Blumenthal is stiil electable. He has been a great attorney general for many years and always on the side of the consumer. In giving so many speeches he misspoke twice. If you look at other poloticians they make alot of mistakes. Blumenthal has always been on the side of veterans. That is why these organizations are on his side. When you look at the republicans running against him they are pathetic

How can we trust a guy who's played fast and loose with his combat record. A "mistake" made over and over is a lie, and I've had enough of lying democratic senators in Connecticut.

It seems obvious he lied about his military experience to attract more voters and after he got caught, he said he mis-spoke. If there is a chance he showed dishonesty to get elected, he will do the same on the issues, so we are better off with someone else.

Wasn't there a dispute about someone elses military record,who later on became president?

Only asking.

When asked why he served less than the six-year commitment, Bush responded, “I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.”

MILITARY 101:

The military releases individuals for the convenience of the military, NOT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ( e.g., so someone could attend business school).

Because the 111th FIS had a need for pilots at the time Bush was discharged, and because his early release could not have been for his own convenience, there must have been a reason the military could no longer use the services of Dumbya Bush.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to ignorant Bush in his own words:

On “Meet the Press,” Bush said, “I put in my time, proudly so.” When pressed by Russert on why news reporters who previously investigated the charge could find no records of his Alabama service, Bush said, “They’re just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush said, “They’re just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged.

----------
There may be no evidence,
----------
There may be no evidence,
----------
There may be no evidence,
----------
There may be no evidence,
----------
There may be no evidence,
----------

BUT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD JUST TRUST BUSH BECAUSE HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH ???

-------------------

Bush defends military service record in NBC interview /
President also backs Tenet, war against Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/2zyjug Feb. 9, 2004

President Bush defended his service in the National Guard during an interview aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and offered to produce evidence to counter allegations raised by political opponents that he was AWOL for a time in 1972.

On “Meet the Press,” Bush said, “I put in my time, proudly so.” When pressed by Russert on why news reporters who previously investigated the charge could find no records of his Alabama service, Bush said, “They’re just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged.

In other words, you don’t just say ‘I did something’ without there being verification. Military doesn’t work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4209283/

The Truth Dodger Wannabe Senator:

2010 May 19

Kudos to The New York Times for exposing the truth-challenged Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a Democrat running to become Connecticut’s next U.S. Senator. Mr. Blumenthal has been saying that he had served in Vietnam when, in fact, he never did. Instead, he received five military deferments and ended up enlisting in the Marine reserve where he served only on the U.S. mainland.

In a press conference yesterday to try and explain what he had said about serving in Vietnam, Blumenthal regretted his “few misplaced words” which he claimed were “totally unintentional.”

Really? Here are samples of those “few misplaced words”:

We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam (2008)

When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered (2008)

During his service in the Marine reserve, Blumenthal worked on projects like a Toys for Tots Drive – a worthy cause no doubt but hardly one that would have exposed him to “the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse” that the veterans who actually did return from Vietnam encountered. Maybe Blumenthal is confusing the times when the tots did not like the toys they were receiving and threw them back at him.

Almost as disturbing as the video evidence of Blumenthal’s untruths themselves are his efforts to wiggle out of the corner in which he put himself. For example, he accuses the Times of “outrageous distortion” in the article that included what he said in the video about “the days that I served in Vietnam.” Was that not Blumenthal speaking? Were his listeners supposed to read the Attorney General’s mind and understand that he meant only that he served “during Vietnam” rather than “in Vietnam?”

This wasn’t an isolated incident of garbled syntax, as the normally eloquent and master of precise language Attorney General would have us believe. One of his friends and admirers, former Connecticut Representative Christopher Shays, saw a disturbing pattern:

He just kept adding to the story, the more he told it.

Blumenthal should have come completely clean yesterday and admitted that he made up his narrative about service in Vietnam. He should have provided a full explanation of why he departed so dramatically from the truth on a number of occasions, without having corrected the record before the Times story broke.

The American people are forgiving of mistakes that are completely owned up to. People might have understood how someone as concerned with veterans’ issues as Blumenthal has been during his entire public life can get carried away in the emotion of the moment when speaking with veterans about today’s wars.

