Sunday, December 24, 2006

 

Merry Christmas To All






Wishing you and yours the best of Christmas.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

 

Worse Than Abortion - Update II


Apparently in Ukraine, they are slaughtering newborn children for harvesting stem-cells. This is worse than abortion and SICK! Where is the condemnation from the MSM? Do they justify this behavior by ignoring this because it involves stem-cell research? . Also, Rush Limbaugh mentioned this yesterday on his program. As I am writing this, he just mentioned it again on his show and he will cover this in his morning update tomorrow. As he states, “where is Michael J. Fox and McCaskill on this”?

Below from the BBC as reported yesterday.

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.

Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.

Ukraine has become the self-styled stem cell capital of the world.

Wall of silence

The BBC has spoken to mothers from the city of Kharkiv who say they gave birth to healthy babies, only to have them taken by maternity staff. Full article…

This from the For-UA.com (For Ukraine Forum, English version)

Certainly this is the work of the Russian/Ukraine Mob and colluding politicians. What is needed is a verifiable chain of custody for stem-cells to include the origin, enforced internationally. Also, apparently many Ukraine politicians are blocking (or ignoring illegal activities) legislation to help prevent these abominable acts.

The mothers the article speaks of are more than likely unwed young girls who have no defense against a corrupt hospital staff, all the way to the top and beyond.

The city of Kharkiv (Kharkov in English, pronounced har’-kof) is in eastern Ukraine and is highly influenced by Russia, being very close to the border.

Black forces are at work here, folks.

One comment from the Forum…

Zumbrunnen (00:50 | 13 December,2006)
This is not a question of pro or contra abortion. This is nothing else but murder. Outrages enough that it could happen, that there are people without any moral instincts that are ready to kill babies for money. Still, this could have happen in other countries as well. Ukraine, however, or rather the Ukrainian government is to blame for the fact that even 4 years after the first suspicions the authorities are still "investigating" - with no results!

UPDATE I:
Others: Sister Toldjah

Update II: This was published in the Daily Mail in the UK on the 15th by Matthew Hill. If true, this is nothing short of murder of infants. Excerpts are below.

The plastic bag looks as if it contains meat. But then a right leg is taken from it and placed surgically on the morgue table, followed by the left one. Then the torso. The head follows, a gaping cavity where the brain used to be.

But it is only when the gloved hand of the pathologist examines the tiny fingers of a baby aged about 30 weeks that the full horror of what I am witnessing sinks in.

This shocking scene was captured on video at post-mortem examinations carried out on behalf of Ukrainian mothers who claim their babies were stolen from them at birth.

My inquiries took me around the world, from a private clinic in the Caribbean to the desolate back streets of the Ukraine. What I uncovered is a disturbing tale involving claims of murder, conspiracy . . . and a sickening new beauty treatment.

The first hint I had of these allegations arose months ago during a conversation with one of the UK's foremost experts on stem cell research.

Dr Stephen Minger, from Kings College, London, is a distinguished medical researcher who believes stem cells hold the key to finding a cure for some of our major diseases.

"The problem is, I am not sure how the cells are prepared," he says. "A six-week-old embryo can be just 1cm from head to foot, so it's difficult to dissect tissue from it. They may just homogenise the whole embryo." That's a polite way of saying that the aborted babies could have been liquidised.

"I find it very distasteful that they are used for beauty treatments," says Dr Minger. "As far as I can tell from what's been published, a lot of people go to this clinic in Barbados feeling a bit run down, or that their skin has just lost some elasticity, and they are getting 'smoothies' or perk-me-ups."

Once there (in Ukraine), I made several attempts to interview the head of the Institute, Dr Valentin Greshenko, to put my concerns to him, but he refused. So my inquiries took me instead to Maternity Hospital Number Six, which stands in what my translator told me nervously was the "criminal area" of Kharkiv.

It was at this hospital, in 2002, that a young woman called Svetlana Plusikova gave birth to a baby girl. The 26-year-old agreed to meet me in a derelict fairground nearby, set in a leafless forest. She was too scared for me to come to her workplace.

Svetlana told me that after a relatively straightforward pregnancy, she gave birth without any complication. "It happened very, very quickly - the doctors didn't say anything."

It was only much later that she was informed the child had been stillborn. "They told me my child had already been dead inside me for five months."

Svetlana was unconvinced. Surely if her baby had been dead for so long, she would have suffered a miscarriage. And why was the dead infant not shown to her? It had been whisked away so quickly she didn't even have a chance to hear if it cried.

"I gave birth to a healthy girl," Olena told me. "She was crying and moving her hands and legs. I was shown the baby. After that the girl was taken away. They told me everything was OK and I could see her the next day."

But that never happened. Olena was told the following day that her baby had died. But when she asked what had caused the death, the answers were inconsistent. "They told me three stories. One, she didn't have enough air to breathe; two, the lungs didn't open; and three, that her heart failed."

The couple tried in vain to find out what really happened, but the more they investigated, the firmer the doors were shut in their faces.

She (chief doctor, Larysa Nazarenko ) was visibly uncomfortable as I set up my camera - her eyelids blinking rapidly as she stood behind her desk. "The children are not lost," she told me. "They are not stolen - that's just somebody else's illusion."

Who, she asked, had put these ideas in this young mother's head?

"It's about money," I said, "about stem cells. About Westerners paying a lot of money for stem cells from babies. And claims that cells from their brains are taken for treatment by various organizations."

