudyard Kipling If
If
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or, being hated, don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to broken, And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run - Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son !
**********************************************************************************

This is the soul of honorable men. Humbled by virtue, expecting no reward for doing the right thing and never wavering in the face of unpopularity or adversity. ...Michael Turley, Editor

Kerry Lied Rally

KERRY LIED RALLY REPORT

Ralliers! We did it, and without a single Purple Heart--just a lot of lost sleep! "It" = the “Kerry Lied…While Good Men Died” Rally on Capitol Hill. Thousands of Vietnam vets and their supporters gathered in the Upper Senate Park on 9/12/04 and vented their outrage at John Kerry for his 1971 lies. They also heard emotional messages from representatives of the different constituencies affected by Kerry's lies. Dexter Lehtinen, Miami attorney and wounded Vietnam vet, made a stirring keynote presentation of why John Kerry has forfeited the right to be commander-in-chief by outlining how Kerry has made "our war" into "his war." Countering Kerry's charges that Americans in Vietnam were savages was Army nurse Donna Rowe, who told of how it really was in 'Nam. She told the story of Baby Kathleen, a Vietnamese infant rescued by American fighting men, treated by Donna and her Army medical associates, evacuated to the States, and adopted by an American couple. Also speaking were two women who lost their fathers in Vietnam, Laura Armstrong and Carol Crowley; each gave poignant testimony about how John Kerry so unjustly dishonored her father’s memory. Felix Rodriguez, Bay of Pigs veteran and CIA officer, dramatically recounted his personal encounters with Kerry in Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. John O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command," and B. G. (Jug) Burkett, author of "Stolen Valor," brought the crowd alive with their factual accounts of Kerry's duplicity and explanations of why he doesn’t deserve to be President of the United States. Claude Newby, a chaplain in Vietnam, led Rally participants in an invocation and a remembrance of their comrades who did not return home from Vietnam. Jim Warner, a Marine aviator who spent over five years as a POW, told of how he was directly and very personally affected when John Kerry's words were thrown in his face by his North Vietnamese torturers in the "Hanoi Hilton." Our Master of Ceremonies was Moby Carney, Atlanta radio personality, who also sang the national anthem and a pro-America song of his own composition. What a magnificent job he did, too! A last-minute addition to the program was Steve Pitkin, who was coerced by John Kerry and his crowd into providing false testimony at the so-called "Winter Soldier Hearings" in 1971. Steve made a heartfelt plea for forgiveness to the thousands listening to him, and the crowd gave full-throated absolution to him. Now THAT was a touching moment... I can’t begin to acknowledge the efforts of scores of volunteers who gave so much time to make the Rally the success it was. Those folks know who they are, and I won’t risk offending some of them by mentioning others. I’ll just say, “Thank you, and God bless you!” to them all. What a wonderful group! They put together the “welcome aboard” reception; they unloaded trucks; they provided security; they assembled flags and posters; they made photographs; they policed up the park after the Rally; and they generally made the Rally possible. One Rallier deserves a particular vote of thanks—Terry Garlock of Atlanta, whose idea the Rally was back in the beginning. Terry put his time where his mouth was, and the great assembly of speakers was entirely his doing. Thank you, Terry, for contributing so much and for continuing to contribute in your bookkeeper’s rôle! I’d like to add my personal “thank-you” to all who attended and to all who contributed financially. You made it possible for all of us, after thirty-three years, to hold John Kerry responsible for the lies he told about us in 1971. Well Done!

Now let me bring you up to date about the program started by Swift Boat veteran Tony Snesko—Operation Street Corner. This effort is catching fire across the nation; if you don’t believe me, just click on the “Operation Street Corner” link on the website (www.kerrylied.com) and see what fellow Ralliers are doing around the country! Just yesterday the Florida OSC’ers set up an impromptu, but effective, display at a Kerry campaign appearance in Jacksonville. It’s reported on the OSC pages, as are other Florida efforts and events in Ohio, Texas, New Hampshire, California, and Tennessee. If you really want to do something that will have an effect on this election, sign up for OSC and hit the streets! Dozens of Vietnam vets and their friends and families have proved how effective it is, and we want to have hundreds of OSC volunteers setting up their do-it-yourself displays all across the nation. We provide everything you need except for the start-up kit, which we provide at our cost—twenty bucks. Or you can download our flyers from the website and do it for nothing! To join this election-turning effort, contact Steve Clarke, OSC's National Coordinator, at osc_steve@yahoo.com. He will set you on the right track right away, and you will be put in contact with others in your area who will help you get started. Okay—first the Rally: DONE! Next, “Operation Street Corner”—UNDERWAY! Only 41 days until Election Day, and there’s so much to do. Let’s get it done, folks, and send John Kerry and his lies packing and make sure that our men and women returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and future conflicts don’t get the welcome our Vietnam returnees got from John Kerry and his ilk. And make no mistake about it—“his ilk” are still alive and well and waiting to dishonor the American military. Let’s not let them get away with it! Finally, thanks to all of you for making this “ordinary American” effort possible; I am totally humbled at what you have accomplished. Larry Bailey