However, Blumenthal chose the route of obfuscation and deflected responsibility. He continues the lie by insisting that he is guilty only of an inadvertent poor choice of words which the media is blowing way out of proportion. We already have too many politicians like that in Washington. It is time for this truth dodger to leave the Senate race.

Bill Clinton -- Draft Dodger, Liar, Flag Burner, Traitor

Tuesday, February 03, 2004 Note: George Bush joined the Guard in Texas and transferred to Alabama. He did political work and made an arrangement to miss some meetings. He made up those meetings and received an honorable discharge. He has proven his love and respect for those serving their country. The men and women respect their commander in chief. He understands the nature of evil and the importance of using U.S. power in the world without getting the permission of the stinking Germans and French. On the other hand, here is the story of a true draft dodger. Here is the story of a man who lied to a survivor of Bataan. Here is the story of a man who loathed the military and proved it for 8 years. He had no respect of those in the military, except for nitwits like Wesley Clark, whom he fired and who wanted to start WW III with the Russians.
Col. Homes Notarized Statement
As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5551) 7/30/93
September 7, 1992. Memorandum for Record:
Subject: Bill Clinton and the University of Arkansas ROTC Program:
There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton's involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas. Prior to this time I have not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of participation in the Bataan Death March and the subsequent three and a half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement. However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has stated, that there were many others who avoided serving their country in the Vietnam war, they are not aspiring to be the President of the United States.
The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton's evasion of the draft. This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft,
"Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make". Since I may be the only person living who can give a first hand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love for my country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.
Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not
have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.
The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright's office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC
program at the University of Arkansas.
I was not "saving" him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3,1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer. In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the
ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.
The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity. When I consider the caliber, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended.... When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against its military, should ever be in the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed Forces.
I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war). I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But, I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese,it is not enough. I'm writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being. I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have
fought and died. Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.
Eugene Holmes
Colonel, U.S.A., Ret.

Colonel David Hackworth comparing George Bush's service during Vietnam to John Kerry's:


"But although he had the luck and the connections to land a spot in the Air Guard, he did put his butt on the line flying a machine for which he was entitled to hazardous-duty pay – and that's because zooming around in a jet fighter was and still is highly dangerous. And sure, Kerry’s campaign push on how he Ramboed his way through the war – for four months – rubs a lot of vets the wrong way".

Calling Marine Major Ritter
Like it or not, Marine Major Scott Ritter had it right all along.

By Colonel David Hackworth
http://tinyurl.com/zu8o7

Ritter, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, took us all on – virtually alone, against incredible odds – stating, "Iraq is not a threat to the U.S." and begging the American people to take charge and not "sit back and allow your government to go to war against Iraq ... [without all] the facts on the table to back this war up."

As per his reputation on training fields and battlefields, this granite-jawed former Marine stood his ground and never flinched. He reminds me of another two-fisted, tell-it-like-it-is Marine, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor, who was almost drummed out of the Marine Corps twice: Once in the 1930s for calling Benito Mussolini a "fascist," and once again a few years later when he rattled the military-industrial complex by daring to declare that "War is a racket."

Ritter, too, took serious punishment from his critics – and instead of doing proper due diligence or asking hard questions, the media quickly piled on. It was not Fox's finest hour when that network gleefully painted him as a 21st-century Benedict Arnold – not that he had many primetime advocates anywhere else. Even CNN's usually evenhanded Paula Zahn said to Ritter six months before America unleashed its miscalculated military solution on Iraq, "People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37043

Cas,this one is for you to knaw on:

"Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html

Cas,one more morsel:

"WASHINGTON -- The candidate who on Tuesday won the special election in a Pennsylvania congressional district is right-to-life and pro-gun. He accused his opponent of wanting heavier taxes. He said he would have voted against Barack Obama's health care plan and promised to vote against cap-and-trade legislation, which is a tax increase supposedly somehow related to turning down the planet's thermostat. This candidate, Mark Critz, is a Democrat."

http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2010/05/19/in_politics,_as_good_as_it_gets

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

----------------------------

robert thanks for the good info.

Maybe this is true?

LOL

Bush Republicans are antidemocratic with an attraction to authoritarianism.

Liberals are always trying to enfranchise citizens and Bush Republicans always try to block some citizens from voting.( BLACKS & Latinos )!

Liberals defend the Constitution and long standing institutions like Social Security and Medicare.

Bush Republicans want the USA to go back to the Gilded Age and privatize Social Security and undo “The New Deal”!

Most if not all Bush Republican supporters are not conservatives. They are Neo-Cons who are apologist for the wealthiest top 1% percentile.

They have been thoroughly bamboozled for the last 30 years of rightwing propaganda and corrupt corporate mainstream media filter, which they believe is liberal!

Sincerely,
Eric Arthur Blair

"Liberals defend the Constitution"


Wrong!!! Liberals regularly redefine the Constitution to their leftist socialistic liking. Conservatives and Republicans believe in the letter of the law exactly as it was presented by our forefathers. Everyone with at least a first grade education should know this.

The leftist ideologue dismisses the Constitution's original intent and meaning, as it constrains the leftist's pursuit of ideological supremacy
---------------------------------------
The Left's Great Motivator:

February 20, 2010

Enamored of the promise of a utopian society and aided by a complicit mainstream media, leftist ideologues constantly assail free-market capitalism, the Constitution, religion, and individual responsibility. Their actions are rooted in and justified by a dogmatic ideology. Their ideology is a charade providing a self-serving presumption of moral superiority to others.

Dig deeper to reveal their greatest motivation: fear.

Leftist ideologues comprising environmental extremists, progressives, liberals (the hijacked definition), socialists, and communists believe that the ends justify the means -- that governance may use any means necessary to achieve predetermined outcomes. Characteristics of the leftist ideology include a heavily regulated economy and/or government owned industry, equal outcomes and economic leveling, multiculturalism, moral relativism, and the perfection of mankind.

According to Russell Kirk, father of modern conservatism, characteristics of the conservative ideology include the beliefs that an enduring moral order exists, that prudent change is necessary but ought to be slow and gradual, that freedom and property are inextricably linked, the desire to uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism, and belief in the principles of variety and prescription while recognizing that man is imperfect.

The philosophical, political, moral, social, and economic principles of the leftist and conservative ideologies diametrically oppose one another. There are numerous practical examples to support this assertion.

The Constitution is the law of the land and formed our style of government, a constitutional republic. The Constitution was established to protect individual rights and liberties against a coercive government. Indeed, it protects the very smallest minority in this country: the individual. To ensure adherence to this principle, the Constitution created a federal government with limited powers that specifically designate what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches can legitimately do. In other words, the means must conform to the constraints of the Constitution, and the ends cannot violate individual rights and liberties.

However, the leftist ideologue dismisses the Constitution's original intent and meaning, as it constrains the leftist's pursuit of ideological supremacy. To confiscate a person's property, redistribute wealth, restrict free speech, or force a person to purchase a product would violate the very principle the Constitution was established upon. The leftist must subvert constitutional intent and usurp power that was otherwise not granted to advance the leftist ideology -- often violating individual rights and liberties in the process.

The leftist ideologue believes that the needs and rights of the nation-state supersede the needs and rights of the individual. Through legislative fiat and judicial activism, leftist ideology is forced upon society. The leftist believes that the Constitution is a stale document created centuries ago by some old, crotchety men. The leftist believes in a living, breathing Constitution that adapts to the leftist ideology, which justifies the leftist's methods and outcomes. The leftist cannot acknowledge the Constitution's original intent and meaning ,as it would circumvent his ideology. The leftist functions as though the country is a democracy, where majority rules and laws of men prevail. Naturally, the leftist ideologue fears the Constitution.

The basis of our economic system is free-market capitalism. Over the past two hundred years, capitalism eroded into an economic system based partially on free markets and partially on a heavily government-regulated marketplace. Recently, the government has taken ownership positions in private companies and is attempting to nationalize the health care industry. The government manufactures, produces, and creates nothing in a pure economic sense. The government acts as arbitrator and allocator of existing resources. Tangible resources such as energy, money, or health care are allocated based upon some set of government regulations, priorities, or preferences.

Resource-allocation is primarily driven by political outcome such as captivating voting blocks, backing unions or companies that advance their causes and fund their political campaigns, or providing preferential treatment to specific industries while restricting others. In other words, governments don't rely upon free-market mechanisms like supply, demand, and price signals to allocate resources.

