August 28, 2004


Those who have never served in the military probably don't understand why it matters whether or not John Kerry deserved his medals, or whether he may have illegally added a "V" device to his Silver Star. But those of us who served, even in relative peacetime and who never earned those decorations ourselves, do understand. This veteran's comments sum it up nicely for me:

"In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought."


"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."


"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes..."


"When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily."

I couldn't agree more. Faking medals, either putting yourself in for decorations not earned or puffing up your military career into some kind of heroic story that isn't factual, is a sign of deeper problems. It is a sign that honor means little, and that you ultimately aren't satisfied with the truth about yourself.

So eight years ago, when John F. Kerry said the above about then Chief of Naval Operations Mike Boorda--a man I met and who was as honorable as they come, and who was falsely accused of wearing decorations he had not earned and who ultimately committed suicide rather than have his honor stained--when Kerry said that about a man he was unworthy to criticize, he was right.

The medals matter. Whether Kerry earned them or scammed them matters. And that's why Kerry is now running scared from the truth about his own fraudulent military career.

(thanks to Chris)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


When I was growing up, Carl Lewis was among my heroes. He earned that status by being a consumate sportsman as well as a gentleman.

He has forfeited any claim to being a hero now. He's just another ill-informed moron with a big mouth:

Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals in athletics in a record-breaking career, condemned Bush for using the presence of Iraqi and Afghan teams in Athens in a television advertisement to boost his chances of re-election.

Criticising Bush for linking his foreign policy with the two countries being allowed to compete here, Lewis said: 'I felt that was disingenuous. It is funny that we boycotted the 1980 Games [in Moscow] in support of Afghanistan, and now we're bombing Afghanistan,' he told the Athens News yesterday.

Lewis has apparently forgotten a little event called 9-11. He has apparently forgotten that we bombed Afghanistan, not for the hell of it or to take it over the way the Soviets intended, but to remove one of the most heinous regimes on earth and disrupt the terrorist army based there that had killed thousands of Americans. He has also apparently forgotten that the US-led liberation of Afghanistan has allowed that poor country to send a few athletes to the Olympics. He has also apparently forgotten that the liberation of Iraq means the soccer players returning there won't have to face torture from Uday and Qusay Hussein.

Carl Lewis is very forgetful.

I have to say, I'm pretty much fed up with Americans in name only who use the fame they gain either on the average American's dime or by once running for their own glory in our name then using that fame, wealth or status to trash us when we need to defend ourselves. I'm fed up with ill-informed twits lacking enough discernment or gray matter to understand that sometimes nations must fight for themselves or perish, and that we live in one of those times. I'm just fed up with celebrities trashing common American values, traditions and attitudes, all the while remaining only too happy to "represent" America and get ever richer off of us. And I'm fed up with the media for giving them a platform to use to spew their bile at us.

Carl Lewis is just the latest worthless has-been celebrity to become a useful idiot for the jihadis. May he rot in hell.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:11 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


The William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge--more commonly referred to as just the Bay Bridge--connects Maryland's Western shore with its Eastern shore. It's both a scenic conduit from Baltimore to the more rural parts of the state as well as Ocean City, and a major thoroughfare for passenger and goods traffic. Millions of vacationers use the Bay Bridge to get to Maryland's Atlantic playgrounds every year.

It's also an inviting target for terrorists. Taking the Bay Bridge down would likely kill scores of drivers and passengers, including families on vacation and workers going to and from jobs, as well as disrupt commercial interests all along the Eastern seaboard. It might even disrupt major shipping coming in and out of Baltimore.

On August 20, a family was apprehended on the Bay Bridge by Maryland Transportation Authority Police. Baltimore County Police observed the family taping the bridge with a video camera from their SUV, and they would hide the camera if anyone seemed to notice that they were taping. When the police stopped the family and ran searches on their ID, they turned up an interesting find: The father is one Ismael Elbarasse, and is apparently a high-ranking Hamas operative.

Hamas is a known terrorist group, with operatives in the Palestinian territories as well as Iran, Syria, Lebanon and probably Iraq.

The Elbarasse family was detained for several hours before their eventual release. Ismael Elbarassee, however, remains in custody as a material witness in the Chicago-area trial of two other Hamas operatives. Thus far, though he and his entire family were observed by police engaging in what appeared to be a "probing attack" of the Bay Bridge, he has not been charged with any crime. Video taping a 4.3 mile long bridge is not a crime.

This weekend, Elbarasse's daughter went to the news media with a tale of abuse at the hands of Maryland police. She accused them of intimidating the family and of "ruining their beach vacation." But Maryland police say it isn't so, and they produced surveillance video of the arrest scene and receipts from a nearby fast-food restaurant to prove it. The "abused" Elbarasse family was allowed to super-size their meals. The video shows that they were never physically harmed in any way, never forced to submit to any humiliation or any other type of untoward behavior. The police detained the family in an air conditioned building and even gave them a room in which to pray together, in privacy. They are Muslims, and Maryland is a politically-correct state.

