Jump to navigation
At least the title of my channel says I can talk about whatever else pops into my head. So this is not about a virus or a scam, but it is a PEEVE. The race for President is very close, but it shouldn't be.
There is absolutely no way that I can see in how any American can stand behind John Kerry. I wish the Democratics had been able to select a different candidate. Any of the other choices for their nominee would've been preferential to this man. If the outrage is so great against George Bush, then they should at least provide a real choice. John Kerry is not a choice! Period.
I'm not a Vietnam Veteran as I was one of the first Americans back in the 70s that was not required to register for the draft. And, as old as I feel sometimes, I'm too young. But, I served in the U.S. Army proudly for 10 years, during which the only eventful military action was the invasion of Grenada. I resigned my commission one year before Sadam invaded Kuwait. I went into the reserves and eventually was retired from the Inactive Ready Reserves. Believe it or not, I volunteered to go back on active duty and go to Iraq & Kuwait when the war was imminent. I wasn't called, there was actually a waiting list for Army aviators.
Now on to John Kerry. Regardless of how he might appear to voters on matters of domestic policy or on National Security issues (I realize there are many positions on this), John Kerry is and was a traitor to his country. Period. In May 1970, not even 2 months after he was discharged from active duty, John Kerry went to France and met with Vietnamese Communist leaders. He subsequently went back in 1971, to again "negotiate" with the enemy. He did so as a private citizen, not in any official capacity. However, John Kerry still held a commission in the USNR, regardless of his active status, a military officer has no business meeting with the enemy without official sanction of the U.S. Government. John Kerry, bottom line, was aiding and abetting the enemy. The man should've have been tried as a Traitor. Regardless of any person's belief that he might do some good in the President's office, there is absolutely no way that I can see supporting a man that is a traitor to his country.
There's an interesting article that was posted in the NY Sun on Oct 13th, suggesting that he may have actually received a less than honorable discharge in the 70s. http://www.nysun.com/article/3107. I tried to do some research on the, but can't positively identify this as true. His records posted on his website http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html do seem to indicate the possibility of this. I certainly did not have to have my records reviewed by a board of officers to receive my Honorable Discharge.
In this article, the author states that "Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding."
What really surprises me is that John Kerry was not sent to prison for his actions which were illegal ( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html) even for a private citizen, but also that he wasn't brought before a military tribunal, courts martialed and sent to Leavenworth Military Prison as a military officer. The public opinion around the Vietnam War during this unfortunate period of time in U.S. history is, in my opinion, the only thing that saved this man from being brought up on charges of treason. Jane Fonda was a civilian, her actions may possibly be tolerated, but not an officer still holding the rank of Lieutenant in the Navy Reserves.
Regardless of what you may think about George Bush, he's certainly a better choice than electing a known traitor to the highest office in the United States.
Posted on 10/15/04 at 11:00:25 by Jim Gray
Category: Peeves
Comments
I try to keep my political and religious views to myself. But, sometimes I see things that turn into a peeve with me. When anyone who doesn't live in America sits back an criticises the Country my Dad spent 30 years of his life defending, as his daugher, I have to speak up. If you havn't walk these shores of Freedom, it's my belief that you don't know what true Freedom is. How many other countries have come to our US Government in a finacial crisis asking for funds to be bailed out of their problems? How many of those countries have repaid those loans? How many countries have ask us for arms to fight in their wars because they couldn't produce the weapons that we could provide them with? How many times have those same countries turned those weapons against us? How many countries have a starving population that we provide food for and go in and try to teach them how to cultivate their land to provide their own food? How many countries have needed our help in their wars? Does anyone stop to think about who is really paying for all the help our US Government is giving? Does anyone realize that all of our citizens pay an income tax to our Government? The billions of dollars that are spent in world aide come from the citizens of the United States of America. We have people in our own country that are starving. We have homeless people all over America, yet we can still find compassion for others to help them in their times of need. Part of our countries founding members created this portion of a phrase that we live by: "We the people, of the people, by the people, for the people..." Those word were for the people of our America, yet we use those words to incompass the whole world that is populated by "People". People in need. People who have no advacate to see that they are taught to read, write, garden, farm for the masses. They don't even have a relegious sect to teach them any form of worship. So why should America stand back and not help where they are needed. We forget nothing! We are a country of people working to help people. When will we start hearing about the finest hours of Guatamala, France, Spain, Australia, to name just a few of the other countries, that could have words charging these countries to jump in and help with financial aide, medical supplies, teachers, clergymen, clothing, farm tools and machinery. When will more countries claim to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people of the world?
Oh America, America... when did you decide that it was your right to be "leader of the free world"?
You have to understand that people in the rest of the world (the majority on planet Earth) also have views about "the world" and their place in it.
The Guatemalans for instance who wanted a Government of their own, which would reclaim their country from the economic tyranny of the "United Fruit Company", a US corporation which essentially had the local people working for slave wages (while it made extraordinary profits).
However, a fabricated coup (instigated and financed by the CIA) and 100,000 Guatemalan deaths later and that 'revolution' was put to rest, and 'democracy' was "restored" in South America.
The fact that weapons were sold to Iran against the will of your own Congress to fund this transgression against a people wanting their own freedom is conveniently forgotten.