The anthropogenic global warming scandal illustrates how leftist ideologues in the government, environmental, scientific, and academic communities and non-governmental organizations work in concert to ensure a specific outcome: worldwide acceptance of AGW. Leftist ideologues have influenced scientists, falsified data, broken laws, and conspired with other entities to ensure AGW's acceptance. Moreover, government policy based on AGW acceptance provides an opportunity to institute new laws and regulations ensuring the leftist's outcomes is successfully implemented. American Thinker's environmental editor Marc Sheppard documented the outright lies, deceptions, and criminal activity involved in the AGW scam. Two of those articles can be found here and here.

In a leftist utopia, government would determine winners and losers in the energy industry. Entire sectors and companies would succeed or fail on the whim of a government agency or bureaucrat. Government would regulate how much and what type of energy to consume, the cost of energy, where exploration can occur, what car to drive, what light bulbs to use, and how often to shower or flush a toilet.

The leftist ideologue elevates the needs of the nation-state over the individual and tramples individual rights and liberties in the process. The leftist would never allow free markets to create and maintain the energy marketplace without the leftist's own influence. Instead, the leftist conjures up the man-made disaster known as AGW. Naturally, the leftist ideologue fears free-market capitalism because it threatens his ideology.

A conservative knows that government's role is limited and that government institutes those laws and regulations necessary for the free market to transcend it. The free market determines the outcomes -- the winners and losers -- rather than the government. A conservative insists that the scientific study of AGW is a repeatable and reliable process, conducted by multiple independent and competing entities, including peer-reviewed data and results. Only then can any government, NGO, company, or person assess and determine an appropriate course of action.

Leftist ideologues loathe moral order and religion, especially Christianity. Religion provides the basis not only for our Constitution and founding principles, but for many morals and values Americans possess. The leftist believes in multiculturalism and moral relativism. According to author Steven Lukes, moral relativists "hold that moral judgments are relative to their time and place, so that they cannot be objectively justified and so cannot be absolute." The leftist places social, economic, and racial justice above moral order. To the greatest extent possible, leftist ideologues must diminish moral order and religion from the American landscape.

A conservative believes human nature is a constant and that moral truths are permanent. Russell Kirk explains the importance of a moral order:

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society-whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society-no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.


The leftist ideologue fears the Constitution. The leftist fears individual responsibility. The leftist fears free-market capitalism. The leftist fears a moral order. The leftist fears absolute truth. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inaugural address, he said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The leftist ideology embodies fear.

George A"W"OL Bush "served" his country well. On a silver platter. To Putin, the Chinese, the Sauds, the Taliban, ...and Osama.
Through it all, Bush appeared to be remain totally Bondlike to his minions. Especially, during his multiple brainlapse performances and hiatuses of 9/11, the tsunami and Katrina "unawakened, not blurrrrred.

George A"W"OL Bush "served" his country well. On a silver platter. To Putin, the Chinese, the Sauds, the Taliban, ...and Osama.
Through it all, Bush appeared to be remain totally Bondlike to his minions. Especially, during his multiple brainlapse performances and hiatuses of 9/11, the tsunami and Katrina. The image of Bush remains permanently etched in their minds, code name Stoley "unawakened, not blurrrrred.

Wrong!!! Liberals regularly redefine the Constitution to their leftist socialistic liking.

======================

Bill F. This Proves You Wrong!

PROOF REPUBLICAN JUSTICES ARE ACTIVIST

No other future Supreme Court or any court is allowed to use Bush v Gore as precedent. Bush is truly an illegitimate President. http://tinyurl.com/2ps3e3
George W. Bush's January 20, 2001 inauguration was unconstitutional. This isn't because Bush lost the popular vote. Nor is it because he lost Florida and thus the electoral vote. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the Florida recount lawsuit, Bush v. Gore, violated the U.S. Constitution. It's a states' rights issue. Elections fall under state law; the highest court that may resolve a legal challenge about an election is a state supreme court. The U.S. Supreme Court--a federal body--didn't have jurisdiction in the case.
http://yalelawjournal.org/2006/11/07/flanders.html

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
August 15, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/qbx2s
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html?ex=1313294400&en=687375003b802612&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Power Surge / The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
http://cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

What's Blumenthal got to say about FOUR COPS in TODAY's THE DAILY NEWS newspaper:

a suicide victim ESCAPED from the clutches of FOUR ("4") COPS who could not restrain him on the Brooklyn Bridge and leaped to his death--A CRIMINAL WOULD HAVE BEEN TAZERED OR BEATEN TO DEATH!

"No other future Supreme Court or any court is allowed to use Bush v Gore"


Where is your statement above written (allowed)??? This article is the opinion of one particular writer about what he thought he viewed at one particular mock panel at one particular Law School. You are even dishonestly embellishing on his words......have you no scruples whatsoever?
You persist on spreading the untruth, just as all Leftist Progressives regularly alter the written words of the U.S. Constitution. You are caught with with your hand in the cookie jar once again. Caspian, you're too easy!

The Axis of Idiots:

Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired


Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the "runner-in-chief."

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake! You want to run from Iraqand abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir.. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired
Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

You persist on spreading the untruth, just as all Leftist Progressives regularly alter the written words of the U.S. Constitution.

-------------------

Bill F. I truly believe the Supreme Court had no right interfering with the recount of the citizens of Florida.

Maybe RNN could investigate and do a piece on Election Laws in Florida.

It is the intent of the voter which means even a mark or dimple on Gore's name should have counted.

Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purged the voting rolls illegally.

Like I told you many times before, I would take a polygraph test and pass it with flying colors.

=========================

Glenn Beck EXPOSED - Crying On Cue Using Vicks under His Eyes.
http://tinyurl.com/yb8jb95
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4I2f0ZO6g&feature=player_embedded

Jane Fonda spent more time in Vietnam than Richard Blumenthal did.

Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter
http://tinyurl.com/yuxy6b
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17111

THE PRESIDENTS OBLIGATION BY "OATH" TO THE NATION THAT HE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO...
... "SERVE".

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.

3
What does it mean to “preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States”? One thing it cannot mean is that the president can act without reflecting on the "constitutionality" of his actions, confident that the federal courts will step in to strike down any actions that breach constitutional
boundaries.
The text of the oath imposes an
independent obligation on the president to “preserve” the Constitution, an obligation that cannot be fulfilled by an indifferent posture that seeks to shift that responsibility to
the federal courts.

"THE PRESIDENTS OBLIGATION BY "OATH" TO THE NATION THAT HE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO...
... "SERVE"."

Good point John. It is very concerning when a foreign president comes on our soil putting down our laws and our president goes along with it. Obama should be saying, "whether you like it or not Mexico, the Arizona immigration law is an enforcement of our federal law and no where near as harsh as your immigration laws, so you have no business criticizing." Yet, stunningly him and many in his party are applauding!

These are un-Americam Global idealists and they need to be voted out in November. It is a good thing to change for the better but what they are doing makes no sense, unless they are somehow trying to weaken this nation.

"Bill F. I truly believe the Supreme Court had no right interfering with the recount of the citizens of Florida"



The Florida State, "Activist" Supreme Court was first to illegally interfere otherwise the US Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved in the first place.

EXAMINING THE VOTE:

THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote:

The New York Times

November 12, 2001


A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

The Florida State, "Activist" Supreme Court was first to illegally interfere otherwise the US Supreme Court wouldn't have been involved in the first place.

=================

Florida 2000 was a State issue and the
Rednecks on the Supreme Court always believed in State rights except for this one time.

The Florida SC was not admonished to my knowledge because they did nothing wrong.

=================

Democracy Counts / Al Gore Won Florida
The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project
Dan Keating / The Washington Post
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Who Won the Election? Who Cares?
Florida recount consortium muffles results of months of efforts
January/February 2002 / http://tinyurl.com/lqnqyp
On November 7, 2001, a reader of the political website MakeThemAccountable.com made a series of predictions about how the news media would cover a long anticipated review of uncounted Florida ballots from the 2000 presidential election:

The data will show that Gore won, but the article will be written to obscure that fact.... The headline will proclaim that Bush definitively won. The headline will be on page one.... The rest of the article, which will describe, albeit opaquely, that Gore really won, will be on [the jump].