"There is no such therapy," she said. "No work in this hospital is connected with the use of cells. This is the wrong address. I deny everything." Then I was ordered to leave.

I will be following this as close as possible…



Thursday, December 07, 2006

 

Least We Forget


Pearl Harbor Day














NAS Pearl Harbor


Wheeler Air Field


This is what it will take to defeat today's evil.

Hiroshima




Nagasaki





Wednesday, November 22, 2006

 

We're Not Leaving Iraq!




Don’t believe the Dems BS. We are not leaving Iraq anytime soon. My Sons is stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas and is deploying to Iraq in September 2007 for a year. He is a launcher chief on an MLRS.

So the way I see it, we’ll be there at least until September 2008. Just in time for the general election. Which I’m sure will be colorful!


Tuesday, November 21, 2006

 

US Should Pull Out Of Washington, D.C.

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in

the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total

of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the

same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in

the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in

the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.


Thursday, November 16, 2006

 

Jihad Watch

Here is an excellent view of how Islam is making it's move inside the USA!

Hot Air

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

 

House "Ethics Committee" Investigation



What’s been happening in the House “Ethics Committee’s” investigation on Mark Foley, et al? I have not seen or read anything in the MSM, blogsphere, etc since November 6th. What the hell’s going on?

Surely, should not this report be published prior to the House electing its leaders? How many “leaders” will the report implicate? Are the sweeping this under the rug? Have they held hearings since the election? Will any Democrats implicated? Hmmm…

Certainly many more questions than answers!


 

Cut and Run


Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse has an excellent article regarding politicians running for the woods concerning Iraq. Rick puts it quite well. I’ll just call the pols Yellow Bellied Chicken-$hit$!

As far as James Baker and the Bush 41 bunch; you had your chance and blew it! Jim Baker is nothing more than a bootlicking diplomat, with an undetectable testosterone level. He’s not far behind Madam Notbright.


The term “bi-partisan” is taking on a whole new meaning recently as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to seek cover behind the apron strings of the Iraq Study Group and its Old Wise Men who are desperately trying to find a way out of Iraq without making it appear that the US is “cutting and running.”

This, of course, is what James Baker’s group was set up specifically to do; provide safe political haven for Republicans and Democrats and take the sting out of partisan recriminations that would accompany any phased withdrawal of American troops that doesn’t take into account what is happening on the ground or in the halls of government in Iraq.

There are two choices in Iraq; win or lose. Those looking for nuance won’t find any. Those looking for a comfortable formula that would come up short in the “win” department but not exactly be a loss either are kidding themselves. There has never been a war that I can think of that didn’t have a winner and a loser. And trying to spin Iraq as a “draw” would be laughable – at least to our enemies who will dance long into the night the day that our “phased withdrawal” from Iraq is announced.

The ISG is just the latest in a long line of Commissions, Panels, and other appointed groups whose job it is to cover the political posteriors of politicians who either won’t or can’t decide tough political questions. Social Security reform, base closings, and budgetary reform are three recent examples of what amounts to Congress abdicating its responsibilities in the face of gridlock. Fulll article...


Sunday, November 12, 2006

 

Where Were You When The Balloon Went Up?





This is an excellent read at Winds of Change concerning the failure of Non-Proliferation and inevitable nuclear consequences. This is a long read with the comments section (very intelligent comments). However, it is well worth your time. Grab a cup of coffee. It took me two.

I think perhaps, Washington cannot see the forest for trees. We cannot, under any circumstances, negotiate with Iran on nukes or anything else as far as I am concerned. There is no common ground between good and evil. We MUST take the fight to the enemy. If you think that we are NOT at war with Islam/Muslims, then get the fuck out of the way and let the willing do what must be done.

On a side note; I am in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any of our known or perceived enemies, as horrible as it may sound to some. There are many “targets of opportunity” presenting themselves today. It is far better to be proactive rather than reactive. History is replete with supporting examples.

Question: Which is better of the two; 10 million dead in Tehran or 4 million dead in New York City? This is what it is, folks!

Hat Tip: Blackfive


Friday, November 10, 2006

 

What A Soldier Thinks About The Election

Here is a letter from a soldier in Iraq with his thoughts on the election results. Very heart breaking. Thank you, Mr. President!

Hat tip: Ms. Underestimated


I know you probably get a lot of messages asking you to read stuff on your show, but I BEG you to read this...... I would like you to tell America exactly what they did to their soldiers on Tuesday, and what WE think about our countrymen right now.

"I hope you are satisfied with what you have done...

Today in the mess hall, where there is usually jovial conversation, there was silence, long faces, and broken spirits... Everyone, to include all American soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, Iraqi Nationals, Bulgarian Soldiers, etc, etc... was speechless, tired, demoralized and stunned.... all ate in erie silence.....

Last night, while we watched the press conference with the President, there was utter discust, and the common feeling amongst us all that we soldiers are now the loneliest people on Earth.... we fight an enemy over here, and we have a country full of enemies to go home to that are our countrymen. We watched President Bush say his own political funeral, our commander and chief.. as well as ours..... He tried so hard to spin it, but... well.. there is no way to soften such a morale blow.

While you sit and Monday morning quarterback what we work so hard to do for you out here, just know that the spirit of your team is wounded..... YOU liberals, you America have done a great job of demoralizing us... Thank you.

