Logo
Thursday, August 28, 2014
John Kerry, Patriot or Fraud?
“On February 1, 2013, John Kerry was sworn in as the 68th Secretary of State of the United States. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs advisor. 
The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development.” (Source: The U.S. Department of State website.)
 
On the surface, Senator Kerry appears to be highly qualified for this important post, but appearances can be deceptive, and there is at least one consideration that I believe should have given the President reason to re-think his appointment. 
 
So, you may ask, what’s the problem?
 
Think about this: in the past John Kerry has told blatant lies under oath.
 
So what, you may ask. What politician hasn’t done that?
 
However, consider the following commentary by a U.S. Marine:
 
A MARINE IN IRAQ RESPONDS TO SEN. KERRY
 
John Kerry said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."


As a candidate for lieutenant governor in 1982, John Kerry assured the voters of Massachusetts that he wasn't seeking the position as a mere "stepping-stone" to higher office. But just one year into his four-year term, he announced his candidacy for
the US Senate seat that Paul Tsongas was vacating because of illness.
 
Few people held Kerry's broken commitment against him. In part that was because nobody had believed it in the first place (all candidates for lieutenant governor seek the position as a stepping-stone). But it was also because everyone knew what Kerry
knew: If he passed up the chance to run for the position Tsongas was relinquishing, it might be years before it opened up again. So Kerry jumped into the Senate race and won. Sure enough, the seat has been occupied ever since.
 
For nearly 28 years Kerry had been a senator, and in all that time no Massachusetts Democrat has ever seriously challenged him in a primary. (He faced token opposition from a little-known Gloucester lawyer in 2008). Yet once speculation began that
President Obama might name Kerry to a Cabinet post, three Democratic congressmen — Edward Markey, Michael Capuano, and Stephen Lynch — quickly let it be known that they were interested in taking his place, raising the likelihood of a knock-down
primary.
 
A Senate bid by any of them would undoubtedly trigger in turn a lively primary fight for the House seat (or seats) being vacated. Otherwise, none is likely to face more than weak opposition for his party's re-nomination — especially not from incumbents lower
down on the food chain, hoping someday to move up. The last time a member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation lost a primary battle was 20 years ago, when Marty Meehan of Lowell ousted Concord's Chet Atkins. Before that it hadn't happened
since 1970.
 
Ours isn't the only part of the country where incumbency-worship runs deep. West Virginia sent Robert Byrd to the US Senate for 51 years, and Daniel Inouye represented Hawaii in Congress since it became a state in 1959. Charleston, S.C., has had the same
mayor since 1975. No matter how unpopular Congress is said to be, more than 90 percent of House members seeking re-election generally keep their seats; in that respect Nov. 6, 2013 was typical.
 
Yet American politicians didn't always assume that incumbency was meant to be for life. Most of Kerry's Senate predecessors served one or two terms and moved on; the endless reigns of senators like Ted Kennedy (46 years) and Henry Cabot Lodge (31 years)
were historical anomalies. Yes, there is always the possibility of electing someone so exceptional that his talents and experience make him irreplaceable. But the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Far better for officials to come and go, serving a spell in government,
then heading back to real life.
 
"Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people," Connecticut's Roger Sherman argued during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. "By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those
of their constituents."
 
George Washington could have been president for life, but he voluntarily stepped down after two terms. He could be trusted with power precisely because he could let it go. Most of today’s politicians can't bear the thought of giving up the authority with which we
trust them. And we, to our discredit, are rarely willing to take it away.
 
In popular wisdom, one-time presidential runner-up Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was nominated by President Barack Obama for Secretary of Secretary of State. But a group that was credited with helping to thwart his presidential bid considered re-organizing to
take him down once again.
 
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group formed of military veterans who served alongside Kerry, worked to bring attention to the senator’s anti-war activities following his military service and to raise doubts about the truth of Kerry’s own accounts of his
conduct during the war and his overall portrayal of events in Vietnam.
 
Dozens of vets who, like Kerry, served aboard swift boats in Vietnam, prodded the then-presidential candidate to release his complete military records. And they castigated him for giving testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971
about American war crimes in Vietnam – “glorification of body counts,” destruction of villages, and numerous atrocities – all of which, the veterans said, were exaggerated or falsified.
 
While the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth officially disbanded as a political organization in 2008, former members say they were furious at the prospect of Kerry as Defense Secretary.
 
The organization’s co-founder and spokesman John O’Neill, a swift boat veteran who authored the bestselling Kerry expose “Unfit for Command,” hedged at questions on the subject from Sean Hannity of Fox News.
 
“To make (Kerry) secretary of Defense or secretary of State would be a disaster to our national security,” O’Neill said on the Nov. 15 show. “It really would be a total forfeiture of the loyalty that we owe the troops in the field.”
 
When Hannity asked if the Swift Boat Veterans would reunite, O’Neill said, “we will do the very best that we can.”

Weymouth Symmes, former national treasurer for the group and biographer of its founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, told Human Events that any political activity was still in the planning stages.
 
“There’s nothing formal,” he said. “There’s been a lot of discussions. But nothing official, nothing as a group.”
 
It’s not clear what a Kerry swift boating sequel would even look like. With the advent of new media, advocacy is more complex and varied than it was in 2004. Moreover, the veterans’ task this time would not be so much to inform the American electorate as
to  strategically lobby the senators voting to confirm Kerry. That was an uphill task to begin with: most conservative senators were more concerned with preventing U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice from ascending to the top spot in the State Department than with
a Kerry nomination, and codes of collegiality generally dictate that senators confirm the nomination of one of their own.
 
Nevertheless, at least one veteran connected to the Swift Boat efforts is advocating the use of tactics employed in the recent election, from TV ads to SuperPACs.
 
 “I can tell you I am personally appalled at the thought of John Kerry as secretary of defense,” Symmes said. “I suspect that will be the position of the vast majority of the Swifties and POWs who were involved with (Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth) in 2004
and after.”
 
© 2014 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
 
Posted at 19:07 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, August 28, 2014
This War Is For Real!
America is now facing the most serious threat to its existence since WWII.

The seriousness is compounded by the fact that there are very few Americans who think we can possibly lose the War on Terror and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001, but as far as the United States is concerned, the answer is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
• Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979
• Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983
• Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983
• Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988
• First New York World Trade Center attack 1993
• Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996
• Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998
• Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998
• Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000
• New York World Trade Center 2001
• Pentagon 2001.

(Note: During the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama.
 
We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of our presidents or their immediate predecessors.

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims, who are 25% of the world’s population.

3. Hopefully, the Muslim Religion is peaceful, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with his administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million
Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). 
(See http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Almost as many Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust, but we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.
Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in the way of his exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world, German,
Christian or any others.

It is the same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the U.S., but kill everyone who is in the way - their own people, or the Spanish, French or anyone else.
 
The point is that, just like the peaceful Germans were unable to protect anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the
terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all "infidels."
 
I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

4. So who are we at war with?

There is no honest response that it is anyone other than Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and not acknowledging this conclusion can be fatal.
 
There is no way to win if we don't clearly recognize and say who you are fighting.

Given that background, there are two important questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

We can definitely lose this war, and the major reason is that far too many Americans simply do not fathom the answer to the second question, “What does losing mean?”

For one thing, it means we would no longer be the premier country in the world.  But, regardless, the attacks will continue.
 
Remember, the terrorists want us dead, not just quiet. If they just wanted us quiet, they would not have  increased the number of attacks against us over the years.
 
I believe their plan has clearly been to attack us until we become completely submissive to them.

As a result, we would no longer receive support from other nations: for fear of reprisals and because they would see that we are impotent and cannot protect them.

In addition, they will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time, which will become increasingly easy for them.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish. Who would trade or deal with us, if by doing so they were threatened by the Muslims,
                 and if we can't stop the Muslims, how can anyone else?

The Muslims have no doubts about what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning it.
 
We had better know it, too, and become committed to winning at any cost as well.

However, until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our efforts into winning.

If we do not, we will defeat ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, but if we are united, there is no way we can lose.
 
However, if we continue to be divided, there is no way we can win!

Here are a few examples of why many Americans simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, the Obama administration refuses to allow “profiling.”
 
Does that sound like we are taking this situation seriously?

I blame those Americans who blithely assume we must always be “Politically Correct,” even during times of conflict.

This does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that many of them are oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in
and the direction the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, particularly in recent years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels, not just in the United States, but everywhere.

America is the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized as being 'arrogant,' a that charge is valid in at least one respect, in that we believe we are so good and powerful and smart that we can win the
hearts and minds of those who attack us, and that we can defeat any opponent, even with both hands tied behind our back.

Unfortunately, if we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

Finally, name any Muslim country throughout the world that allows freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone
(let alone everyone), equal status for women, or that have been productive in any single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united in this war or we will be relegated in the history books, similar to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire.
 
That is, if Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give them away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

Unfortunately, they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown that they abhor freedom and will not allow them to continue once they are in power.

Yet, we continue to hear about the "peaceful Muslims."

It’s always easy to find fault with our country, but I believe it is painfully obvious that we must UNITE!
 
© 2013-14 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Posted at 19:05 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator
XHTML | CSS