That's pretty much what happened.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095

The data will show that Gore won, but........."


Pathetic! If its one thing I've learned posting on RNN it is that chronic leftists, who have no respect for the Constitution in the first place, will never admit when they are wrong, not even when the highest court of law, the Supreme Court of the US tells them flat out that they were.......and not even when the most important court, the court of public opinion made up of all the US electorate vindicated the 2000 election by sending President Bush to the White house for a second term in 2004. In your face Caspian, but your bound to get over it by the time Obama and your mostly leftist Government is finished shredding what remnants of a Republic and Democracy America have left.

Thanks for nothing!
George Washington

"The Florida SC was not admonished to my knowledge because they did nothing wrong."


The Supreme Court of the United States was not admonished to history's knowledge because they did nothing wrong. The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to absolutely and most finally decide who is right and who is wrong, putting matters to rest for all time, except in Caspian's cry baby make believe world.

In your face Caspian, but your bound to get over it by the time Obama and your mostly leftist Government is finished shredding what remnants of a Republic and Democracy America have left.

=========================

Bill it is NOT in my face because Obama is a corporate blue dog Democrat leaning towards a moderate Republican.

I did not vote for him knowing this information ahead of time.

YOU on the other hand believes the lying corporate mainstream media and ALL the propaganda in corporte Right Wing media HOOK LINE and SINKER!

It has nothing to do if I'm right or wrong.

I just believe with all of my heart that most Democrats work in the interest of Wall Street and ALL Republicans work in the interest of Wall Street.

IF I'M WRONG?

SO BE IT!

I think I'm closer to the TRUTH than you are my friend!

MUCH CLOSER!

LOL

How to turn Congress Inc. back to just Congress
May 12, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/23u8stc
What is the biggest scandal of 2010 so far?
Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation from Goldman Sachs? An oil spill that poses a threat to our environment and economy for generations? Mining operators freely ignoring safety violations and treating workers as disposable?
Each of these is bad. But perhaps the biggest political scandal is the one that aids and abets these others -- the pay-to-play system that buys up Congress, pollutes our political system with special-interest cash and deep-sixes the kind of bold reform agenda that we voted for and need.
The health-care industry has contributed more than $200 million to congressional candidates in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Is it any wonder that there was no public option in the final bill, or that Medicare isn't able to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors the same way the Veterans Administration does for veterans?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051102500.html

=======================

GAO's Walker Sounds An Alarm
http://tinyurl.com/2aptf5 11.05.06 Nov. 5, 2006
Accountants don't often speak in revolutionary tones, but these days David Walker, head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office sounds a lot more like Thomas Paine than your average calculator-carrying CPA.
"History has shown that when America faces difficult challenges and when it rises to the occasion, anything is possible," he said in an interview. Yet “a fiscal cancer,” he said, “is growing within us, that if we don't treat, can have catastrophic consequences."
http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html

Bill F.

Doesn't politics play a big part with Lawyers getting promoted?

With Prosecutors getting promoted?

With Judges getting promoted?

With Supreme Court picks?

READ MY LIPS:

EVEN SCALIA SAID BUSH V GORE IS A ONE TIME THING NEVER TO BE REPEATED.

"The data will show that Gore won, but the article will be written to obscure that fact.... The headline will proclaim that Bush definitively won. The headline will be on page one.... The rest of the article, which will describe, albeit opaquely, that Gore really won, will be on......"


You mean what is, is not? Caspian's endless preamble, rears its ugly head but once again.
Caspian, can it be??? There are actually two of you in this world who have no pride whatsoever, and can make ridicules statements and create ridicules scenarios even though the evidence stares you right in the face, as well as being overwhelming.

"EVEN SCALIA SAID BUSH V GORE IS A ONE TIME THING NEVER TO BE REPEATED."


Right! The fact of a reactionary state court trying to interfere in a presidential election that affects the entire country, not only that state.

"I did not vote for him knowing this information ahead of time."