Do us a favor though, when we do come home, spare us the ceremony....... We all now know that it is a bunch of crap, and what you think of us.......

I have to say that right now, I would rather be a pussy ass Frenchman, even though they have no will to fight, at least they have the balls to make a decision and stick with it...... They stuck to thier guns about staying out of this war, even if it was the wrong decision......America on the other hand, goes off half cocked, and when the decision appears to be a hard one, or something that might cost a little bit, they turn tail and run.....

WHAT A NATION OF PUSSIES!!!!

This week I am NOT proud to say that I am an American..........I think it is obvious why... See, we just have told the world that we are not a nation of people who are tough, and will fight for what we believe in... We have told the world that we are a giant coward that will shy away from any difficult challenge...

So, while you eat your cheetos, and sit there and watch your lazy ass get fatter, dumber and happier Joe Citizen.. Just remember this, I, and all my commrades payed a dear price to come this far and have you decide that we should fail...

Realize this, because of your action this week America.... do not expect so many men to be so willing to stand up for your next little whim just to be cut down in the middle of it all............

Realize this also.. you have just put a heavy price on the heads of us all...... Now that we are branded as cowards, we are an easy target, oh so inviting for the taking....... I swore to protect your children in your beds.... yet you fling the door wide open inspite of me to invite the scourge.... Well.... have it your way then.

Because of this, September 11th will soon be overshadowed by these same enemies.. my advice to you is get your lazy, self centered ass up and make peace with your God, and your family.. cause, time will come when they may not be there for you................Because you kicked me in the teeth, and so many others, I know I won't any more.. "

Aaron.


Thursday, November 09, 2006

 

You Forgot About The Contract With America

The President, along with many Republicans in Congress, forgot about the Contract With America. See the contract below:


REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)

Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.

Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.


Tuesday, November 07, 2006

 

Photo of the Day










Photo of the Day




Friday, November 03, 2006

 

German Engineering - Arab Technology

I received this is an email yesterday and posted on VidiLife.


free video hosting
Free Video Hosting

 

From John F'n Kerry

$crew John F'n Kerry



Hat Tip: The Political Pitbull

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

 

Hypocrisy At It's Finest!

Now We Know Why

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

 

Let These Clowns Run The Senate?

Yeah... right!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!




Just keep stepping in it John... you are such a beloved Veteran. Eventually your shoes will require changing. The one's you are currently wearing are a bit smelly!

Update: All From Drudge


VIDEO: KERRY WARNS STUDENTS: EDUCATE YOURSELF, OR YOU'LL GET STUCK IN IRAQ...


VIDEO: BUSH: KERRY COMMENTS 'INSULTING AND SHAMEFUL.. THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ARE PLENTY SMART, AND THEY ARE PLENTY BRAVE... AND THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS OWES THEM AN APOLOGY'...

AMERICAN LEGION: APOLOGIZE NOW...
Vet Group expresses 'disbelief, disappointment'...


 

Watch Those Halloween Parties!

Drunk Pumpkin









Monday, October 30, 2006

 

Think About This

I received this in an email moments ago from a friend in Shreveport. Never think that God does not exist, and why he does things for all of our benefit. We are not to understand why in our Earthly lives.

The email asked that I forward this to 10 friends. I figure that a larger audience may benefit from being posted here.

I would appreciate all who read this pass to pass it on.

Max


When you're down to nothing, God is up to something."

This is beautiful! Try not to cry.

She jumped up as soon as she saw the surgeon come out of the operating room. She said: "How is my little boy ? Is he going to be all right ? When can I see him ?"

The surgeon said, "I'm sorry. We did all we could, but your boy didn't make it."

Sally said, "Why do little children get cancer ? Doesn't God care any more ? Where were you, God, when my son needed you ?"

The surgeon asked, "Would you like some time alone with your son ? One of the nurses will be out in a few minutes, before he's transported to the university."

Sally asked the nurse to stay with her while she said good bye to son. She ran her fingers lovingly through his thick red curly hair. "Would you like a lock of his hair ?" the nurse asked.


Sally nodded yes. The nurse cut a lock of the boy's hair, put it in a plastic bag and handed it to Sally.

The mother said, "It was Jimmy's idea to donate his body to the University for Study. He said it might help somebody else. "I said no at first, but Jimmy said, 'Mom, I won't be using it after I die. Maybe it will help some other little boy spend one more day with his Mom." She went on, "My Jimmy had a heart of gold. Always thinking of someone else. Always wanting to help others if he could."

Sally walked out of Children's Mercy Hospital for the last time, after spending most of the last six months there. She put the bag with Jimmy's belongings on the seat beside her in the car.

The drive home was difficult. It was even harder to enter the empty house. She carried Jimmy's belongings, and the plastic bag with the lock of his hair to her son's room.


She started placing the model cars and other personal things back in his room exactly where he had always kept them. She laid down across his bed and, hugging his pillow, cried herself to sleep.

