John Kerry – Vietnam History

John Kerry and Jane Fonda - Vietnam War

I don’t remember any of these things but have heard bits and pieces over the years. If I remember family stories right – I had 4 uncles in the military during this time period, in each branch of the military and they all came home — thankfully.

How many of you remember Jane Fonda’s actions and John Kerry’s actions? Feel free to share things you remember. Definitely feel free to comment on details in this info that is not complete….

Since John Kerry has been official nominated to be the next Secretary of State – and since we still have many questions about the actions of our current Secretary of State regarding Benghazi – it would be nice to share and hear full details on Kerry’s mentality about the US, war, service members and how he views the US on the world stage……

~*~ Quote from

Jane Fonda, a Vietnam War activist; later distanced herself from the movement and then later in 2010 had blamed it on the right-wing for creating the myth. She was a part of movement that sent over about 300 persons from America, many college students, into North Vietnam to help raise moral to battle U.S. forces. The reason why the North Vietcong won the war was because the U.S.S.R. supplied the north with superior surface to air military equipment, at carte blanche numbers. The only way to have won the war in Vietnam was to have a standing army march on Moscow – there was absolutely no other way to win that war.

The Vietnam was mainly fought by the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America, and to a lesser extent Communist China, the French and of course pitting the North against the South into a bloody and retractile civil war which lasted about ten- years. The reason it was fought was over an atheist ideology, called Marxism against the Socratic auspices of a Representative Constitutional Democracy. The Atheists finally won and Vietnam became a backwards nation which continues today – long after the U.S.S.R. pulled out and dissolved after 1989.  

The War was begun, planned and administered by Harvard and Yale Democratic Party officials. These Ph. Ds. had been taught that Marxism would take over the world if it was not stopped. Marxism was discoursed by Karl Marx as a domino affect, e.g., if one country falls to communism, another will follow and another one until all the world will be run by communists. These Ph. Ds were not trained in critical thinking or in-depth analysis, but rote memorization to believe like robots that Atheism was the course the world would follow. Youth communists supported the U.S.S.R., because the U.S.S.R. was so far away from their view (location) and things appear more peaceful and prosperous in far away lands. The dystopia of Russian communism was organized by propagandists to run around the world and lie to the people that in Atheistic societies, everyone had a job, healthcare, and a place to live and it was like heaven on Earth. The reality was much different. The Communist countries had to massacre much of their populations because they could not manage them all, and needed a populous at a much lower numerical value. This is because communism was run by a set of ‘advisors.’ Sovet, in Russian means ‘advisory.’ these were a small privileged class that shopped at separate department stores, had their own five-star restaurants, not otherwise open to the mass population of Russians.  In all sense and purpose, it was an elitist oligarchy, such as the aristocracy of the middle ages, while the main part of the population were serfs. None of the activist understood or knew this. What they believed were fairytales, such as seen in Disney animation tales of abundance and peace/love happiness. The few that managed to gain entrance into the communist countries usually quickly returned, varying degrees of delusion and shock at what they saw and how they saw others living.

Vietnam was the last of the overt military campaign of the United States of America against Communist regimes. Proxy wars were then begun under the former President Jimmy Carter Administration as the new U.S. military paradigm. The next overt military campaign was the Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), which was authorized by the United Nations and saw 34 nations battle against Iraq and their prime minister/ President Saddam Hussein. The Second Gulf War ( 20 March 2003 – present) was predicted by me in April of 2002, illustrating Nostradamian systems. This was sanctioned by the United Nations, but in apprehension. This war angered many Americans who believed the United States of America had returned to aggressive military industrial complex issues that were a part of Vietnam. President Barak Hussein Obama told his pastor of over 20 years who is a radical anti-American that the Bush- Doctrine was non-Democratic Party. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr, blasted his protégé and correctly stated the Franklin Delano Roosevelt had initiated the read Doctrine and Bush indeed had not.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an ardent Socialist Democrat who devised the U.S. Doctrine of spread Socialism by military force, as historical records have these writings in his own hand. Obama was incorrect, more evidence that he has been lied to in academia, or is just not intelligent enough to be commander in Chief. The reason why Obama was voted into office was mainly a majority of Americans saw the former George W. Bush Administration as those Harvard Ph.Ds. that concocted tales to invade Vietnam, under the rhetoric of spreading Democracy and halting Communism. Obama vowed to change this, but continues to have Guantanamo open, breaking his time limit promises, and moving the torture chambers to Bagram Air Base (U.S. Military Complex, built by the Soviets during their war against Afghanistan in the 1970s), Afghanistan away from his loyal media – while ordering drone and air strikes to kill children and women, something Obama has said he is sorry for and acknowledges in attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for the ideologues of the Democratic Party, no anti-war protests have been seen, unlike the numerous and massive anti-war movements of the former President Bush term(s).  The Democratic Party has a penchant not to protest imperialistic wars they begin or engage in as a matter of loyalty to their twisted ideologies of superiority. The Democratic Party had no problem in human sacrifice, as they support massive genocide of millions of babies each year.