LIAR! For the entire time of the election, and even well before the primary, not once did you have anything negative to say about Obama. In fact, you spent your entire time on RNN posting against my rants and perturbations against him, defending him with all you had, whether you voted for him or not is insignificant.....Your dishonesty level is nearly 100% at this point and getting worse, if this is all possible. You can't stand the fact that the left has blown its only chance it will ever have for a very long, long time...if ever!
Your liberalism and leftism is now anethma with the average American and you can't admit it.

"Obama is a corporate blue dog Democrat leaning towards a moderate Republican."


Being that Obama's obvious ends to his means push us ever closer to European style Socialism, which also happens to be dear your heart, whom are you trying to convince with this outrageous falsification of a statement??? Should all intelligence and reasonable data, from all sources, including one's own perceptions and first place knowledge of history and current events be pushed aside because Caspian decides to paint a 180 degree travesty of the truth??? And for what....political charade because your form of government and social issues have fallen flat on their face with the American people. Face it Caspian, what is, is!!! Admit that you are wrong about everything, and always were, and so be it. Shit happens!

There are actually two of you in this world who have no pride whatsoever

------------------

Bill, Bill, Bill, Do you know the difference between the Russian citizenry and the people in America?

The Russians know they are getting bamboozled with Pravda.

I guess in "YOUR" world elections do not get stolen.

Congress does "NOT" work for Wall Street but works in the interest of Bill F.!

Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya and the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster.

Obama health care is Socialist Single Payer.

See how silly you really are Bill.

==============

Still No Winner in Florida's 13th District
http://tinyurl.com/349k9x December 6, 2006
News of aspiring 2008 presidential candidates may have pushed the just-concluded midterm elections off the front pages, but one 2006 story remains without an end -- the ongoing legal fight over the results in Florida's 13th Congressional District.
At issue is the high rate of "undervoting" in the vote tally, as some 18,000 ballots recorded votes for other offices in Sarasota County but not for the congressional race between auto dealer Vern Buchanan (R) and banker Christine Jennings (D). That undervote rate was six times higher than in the other counties of the district.
Florida election authorities certified Buchanan's 369-vote victory on Nov. 20, but Jennings has sued the state and the manufacturer of the touch-screen voting machines used in the county in hopes of getting to the bottom of the matter.
"This is not about Republicans and this is not about Democrats," Jennings said when announcing the lawsuit. "It's about fixing a broken voting system."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/12/the_future_of_floridas_13th_di.html

Bill if a tree falls in the forest does it still make a noise even though you weren't there to witness it?

And for what....political charade because your form of government and social issues have fallen flat on their face with the American people.

===============

Obama and his administration have rejected a more liberal/progressive government even after the 8 years of Bush/Cheney Republican Wall Street policies that ruined America.

Mike G: re: These are un-Americam Global idealists and they need to be voted out in November. It is a good thing to change for the better but what they are doing makes no sense, unless they are somehow trying to weaken this nation.

I'M SHOCKED! HASN'T IT BECOME OBVIOUS TO YOU YET?

I'M SHOCKED! HASN'T IT BECOME OBVIOUS TO YOU YET?

John, even with all the glaring evidence it's hard for me to except our leaders are deliberately trying to ruin this country. I can believe wrong head policies based on stupid ideas they think will help to make us better but to want us to fail, is just something I am denial about.

FYI, I happened to hear Beck stating he was strongly against the financial reform bill. He said it would be just like when they instituted the Federal Reserve, only this time Global. What do you think?

Mike G, Caspian, Mike Q: Formulate your own assessment. The writing is already on the walls and marching down the halls of the Senate via the delivery of the incomplete Dodd Bill which exempts global equities and the Kerry-Lieberman Bill.

Watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-15EjHCzds

Watch! ...and associate how we are being undermined.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYRI70fQRsI&feature=related

Check out all the others in the right hand column. I haven't had time to review them all.

"Obama and his administration have rejected a more liberal/progressive government...."


You really must be insane. Whatever degree of far left liberal/progressive he is grosses out the majority of America for being too left. Thus you have the Tea Party Rebellion. Capish?

The Fruits of Weakness:

Brazil and Turkey realize there’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain from ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries.