It was around midnight when Sally awoke. Laying beside her on the bed was a folded letter. The letter said:

"Dear Mom, I know you're going to miss me; but don't think that I will ever forget you, or stop loving you, just 'cause I'm not around to say "I Love You". I will always love you, Mom, even more with each day. Someday we will see each other again. Until then, if you want to adopt a little boy so you won't be so lonely, that's okay with me. He can have my room and old stuff to play with. But, if you decide to get a girl instead, she probably wouldn't like the same things us boys do. You'll have to buy her dolls and stuff girls like, you know. Don't be sad thinking about me. This really is a neat place. Grandma and Grandpa met me as soon as I got here and showed me around some, but it will take a long time to see everything. The angels are so cool. I love to watch them fly. And, you know what? Jesus doesn't look like any of his pictures. Yet, when I saw Him, I knew it was Him. Jesus himself took me to see GOD ! And guess what, Mom ? I got to sit on God's knee and talk to Him, like I was somebody important. That's when I told Him that I wanted to write you a letter, to tell you good bye and everything. But I already knew that wasn't allowed. Well, you know what Mom ? God handed me some paper and His own personal pen to write you this letter. I think Gabriel is the name of the angel who is going to drop this letter off to you. God said for me to give you the answer to one of the questions you asked Him 'Where was He when I needed him ?' "God said He was in the same place with me, as when His son Jesus was on the cross. He was right there, as He always is with all His children. Oh, by the way, Mom, no one else can see what I've written except you. To everyone else this is just a blank piece of paper. Isn't that cool ? I have to give God His pen back now. He needs it to write some more names in the Book of Life. Tonight I get to sit at the table with Jesus for supper. I'm sure the food will be great.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. I don't hurt anymore. The cancer is all gone. I'm glad because I couldn't stand that pain anymore and God couldn't stand to see me hurt so much, either. That's when He sent The Angel of Mercy to come get me. The Angel said I was a Special Delivery ! How about that ?


Signed with Love from God, Jesus & Me.


 

Intersetnig Quote and Very Applicable

I found this quote earlier today:


''The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.'' ~ Vladimir Lenin


How Fitting! And they wonder why their circulation and viewership continues to sprial down the drain...


Friday, October 27, 2006

 

Rumsfeld on a Roll!!

free video hosting
Free Video Hosting Hot Videos

 

Vote Republican!!!!!!!!

ZUCKER UNCENSORED TAXMAN AD





Wednesday, October 25, 2006

 

Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole in the Democratic Party


Subversion, Democrat Party Style

Have you read this in the MSM? This has earned little to no attention in the MSM. But there absence of attention leaves little doubt of there consonance of such behavior by themselves and the referenced politicians below. Bear with me, this is a long read and much longer following the links. Especially long are the article by Fedora at Free Republic and all the comments. It is well worth the time, especially the comments.

I do not think I have given this justice. The entire read in intriguing and stunning.

Kennedy’s Comrade: Hunting a KGB Mole in the Democratic Party

Profile of an Agent

In 1999, espionage author Christopher Andrew revealed that Soviet archives smuggled by defector Vasili Mitrokhin described an unnamed KGB agent recruited from California Democratic Party circles in the 1970s:

Though [Gus] Hall tended to overstate the influence of undeclared members of the CPUSA within the Democratic Party, there was at least one to whom the [KGB’s] Centre attached real importance during the 1970s: a Democratic activist in California recruited as a KGB agent during a visit to Russia. The agent, who is not identified by name in the reports noted by Mitrokhin, had a wide circle of influential contacts in the Democratic Party: among them Governor Jerry Brown of California, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Senator J. William Fulbright and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. During the 1976 Presidential campaign the agent was able to provide inside information from within the Carter camp and a profile of Carter himself, which were particularly highly valued by the Centre since it had so few high-level American sources. On one occasion he spent three hours discussing the progress of the campaign at a meeting with Carter, Brown and Cranston in Carter's room at the Pacific Hotel. His report was forwarded to the Politburo. During the final stages of the campaign the agent had what the KGB claimed were 'direct and prolonged conversations' with Carter, Governor Brown and Senators Cranston, Kennedy, Ribicoff and Jacob Javits. Andropov attached such importance to the report on these conversations that he forwarded it under his signature to the Politburo immediately after Carter's election. . .Mitrokhin had access only to reports in FCD files based on intelligence provided by the agent, not to the agent's file itself--probably because he had been recruited by the Second (rather than the First) Chief Directorate during a visit to the Soviet Union. Within the United States he seems to have been run from the San Francisco residency.1

Narrowing Down the Suspects

In the process of trying to collect details on the “Pacific Hotel” meeting with Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, and Alan Cranston, I learned that Los Angeles Times reporter Tyler Marshall had questioned Cranston about the meeting without success:

Asked about the account Thursday, Cranston said he was unaware whom the Soviet mole might be.

"I have no idea who this guy is," Cranston said. The former senator said that he recalled a Carter campaign event at the Pacific Hotel but remembered no meeting between the three Democrats as described by Mitrokhin.

"It's not logical such a meeting would have occurred," Cranston said. "I don't believe it happened. Sounds like this agent [was] trying to build up his own reputation."2

Jamie Dettmer also questioned Cranston, as well as Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter, with similar results. As Dettmer reported on an intelligence community discussion forum:

I talked to Cranston and Brown and Carter about the 1970s spy--all recalled the meeting but not who was in the room. We also tried the hotel but their records did not go back that far. We also tried the Carter library but they could not help either.3

Andrew Young is known to have been under the influence of Communist Party operative Jack “Hunter Pitts” O’Dell.7 However researchers considering Young as a suspect have pointed out that in the same passage where Christopher Andrew discusses the Carter campaign’s KGB mole, he mentions that the KGB met obstacles when attempting to recruit Young.8 This alone does not necessarily exclude Young from consideration, but when other details are considered, a better suspect emerges.