And, this is but one example of American "foreign policy".
These are the things that the rest of the world sees, experiences and remembers... and America continually, conveniently forgets.
When America begins to act like a leader instead of an economic thug the rest of the world may actually respect your self proclaimed role of 'leader of the free world'.
Until then the rest of the world's leaders will continue to kowtow to America, because you're the biggest bully in the sandpit, and the rest of the world has no choice but to say "how high" when America says "jump".
But America doesn't see this, any of it, ever. Why?
I agree with Jim's assessment of John Kerry -- on most counts the public in general would find themselves behind bars if they acted the same as those we choose to represent us. It is a shame however that in most countries these days one is trying to vote for the leader who will do the least damage as opposed to the one who is the best for the country.
Religion is a sore spot for me as more wars have been fought in the name of religion than for almost any other reason. Each religion preaches tolerance yet each is only tolerant of those who hold the same beliefs. The clergy of most religions will expound on how loving, benevolent and tolerant their sect is even though to them all outside their sect are going to hell and are worth little unless converted.
The U.S.A. is a leader in the free world and for all-intense and purposes is essentially the leader of the free world due to size, economy and power. Most free countries attempt to emulate the United States in one form or another whether they care to admit it or not. Though Canada and other countries that were and/or are part of the British Commonwealth may have derived their parliamentary systems from the British, modifications have been made that resemble freedoms found in the U.S. system of government.
The United Nations is the last group I would look to for world leadership especially when countries such as Libya and Syria (countries that harbor, fund and train terrorists) and France (a country that can’t seem to get out of it’s own way) hold the power of veto and sit on the commissions that are supposed to react to the acts of terrorism and violence around the world.
I am glad to be a citizen of a country that can look at the U.S.A. as an ally and can count many friends among it’s citizens. I can only hope that the outcome of your up coming elections is one that will be the best, first and foremost for the U.S.A. and secondarily the world at large as you are a key player in it.
As far as Ralph Nader is concerned, it is far easier to correct something others have done wrong than to be a visionary and create something new that others will undoubtedly find fault with. Being an advocate for the consumer when it is the consumer that pay’s for it though is a very profitable way to use hindsight.
Jimm(GrayWolf)
Have I missed something Carolyn?
Since when did the President of the USA become the leader of the free world?
Quote: "I can't imagine the leader of the free world not putting God and the scriptures first in their life".
The US should be careful to remember it is only one country, albeit a large and powerful one.
Rome once thought it was the head of the "civilized" world, and look what happened to it.
The United Nations (of which the USA is just another member) and its President, would be more qualified to assume that role - if there was such a one.
The President of the USA, whoever it is, should be concentrating on protecting his or her own country - not trying to run everyone else's as well.
This is not a personal criticism of you, but the American attitude in general. The world doesn't have a "pecking order" with US at the top and everyone else underneath.
Graham,
Australia
Neither choice is very enticing. The Ralph Nader choice seems to at least give the public a fair chance. However as Lois said about Kerry, I do not know how Ralph Nader would have handled the 911 situation. George did act in our benefit. But he still hasn't caught the SOB so no points awarded there. We will see what the people say. If the commercials are doing their job, we should have more young adults and more women voting this year. Let's hope the right choice is made. It's time to put the war flames out.
I have to agree with you Jim. As a Canadian I can't say I completely understand all the ins and outs of American politics but there is far too many instances of John Kerry saying one thing and then doing another and then back tracking to 'cover it all up'.
It's easy for Kerry to say he wouldn't have done what George Bush did - but I recall sitting here completely stunned for a week after September 11th - where you and I and others tried but couldn't make sense of what happened. These terrorists must be stopped. I don't think Kerry has what it takes to make the stand that President Bush did.
I just wish there weren't so many people getting hurt or killed because these people can't seem to figure out what they want - democracy or terrorism.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with you about John Kerry. He is a snake! Not only because of his military record, but just look at his political record. He is a walking hypocrasy!
How can he even claim to support keeping American jobs at home, rather than outsourcing to lower paying countries? His wife owns the Heinz Corporation, and they outsource most of their jobs to other countires, in order to pay lower wages. So what's up with that?
I don't like the option of GWB either. I will vote for neither candidate. I will vote against them both, come November. I think everyone should vote for Ralph Nader and send both Bush and Kerry out to pasture. Give the consumer advocate a try. He's been advocating for you and me for a long time now, why wouldn't he continue to do the same as president?
And don't even get me started on his complete lack of character, not to mention his complete lack of moral integrity. My son recently asked me simply why he or anyone shouldn't vote for Kerry. My answer is also simple. I can't imagine the leader of the free world not putting God and the scriptures first in their life. For him to even come near quoting scripture and then to be in favor of abortion makes my spirit grown .... "grown for the manifestation of the sons of God." The "love your brother as yourself" he so aloofly throws out there, does that brother mean only if they are a registered democrat, does that brother mean when he determines their life started, does that brother only matter when they agree with him? Certainly he wasn't "loving his brother" when he brought up Mr. Cheney's daughter on the last debate. Certainly he wasn't "loving his brother" when his fellow soldiers were POWs. He's a blatant traitor and I couldnt' agree more with Jim. Like I said, don't get me going...
Bravo! I agree!!!!
Add Comments
|