I suspect that it was during this "prayer session," held out of view of police officers, that the family put its story together. They weren't praying; they were plotting. The daughter, whose English is flawless, probably got the job of going to the media at this point. The point of the intimidation tale, which is apparently utterly false, is to put the police and courts on the defensive and depict the Hamas-operative family as one more victim of Ashcroft's Amerikkka. Given the media's excessive coverage of the crimes comitted at Abu Ghraib and the left's willingness to describe terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as further victims of the Bush administration, it may work.

But for now, credit must be given to Maryland police for detaining the family and then holding on to the father, who as I've noted before is apparently a high-ranking Hamas operative. And credit is due WBAL-TV in Baltimore, for fairly reporting the police authority's response to the Elbarasse family's tale of intimidation and a ruined weekend at the beach.

This tale points up several problems we face as we enter our fourth year of the war against jihad. The jihadis continue to find novel and subtle ways of exploiting both our freedoms and our guilty consciences. In this case, the alleged operatives exploited our fear of young Arab males by having the family travel together and by having the mother do the actual video taping. They used our politically correct treatment of detained Muslims to request a prayer room, which they probably used to plot their counter story designed to embarass police and get the press on their side. The adult daughter delivered a near perfectly pitched plea for relief from the heavy hand of law enforcement; unfortunately for her the facts and the video tape make a shambles of her story.

At some point, one of these probing attacks will result in data that terrorists will use against us to kill hundreds or even thousands of us, again. What will be our response when that happens? And what can we do to prevent a successful terrorist attack today?

Posted by B. Preston at 09:09 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 27, 2004


The political issue of women in combat gets a boost from an unlikely source--a new jihadi magazine aimed at radical Islamic women.

What will the NOW nags have to say about this?

Its first issue includes tales of famous women fighters and criticism of calls for improved women's rights in Saudi Arabia, a conservative kingdom where women enjoy far fewer freedoms and rights than men.

The magazine says even though jihad, in terms of actual fighting, is primarily a man's duty, "women can fight without the permission of their husband or guardian since it would be a duty, and duties do not require consent."

Islamic women can strap themselves to a bomb without asking hubby's permission, but cannot walk down the street or drive a car without it.

(Thanks to Tom)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


A JYB reader sends in an intriguiging question:

Is it possible to view the original action reports that earned Kerry the Purple Heart? Could someone compare the typewriter print to the typewriter Kerry did his paperwork with? It was my understanding that he took his own civilian typewriter to Vietnam. Wouldn't that be a different make than a Navy issued typewriter? It could be proven that he was the one that wrote the glorified account that had 'enemy fire'.

Perhaps that's why Kerry won't release his records in full? There would be definitive proof that he put himself in for all those medals, thus undercutting his own argument that he's a war hero.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:55 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack


A reader residing in the Philippines sends in the a link to the following:

Iran, the Islamic state branded by US President George W. Bush as a member of the “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea, for allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction, yesterday rallied behind the Arroyo administration's decision on the untimely withdrawal of its small contingent from Iraq in exchange for the freedom of a Filipino hostage.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said the “Philippine government did the right thing.”

After falling from the graces of the United States, President Arroyo has been moving to strengthen the country's bilateral ties with the Islamic international community.

Only last month, Mrs. Arroyo, in delivering her major foreign policy speech during the 106th anniversary rites of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), reiterated the importance of Philippine relations with the Islamic countries.

“The international Islamic community would become more and more important to the Philippines. We saw that in this last crisis,” the President had said, referring to the 17-day hostage situation involving Filipino truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, who was released by his Iraqi captors after a reported ransom payoff of $6 million and a capitulation of the Arroyo government by beating a hasty retreat of the Philippine troops in the war-torn Middle Eastern country.

$6 million goes a long way for an army of rabble that only needs to kidnap civilians and take pot shots at our military to keep Iraq sufficiently unstable. Thanks, Philippines! You're financing jihad now, the very same jihad we helped you defeat in 2002 and 2003 in your own country.

Why has the Philippine government taken this dangerous path? One word: oil.

Iran is a key source of oil for the Philippines and serves as a trans-shipment hub to Central Asia.


Iran supplies 60,000 to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day to the Philippines, representing about 25 percent of the country's fuel requirements. It is considered the world's second largest producer of oil and natural gas.

The Philippine troop contribution to the Iraq effort was tiny, but the shocking turn from reliable ally to possible hostile state--at least as long as Arroyo is in office--should give us pause about all this multilateral business. That saying about a chain only being as strong as its weakest link comes to mind. Our chain has proven to be only as strong as socialist Spain and the weak-kneed Philippines.

Now that the Philippines have withdrawn from Iraq and financed a year or two of jihad operations, note the tone emanating from Tehran:

Kharrazi also conveyed to Mrs. Arroyo his country's interest in geothermal plants.