That individual is a known KGB asset mentioned in the Los Angeles Times article: California Senator John Tunney.

Fitting the Profile

Tunney’s relationship with the KGB was first revealed in 1992 after Soviet archives came into Western possession, and has recently received renewed publicity from reviews of Paul Kengor’s 2006 book The Crusader9 The documents publicized in 1992 and 2006 focused on Tunney’s mediation between Soviet officials and Ted Kennedy from 1978 to 1983. But Tunney also seems to be the best fit for the profile of the unnamed agent the KGB had placed in Jimmy Carter’s circles during the 1976 Presidential campaign.

Like the unnamed agent, Tunney had been in the Soviet Union. His business trips there after 1978 are easily documented from the public record. I found it more difficult to determine exactly when he first visited the USSR, but it was apparently before October 1974. At that time his soon-to-be-ex-wife Mieke wrote an article for Ladies’ Home Journal describing her relationship with Senator Edward Kennedy’s husband Joan, whom she had known since 1958 when their future husbands were attending law school together.10 Mieke mentioned “days in Moscow” with Joan during the past 16 years:

Both Joan and I take great pride in looking well. . .Our faces have a few more wrinkles despite the creams that we faithfully apply, but if one were to ask us to give back any of those 16 years, the stimulating yet hectic life, the action-packed days in Boston or Washington or Moscow, the answer would be never.11

It proved easier to find confirmation that Tunney fit some of the other items in the unnamed agent’s profile remarkably well. His circle of contacts coincided significantly with those attributed to the agent: “Governor Jerry Brown of California, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, Senator J. William Fulbright and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.”

Tunney’s political contacts stemmed partly from his close relationship with Senator Kennedy. Tunney had been Kennedy’s college roommate in law school and was an usher at Kennedy’s wedding to Joan. Joan Kennedy and Mieke Tunney became best friends over the course of the 1960s. Meanwhile their husbands travelled together and were frequently seen together in extramarital couplings with other women.16 In addition to such social contact, Kennedy and Tunney worked together politically. For instance, while Tunney was still a Congressman in 1966, he and Kennedy and their wives travelled to the Middle East on a fact-finding trip to develop an Arab-Israeli peace plan.17 Also in 1966, Joan Kennedy and her sister Candy travelled to California to stump for the re-election of Tunney and Governor Pat Brown.18 Tunney helped Jess Unruh organize Robert Kennedy’s Presidential campaign in California in 1968,19 and early that same year Tunney and Edward Kennedy both made fact-finding trips to Vietnam.20 After Tunney was elected Senator in 1970, he and Kennedy served on the Senate Judiciary Committee together.21 They joined forces against the Nixon administration and California Governor Ed Reinecke during the Watergate investigation.22 In late 1974 and early 1975 they joined Senators Alan Cranston and Dick Clark in leading a drive to sever US aid to anti-Communist forces in Angola.23

Tunney’s close relationship with Kennedy placed him in Kennedy’s circle of contacts, intersecting with at least three of the other politicians from the unnamed KGB agent’s list of contacts: Senators Abraham Ribicoff and Jacob Javits and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

John Conyers, Jr. served on the House Judiciary Committee while Tunney was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tunney and his committee listened to a statement Conyers gave opposing the Supreme Court nomination of Lewis Powell.30 Tunney also supported the efforts of Conyers and his Democratic colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee to impeach Richard Nixon, an effort in which Senator Kennedy played a large behind-the-scenes role.31

As a Democratic Senator from California, Tunney also worked closely with two of the unnamed KGB agent’s other contacts: Senator Cranston and Governor Brown. Cranston, who was Tunney’s senior as California Senator, was quoted in a 1971 article describing the growth of his relationship with Tunney, and in he supported Tunney’s efforts to cut off US aid to Angola.32 At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, where Jerry Brown was one of Carter’s leading rivals, Tunney and Cranston attended a private unity meeting between Brown’s camp and the Carter camp.33 Carter’s California campaign was aided by Brown, Cranston, Tunney, and Democratic State Chairman Charles Manatt, who had guided Tunney’s 1970 Senate campaign and later became Tunney’s law partner when the former Senator joined the firm of Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney (now Manatt, Phelps & Phillips).34

In addition to being present during Carter’s Los Angeles visit on August 22, 1976, Tunney also had good opportunity for the later contact with Carter and his supporters attributed to the unnamed KGB agent: “During the final stages of the campaign the agent had what the KGB claimed were 'direct and prolonged conversations' with Carter, Governor Brown and Senators Cranston, Kennedy, Ribicoff and Jacob Javits.”