John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and Ramsey Clark ( who prosecuted Bill Clinton at the World Court in the Hague for crimes against Humanity – claiming and rightly so that Bill Clinton slaughtered 11,944 innocent people in Europe in the year of 1999.  John Kerry became famous for shooting an unarmed and young Vietnamese girl then turning around and claiming that the United States military were ‘worse’ than Genghis Khan and his barbarians. Falling down and scraping his elbow, Kerry made up a story that he was in a massive firefight against the North Viet Cong. Dismissed by PDF-60 swift-boat crew members who were there  –which led to many Americans not voting for John Kerry in his big to become president ( 2004 President Campaign, over 200 Vietnam veterans formed a group called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) and denounced Kerry’s lies and Purple Hart’s, thus electing Bush to his second term – he lied to all authorities and on up to the U.S. Congressional hearings. For scraping his elbow, Kerry received a Purple Hart medal from the U.S. military.

When Kerry got dismissed from Vietnam, upon returning to the United States of America, he joined ‘Vietnam Veteran Against the War (WAW). Kerry also appeared before Congress, and was the first Veteran to do so, telling tales about barbarians ( The U.S. Military) using tactics worse than Genghis Khan. Genghis would most possibly be upset with the disparaging remarks by John and his disingenuous that would affect Genghis’ fearsome reputation. John Kerry’s statements were a part of the Winter Soldier Investigation, the first anti-war activist movement, where Kerry told second and third hand stories ( as apparently factual) that the U.S.  Military ‘razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” Ironically, Kerry’s statements to the Democrats in Congress were the ones who were proposing and continuing this war because of the fear of Karl Marx’s irrational dis-logical theory, in which these un intelligent liberals actually believed was the most intelligent theory in history. To further the ironies, Kerry told these liberal congress persons that “We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy” (Vietnam War Veteran John Kerry’s Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 22 April 1971). It is Ironic because Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most Democrats do not know the difference between communism and democracy. This is not a qualified statement either. In fact, the reason the Democratic Party does not want to follow their fellow Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and spread democracy by military force is because they cannot explain Democracy to each other, let alone to any foreign state.

Photo from


Obama Misplaced Outrage About Susan Rice

Outrage About Susan Rice

I admit that before Benghazi – I had never heard Susan Rice’s name. One reason for that could be because there wasn’t anything big and important in the news about the UN. That isn’t a glowing recommendation about her performance over the last four years.

Many of us saw the Obama press conference where he was “outraged” that people were questioning Susan Rice’s ability and qualifications to be Secretary of State.

Seems to me it would be nice to see him “outraged” about an Ambassador and 3 service men who were killed in Benghazi by terrorists.

Seems to me he should be “outraged” that requests for increased security were denied repeatedly.

Seems to me he should be “outraged” that someone in the administration changed the talking points to not protect national security, but in turn they were changed in a way that served to mislead the American people.

Just for a few things that should stir that kind of outrage in the president.

What do you think about his feigned outrage – and yes, I am drawing the conclusion that his actions at the press conference were a show for the cameras.

I just saw an interview with Richard Grenell – who was the spokesman for the UN Ambassador – so he is aware of the duties and responsibilities of her job. That puts him in a special position to critique her work at the UN.

Here is the intro and a link to the article. Feel free to share your thoughts.


Ambassador Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, as President Obama told us, but she appeared on five Sunday political talk shows anyway. On those shows, Rice mouthed talking points that weren’t true. We now know that the talking points did not match the intel reports, which she had complete access to. While the national media debates whether or not she knowingly mislead the public on the Sunday shows, her failings and shortcomings before the Benghazi terrorist attacks have not received the attention they deserve.

Here are 30 reasons (that have nothing to do with Benghazi) why Susan Rice should not get a promotion.

1. failed to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after the 2010 Haiti earthquake
2. skipped the Security Council debate and vote to add new UN Peacekeepers in Haiti after the earthquake
3. led the US during the most inactive Security Council since 1991 during her first year as Ambassador
4. held her first press conference with the UN Secretary General on the pressing international issue of texting while driving
5. failed to speak out when Col. Gaddafi’s Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission
6. waited 17 months before voting on the one and only UN resolution on Iran passed during her tenure

(Sadly- there is more –

Photo –


Who is Using UN Ambassador Susan Rice

This evening I was reading a blog which said the GOP is using Susan Rice to hit Obama. Well —- didn’t President Obama and/or his administration choose to put her in the middle of something she shouldn’t have done? Like his feigned outrageous that her record was being challenged in his press conference last week. He even said she had nothing to do with Benghazi. OK – so Mr President, why did you and/or your adminstration decide that she was the person to go to the Sunday morning talk shows to give the party line about what happened?

By that time – each intelligence official has now told us they knew it was a terrorist attack. So, why put a hand picked spokesperson “out there” to spread the “video” story? After Petreaus’ testimony on Friday – it seems evident that the CIA put out the accurate information but then “someone-who no one can identify – changed the talking points. Seems the obvious question would be — who had approval or the authority to change the CIA report? This wasn’t just changing classified information to protect national security — this was a blatant disregard for the truth. The truth that many Americans understand, does not help Obama’s agenda and does not give any credence to the Democratic cry that “Al Qada is on its heels”. If anything – it is in direct opposition to that comment that the Democrats hammered home at every opportunity.

But back to the blog post — this paragraph really caught my attention —

Rice simply repeated the flawed and inaccurate intelligence information that she was given. The UN Ambassador has virtually nothing to do with securing embassies, assigning military or diplomatic personnel to them, or authorizing military operations against terrorist groups.  Likewise, the Secretary of State does not make foreign policy. The Secretary’s role is to advise, and consent, but ultimately their charge is to implement policies and directives from the White House.

  • To me – the first sentence implies that the intelligence information sent to the White House was inaccurate – I’ll leave that to you after the testimony given Friday.
  • However – it is a position where the person is representing the US worldwide and must have the strength and character to question things that look or feel wrong. They need the discretion to put out information that is truthful to the world and the United States citizens. In order to be approved by Congress – I would sincerely hope, that we could expect that we could trust the Secretary of State to look out for the best interests of the country — even if that meant standing up and getting logical answers to questions and THEN present the details to the people.
  • IF these responsibilities in this article apply to the US Secretary of State – then why didn’t our current Secretary of State appear on the talk shows? She was in town and could’ve done that – but for some unknown reason, she didn’t appear then and now she’s too busy with wine tastings in Australia.

What are your thoughts? Is Ambassador Rice being used by the GOP? Or should I ask, if you think Ambassador Rice is being used to the President and his administration?

Interesting blog post about reasons why Susan Rice is unqualified – besides the Benghazi debacle –

Picture above, courtesy of

UN Treaty

There are many grievances that that American people have with President Obama and his administration. But given all the talk about and defense of Susan Rice this week – makes this even more interesting…. remember at the press conference yesterday, Obama heaped high praise on Rice. He seemed to be clear that she is one of the people he is considering to be the next Secretary of State – giving her very broad power to talk with and negotiate with foreign leaders. Do you want the person who must be in the middle of this project – representing the US throughout the world?

The  very day after the 2012 election — this past Wednesday — the executive branch,  led by Obama, resumed work on an illegal treaty with the U.N. to achieve  despotic gun control reforms that could not otherwise be achieved through the  legislature.

Treaties  to accomplish domestic policies — instead of properly  international matters — are illegal, and yet Obama pursued this very goal  throughout most of 2012, only to curtail his efforts during the campaign  and then eerily resume them the very morning after he had guaranteed  his continued tenure at the presidential seat.  Get ready to hold onto your  guns…but again, they’re mostly useless to vouchsafe rights in our republic  unless we get militias back (the other half of the 2nd  Amendment)!

(Read more:

This reminds me of  specific comments made by Obama –

He would have more flexibility after the election – overheard on a hot mic

He would do what needs to be done, with or without Congress….

It is way past time for more Americans to OPEN THEIR EYES!