The Philippines is the world's second largest user of geothermal energy.

“I invited your companies to come over to Iran to help us in geothermal energy (development) as we would like to diversify our sources of energy, not only in oil and natural gas,” he said.

Also, Kharrazi discussed the possible mutual cooperation in the agriculture sector, noting most of the exchanges between the two countries deal with oil.

He said Iran also produces agricultural machinery such as tractors and irrigation systems.

The President was very receptive as she noted the need to irrigate one million hectares as part of her 10-point development agenda.

In a joint statement, the Iranian foreign minister and Romulo discussed the geopolitical situation in the Middle East region, where more than one milllion Filipinos live and work, and pledged to help rebuild Iraq.

The mullahs want to rebuild Iraq all right--in their image. And their new friends in Manila may help out.

Compare and contrast this friendly tone with the mullahs' attitude toward Australia:

Australia is a bigger terrorist target and its reputation in the Middle East has been harmed by its participation in the invasion of Iraq, according to Iran's top security official.

After talks with Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Hassan Rowhani suggested Australia's standing could be improved by following Spain in withdrawing from Iraq. The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said the occupation of Iraq was provoking terrorism and the United States should withdraw.

Threaten our friends and cozy up to our former friends. Iran--one of the world's foremost terrorist sponsors and a dictatorship on the way to the nuclear club--wasn't put in the axis of evil for nothing.

(thanks to JM)

Posted by B. Preston at 07:26 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

August 26, 2004


A military source forwarded me the link to this video, which depicts actual close-air support operations in Fallujah, Iraq. With one airstrike, our troops appear to have taken out several dozen jihadis as they streamed toward our ground troops. I don't know the date this video was taken. It could have been any time in the past few months.

Some will wonder how we know who is meeting an abrupt end in this video--how we know whether they are jihadis or innocent civilians. The answer is simple, though it's not in the video and those who have no military history or knowledge probably won't pick up on it. The strike comes from an aircraft close to the scene, orbiting overhead while US and/or Coalition forces watch and engage the crowd from the ground. Here is the description of the scene, written by someone involved:

This is an F16 doing CAS during the recent fighting in Fallujah. As you know we have been bombing insurgent "safe houses" with some success recently. This F16 was on such a mission, to hit a house with an LGB, when 30+ insurgents left the building en masse to hurry to a nearby engagement with US Marines which had been going on for hours. The pilot communicates with an FAC either in the air or on the ground, and changes the flight path of the bomb while it is in the air. You can clearly see the "L" flashing in the MFD, and "TGP" is selected.

I'm assuming that the bomb itself is probably a 500 pounder, as Mk84s would be overkill in an urban setting where the ROE calls for minimal "collateral

"CAS" refers to close-air support, one of the pillars of modern combat, in which aircraft play a supporting role to forces on the ground which engage in close combat and identify targets for the aircraft to eliminate. "FAC" refers to forward air controller, which is an Air Force enlisted man usually operating very close to the enemy. He locates and identifies legitimate targets and calls in the CAS to, as he says on the audio track, "take them out."

"ROE" refers to rules of engagement. We operate under strict rules when engaging in combat; our enemies are lawless murderers who kill indiscriminately. Our forces attempt to minimize civilian casualties and property damage; jihadi forces attempt to maximize both. That's one of the many reasons we have to win this war. If we don't defeat them there, we will have to fight them here.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:59 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


So John Kerry's minions are now directly smearing those who serve and served in the National Guard and Reserves as "betrayers" and "draft dodgers." Coming from a party that so recently lionized a known draft dodger and argued that his actions didn't matter to his fitness to be President, that's rich. It's also disgusting.

But there's more, in the case of the candidates we have before us today.

Here's a shot of irony for you. Back in the days of 'Nam, two young men took fate into their own hands rather than leave it up to some draft board. One joined the Navy, hoping to be kept far away from combat. The other joined the Air National Guard, and joined a unit engaged at that time in combat in Vietnam. The Navy officer ended up first on a destroyer and then on a SWIFT boat, units that up to that time had not seen combat--which satisfied the officer since he had no desire to see combat anyway. The ANG officer ended up flying a fighter aircraft unsuited to the war, and so never saw combat--even though he did inquire about becoming part of a program that would have sent him into combat. He ended up patrolling homeland skies for Soviet bombers and interceptors; the Navy officer ended up much against his own volition patrolling rivers and deltas in the war he would later malign.

The ANG officer never went into combat not by his own choice so much as operational decisions made far above him. The Navy officer did see combat not by his own choice but because of operational decisions made far above him--in his case, the decision to change SWIFT operations from coastal patrol to interior interdiction and ferrying. That's how the military works; decisions made in Washington and theater commands very often determine whether a given soldier ends up decorated or dead, a combat veteran or a desk jockey. Yet because of that accident of fate, the Navy officer now through his operatives and lackeys smears the ANG officer as a betrayer and draft dodger--though it is the Navy officer who returned after the war to brand every American in Vietnam a "war criminal," while the ANG officer returned to marry a woman and stay married to her and her alone, raise a family, operate a few businesses, become a state governor and eventually President of the United States. The Navy officer has serially married his way into money and used his military honors to weaken the nation as it faced down Communism on various fronts and locales. And he never apologized for smearing his "band of brothers" as brutes on the order of the armies of Genghis Khan.