Historical Implications

If Tunney was the unnamed KGB agent, what are the implications for history? If Tunney had already been recruited by the KGB before his 1976 Senate campaign, it could shed significant light on his activity during the Nixon-Ford administration. The precise date of the unnamed agent’s recruitment is unclear from Andrew’s summary, but his account makes it sound as if the agent had already been recruited during a visit to Russia sometime prior to the 1976 Presidential campaign. As mentioned above, Senator Kennedy had visited Russia in April 1974, and Mieke Tunney recorded reminiscences of “days in Moscow” with Joan Kennedy in an October 1974 article. During this period, as Kennedy sized up his odds in the next Presidential election and Tunney prepared to run for re-election to the Senate, both men were actively involved in promoting the Watergate prosecution.40 In late 1974, Tunney initiated the Congressional antiwar bloc’s effort to cut off US aid to Angola. Soviet archives record the KGB’s enthusiastic reviews of New York Times coverage of Congress’ attack on President Ford’s Angola policy.41

While Tunney’s relationship to the KGB before the 1976 election remains only a hypothesis supported by circumstantial evidence, there is more direct evidence available after the 1976 election, when Tunney joined the law firm of his friend Charles Manatt, who would serve as the Democratic National Committee Chairman from 1981 to 1985. Soviet archives indicate that another firm Tunney was linked to, Agritech, had a relationship to a French-American company called Finatech, which was run by David Karr—a KGB agent associated with Armand Hammer—and served as an intermediary between the KGB and Ted Kennedy between 1978 and 1980. KBG reports also mention Tunney carrying messages between Kennedy and Moscow in 1983. As summarized by Herbert Romerstein:

One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that "In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship" between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D.-Calif.). KGB recommended that they be permitted to do this because Tunney's firm was already connected with a KGB agent in France named David Karr. This document was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992.

Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf. . .was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.". . .

In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy's concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan. The KGB reported "in Kennedy's opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the President's opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda." Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population." Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."

Tunney also told the KGB that Kennedy was planning to run for President in the 1988 elections. "At that time, he will be 56 years old, and personal problems that have weakened his position will have been resolved [Kennedy quietly settled a divorce suit and soon plans to remarry]." Of course the Russians understood his problem with Chappaquiddick. While Kennedy did not intend to run in 1984, he did not exclude the possibility that the Democratic Party would draft him because "not a single one of the current Democratic hopefuls has a real chance of beating Reagan."

This document was first discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992.42

So from 1978 to 1983, there is direct evidence from Soviet archives that Tunney was acting as a middleman between Senator Kennedy and the Soviet Union. Circumstantial evidence indicates that Tunney may have begun playing this role as early as.

Tunney’s role as courier to the Soviets was not limited to delivering messages from Kennedy. A review of Paul Kengor’s Crusader adds:

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."43

There is indeed a lot more to be found—or from the perspective of some, perhaps, a lot more to be covered up.

Select Noteworthy Comments from Readers

To: AmeriBrit

Clinton's visit to Czecho and the USSR was most unusual.

For US Senators, there was an overt reason to go (in addition, there may have been covert reasons, of course).

But for a footloose college boy to be hosted behind the Iron Curtain, months after the tanks rolled into Prague, would have been very, very unusual.

There had to be more to the story.

To: Fedora

Didn't Carter approach the Soviets during the 80 and 84 races to "warn" them about Reagan and to get "help" to defeat them? That would put it during the same campaign as the Kennedy - Tunney contact.

To: Jim Noble

Oxford University and Rhodes scholarship are a breeding ground for communism. On visits to my birth place across the pond, and friends who have influence at my request, have spent hours going through the archived micro-fish records at the newspaper and have come up zilch on any mention of Clinton ever being a Rhodes scholar, his expulsion, his rapid departure in disgrace, or the rape of Eileen Weldon. For some reason all reference to him and his activities during that period have been sealed. Very few are aware of his flag burning episode, but I saw that with my own eyes and is why I first became interested in the antics of WJC. When it became known that he'd left Oxford and headed to Moscow, when it was against the law for anyone crossing the border into the USSR that held a U.S. passport, it just made things more interesting. It's just my opinion, but I would bet money he's involved in this somewhere, somehow.

To: AmeriBrit; Jim Noble

Here's some discussion of what Clinton was up to during that period. The link is from Thomas, so it may or may not work; if not you can access this through their search engine.

"CLINTON IN ENGLAND (House of Representatives - September 15, 1992", [Page: H8445]

Clinton's Early Dovecote Updated

Bill Clinton's draft record has dogged him since serious questions were first raised in the Wall Street Journal last February. After a hollow attempt (in the name of `full disclosure') by his friend and fellow Rhodes Scholar, Strobe Talbott, to put the charges to rest in the April issue of Time, a series of new revelations has raised more questions about Mr. Clinton's truthfulness in reporting his record.

But there is a more fundamental dimension of Mr. Clinton's anti-war activities during his Oxford days that neither he nor Mr. Talbott has yet addressed. This new information raises questions that are just as troubling as whether Mr. Clinton dodged the draft then and whether he is lying now.

To learn this story, we turn to the Rev. Richard McSorley, a Jesuit priest and professor of peace studies who has taught at Georgetown University since Bill Clinton's undergraduate days there. Father McSorley's memoir about his international travels with the pacifist movement, Peace eyes, was published in 1977 and is now out of print. Peace Eyes begins: `When I got off the train in Oslo, Norway, I met Bill Clinton of Georgetown University. He asked if he could go with me visiting peace people. We visited the Oslo Peace Institute, talked with conscientious objectors, with peace groups, and with university students. At the end of the day as Bill was preparing to leave, he commented, `This is a great way to see a country.' '

Father McSorley was so impressed with Bill Clinton that he wrote in his Foreword, `I thought at the time that this his [Mr. Clinton's] words summarized what I wanted to say in this book. To see a country with a peace focus, through the eyes of peace people is a good way to travel, a good way to see a country and the world.'

As a Rhodes Scholar in England, Bill Clinton learned to see the world, including his native America, through the eyes of the international peace movement. The details of this perspective, and its influence on Bill Clinton's worldview, have received no attention. The record should be set straight for all voters, regardless of how they feel about his response to service in the U.S. armed forces.

Father McSorley recalls that on `Nov. 15, 1969, I participated in the British moratorium against the Vietnam War in front of the U.S. Embassy at Grosvenor Square in London. Even the appearance of the Embassy stressed the over-exaggerated nature of America's power. * * * The total effect of architecture and decor says to the passer-by, `America is the biggest and greatest power on the globe' * * * That day in November about 500 Britons and Americans were meeting to express their sorrow at America's misuse of power in Vietnam * * * Most of them carried signs which said, Americans out of Vietnam.'

Father McSorely goes on to describe vividly the demonstration, which ended with a chorus of `We shall overcome.'

`The activities in London supporting the second stage of the moratorium and the March of Death in Washington, were initiated by Group 68 [Americans in Britain],' wrote Father McSorely. `This group had the support of British peace organizations, including the Committee on Nuclear Disarmament, the British Peace Council, and the International Committee for Disarmament and Peace.'

Then comes this revelation: `The next day I joined with about 500 other people for the interdenominational service. Most of them were young, and many of them were Americans. As I was waiting for the ceremony to begin, Bill Clinton of Georgetown, then studying as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, came up and welcomed me. He was one of the organizers. * * * After the service Bill introduced me to some of his friends. With them, we paraded over to the American Embassy, carrying white crosses made of wood about 1 foot high. There we left the crosses as an indication of our desire to end the agony of Vietnam.'

Father McSorely can hardly be called a tool of the opponents to Bill Clinton's candidacy for president. Yet his prosaic, thorough depiction of those events, puts Bill Clinton squarely in the lead of a series of demonstrations with the public support of the British Peace Council, an affiliate of the World Peace Council and as obvious a front group for the Soviet KGB's international department as any that ever was.

Now, Bill Clinton at Oxford was no naif. He was a calculating political analyst, already confirmed in his ambition as a leader of his generation. By his own testimony, in his letter to ROTC Director Col. Eugene Holmes, Bill Clinton was taking great care to preserve what he considered his `political viability.' In this letter, Mr. Clinton also maintained that `not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.'

With this in mind, cooperation alone in anti-American demonstrations abroad would raise eyebrows. But Bill Clinton did more that cooperate; Bill Clinton was a leader of a movement under the direct aegis and support of one of the most notorious communist front organizations in Europe.

Further, it was at Oxford that Mr. Clinton gathered around him the advisors who still constitute some of the senior leadership of his campaign. The American people deserve a full accounting, now, of Bill Clinton's contacts in and coordination with the World Peace Council's British leadership.

Spare us Strobe Talbott's `full disclosure' and your own pussyfooting, Governor. Tell us everything, tell us yourself, and tell us now.

To: Buckhead

Here are some details on that, indicating that in 1980 Carter's intermediary was Armand Hammer, and in 1984 Carter went straight to the Soviet ambassador himself:

Carter, Democrats Asked Soviets to Stop Reagan

Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."

SNIP

Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984 former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.

Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.

Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.

Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.

Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.

SNIP

Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984, Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill. This article also has some interesting stuff on how Kennedy was in turn going behind Carter's back to the Soviets in 1980 via Tunney and Peter Edelman:

Vasiliy Mitrokhin, "THE KGB IN AFGHANISTAN"

Detailed information on the results of a visit by Bahr154 to the USA at the request of Chancellor Schmidt155 were received from a source in government circles in the FRG. During his ten days there Egon Bahr, the Federal Secretary of the Social Democrats, met Benson, Brzezinski,156 Kissinger,157 Shulman158 and the lawyer Peter Edelman159 who was a confidante of Senator Edward Kennedy.160 He found out their ideas about the new situation in the Middle East. From his short trip to the USA, Bahr gained the impression that three factors governed the situation: uncertainty, the desire for strong leadership and a growing fear of war with the Soviet Union The reason for this was "the general loss of faith in the power of America politically, economically and militarily." This feeling was strengthened by the failure of the administration to react in a sensible and decisive way to the events in Afghanistan and Iran. From his conversations in the USA, Bahr was convinced that the actions of the Washington administration were dictated primarily by "Carter's pathological wish to be elected for a second term" and were a consequence of the lack of a united view of the key contemporary problems among the President's advisers.

SNIP

Summarizing his impressions from his American meetings, Bahr noted that "Carter is incurable with his inconsistency and flawed decisions which he takes on the spur of the moment for reasons of prestige." Bahr was convinced that it would become increasingly difficult to work with the American administration. For this reason he said that it was essential to support those forces in the USA which opposed Carter, meaning primarily the pretender to the post of head of the White House, Senator E. Kennedy. When the senator learned that Bahr was in the USA, he telephoned lum to express his regret that he could not meet him because of an election trip to Iowa and said that he could fly to Europe at a later date to meet him personally. He sent Bahr his confidante, Peter Edelman. In his talks with Bahr, Edelman was very open and on the instructions of the Senator gave Kennedy's analysis of events. According to the Senator, the protracted character of the Iranian conflict increased Carter's chances of re-election as it enabled him to demonstrate his firmness. The events in Afghanistan, which were overshadowing this conflict were also favorable to Carter. Kennedy was sure, however, that the public interest in Afghanistan, which had been fuelled by the American authorities, would soon wane and that it would return to Iran. The question "Who started this conflict by hiding the Shah in America?" would be asked which would be awkward for the present administration. Edelman said that this would enable Kennedy to campaign "for the normalization of relations with the Soviet Union and other countries in the interests of peace." A trump card for Kennedy would be his involvement in some form in settling the problem of the American hostages in Tehran. Edelman said bluntly to Bahr that "if Moscow were able to help Kennedy in this way it could count on a very positive development in Soviet-American relations."

