SamSaid!

A TAKE ON KERRY

     John Kerry probably isn't a bad guy to be around. Maybe not the prime joke teller or life of the party  — and never just “one of the boys”  —  but not a bad guy. Soon we will learn more about what John Kerry “is”, but we can be pretty sure about what he is not.

     John Kerry is not a builder” or “creator”. He is not a renowned author nor is he an organization builder. He has not started and grown his own business nor a professional practice, and he has not managed a payroll of thousands of career aspiring people  (discounting the hordes of government employes). True enough, he has military experience – controversial as it may be. His list of accomplishments career-wise compared to his peers is not all that impressive. However, there are 2 very significant accomplishments that have made him what he is  —   he married two  wealthy women. Very wealthy. Those achievements alone have allowed him to own and use several fancy automobiles and mansion type homes on at least 2 continents. He has enjoyed a very luxurious life style thanks to his acquired wealth, without ever worrying about grubby things like making a good living in the workplace. It is easy to see why his close political compadre is Teddy Kennedy, who has never worked a day in his life.

     And these are the leaders who understand the problems and challenges of average Americans?

INADVERTENT

     Most Americans probably never heard of Sandy Berger. But he was a high ranking official in the Clinton White House  –  one of BCs national security top advisors. A while back, he was appointed by Clinton to obtain  top secret terrorism-related documents in the National Archives in order to pass along meaningful information to the supposedly non-partisan 9/11 Commission. Berger went to the Archives and then committed several cardinal sins  — illegal actions  — that he termed “inadvertent”, as in “Oops, sorry”. So what did he do?

     Berger took top secret documents from the files, and made  copies (inadvertently)of them in the process. He removed the top secret documents and copies from the Archives  –   of course, inadvertently. He put some of the documents in his personal brief case, inadvertently. He then stuffed the copies into his trousers, inadvertently. Then he got caught. Oh yes, this process was not a one time affair. It continued over several visits.

     Berger is no stranger to classified material. He is a consummate Washinton insider who knows the ropes, and the rules of handling top secret data. He knew exactly what he was doing, and his biggest crime was getting caught.  And his excuse was that he made a simple mistake —  ”inadvertently”. It is interesting to note that all of the material taken illegally from the National Archives top secret files has not been returned as of this date (still missing), and neither has the nature of the material removed from the Archives been disclosed. But it is clear that there was a specific objective of being selective about what documents were to be given to the 9/11 Commission and those that were not.  

     So ask yourself a simple question  — you take classified Top Secret data from the Archives, make copies, stuff them in your personal briefcase and trousers, and return only part of the documents after getting caught, and then pass it off as a simple mistake made  — inadvertently. Sure! Do you really buy that?

       The liberal left wing big media doesn't want to make a fuss over over this story, so you probably won't hear much about it unless you watch Fox News. Don't expect much from Peter, Dan and Tom. They'll bury it somewhere.

ARNOLD

     So Governor Arnold has called a bunch of recalcitrant Democrats “Girley-men” for being obstructionists in placing special interests above the State Budget. He didn't invent the term  — just used it at an appropriate time. The result?  –  now the left wingers, liberals, gays,  weirdos, feminists  — the whole range — are distressed and critical. But with all the criticism, no one asks the key question  — was the description accurate? I think it was. Of course, if he said he had just called a spade a spade, he would have been called a racist.

     And speaking of racists, what about the foul-mouthed Whoopie Goldberg? At a big Democratic fund raiser should stood at the podium alongside Kerry and the other big-shots and indulged in scatalogical demeaning sexual comments clearly intended to demean the President. Of course, with left wingers cheering her on, that was quite all right. The Democrats strongly reject the public release of Whoopie's garbage mouth comments. Gotta go to the internet for that. And then the Democrats have the nerve to talk about “values”.

     Some things change  — some don't.

ODDS AND ENDS

     As the ACLU continues to wage war on the religious aspects of our society and tries to “secularize” the government, they must have gagged over the TV exposure to the Memorial services for Ronald Reagan. For sure, all of the ceremonies from coast to coast had heavy overtones of religion from the invocations. prayers, hymns,  eulogies, and references to the Deity   –  and all aspects of the proceedings were immensely well received by the overwhelming percentage of Americans. All except the ACLU and Michael Moore. Now we can understand why the strategy of the secularists is aimed at 5 people  — 5 out on 9  –  on the Supreme Court, and that is why court appointments are so critical for all of us. Forget about the people  — get the Judges.

     The O.J. Simpson syndrome is alive and well. Out here in California there is endless TV coverage of the gruesome murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. The legal hi-jinks are well underway, and it looks like a Simpson replay  –  i.e., the facts show that a terrible crime was committed but the legal system concludes that nobody did it. The standard isn't justice  — it's facilitating a way to defeat justice. No doubt, Scott Peterson will vow to conduct a vigorous search for the REAL killer(s)  — just like O.J.  — remember??

     Correction. Sometime back I labelled Michael Moore as a slob. One of my readers took issue and suggested that a more appropriate descriptive term would be “pig”  in view of Moore's countenance and corpulence. The guy has a point  –  and very good eyesight!