Such a man is not fit for the presidency. He is not even fit for polite society.

And but for a twist of fate, today we might be talking about Ace fighter pilot George W. Bush and some other guy running from the Democrat side--because while Bush has a record and a life apart from Vietnam on which to base his candidacy, it's clear by Kerry's own strategy and life history that he has none. Without medals and acclaim, Bush still managed to become President of the United States. Without those medals and acclaim, it's not at all clear that John Kerry would have ever become a Senator, much less a nominee for President himself.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:15 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

August 25, 2004


President Bush, who has come under a withering barrage of PsychoDem attacks ever since he praised Kerry and condemned those mean SwiftVet ads funded by shadowy people with bad money, finally had his campaign team respond forcefully -- but not before Kerry-supporting veterans launched a strange assault on the Western White House in an attempt to land the knockout punch. John Kerry is randomly spraying bullets in all directions, just as he did whenever he panicked in Vietnam.

Unfortunately for Bush, in not responding days ago when he had the bully pulpit and the nation was all ears, he took some real damage laying on the ropes. But will Kerry wear himself (and voters) out with this relentless pounding on the President without a knockout? We shall see. Bush does like to rope-a-dope his opponents. And we all know what usually happens when you attempt to kill the king and fail.

Extending my earlier prediction that Kerry would respond to Bush's kindness by going full-bore in a merciless attack right up until the GOP Convention, I'm thinking Kerry will then back off, survey the damage and offer one of those bogus cease-fires we're used to seeing from sneaky terrorist types. Then he and the media will condemn the Bushies for going negative during the convention and Kerry will attack him anew before the convention is over.

It will be pointed out by the networks that the Democrats made it a point never to criticize Bush at their convention while the Republicans are simply mean-spirited. Because of this false outrage Kerry will be justified in doing whatever he wants to stop those vicious attack dogs launched from the evil planet Texas.

UPDATE: Instapundit notes another slam from the new and improved Bush campaign:

KERRY CHALLENGES BUSH TO WEEKLY DEBATES: In Anoka, MN, John Kerry challenged President Bush to weekly debates on the issues. MORE

BUSH CAMP REAX: "There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself. This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a President who is moving America forward and a Senator who has taken every side of almost every issue and has the most out of the mainstream record in the U.S. Senate," said BC'04 spokesman Steve Schmidt.

UPDATE: If you want more than my lame predictions, here's some hard reporting on what the GOP convention speeches were like next week. Life is definitely imitating art here. Newspapers reporting news before it happens was the topic of a recent Candid Camera segment and discussed in an hilarious Ali G interview with Andy Rooney.

Posted by Chris Regan at 03:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


This continuing campaign of Chris Matthews is bizarre. Now Kerry's official biographer/pimp is calling on Malkin to apologize for citing the Swiftvet book.

Doug, there was a woman on the show the other night, Michelle Malkin or something, who was discussing in rather loose terms the idea that maybe John Kerry had purposely wounded himself to win a Purple Heart. Where would she get such an idea?"
Doug Brinkley: "Well, from the Internet, from talk radio. You know this is a right-wing August takedown on John Kerry, and rumors, and accusations, innuendoes flying. And that's just how, how gutter politics is played sometimes in America. It's a, I feel it is a completely irresponsible comment and she needs to apologize for making it. There's no evidence that says John Kerry ever shot himself."

Because Matthews now has both the videotape and the SwiftVet book to which Michelle Malkin (She's not just some woman, Chris.) was referring the other night, he knows he's intentionally spreading a lie. He's the one who needs to apologize. MSNBC editors also owe viewers a correction of the record and an apology to Michelle for promoting the lie beyond Hardball to beef up the "controversy" and their network ratings. I smell a lawsuit opportunity. Microsoft is smart for wanting to get their deep pockets away from MSNBC's sinking ship.

Posted by Chris Regan at 01:10 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


The evidence is growing every day that Kerry is a serial liar about very serious matters. Everyone seems to have figured out that part of his character, along with his pattern of taking both sides of every issue. But as it turns out, the problem might be worse than we thought. We may have yet another pathological liar as the Democrat nominee. That's definitely scarier than just your run-of-the-mill liar.

"One day as our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat," he continued. "After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action). Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog."
Said Mr. Kerry: "It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed, confused but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol."
J.J. Scheele, program director of Humane USA, confirmed yesterday that her organization did, in fact, receive the above statement from the Kerry campaign.
No military records on Mr. Kerry's Web site, which aides say is a complete accounting, mention a mine exploding under his boat or any dog. The only report of a mine detonating "near" Mr. Kerry's PCF 94 was March 13, 1969, when Mr. Kerry says he was injured and a man knocked overboard.