On 5 March an American politician, John V. Tunney,163 was in Moscow on behalf of E. Kennedy to relay the latter's ideas on ways to lessen international tension to the Soviet leadership. The Senator considered that the foreign Policy part of Brezhnez's speech to voters in the Bauman district reflected the consistency and steadfastness of the USSR to the policy of détente and created a real basis for a settlement of the Afghan question. At the same time the Carter administration was trying to distort the peace-loving ideas behind Brezhnev's proposals. The White House was feeding the public opinion with nonsense about "the Soviet military threat" and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf. The atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter, Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. All the Republican presidential candidates were whippmg up anti-Soviet hysteria and prophesying that "the Russians will be stained with Afghan blood as the Americans were in Vietnam and that the standing of the USSR will decrease, particularly in the Islamic countries."

But there were other groups in the USA who were also represented inside the administration (Vance, Christopher,164 and others) who considered that Carter's policies were against the interests of the US and that the tension could be lessened through negotiations with Brezhnev. Having considered all these points, Kennedy had come to the conclusion that, in spite of the negative consequences for him personally, it was his duty to take action himself, which could force the Carter administration to act to de-escalate the crisis. He had to act immediately as inaction by the peace-loving forces in the USA would make it impossible for Carter, if he won his re-election, to change course. He would be bound to continue his policies of aggravating Soviet-American relations. If the Republicans were to win, the situation could only be worse. Kemedy thought it essential to make a speech on 16 to 18 March on the events in Afghanistan. He intended to call on the White House to guarantee that it would not interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and to use all the means it could to ensure that China and Pakistan would stop interfering in the country. He would call on the government of Babrak Karmal to announce a policy of nonalignment and [to declare] that it would not join a military alliance or allow the presence of foreign troops. He would also urge him to make the Afghan government more democratic and to include in it members of other parties and the clergy. He wanted to call on the governments of the USA and the USSR to start negotiations on concrete measures to guarantee non- interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and to draw up mutually acceptable forms of these guarantees with the participation of the UN. He would ask the Soviet government, if the outcome of the Soviet-American talks were favorable, to demonstrate its goodwill and, in agreement with the Afghan authorities, withdraw some troops (10,000 to 20,000) from Afghanistan and fix a date for the withdrawal of the remaining troops in. He thought that some of his proposals would be acceptable to the Soviet government and would be grateful if Brehinev could express his approval if this were the case as this would give a powerful boost to the peace-loving forces.

Tunney stressed the basic difference between Kennedy's proposals and those of the USA administration. The White House was actually demanding the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, in other words an acknowledgement that they were unlawftilly sent into the country, whereas Kennedy, not touching the question of the legality of the presence of the Soviet troops, considered that their withdrawal should be linked with measures to guarantee non-interference from outside in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.

The KGB reported this infon-nation to the top together with its own comments. "Although not all Kennedy's proposals are acceptable to us they are worth considering as they contradict the line taken by Carter and other politicians."

On 14 May confidential remarks by the American Ambassador in Moscow, T. Watson,165 and Senators R. Byrd166 and A. Cranston167 became known. They had said that at the forthcoming meeting in Vienna the Americans intended to discuss a wide range of questions relating to Soviet-American relations, such as security problems in Europe and trade and economic cooperation including grain sales to the USSR., as well as Afghanistan. In this way the acuteness of the Afghan problem would be less apparent.

To: Fedora

Immediately preceding in the same article you posted:

CLINTON IN ENGLAND (House of Representatives - September 15, 1992) [Page: H8445]

(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Washington Times ran a column that raises alarming questions about Bill Clinton's antiwar activities as a student in England.

Entitled `Clinton's Early Dovecote Updated,' this column exposes the Democratic Presidential nominee's relationship with activists in Great Britain who opposed America's involvement in Vietnam.

One of these activities wrote a book which, according to the column,

* * * puts Bill Clinton squarely in the lead of a series of demonstrations with public support of the British Peace Council, an affiliate of the World Peace Council and as obvious a front group for the Soviet KGB's international department as any that ever was.

There have been questions raised about Mr. Clinton's various positions on draft dodging. But there have been few inquiries into his actual activities while he was in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, the question of whether Mr. Clinton dodged the draft is one thing. But is it true that Bill Clinton spent his time in England working as a dupe for a KGB front group?

I urge Mr. Clinton to answer these charges immediately. If these allegations are true, Bill Clinton is not fit to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the newspaper article referred to.

And finally, read here about the death of Dave Karr.

From Sigmund, Cark & Alfred:

If Democrat luminaries such as Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, et al, had no trouble looking outside the US for political help and campaign money, why on earth should we not assume that some Dems are dealing with Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah and Hamas, to further their political aims and ambitions?

See Dr. Sanity here and Powerline here,

The world’s thugs, socialist and communist have come accustomed to the Democrat Party being in their favor.

The bottom line is; this entire lot are communist sympathizers, and makes one certainly wonder how much damage was perpetrated by William J. Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States. How many more are in our midst?

Very scary s*it, indeed!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?