Michael New: Update on this Patriot

MICHAEL NEW, AMERICAN PATRIOT SEEKS JUSTICE

Latest News - release 23 September 2004October 10 - Michael New Day - celebrate by burning a UN flag, or shooting holes in a U.N. flag, or writing to your Congressman, educating your children about the nature of an oath of enlistment, about the Constitutional prohibition of serving under foreign military command, etc. Educate one person, and you double your effectiveness! (Need a flag? We have them! Suitable for burning, target shooting, door mats, etc. October 19 - Oral Arguments to be heard in US District Court, Washington, D.C., the Honorable Paul Friedman presiding. Only NINE years and NINE days since SPC Michael New reported to formation, wearing an authorized battle dress uniform, and refused to accept a U.N. uniform, a U.N. commanding officer, or a U.N. deployment to Macedonia.One of the attorneys for the defense (the U.S. government) was an officer at the time, serving in Macedonia (and therefore presumably under the United Nations). He said he was looking forward to trying the case on its merits! And then someone higher up told him how it's really going to be, and he filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Friedman denied that motion, so they filed another one! Somewhat irregular, and risks offending the Court. So WE filed a motion asking for oral arguments on the question to dismiss! VERY irregular, but it was granted! Friedman has stated, on the record, that this case has merit. In 1996. He invited this case back to his court after it ran its course in the military courts. So, on October 19, attorneys for both sides will argue before the judge about whether they are going to continue to argue! Thanks to the generous support of many of you, most of the money due to the lawyers has already been sent in! How can we po! ssibly ever say thanks to all of you? Only our Father in Heaven can know how many have helped, in SO many ways, And we can only thank Him! We're not going to the time and expense to travel to Washington for this hearing. It's a technicality. But we do live and die on each one of these questions now. After this hearing, we expect a decision from the judge within 30 days. And then, assuming we win, a date will then be set for oral arguments on the merits themselves. For the first time in nine years. There is nothing like the "swift and imperative remedy of a speedy trial" -- nothing at all.There are remedies possible by any branch of government. The course we are pursuing is within the Judicial system. But Congress could solve this problem, if they had the backbone to do so. They could simply pass a law that forbids the placing of US military personnel under the UN or other multi-national! authorities. (And a variation on that theme is that each State could pass binding legislation to forbid the agencies of that State from doing business with agency of the U.N.; could require anyone working on behalf of the UN to register as a foreign agent; could ban the flying of UN flags on State or Muncipal property, etc. We have a model bill in the works, and if you want a copy to present to your state legislator, please let us know.)And then, there's the president -- if Mr. Clinton could INvoke the executive order that authorized himself to ignore the Constitution and ignore the law, and send American soldiers under the UN, then is it not logical that Mr. Bush can REvoke the same executive order with the stroke of a pen? If he wanted to. Why doesn't he? He doesn't answer our mail. Maybe he will answer yours. We would like to know the reason Mr. Bush refuses to revoke PDD 25, a totally unconstitutional executive order.

For a Sovereign, Constitutional Republic, once again,
Daniel NewProject ManagerMichael New Action FundP.O. Box 100Iredell, Texas 76649www.MikeNew.com/www.UN-freeZone.org/ www.UNWatch.com/
Real Americans don't wear UN blue!

From the blog publisher: This was a case evolving from Clinton's attempt to put American soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders violating the UCMJ and the Constitution of the United States. This Spec 4 had the guts to oppose the illegal order and bring attention to the Clinton Administration's attempt to put American service personnel, sworn to wear no foreign uniform, in UN uniforms. As a result Michael New was dishonorably discharged and for nearly a decade his family and friends have been fighting to get justice through the justice system. Every American should be paying attention to this case. This is exactly what Kerry has repeatedly said he would do if President. The Democrats power base have every intention of turning over our nation's defense to the United Nations. This must not be Allowed.

Michael Turley, Blog Editor

Other Relevant Blogs

http://theoldsarge.blogspot.com/

Major Media Fails

AMERICA’S MAJOR MEDIA FAILS THE LIE DETECTOR
By Michael Turley


One of the greatest challenges of this century is to force the mainstream media to become more professional in their dedication to reporting and to demand that historians not be just shills for the government’s preferred view of history. The problems with the media have become so transparent that any intelligent being can easily see that the so-called professional journalists are too lazy to check their sources and verify the content of their sources information. One of the problems is that they prefer to believe anything, which fits their personal agendas. During the Vietnam War they were too willing to believe anything, which demonized the American military. As one of the KGB propagandists pointed out, “We [KGB disinformation specialists] would publish our anti-war propaganda in KGB owned publications, flack it to press organizations and inevitably one would pick it up. Because they were too lazy to investigate their sources others would invariably give credibility to the disinformation.” Yuri Andropov, who headed up the anti-war propaganda for the KGB bragged that the USSR’s Vietnam propaganda effort was the most successful propaganda mission in KGB history.

Why? Because the major media in the United States was too lazy to research for themselves and the KGB disinformation was supporting the anti-American/anti-War rhetoric they preferred. It supported their agenda. Then the micro-historians were supported by government grants to write the history of the war that excused the government’s extension of the war and subsequent bailing out, leaving our South Vietnamese allies to be conquered by the communists. The failure of the media in the U.S. and it’s determined anti-American agenda, supporting the communist supported protest leaders like Fonda, Hayward, Mark Lane and a soon to become voice for the communist propaganda machine, Navy LT John Kerry led the nation into the darkest abyss of media history. It gave credentials to the worst of journalism and historians. No longer was it vital to compete for credibility. All that was necessary was for major media journalists to agree and follow mutually supportive agendas. The unspoken rule of the media became to hire journalists who agreed with the corporate agenda. Owners and producers attitude is that they tell the public what to believe. The institutions of our nation have become the education camps of those who would have us believe their views are the gospel. But the Democrats force-fed leftist/socialist pabulum has been brought to apocalyptic end by the nomination of John Forbes Kerry for President.

Kerry then displayed the arrogance of a privileged, errant teenage brat by making his four months in Vietnam the cornerstone of his campaign. The immediate and vehement response of the Vietnam Veterans, who had neither forgotten nor forgiven the likes of Hanoi Jane and held Kerry as the epitome of treason, quickly alerted the nation that in spite of their three decades of silence they are some of the nation’s proudest warriors. It caught the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry by surprise. For so long they had gone virtually unopposed by the Vietnam era Veterans that they did not expect the Veterans of that war to unite and oppose their favorite Pretender. For Kerry’s part it is unclear how he could not have expected the opposition of Swift Boat Sailors. The brief history of Swift Boat operations in Vietnam was one of the most successful in Naval history. Swift Boat Sailors hold themselves as one of the proudest and smallest groups of special operations forces in history. No other military force rivals the pride within their ranks. To the Sailors of Swift Boats John Forbes Kerry is the greatest disgrace to their legacy and the most despicable of military examples. Most Swift Boat Sailors, indeed most Veterans see Kerry as the Benedict Arnold of the Twentieth Century. The Democrats now find themselves trapped in the mire of defending their candidate against Veterans of a war long over, while opposing an incumbent present war President.

The fallout from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and all of the Veterans groups who have thrown their support behind the SBVT has been to unmask the media’s and the micro-historians’ perversions of truth. This has brought the nation to a critical crossroads in history. No longer will Americans accept pseudo-intellectual and self style pundits analysis of events. The internet has given rise to instantaneous access to diverse views from intelligent and experienced individuals all over the globe. The media has not responded accordingly. Instead the medias have continued to spew transparent lies and fabrications in a last stand style of a floundering enemy military, which dooms them into irrelevance.

Again, why? In their arrogance they have lost sight of the rise of diversity in communications. The rise localized free press publications in the early seventies should have alerted them that they no longer held the stranglehold on the presses. The rise of independent electronic media should have been a wake up that they no longer were unchallenged for instant reporting of events. Then came affordable PCs and the internet. Not only did they ignore the growing popularity of the internet publications, but they failed to see the advance of blogs and the professionalism of independent websites. So arrogant were the talking heads and egocentric news anchors that they ignored the fact that individuals with skills and experience far beyond their meager reporting of events would be much more qualified for relevant communication of events. The Dan Rathers would no longer be relevant and the Twenty-First Century would not be dictated to by their collective of agenda driven pundits. The harder they tried to protect their self interests the more they exposed their lack of intellectual honesty. Thus comes to close the major media’s agenda. Now they either become sincerely non-biased or fall by the wayside as irrelevant and unnecessary. The end of a sad chapter in the history of partisan media patronizing biased journalism. Proof that any composition 101 student can learn to use the four Ws and H lead, but real writers take the time to do the research and verify the credibility of the information they report and record.

Now Americans have the opportunity to change the way they are reported to and the way their children are taught the truth. It is no longer the choice of the few who would pervert truth to fit their own agendas.

Michael Turley, host of the LAMPLIGHTER
Freelance Writer
Swift Boat Veteran 1967-‘68
boatsturley@yahoo.com