The problem isn't just that there's no record either. Go here and try to solve the physics and logic problem that is Kerry's entertaining dog story. I bet you can't do it. Maybe someone will make a flash cartoon/animation of the event. "Ol' VC and Me: Our Secret Cambodian Adventure." You would want to make it a barkless dog. And maybe the tale could be told from the dog's perspective since, if he existed, Kerry surely would have mounted a camera on him to record his exploits.

Posted by Chris Regan at 11:25 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Here's an update to a major exclusive story that was broken a week ago online and then pretty much ignored. Yeah, bloggers can get distracted when flooding the zone too. So in this case, the mainstream media has picked up the slack and advanced the story.

Sen. John Kerry called a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth over the weekend to try to reason with him over the group's attacks on his record. But fellow Democrats aren't hesitating to try far more aggressive tactics.

A group of Democratic loyalists is compiling incriminating dossiers on the members of the veteran group - and they sent us a preview of what might be in store for Swift Boat activist James Zumwalt, son of illustrious Adm. Elmo Zumwalt - and it isn't pretty.

Zumwalt "attempted to kill himself with an overdose of prescription drugs," after the murder of his ex-wife's fiance, John Kowalczyk, according to the dossier, which is footnoted to news sources, and was "convicted of reckless driving after chasing Kowalczyk at a high speed on the highway."

Zumwalt stepped into the line of fire when he testified with the controversial Swift vets at the National Press Club in Washington last May.

What was that old chestnut about loose lips sinking ships?

More details here.

The reason this is such a big story is not just because it illustrates how much of a sicko John Kerry is, but also because the Kerry campaign clearly fed the smear info to the WaPo, NYT and for their coordinated attack on that day of infamy last week.

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:54 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


To make sure there's equal time for John Kerry in his fight to define his military service record, Kerry's book about national defense, patriotism and America is available for free online now. It's not the new poll-tested book about his plan for taking back America and making it safe for terrorists, it's the old book the mainstream media won't cover detailing his true feelings about military service in evil Amerikkka:

"...unlike veterans of other wars and some of this one, the New Soldier does not accept the old myths. We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars ...."

"I think that, more than anything, the New Soldier is trying to point out how there are two Americas -- the one the speeches are about and the one we really are. Rhetoric has blinded us so much that we are unable to see the realities which exist in this country."

Wow, did John Edwards write this book with him too???

More details on the Winter Soldier wackos here.

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 24, 2004


Earlier this year I posted this warning:

If John Kerry is elected, don't be shocked when he pardons more unrepentant leftist revolutionary terrorists -- as Bill Clinton did with the urging of Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Two-and-a-half years ago he played a key role in securing President Clinton’s pardons of two homegrown terrorists – Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans, who were members of the Weather Underground, a Marxist-Leninist cult founded in 1969. The violent Weathermen formally declared war on “Amerikkka” and dedicated themselves to fomenting social chaos and racial warfare by any means necessary.

It matters sooner than I thought because unnamed former Weather Underground prisoners are now preparing to direct the "ruckus" against Republicans in NYC in order to get John Kerry elected. I guess it's their special way of saying thank you to Democrat allies who pardon their comrades.

A number of extremists with ties to the 1970s radical Weather Underground have recently been released from prison and are in New York preparing to wreak havoc during the Republican National Convention, The Post has learned.

A top-level source with extensive knowledge of police plans wouldn't disclose the names of the aging rabble-rousers but said a handful of them are already here and will play a behind-the-scenes role in attempting to disrupt the GOP gala.

"These people are trained in kidnapping techniques, bombmaking and building improvised munitions," the source said. "They've very bad people."

"They're not likely to take direct action," the source continued, "but they'll be orchestrating operations."

Originally called "The Weathermen," the anarchist organization came into existence in June 1969 as a radical splinter group of the Students for a Democratic Society.

During a two-year stretch, the group bombed a number of high-profile government buildings, primarily to protest the Vietnam War and racism in America.

While the group has been largely unheard from for more than 30 years, the release "over the last two years" of anarchists tied to the Underground — and their apparent willingness to return to their old ways — has the NYPD tracking their every move.

NYPD operatives spotted a few of the fanatics in Boston for the Democratic convention, but they are "saving themselves" for New York, the source said.

Despite the addition of the older anti-government zealots to the frightening possibility of Islamic militants and other domestic terrorists and anarchists — the source is confident the NYPD can keep the peace as the convention kicks off next week.

This illustrates why it's always preferable to kill terrorists in a war and avoid the court system. You never know when a Democrat President will come along and pardon them or if they'll just be released by liberal judges. And when the terrorist pardon is used as a weapon designed to get another Democrat elected President it makes things far worse.