May 21, 2010
It is perfectly obvious that Iran’s latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America’s proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak — no blacklisting of Iran’s central bank, no sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas industries, no non-consensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil — both current members of the Security Council — are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture — a defiant, triumphant “take that” to Uncle Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there’s no cost to lining up with America’s enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They’ve watched President Obama’s humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant, and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They’ve watched America acquiesce to Russia’s reexerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured last month into extending for 25 years Russia’s lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol), and over Georgia (Russia’s de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama “reset” policy).

They’ve watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran’s agent in the Arab Levant — sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. “engagement.”

They’ve observed the administration’s gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see more than mere passivity from the U.S. as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American “Bolivarian” coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying, and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It’s the perfect fulfillment of Obama’s adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect, and domination, from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” (guess who’s been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any “world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another.” (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama’s policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There’s nothing to fear from Obama and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America’s rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies.

Video-Richard Blumenthal:
'When I served in Vietnam...'


Ordinarily, a clip like this would be overlooked on YouTube as random amateur video of a politician talking about his military service in Vietnam. However, the individual in this video is Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. He is the likely Democratic candidate running for Senate in his state for the seat being vacated by Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat.

In a number of local newspaper articles, Mr. Blumenthal presented himself as a Marine reservist who served in the Vietnam War, but The New York Times recently revealed that Mr. Blumenthal's representation of his service in Vietnam did not match what the newspaper discovered:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the U.S. Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

That's going to leave a mark. Connecticut's now embattled attorney general can likely say goodbye to his 20-point lead over potential GOP challengers. It is only a matter of time before the Democrats manage to pull Mr. Blumenthal off the ticket and find a replacement candidate. Keep in mind two things: Sen. Dodd went into retirement with low incumbent polling numbers against Rob Simmons, a strong GOP challenger in this race, and Mr. Simmons really is a decorated Vietnam war hero (h/t Hot Air).

In the meantime, Mr. Blumenthal is in damage control, telling the New York Times he "misspoke" at the Norwalk event and likely at other events as well. The clock started ticking yesterday on this guy.

As a frequent public speaker, I awoke one day to the realization that I could no longer remember the source or accuracy of a story that I had been using for years. I realized that for reasons of rhetorical effectiveness, I had elaborated another story to the point that it no longer matched the facts.

One of my mentors used to tell stories in the first person that others claimed.

After some talks I would await the press to find out what I had been heard to say.

I have concluded that public speaking is corrupting. As a practitioner, I have sympathy for those who are corrupted by it.

Richard Blumenthal has been a competent, dedicated, and effective public servant. He has few peers. I doubt seriously that he had a conscious intention to deceive.

However, we have seen that political power is also corrupting. Many, not say most are vulnerable to it. We should not knowingly put it into the hands of those whe have demonstrated that they are vulnerable.

What is Memorial Day?

May 31, 2010

Memorial Day is a great and wonderful way to remember our patriotic heroes who sacrificed their lives to help us breathe the air of freedom. This day is observed with families and friends visiting cemeteries and memorials to pay homage to their loved and forgotten ones.

“Your silent tents of green
We deck with fragrant flowers;
Yours has the suffering been,
The memory shall be ours.”
–Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Memorial Day was first celebrated on May 30, 1868. It was observed by placing flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers during the first national celebration. Gen. James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which around 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers who were buried there.

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. This date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The alternative name of “Memorial Day” was first used in 1882. It did not become more common until after World War II, and was not declared the official name by Federal law until 1967. On June 28, 1968, the United States Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which moved three holidays from their traditional dates to a specified Monday in order to create a convenient three-day weekend. The holidays included Washington’s Birthday, now celebrated as Presidents’ Day; Veterans Day and Memorial Day. The change moved Memorial Day from its traditional May 30 date to the last Monday in May. The law took effect at the federal level in 1971.

Red Poppies are a tradition inspired by a poem in 1915, “In Flanders Fields,” Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance of those who have died serving our country. I tear at the sound of “Taps” played at ceremonies on Memorial Day. “We come, not to mourn our dead soldiers, but to praise them.” –Francis A. Walker.

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote.

I will tear up as well. We will be with our son, Scott, at his gravesite in Bigfork, Montana in memory of his service to our country.

Have a fun, safe, and memorable Memorial Day.

God Bless America and our great United States.