The FALN terrorists Clinton pardoned were also of the unrepentant variety despite his request that they renounce violence. And from what I remember they never even requested the pardon to begin with. But to Democrats, pardoning terrorists has unique cascading benefits -- so all those pesky details didn't matter.

UPDATE: Stratfor just sent me an update to their When Activists Attack article of a few weeks ago. I must have been influenced by the earlier headline. For now the parolees aren't specifically implicated, but my point is that the Weathermen are the most notorious domestic terrorists with the most destructive goals -- and now that some released remnants are joining forces with modern anarchists and Deaniac radicals, it's especially alarming. Their marxist ideology and ideas for violent regime change will easily seep back in to the mainstream of heated activist operations. It reminds me of when John Kerry's VVAW started to think and talk and vote on assassinating U.S. Senators.

Luckily, it seems that after the Madrid election bombing the Administration figured out the threat of a violent leftist election-eve attack is real. If they thought it would put Kerry in office, former Weathermen could easily direct the next generation of radicals in a Madrid-style attack before the election. Or they could have other plans they've ruminated on while in prison.

Here's what Stratfor had to say today:

The U.S. government is adopting a stronger line against violent activist groups -- including launching investigations of many as domestic terrorist organizations, sources in the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities have told Stratfor. The shift stems partly from an apparent upswing in violence and other activity by several groups -- such as the Animal Liberation Fund (ALF), Earth Liberation Fund (ELF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) -- and corresponding growth in the media attention they attract.

...From the government's standpoint, the ability -- or need -- to prosecute radical social groups since their modern emergence in the 1970s has been spotty. Though there have been some exceptions, many of these groups have remained largely beneath the legal radar, engaging primarily in what appeared to be random acts of vandalism to send political messages. However, a series of increasingly brazen attacks and sophisticated tactics are now drawing the government's notice.

...Federal authorities have attempted to use some statutes -- such as the Hobbs Act and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism (AET) law -- to prosecute violent activists, but with little effect: For example, the Hobbs Act applies to acts of extortion for personal gain (which does not fit the parameters of ELF and ALF), and the AET applies mainly to acts of violence against the physical facilities of animal testing laboratories (which does not cover SHAC).

This has created a sense of impunity within the radical community, where activists believe that if arrested, they will incur a slap on the wrist and perhaps a small fine as long as no one has been physically injured by their activities.

However, the recent moves to reclassify these groups as domestic terrorist organizations would allow federal authorities to invoke the USA PATRIOT Act -- and thus dramatically change the tenor of activist investigations.

For one thing, the FBI would be able to step up surveillance activities against activists, using such tools as wire taps, subpoenas of phone records, email monitoring, bank account tracking and sting operations to disrupt radical networks. This certainly would address the impression that violent social activism doesn't rise to the government's level of concern. Reinforcing this point, the FBI already has made a very public example of SHAC -- sending a tactical assault team to storm the home of its U.S. leader, Jonas, and arrest him in May.

Too little, too late? We'll know by next week, and then November.

Posted by Chris Regan at 09:35 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

August 23, 2004


This is the new Democrat talking point repeated several times tonight on Hannity and Colmes by Democrat strategist Maryanne Marsh. So now Bush has supposedly betrayed America in both the War on Terror and the Vietnam War. How? By protecting our homeland from attack in deposing Saddam, and by serving honorably as a fighter pilot in the Guard securing our airspace from a possible Soviet attack during Vietnam.

As most people know by now, the single most common Democrat M.O. is to falsely accuse the opposition of doing exactly what the Dems are doing. In this case we have Kerry who quite famously actually did betray his country and comrades during a war (see the update to the post below for some more thoughts on that mother of all flip-flops) waving the bloody flag and running on a deceptive platform consisting of: Bush went AWOL and betrayed his country -- but I'm a war hero, so vote for me.

Meanwhile on the same day the Bush Is A Vietnam War Traitor talking point is thrown out there, Bush was pressured to say that John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and to denounce anyone who would dare say otherwise. He unfortunately complied after the Kerry campaign stuck him in an neon orange jumpsuit and the press was threatening to cut off his head. His gracious response under duress was more suited to the first year of a presidency though and not to the most vicious hardball campaign of modern times.

Here's what he should have said in re-raising Kerry's obvious bluff:

"Look, I really don't know much about John Kerry's record in Vietnam beyond what he constantly brags about. I personally only know what he did when he came home and smeared his fellow soldiers and negotiated with the enemy over there in France. I didn't think that was the right thing to do, but it was his choice. Now those who know firsthand about what he claims to have done in Vietnam are recounting all the details and they ought to be allowed to speak, including those gentlemen who support his version of the events. The American people will decide who's telling the truth and who's honorable. I have not, and will not, tell anyone what or what not to say. And John Kerry isn't going to tell me what to say either.

"This is a free country you know, and it seems John Kerry has a real issue with that. If he wants to campaign on a Vietnam-war hero platform and then run and complain to the press, the FCC, the FEC and now the White House when inconvenient facts come out, that's his choice. But his Vietnam-era past and all the eyewitness contradictions by fellow Swift Boat Veterans are not my problem. I'm not going to shut down free speech so Mr Kerry can feel better about himself or what have you. He should have John Edwards file a lawsuit if he wants free speech curtailed. But if he wants to be President, I would suggest he just spend more energy on current threats to America and less on threats to his Vietnam legacy. The American people don't want a legacy-builder worried about what people think about him, they want a leader. Now I need to go back to obsessing about the current war. Thank you."

Instead, Bush played schoolgirl to Principal Kerry and volunteered to be the cheerleader for the the McCain and Dems' anti-Democratic hit squad. Maybe that approach was to try to pull McCain back in his corner, but it appeared to be a lose-lose girlie-man day for him. If Kerry is smart he'll detect weakness and attack even more all week leading right up to the planned GOP convention ruckus/riots (coordinated with the DNC I'm sure). Bush won't be able to get a word in edgewise. It will be mission accomplished for Kerry and his big media pals. Of course they'll eventually overplay their hand again.

UPDATE:It turns out Kerry's wife was referring to Bush when she used the term un-American:

"Un-American traits are things like voter suppression, lying about people and their records," Chris Heinz said. "It's been happening in American politics for years; it's not just Bush-Cheney, but they are a big part of it.

So now President Bush is a lying...un-American...AWOL deserter...who betrayed his country...twice...during two wars. That's according to Kerry, his wife and his most prominent supporters.

Posted by Chris Regan at 09:30 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack


Like Intel trying to outmarket AMD's excellent microprocessors, I keep hearing John Kerry touting the supposed performance advantages of "Shrapnel Inside" (TM). As with computer chips, Kerry has to repeatedly advertise his shrapnel because, like all his other war injuries, you can't see it and in the end people won't see the difference as making him any better than his competitor. Kerry brags so much about his shrapnel and spilled blood that it's almost become as legendary and amusing as that injured pet hamster story. Yet who did liberal entertainers laugh at and mock for a more serious debilitating war injury that was not constantly bragged about or held up as the primary qualification for the Presidency? That would be Bob Dole.

The subject of Trudeau's attack on Dole's combat wounds came up only once in mainstream media reports, during an April 1995 interview with Dole on ABC's "Prime Time Live."
The network's Sam Donaldson showed the GOP candidate the cartoon, noting:

"Three weeks ago, Trudeau drew a cartoon in which a television viewer is watching Dole parade his war wound as a campaign prop.

"And you're supposed to be saying, 'Ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to my old war wound.' And the wound says, 'Thank you, Bob. Thank you. I'm proud to be a political asset.'"

Dole's reaction was extraordinarily mild by modern-day Democrat standards. Of Trudeau's outrageous stunt, the combat vet told Donaldson:

"Yeah, well I don't know that being wounded is a political asset. I'd be glad to - I mean I'd be glad to trade Gary Trudeau, but I think it was in poor taste - but, you know, everybody has to make a living."

For something to be funny it should be based on a germ of truth -- especially if you want to be edgy. The Trudeau cartoon fell flat because Dole didn't beat us over the head with his bad arm in the campaign. But with Kerry on the other hand...let me just say that Kerry's shrapnel story is seared into my brain. It's been repeated so much I'm actually starting to wonder if Kerry's "Blood and Shrapnel" stump speech isn't the reason he refuses to release all his service and medical records. He's recounting that searing shrapnel like he talked about Christmastime in Cambodia. With his track record on truth I think we need to see the X-rays.

Oh, and Dole was criticized and questioned on his grenade injury too:

as National Review Online notes today, the Nation Magazine predictably joined in to bash Dole's combat record, printing an account from Robert B. Ellis, who served with Dole in the 10th Mountain Division:

"Dole's first wound, in the night patrol, was self-inflicted (a story the candidate once told himself), but that fact does not appear in an extremely laudatory profile the G.O.P. distributes with a cover letter by Dole.

"And the factoid that Dole got two Bronze Stars for heroism is circulated without evidence of dates and citations. . ."

UPDATE: On a more serious note, here's an alternative history question that illustrates the main difference between Dole and Kerry: If Kerry was not just injured but instead died in battle, would he be a great national hero in America instead of in communist Vietnam?

Answer: Yes, because ironically if John Kerry's name was on the Vietnam Memorial Wall with other war heroes we may have actually won the war -- and saved the lives of millions of Vietnamese civilians who were slaughtered after we were forced out by domestic leftist radicals. Seldom would one single man laying down his life for his country make such a dramatic positive difference for both sides of a major war. But it didn't happen and both nations suffered.

That question of war heroism goes to this true historic example of a real leader and war hero who's name John Kerry has used frequently on the campaign trail:

Benedict Arnold should have died in battle. For the first half of the American Revolution, he fought brilliant and successful campaigns. He built an American fleet on Lake Champlain, repulsed the British at Valcour Island, won the battle of Saratoga and nearly succeeded in making Canada the 14th state. So why did he turn coat?

Motives are difficult, but there was something almost too ambitious about Arnold. Was he unstable? Overly ardent? Grandiose? Whatever the vice, it visited him fatally late in the war.

And then there's this:

Benedict Arnold was different: a military hero for both sides in the same war. . .

In the end, Benedict Arnold's "moral failure lay not in his disenchantment with the American cause" for many other officers returned to civilian life disgusted with the decline in republican virtue and angry over their failure to win a guaranteed pension from Congress. Nor did his infamy stem from his transfer of allegiance to the British side, for other Patriots chose to become Loyalists, sometimes out of principle but just as often for personal gain. Arnold's perfidy lay in the abuse of his position of authority and trust: he would betray West Point and its garrison "and if necessary the entire American war effort" to secure his own success. His treason was not that of a principled man but that of a selfish one, and he never lived that down.

Kerry uses Benedict Arnold's name to smear those who move jobs overseas, yet it's moving one's loyalty offshore to foreign lands and foreign leaders that makes a person like Kerry a traitor in the eyes of fellow soldiers. He should know that and avoid the subject. Smearing fellow Vietnam Veterans (yet again) and National Guardsmen like Bush who remained loyal to their country probably isn't the best idea either.

One more question: If Benedict Arnold claimed to have a tiny piece of shrapnel in his leg and said he saw some blood when it went in, would anybody care?

Posted by Chris Regan at 12:09 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Check out David Limbaugh's new blog. He's an excellent columnist who rivals his brother in the clear-thinking department. It's nice to see more well-known conservatives jumping in to stir up the blogosphere.

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Here's the best description yet of the "special relationship" between and the Kerry Campaign:

In fact, according to a Kerry campaign volunteer, staff members and volunteers of the Kerry campaign in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles have been in almost constant contact with staffers, including advanced viewing and reviews of television commercials, online ads, and web content. As well, staffers provided the Kerry campaign with opposition research within the past two months, as well as advance looks at speeches made by speakers, including former Vice President Al Gore.

"We're always running into those guys," says a Kerry campaign volunteer in Washington, about staffers. "We socialize with them, we see them at meetings, we can't avoid it. And of course we talk about the campaign. In some cities, we get our volunteers from MoveOn. No one has ever raised an issue about it."

In some cases, it isn't just volunteers that the Kerry campaign is getting from They are hiring them too. In April, the Kerry campaign hired MoveOn's special projects and research director Jack Exley to oversee Kerry's campaign's website. At the time, the Kerry campaign made a point of saying that Exley was joining the campaign with not a single scrap of paper or computer disk from his time with MoveOn.

But Exley didn't need to bring much. According to another Kerry adviser, there were already so many back-channel relationships between the two organizations, Exley's presence to foster more was unnecessary. "As soon as it was clear Kerry had the nomination, we began coordinating. It's all done through the DNC and the AFL-CIO, which is financing many of the other groups out there running anti-Republican advertising. We will sit on conference calls, but we won't take part. We just take notes, then confer with our folks inside the DNC. That's the way it's done."

What I'm waiting for is the details on the obvious coordination between the Kerry campaign and Wednesday's SBVT mainstream media attacks. After Kerry and the media both ignored the issue for as long as possible, the Kerry camp realized it was hurting them dearly. That much is clear. They had to make their counterattack, but they knew it couldn't be done without friendly media forces laying down a blanket of covering fire. The question is who gave the inside info and timing go-ahead to the "virtual 527" at the WaPo, NYTimes,, and now the Chicago Tribune? There's about a .00001 chance that the multifaceted Kerry camp assault and convenient media cover was happenstance. Everything hinged on the mainstream media's sudden blue-sky lightning attack as is made clear in this letter to the FEC.

As the attached CNN Inside Politics verified transcript shows, Kerry campaign spokesman Mr. Devine is basing his charges solely on a newspaper article, "'s in the New York Times today." However, not even this newspaper article presents evidence of "coordination." What has been reported are the Kerry campaign's unsubstantiated charges along with the explicit denial from the Bush-Cheney campaign. In fact, after inquiring about the alleged coordination reported in the New York Times story referred to by Mr. Devine, Wolf Blitzer, based on an earlier interview with a reporter who wrote the New York Times story, corrected Devine by stating, "They don't have any hard evidence backing it up." This complaint is based on nothing more than the Kerry campaign's false accusations, having them reported in the media, and then the Kerry campaign referring to the published false accusations as proof.

As you know, the statute, 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1), states that any complaint filed with the Commission must be signed and notarized and made under "pain of perjury and subject to the provisions of section 1001 of title 18."

Looks like we have another aspiring Democrat perjurer-in-chief. I hereby swear to his fitness to serve in that capacity.

MORE: Here's a handy chart of the Kerry campaign's connections to George Soros and various 527s.

More merger evidence documented here.

Posted by Chris Regan at 09:39 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack