info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'Cynical, craven' Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas prices
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Jesus Guns Babies
Mar 13, 2022, 8:51:13 AM3/13/22
to
‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas
prices
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/12/republicans-joe-biden-
russia-gas-prices
Critics say party has seized on price hikes to exploit war in Ukraine for
its own benefit – ‘an unconscionable act of political cowardice’
David Smith in Washington
@smithinamerica
Sat 12 Mar 2022 10.00 GMT
In a Washington riven by discord, it can seem like a throwback to a
gentler time.
“I’m proud to stand with my Republican and Democrat colleagues” to send
help to Ukraine, Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the US House of
Representatives’ foreign affairs committee, said this week.
Imports of vodka will be halted in retaliation against the invasion of
Ukraine.
US bans import of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds
Read more
But even as they express solidarity with Joe Biden’s stance on Russia with
one hand, Republicans are launching partisan attacks against the president
with the other. The party has, critics say, seized on soaring US gas
prices to exploit the tragedy in Ukraine for its own political benefit.
Since war broke out last month Republicans have honed a message that
America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
such as Russia.
Advertisement
The argument was amplified this week when gas prices hit at a record
average of $4.17 per gallon and Biden announced a ban on US imports of
Russian oil. He warned that while the move would hurt Vladimir Putin,
“there will be a cost as well here in the United States”, and anticipated
criticism by branding it “Putin’s price hike”.
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, attempted to
cast the issue as transcending party politics. “For many in our caucus,
and I think on the other side, it’s a moral issue,” he said. “You don’t
want to fuel the Russian war effort.”
But the era when wars meant unity governments and a shared understanding
that “politics stops at the water’s edge” is over. Republicans backed
Biden’s ban on Russian oil imports but simultaneously went on an offensive
that effectively absolved Putin of blame.
Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader in the House, told a press
conference: “These aren’t Putin prices. They’re President Biden’s prices.”
Mike Pence, the former vice-president, told the Fox Business channel: “In
the four years of the Trump-Pence administration, we achieved energy
independence for the first time in 70 years.”
“We were a net exporter of energy. But from very early on, with killing
the Keystone pipeline, taking federal lands off the list for exploration,
sidelining leases for oil and natural gas – once again, before Ukraine
ever happened, we saw rising gasoline prices.”
Factcheckers have pointed out that the main cause of increasing gas prices
over the past year is disruptions to global supply and demand following
the coronavirus pandemic. Only a 10th of the Keystone XL pipeline was
complete when Biden cancelled it and it was not likely to become
operational until 2023 at the earliest.
Advertisement
The Politifact website found that domestic oil production in Biden’s first
year was on par with 2020 and higher than in three of the four years that
Trump was president. The White House has also pointed out that 9,000
approved drilling permits are not being used. But none of this has
prevented Republicans fixating on the issue in ways that Democrats find
deeply disingenuous.
Kurt Bardella, an adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said: “It
just goes to show that there are no lengths to which Republicans won’t
stoop to try to score political points, in this case using the unthinkable
and tragic situation that the Ukrainian people find themselves in.
“To try to exploit that and use it to effectively lie and mislead the
American people about conditions here at home is an unconscionable act of
political cowardice.”
He added that Republicans, in thrall to “big oil”, have spent the past two
decades opposing the very measures that would have made America less
dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general. Green technology
would have shielded the US from the effects of the Ukraine crisis on
global markets.
Bardella, a former senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight
committee, added: “Republicans were so vocal about how the Biden
administration needed to do sanctions on Russian oil and then they start
attacking him. You can’t win because everything that they do is basically
an illustration of how they operate in bad faith.”
“Joe Biden could do every single thing that the Republican party wants and
they would still attack him at the end of the day. Republicans just seem
to operate in a purely craven political dynamic. It’s irresponsible and
downright un-American, and it’s exactly what they would have said if
Democrats had done this in the wake of 9/11 or in the run up to the war on
terror.”
Opinion polls suggest that Biden, like other western leaders, has received
a boost from his response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But
inflation is likely to keep rising and prove potent in November’s midterm
elections. The National Republican Congressional Committee has reportedly
released attack ads against 10 House Democrats over gas prices.
Ed Rogers, a political consultant and veteran of the Ronald Reagan and
George H W Bush administrations, said: “‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Biden
is going to own whatever the economy is come November. Republicans don’t
have to do anything to make that happen. People feel it for themselves,
they observe for themselves.
“You don’t have to remind people too much of gas prices and overall
inflation is a big macro political issue. Doing well as an incumbent is
all about peace and prosperity, and prosperity is being eroded by
inflation, with gas prices being a focal point.”
Advertisement
A messaging battle is under way with the White House seeking to tie Putin
to the price rise. But Rogers said: “Republicans have a bumper sticker.
Democrats have an essay. Just see how that goes.”
Democratic strategists are aware that the issue could weigh heavily on
midterm voters. Bob Shrum acknowledged: “The facts don’t matter much here.
If gas prices are really high, that becomes a problem for Democrats in the
midterms because they’re in office. It’s just a natural tendency to blame
someone under those circumstances.”
But he added: “It’s preposterous to think this is Biden’s fault. He hasn’t
done anything that would account for high gas prices at this point. It’s
the Russians’ fault but the Republicans want to ban Russian oil and then
blame Biden for the shortfall in supplies and therefore the rise in
prices. It’s cynical, obvious and opportunistic.”
There are of course legitimate policy debates in wartime and no one
suggests that a president is beyond criticism. Some Republican senators,
for example, have urged Biden to accept Poland’s offer of MiG-29 fighter
jets to be transferred to Ukraine. Tom Cotton said: “If we continue to
blink every time Vladimir Putin says ‘boo’ it’s not going to stop in
Ukraine.”
But Republicans – and the conservative Fox News channel – have made gas
prices and energy production their loudest argument. It is a convenient
way to deflect attention from their own complicated relationship with
Russia, which is not confined to Trump’s longstanding admiration for Putin
and recent comments praising him as “smart” and “savvy”.
This week Congressman Thomas Massie – one of three House Republicans who
voted against a recent resolution supporting Ukraine – amplified a false
conspiracy theory about US biological weapons labs operating in Ukraine.
His colleague Madison Cawthorn was caught on video calling Ukrainian
president Volodymyr Zelenskiy a “thug” whose government is “pushing woke
ideologies”.
The hypocrisy is a sign of how the party – and Washington – have changed
over the past decade, added Shrum, director of the Center for the
Political Future at the University of Southern California Dornsife. “There
was unity for a period of time after 9/11,” he said. “But if you go back
to even Syria under Barack Obama, they were playing this same kind of
game.”
prices
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/12/republicans-joe-biden-
russia-gas-prices
Critics say party has seized on price hikes to exploit war in Ukraine for
its own benefit – ‘an unconscionable act of political cowardice’
David Smith in Washington
@smithinamerica
Sat 12 Mar 2022 10.00 GMT
In a Washington riven by discord, it can seem like a throwback to a
gentler time.
“I’m proud to stand with my Republican and Democrat colleagues” to send
help to Ukraine, Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the US House of
Representatives’ foreign affairs committee, said this week.
Imports of vodka will be halted in retaliation against the invasion of
Ukraine.
US bans import of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds
Read more
But even as they express solidarity with Joe Biden’s stance on Russia with
one hand, Republicans are launching partisan attacks against the president
with the other. The party has, critics say, seized on soaring US gas
prices to exploit the tragedy in Ukraine for its own political benefit.
Since war broke out last month Republicans have honed a message that
America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
such as Russia.
Advertisement
The argument was amplified this week when gas prices hit at a record
average of $4.17 per gallon and Biden announced a ban on US imports of
Russian oil. He warned that while the move would hurt Vladimir Putin,
“there will be a cost as well here in the United States”, and anticipated
criticism by branding it “Putin’s price hike”.
Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, attempted to
cast the issue as transcending party politics. “For many in our caucus,
and I think on the other side, it’s a moral issue,” he said. “You don’t
want to fuel the Russian war effort.”
But the era when wars meant unity governments and a shared understanding
that “politics stops at the water’s edge” is over. Republicans backed
Biden’s ban on Russian oil imports but simultaneously went on an offensive
that effectively absolved Putin of blame.
Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader in the House, told a press
conference: “These aren’t Putin prices. They’re President Biden’s prices.”
Mike Pence, the former vice-president, told the Fox Business channel: “In
the four years of the Trump-Pence administration, we achieved energy
independence for the first time in 70 years.”
“We were a net exporter of energy. But from very early on, with killing
the Keystone pipeline, taking federal lands off the list for exploration,
sidelining leases for oil and natural gas – once again, before Ukraine
ever happened, we saw rising gasoline prices.”
Factcheckers have pointed out that the main cause of increasing gas prices
over the past year is disruptions to global supply and demand following
the coronavirus pandemic. Only a 10th of the Keystone XL pipeline was
complete when Biden cancelled it and it was not likely to become
operational until 2023 at the earliest.
Advertisement
The Politifact website found that domestic oil production in Biden’s first
year was on par with 2020 and higher than in three of the four years that
Trump was president. The White House has also pointed out that 9,000
approved drilling permits are not being used. But none of this has
prevented Republicans fixating on the issue in ways that Democrats find
deeply disingenuous.
Kurt Bardella, an adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said: “It
just goes to show that there are no lengths to which Republicans won’t
stoop to try to score political points, in this case using the unthinkable
and tragic situation that the Ukrainian people find themselves in.
“To try to exploit that and use it to effectively lie and mislead the
American people about conditions here at home is an unconscionable act of
political cowardice.”
He added that Republicans, in thrall to “big oil”, have spent the past two
decades opposing the very measures that would have made America less
dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general. Green technology
would have shielded the US from the effects of the Ukraine crisis on
global markets.
Bardella, a former senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight
committee, added: “Republicans were so vocal about how the Biden
administration needed to do sanctions on Russian oil and then they start
attacking him. You can’t win because everything that they do is basically
an illustration of how they operate in bad faith.”
“Joe Biden could do every single thing that the Republican party wants and
they would still attack him at the end of the day. Republicans just seem
to operate in a purely craven political dynamic. It’s irresponsible and
downright un-American, and it’s exactly what they would have said if
Democrats had done this in the wake of 9/11 or in the run up to the war on
terror.”
Opinion polls suggest that Biden, like other western leaders, has received
a boost from his response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But
inflation is likely to keep rising and prove potent in November’s midterm
elections. The National Republican Congressional Committee has reportedly
released attack ads against 10 House Democrats over gas prices.
Ed Rogers, a political consultant and veteran of the Ronald Reagan and
George H W Bush administrations, said: “‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Biden
is going to own whatever the economy is come November. Republicans don’t
have to do anything to make that happen. People feel it for themselves,
they observe for themselves.
“You don’t have to remind people too much of gas prices and overall
inflation is a big macro political issue. Doing well as an incumbent is
all about peace and prosperity, and prosperity is being eroded by
inflation, with gas prices being a focal point.”
Advertisement
A messaging battle is under way with the White House seeking to tie Putin
to the price rise. But Rogers said: “Republicans have a bumper sticker.
Democrats have an essay. Just see how that goes.”
Democratic strategists are aware that the issue could weigh heavily on
midterm voters. Bob Shrum acknowledged: “The facts don’t matter much here.
If gas prices are really high, that becomes a problem for Democrats in the
midterms because they’re in office. It’s just a natural tendency to blame
someone under those circumstances.”
But he added: “It’s preposterous to think this is Biden’s fault. He hasn’t
done anything that would account for high gas prices at this point. It’s
the Russians’ fault but the Republicans want to ban Russian oil and then
blame Biden for the shortfall in supplies and therefore the rise in
prices. It’s cynical, obvious and opportunistic.”
There are of course legitimate policy debates in wartime and no one
suggests that a president is beyond criticism. Some Republican senators,
for example, have urged Biden to accept Poland’s offer of MiG-29 fighter
jets to be transferred to Ukraine. Tom Cotton said: “If we continue to
blink every time Vladimir Putin says ‘boo’ it’s not going to stop in
Ukraine.”
But Republicans – and the conservative Fox News channel – have made gas
prices and energy production their loudest argument. It is a convenient
way to deflect attention from their own complicated relationship with
Russia, which is not confined to Trump’s longstanding admiration for Putin
and recent comments praising him as “smart” and “savvy”.
This week Congressman Thomas Massie – one of three House Republicans who
voted against a recent resolution supporting Ukraine – amplified a false
conspiracy theory about US biological weapons labs operating in Ukraine.
His colleague Madison Cawthorn was caught on video calling Ukrainian
president Volodymyr Zelenskiy a “thug” whose government is “pushing woke
ideologies”.
The hypocrisy is a sign of how the party – and Washington – have changed
over the past decade, added Shrum, director of the Center for the
Political Future at the University of Southern California Dornsife. “There
was unity for a period of time after 9/11,” he said. “But if you go back
to even Syria under Barack Obama, they were playing this same kind of
game.”
Blue Lives Matter
Mar 13, 2022, 9:42:13 AM3/13/22
to
On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 12:51:11 -0000 (UTC), Jesus Guns Babies
<rickyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Since war broke out last month Republicans have honed a message that
>America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
>be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
>domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
True
<rickyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Since war broke out last month Republicans have honed a message that
>America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
>be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
>domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
Jesus Guns Babies
Mar 14, 2022, 9:24:08 AM3/14/22
to
‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas
prices
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/12/republicans-joe-biden-
russia-gas-prices
Critics say party has seized on price hikes to exploit war in Ukraine for
its own benefit – ‘an unconscionable act of political cowardice’
David Smith in Washington
@smithinamerica
Sat 12 Mar 2022 10.00 GMT
In a Washington riven by discord, it can seem like a throwback to a
gentler time.
“I’m proud to stand with my Republican and Democrat colleagues” to send
help to Ukraine, Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the US House of
Representatives’ foreign affairs committee, said this week.
Imports of vodka will be halted in retaliation against the invasion of
Ukraine.
US bans import of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds
Read more
But even as they express solidarity with Joe Biden’s stance on Russia with
one hand, Republicans are launching partisan attacks against the president
with the other. The party has, critics say, seized on soaring US gas
prices to exploit the tragedy in Ukraine for its own political benefit.
prices
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/12/republicans-joe-biden-
russia-gas-prices
Critics say party has seized on price hikes to exploit war in Ukraine for
its own benefit – ‘an unconscionable act of political cowardice’
David Smith in Washington
@smithinamerica
Sat 12 Mar 2022 10.00 GMT
In a Washington riven by discord, it can seem like a throwback to a
gentler time.
“I’m proud to stand with my Republican and Democrat colleagues” to send
help to Ukraine, Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the US House of
Representatives’ foreign affairs committee, said this week.
Imports of vodka will be halted in retaliation against the invasion of
Ukraine.
US bans import of Russian vodka, seafood and diamonds
Read more
But even as they express solidarity with Joe Biden’s stance on Russia with
one hand, Republicans are launching partisan attacks against the president
with the other. The party has, critics say, seized on soaring US gas
prices to exploit the tragedy in Ukraine for its own political benefit.
Since war broke out last month Republicans have honed a message that
America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
America achieved “energy independence” under Donald Trump only for it to
be squandered by Biden, whose preoccupation with the climate crisis hurt
domestic production, drove fuel prices up and strengthened oil-rich rivals
Blue Lives Matter
Mar 14, 2022, 11:11:16 AM3/14/22
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:24:05 -0000 (UTC), Jesus Guns Babies
<rickyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas
>prices
>
That's because it started when Biden first took office. It's all on
<rickyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>‘Cynical, craven’ Republicans out to bash Biden, not Putin, over gas
>prices
>
Biden.
J.J. McCullough
Mar 14, 2022, 11:42:24 AM3/14/22
to
market prices with their own.
Do they also want Nixon style price controls invoked so they don't fly off
the handle and become hysterical as usual?
pyotr filipivich
Mar 14, 2022, 12:44:07 PM3/14/22
to
Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA> on Mon, 14 Mar
2022 11:11:13 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
It started when Biden was selected. Biden's handlers are
anti-fossil fuel drilling or mining in the US. They have no problem
with pollution, as long as it is happening in a third world country.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)
2022 11:11:13 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:
anti-fossil fuel drilling or mining in the US. They have no problem
with pollution, as long as it is happening in a third world country.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)
Gateway Pundit
Mar 14, 2022, 7:49:17 PM3/14/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Biden controls the price of fuel for our suv's. It's how capitalism works.
Phil Yagoda
Mar 14, 2022, 10:34:20 PM3/14/22
to
10% completed Keystone XL would be flooding us with gasoline by now!
J.J. McCullough
Mar 15, 2022, 12:11:07 PM3/15/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 15, 2022, 3:23:37 PM3/15/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 15, 2022, 3:23:38 PM3/15/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
J.J. McCullough
Mar 15, 2022, 3:26:25 PM3/15/22
to
25.BX943
Mar 15, 2022, 11:14:48 PM3/15/22
to
And they're 100% correct. All this bullshit started
on Biden's first day. Putin came much later.
on Biden's first day. Putin came much later.
J.J. McCullough
Mar 15, 2022, 11:22:05 PM3/15/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 15, 2022, 11:24:38 PM3/15/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 15, 2022, 11:24:39 PM3/15/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Phil Yagoda
Mar 16, 2022, 5:48:03 PM3/16/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 16, 2022, 5:48:04 PM3/16/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
J.J. McCullough
Mar 17, 2022, 11:29:32 AM3/17/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 17, 2022, 9:23:20 PM3/17/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Phil Yagoda
Mar 17, 2022, 9:23:22 PM3/17/22
to
Joe Harris
Mar 18, 2022, 12:15:03 AM3/18/22
to
FREEHOLD - Natasha Johnson first became suspicious that her
boyfriend was cheating on her with a teacher’s aide at their
youngest son’s preschool in 2015, she told a jury Tuesday.
In January 2016, Johnson said she confronted the teacher’s aide
about it.
"I believe I asked her, did she have a relationship with Joey,
and she said, ‘yes,’" Johnson told the jury.
But Johnson said she stayed with Joseph Wilson Jr., with whom
she had two sons, ages 3 and 6, because she loved him and
thought they could make their relationship work.
But, within the year, the love triangle would lead to Wilson’s
death.
Prosecutors allege the teacher’s aide, Monique Moore, fatally
stabbed Wilson on Nov. 27, 2016, when he told her he was leaving
her for Johnson.
Moore’s defense attorney contends the tables were turned and
that Wilson viciously attacked Moore when she tried to break up
with him and throw her out of her apartment, forcing her to
defend herself.
At Moore’s trial for Wilson’s murder on Tuesday, Johnson
testified that later in 2016, she again suspected her boyfriend
of cheating on her with Moore, and she separated from Wilson in
October 2016, moving out of his grandmother’s house in Neptune
to Brick.
At Thanksgiving, Wilson told Johnson “the grass isn’t always
greener," and said he wanted to be with only her, but Johnson
said, “I had my doubts," she testified.
Days later, on Nov. 27, 2016, Wilson tried to talk Johnson into
going out to dinner with him, but when she told him she couldn’t
because she had to work the next day and their oldest son was
sick, Wilson instead went to Moore’s apartment in Neptune,
Johnson said.
The next morning, Johnson learned Wilson was dead, she said.
Moore, 29, of Neptune, is on trial for murder before Superior
Court Judge Jill O’Malley.
https://news.yahoo.com/she-aint-girlfriend-neptune-victim-
090134850.html
boyfriend was cheating on her with a teacher’s aide at their
youngest son’s preschool in 2015, she told a jury Tuesday.
In January 2016, Johnson said she confronted the teacher’s aide
about it.
"I believe I asked her, did she have a relationship with Joey,
and she said, ‘yes,’" Johnson told the jury.
But Johnson said she stayed with Joseph Wilson Jr., with whom
she had two sons, ages 3 and 6, because she loved him and
thought they could make their relationship work.
But, within the year, the love triangle would lead to Wilson’s
death.
Prosecutors allege the teacher’s aide, Monique Moore, fatally
stabbed Wilson on Nov. 27, 2016, when he told her he was leaving
her for Johnson.
Moore’s defense attorney contends the tables were turned and
that Wilson viciously attacked Moore when she tried to break up
with him and throw her out of her apartment, forcing her to
defend herself.
At Moore’s trial for Wilson’s murder on Tuesday, Johnson
testified that later in 2016, she again suspected her boyfriend
of cheating on her with Moore, and she separated from Wilson in
October 2016, moving out of his grandmother’s house in Neptune
to Brick.
At Thanksgiving, Wilson told Johnson “the grass isn’t always
greener," and said he wanted to be with only her, but Johnson
said, “I had my doubts," she testified.
Days later, on Nov. 27, 2016, Wilson tried to talk Johnson into
going out to dinner with him, but when she told him she couldn’t
because she had to work the next day and their oldest son was
sick, Wilson instead went to Moore’s apartment in Neptune,
Johnson said.
The next morning, Johnson learned Wilson was dead, she said.
Moore, 29, of Neptune, is on trial for murder before Superior
Court Judge Jill O’Malley.
https://news.yahoo.com/she-aint-girlfriend-neptune-victim-
090134850.html
Joe Harris
Mar 18, 2022, 12:30:03 AM3/18/22
to
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin man who was convicted of
killing and dismembering his parents was sentenced Thursday to
life without parole, with a judge saying his obligation to
protect the public required the stiffest possible sentence.
Chandler Halderson, 24, of Windsor, was convicted in January of
first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse and
hiding a corpse in the July deaths Bart and Krista Halderson.
Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.
Investigators said Halderson killed his parents after his father
discovered he had been lying about attending a technical
college. Prosecutors said it was one in a web of lies he told
about work, school and being on a police scuba dive team.
According to testimony at Halderson's trial, he tried to burn
his parents' bodies in the family fireplace before dumping them
along the Wisconsin River and at a rural property, the Wisconsin
State Journal reported.
Halderson didn't testify and his attorneys did not call any
witnesses. According to a court filing this week, he did not
speak to his attorneys about the events, the State Journal
reported.
Halderson spoke briefly Thursday, saying he would appeal his
conviction and asking any interested attorneys to contact him.
“It’s not that I do not have feelings; it’s that I was warned to
not show them in the scrutiny of this case,” he said.
Before Circuit Judge John Hyland passed sentence, Assistant
District Attorney Andrea Raymond said that Halderson “grew up
with a life of privilege” that made it difficult to explain his
crimes.
Hyland rejected a request Halderson made last week not to be in
court for his sentencing.
https://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-man-gets-life-killing-
221101113.html
killing and dismembering his parents was sentenced Thursday to
life without parole, with a judge saying his obligation to
protect the public required the stiffest possible sentence.
Chandler Halderson, 24, of Windsor, was convicted in January of
first-degree intentional homicide, mutilating a corpse and
hiding a corpse in the July deaths Bart and Krista Halderson.
Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.
Investigators said Halderson killed his parents after his father
discovered he had been lying about attending a technical
college. Prosecutors said it was one in a web of lies he told
about work, school and being on a police scuba dive team.
According to testimony at Halderson's trial, he tried to burn
his parents' bodies in the family fireplace before dumping them
along the Wisconsin River and at a rural property, the Wisconsin
State Journal reported.
Halderson didn't testify and his attorneys did not call any
witnesses. According to a court filing this week, he did not
speak to his attorneys about the events, the State Journal
reported.
Halderson spoke briefly Thursday, saying he would appeal his
conviction and asking any interested attorneys to contact him.
“It’s not that I do not have feelings; it’s that I was warned to
not show them in the scrutiny of this case,” he said.
Before Circuit Judge John Hyland passed sentence, Assistant
District Attorney Andrea Raymond said that Halderson “grew up
with a life of privilege” that made it difficult to explain his
crimes.
Hyland rejected a request Halderson made last week not to be in
court for his sentencing.
https://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-man-gets-life-killing-
221101113.html
J.J. McCullough
Mar 18, 2022, 11:32:14 AM3/18/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 19, 2022, 10:32:21 AM3/19/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 19, 2022, 11:00:26 AM3/19/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 19, 2022, 11:00:26 AM3/19/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Gateway Pundit
Mar 19, 2022, 12:50:23 PM3/19/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
J.J. McCullough
Mar 19, 2022, 5:10:02 PM3/19/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 19, 2022, 7:15:20 PM3/19/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 19, 2022, 8:19:58 PM3/19/22
to
>Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
That's all you got? You weak PUSSY!
Mar 19, 2022, 11:05:03 PM3/19/22
to
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK
freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH! WEAK freedyn
BITCH! WEAK freedyn BITCH!
J.J. McCullough
Mar 20, 2022, 2:47:22 PM3/20/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 20, 2022, 7:55:12 PM3/20/22
to
Dick Sucker Barack Obama Started This Gender Pretense Shit
Mar 20, 2022, 8:50:03 PM3/20/22
to
Sam Brinton is an MIT graduate who is both a queer activist and a
specialist in handling nuclear waste. And he is the Biden
Administration’s latest hire at the Department of Energy as the
Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition Deputy.
What a colorful life Deputy Brinton has. He is a “pup handler” —
that is, a gay man who leads other gay men who pretend to be dogs.
What’s that all about? Let this profile in Metro Weekly fill you in.
Excerpts:
IN THE PUP COMMUNITY, handlers function the same way dog owners do,
keeping a watchful eye on their charge and reining in the pups if
needed. It’s the handlers who train the pups and teach them
discipline, doling out rewards or punishments based on good or bad
behavior.
“Think of any bio-dog,” [Pup] Gryphn says. “You can train them. It’s
this ‘go do this’ reward system, just like a bio-dog. So let’s say
you’re playing fetch, you throw the ball, the pup picks it up,
brings it back, and drops it at your feet. You’re going to reward
him, whether it’s petting him or anything like that.
“Or, let’s go to an extreme,” he continues. “Let’s say you’re doing
pup play around the house and the pup decides to pee on the floor.
Obviously the pup is going to be punished for that. Typically, when
we’re being humans, it’s ‘Why would you correct me in front of so-
and-so? That’s wrong, don’t do that. Don’t speak for the next five
minutes,’ something like that.”
Just like the pups they are tasked with watching over, some handlers
need to enter their own headspace when engaging in puppy play.
“My headspace is equivalent to the mom who sees her kid in danger,
or the dad who wants to teach his son how to play football,” says
Nubi’s 27-year-old handler, Sam [Brinton]. “It’s the concept of the
teacher and nurturer…. My job is to make sure that while he’s in
headspace, I’m keeping him safe.”
Brinton being embraced by the Biden administration in this way is
all part of the campaign to normalize all sexual deviance in the
broader culture — and it’s working. According to a 2020 Gallup poll,
the needle has moved dramatically on queer self-identification among
Millennials and Gen Z:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sam-brinton-kinky-
joe-biden-puttin-on-the-dog/
specialist in handling nuclear waste. And he is the Biden
Administration’s latest hire at the Department of Energy as the
Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition Deputy.
What a colorful life Deputy Brinton has. He is a “pup handler” —
that is, a gay man who leads other gay men who pretend to be dogs.
What’s that all about? Let this profile in Metro Weekly fill you in.
Excerpts:
IN THE PUP COMMUNITY, handlers function the same way dog owners do,
keeping a watchful eye on their charge and reining in the pups if
needed. It’s the handlers who train the pups and teach them
discipline, doling out rewards or punishments based on good or bad
behavior.
“Think of any bio-dog,” [Pup] Gryphn says. “You can train them. It’s
this ‘go do this’ reward system, just like a bio-dog. So let’s say
you’re playing fetch, you throw the ball, the pup picks it up,
brings it back, and drops it at your feet. You’re going to reward
him, whether it’s petting him or anything like that.
“Or, let’s go to an extreme,” he continues. “Let’s say you’re doing
pup play around the house and the pup decides to pee on the floor.
Obviously the pup is going to be punished for that. Typically, when
we’re being humans, it’s ‘Why would you correct me in front of so-
and-so? That’s wrong, don’t do that. Don’t speak for the next five
minutes,’ something like that.”
Just like the pups they are tasked with watching over, some handlers
need to enter their own headspace when engaging in puppy play.
“My headspace is equivalent to the mom who sees her kid in danger,
or the dad who wants to teach his son how to play football,” says
Nubi’s 27-year-old handler, Sam [Brinton]. “It’s the concept of the
teacher and nurturer…. My job is to make sure that while he’s in
headspace, I’m keeping him safe.”
Brinton being embraced by the Biden administration in this way is
all part of the campaign to normalize all sexual deviance in the
broader culture — and it’s working. According to a 2020 Gallup poll,
the needle has moved dramatically on queer self-identification among
Millennials and Gen Z:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sam-brinton-kinky-
joe-biden-puttin-on-the-dog/
Gateway Pundit
Mar 21, 2022, 9:18:52 AM3/21/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 21, 2022, 6:09:20 PM3/21/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 21, 2022, 6:10:43 PM3/21/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 22, 2022, 7:54:43 AM3/22/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 22, 2022, 2:56:08 PM3/22/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 22, 2022, 8:45:03 PM3/22/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 23, 2022, 9:03:16 AM3/23/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 23, 2022, 9:13:10 AM3/23/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 23, 2022, 7:07:38 PM3/23/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 23, 2022, 10:27:51 PM3/23/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 24, 2022, 12:57:03 PM3/24/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 24, 2022, 1:31:17 PM3/24/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 25, 2022, 8:14:21 AM3/25/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 25, 2022, 8:14:48 AM3/25/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 25, 2022, 11:50:46 AM3/25/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 25, 2022, 7:57:22 PM3/25/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 25, 2022, 8:07:13 PM3/25/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 26, 2022, 1:22:36 PM3/26/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 26, 2022, 2:02:26 PM3/26/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 26, 2022, 2:06:40 PM3/26/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 26, 2022, 7:30:04 PM3/26/22
to
In article <XnsAE59E69...@0.0.0.1>
BMC Bush <bmc...@navy.mil> wrote:
>
> In a front-page article in today's New York Sun entitled "Mystery
> Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge," reporter Thomas Lipscomb asserts that
> in all probability, Sen. John F. Kerry originally received a less-than-
> honorable discharge from the United States Naval Reserve — a discharge
> that was only upgraded to honorable after President Carter's 1977
> executive order proclaiming a presidential amnesty for Vietnam War
> resisters.
>
> My purpose in this post is to provide links to and more extended quotes
> from the documents that Mr. Lipscomb's article references for those who
> are interested in assessing this assertion, and of course my own
> admittedly tentative take on these issues. [Update: Be sure to read
> through to my 5:25pm update below for a speculative, innocuous scenario
> possibly involving section 1163(a) — Beldar.]
> I. The Claytor document
> Mr. Lipscomb's assertion begins with this document from John Kerry's
> website, described there as Kerry's "Honorable Discharge From Reserve."
> Dated February 16, 1978, and issued in the name of Carter administration
> Secretary of the Navy W. Graham Claytor, it provides:
>
> Subj: Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve
> Ref: (a) Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1162
> (b) Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1163
> (c) BUPERSMAN 3830380
> Encl: (1) Honorable Discharge Certificate
> 1. By direction of the President, and pursuant to reference (a), you are
> hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve effective this
> date.
>
> 2. This action is taken in accordance with the approved recommendations
> of a board of officers convened under authority of reference (b) to
> examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve on inactive
> duty and determine whether they should be retained on the records of the
> Reserve Component or separated from the naval service pursuant to
> Secretarial Instructions promulgated in reference (c).
>
> 3. The Navy Department at this time expresses its appreciation of your
> past services and trusts that you will continue your interest in the naval
> service.
>
> There's another 1978 document on the Kerry website, labeled "Acceptance of
> Discharge Naval Reserve," that as best I can tell simply reflects Sen.
> Kerry's acceptance of the Claytor letter.
>
> II. Former sections 1162 and 1163 of
> Title 10 of the United States Code
> As part of a reorganization of the relevant portions of Title 10, sections
> 1162 and 1163 were repealed effective December 1, 1994, and because their
> text no longer appears in the current United States Code, they're somewhat
> hard to locate. However, with some digging using Lexis/Nexis, one can
> determine that as in effect from 1956 through 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 1162 read:
>
> (a) Subject to the other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned
> officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other
> Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
> concerned.
>
> (b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a
> Reserve who becomes a regular or ordained minister of religion is entitled
> upon his request to a discharge from his reserve enlistment or
> appointment.
>
> Since Kerry was not a regular or ordained minister, section 1162(b) can't
> have applied. Rather, the first sentence of section 1162(a), pertaining
> to "reserve commissioned officers," was what the first numbered paragraph
> in the Claytor document must be referencing, and stands for nothing more
> than the unremarkable proposition that the President has authority to
> discharge reserve commissioned officers.
>
> Where things get interesting, however, is the second numbered paragraph of
> the Claytor document quoted above, and in particular its reference to the
> "approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under authority
> of [section 1163] to examine the official records of officers of the Naval
> Reserve on inactive duty and determine whether they should be retained on
> the records of the Reserve Component or separated from the naval service
> ...." As in effect from 1956 through 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 1163 read:
>
> (a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of
> service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component
> without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of
> officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned,
> or by the approved sentence of a court-martial. This subsection does not
> apply to a separation under subsection (b) of this section or under
> section 1003 of this title, to a dismissal under section 1161 (a) of this
> title, or to a transfer under section 3352 or 8352 of this title.
>
> (b) The President or the Secretary concerned may drop from the rolls of
> the armed force concerned any Reserve (1) who has been absent without
> authority for at least three months, or (2) who is sentenced to
> confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary or correctional institution
> after having been found guilty of
> an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other military court,
> and whose sentence has become final.
>
> (c) A member of a reserve component who is separated therefrom for cause,
> except under subsection (b), is entitled to a discharge under honorable
> conditions unless —
>
> (1) he is discharged under conditions other than honorable under an
> approved sentence of a court-martial or under the approved findings of a
> board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary
> concerned; or
>
> (2) he consents to a discharge under conditions other than honorable with
> a waiver of proceedings of a court-martial or a board.
>
> (d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, which
> shall be as uniform as practicable, a member of a reserve component who is
> on active duty (other than for training) and is within two years of
> becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military
> retirement
> system, may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he becomes
> eligible for that pay, unless his release is approved by the Secretary.
>
> Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate the text of the third reference
> from the Claytor document, "BUPERSMAN 3830380," which I presume to have
> been a Bureau of Personnel Manual regulation. [Update: see James
> Lederer's and Cecil Turner's helpful comments and links below, which I've
> edited this text to conform to — Beldar]
>
> III. Mr. Lipscomb's arguments from the Claytor
> document and sections 1162 and 1163
> Here's Mr. Lipscomb's analysis of how the Claytor document and the two
> relevant statutes lead to inferences about Sen. Kerry's original discharge
> and possible later upgrade:
>
> An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as
> Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well
> kept secret about his military service.
>
> The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter
> administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes
> Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of
> officers." This in itself is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary
> honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board
> of officers.
>
> According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of
> reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was
> "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163." This section refers to the
> grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being
> reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service.
> And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been
> no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
> Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
> honorable discharge.
>
> After noting that the Kerry campaign had not replied to his inquiry about
> "whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an
> honorable discharge," Mr. Lipscomb discusses how a less-than-honorable
> discharge — one that would need further processing in 1978 to be upgraded
> to honorable — might have come about in the first place:
>
> The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military
> commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on
> February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is
> highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam
> Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy
> accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor
> document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge
> that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
>
> The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end
> of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have
> come about?
>
> NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr.
> Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his
> executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special
> counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate
> testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete
> opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."
>
> Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he
> wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston
> Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another
> Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson
> was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on
> Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.
>
> The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September
> 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable
> discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
> given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy,
> was easier than finding "dirt."
>
> For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the
> North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May
> 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to
> get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a
> single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential
> candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with
> Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had
> to receive a pardon from President Harding.
>
> Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding
> Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the
> Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of
> the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the
> senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would
> either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received
> a less than honorable discharge."
>
> Mr. Lipscomb next explains how the amnesty issued by President Carter may
> have facilitated an upgrade in 1978 if indeed Sen. Kerry's original
> discharge was less than honorable:
>
> The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even
> more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President."
> No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The
> president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the
> story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.
>
> Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft
> dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration
> on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter
> signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a
> directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded
> to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct,
> dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative
> effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a
> procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A
> satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or
> an honorable discharge....
>
> There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There
> are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as
> well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd
> coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was
> dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal
> certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a
> dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and
> all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry
> joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr.
> Kerry's medals were reissued.
>
> Mr. Lipscomb also notes that to confirm or refute his chain of inferences,
> one would need Sen. Kerry's 1972-era records that could be expected to
> give details on whatever it was that the 1978 board proceedings were
> reviewing:
>
> Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would
> allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various
> spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web
> site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel
> Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.
>
> Mr. Lipscomb's reference here is most likely to Michael Dobb's August 22nd
> WaPo article, which reported:
>
> Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's
> full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical
> records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not
> permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of
> Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages
> of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike
> McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which
> consists of at least a hundred pages.
>
> The Navy Department also confirmed that it has unreleased records that
> aren't on the Kerry website in response to the Judicial Watch complaint.
>
> IV. Beldar's take on Mr. Lipscomb's article
> Rumors, supposition, and yes, inuendo about whether Sen. Kerry may have
> received a less-than-honorable discharge have swirled through the
> blogosphere at least since August, when the SwiftVets' ad campaign kicked
> off. However, in previous articles published by the New York Sun and the
> Chicago Sun Times, Mr. Lipscomb has previously provided serious original
> investigative reporting on, for example, Sen. Kerry's documented
> attendance at VVAW meetings where assassinations of American political
> figures were seriously discussed, Sen. Kerry's re-issued Silver Star
> citation, the Navy Department's consideration of the Judicial Watch
> complaint, and the likely authorship of the 13Mar39 after-action report
> that likely was the basis for Kerry's Bronze Star and third Purple Heart.
> His latest effort is another serious attempt to probe the mysteries of
> Kerry's military record that most reporters, and certainly that Kerry-
> friend biographers like Doug Brinkley, have persistently ignored.
>
> Are the inferences Mr. Lipscomb makes in this latest article justified?
> Quite frankly, I lack the personal military background, and the
> familiarity with either the normal or unusual workings of military
> separation proceedings, to draw a confident conclusion or argue it here.
>
> But I'm certainly intrigued — indeed, that's too mild a word — by Mr.
> Lipscomb's reporting. And there's no doubt that the Kerry campaign and
> Sen. Kerry himself are stonewalling. If there is a contrary explanation
> for the odd timing of Sen. Kerry's honorable discharge, and documents to
> support that explanation, Sen. Kerry should come forward with them. As
> Mr. Lipscomb's article points out, if indeed Sen. Kerry received a less-
> than-honorable discharge as the result of his antiwar activities while
> still a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, "one might have
> expected him to wear it like a badge of honor" — although that spin would
> certainly be questioned by others who remain unpersuaded by the rationales
> that prompted President Carter's blanket amnesty in 1977 and, possibly,
> the upgrading of Sen. Kerry's discharge to honorable status in 1978 if in
> fact that's what happened. And others who agreed with President Carter's
> actions may still, in weighing Sen. Kerry's overall military record, find
> it significant if in fact Sen. Kerry's original discharge needed
> upgrading; the fact that one's since been forgiven by an act of
> presidential grace doesn't necessarily block the original transgression
> and punishment from consideration for purposes of determining fitness now
> to be the nation's commander in chief.
>
> PoliPundit (hat-tip InstaPundit) has printed an email from a reader with
> some military and legal credentials who suggests that if Sen. Kerry's
> discharge was for "other than honorable" conditions, "bad conduct," or
> "dishonorable," that might have interfered with his admission to the
> Massachusetts bar in 1976. With due respect, however, I'm entirely
> unpersuaded by that particular suggestion. There were zillions of lawyers
> admitted to practice in the mid- and late-1970s despite convictions for
> protesting and minor drug offenses. Expungements of convictions under the
> Federal Youth Corrections Act, for example, wiped clean the records of
> even felony convictions, clearing the way for a great many folks to become
> lawyers who'd otherwise have been disqualified, and I'm quite confident
> that most states' bars include members with worse records than what's
> being hypothesized here for Kerry. If Kerry's original discharge was
> "general-honorable conditions," for example — the next rung down from an
> unqualified honorable discharge — I doubt that the Board of Bar Examiners
> would have blinked an eye, much less done any serious investigation or
> raised any serious reservations. And even a lower-level discharge might
> very well have been forgiven for someone with Kerry's connections,
> background, and other military credentials.
>
> In any event, Sen. Kerry needs to end the stonewall, before the election.
> If — as seems entirely possible, and now perhaps even probable — there are
> still-hidden facts about his separation from the Naval Reserve, then those
> facts should be revealed, and voters should be entitled to make their own
> value judgments about those facts. Sen. Kerry's refusal to address these
> issues squarely is in itself a strong basis for drawing inferences that
> reflect poorly on him.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 11:00am): Power Line's post promises an update with
> comments from the SwiftVets. Democracy Project has a post up, as do
> VodkaPundit, Milblog, Just One Minute, Little Green Footballs (also here,
> thanks for the link, Charles!), Wizbang!, PajamaPundits, Cranial Cavity,
> Posse Incitatas, Jawa Report, Dr. Zhibloggo, Michelle Malkin, Chasing the
> Wind, Travelling Shoes, Secure Liberty, INDC Journal, Ace of Spades, Media
> Lies, California Yankee, Pink Flamingo, Commonwealth Conservative,
> Political Junkie, QandO, and Captain's Quarters. [Continuing to update
> this list as I find new posts; see also the trackbacks below — Beldar]
>
> Commenter Roland at CQ provides an interesting link to a current
> regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(b)(4)(ii), which provides that
>
> A General Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based upon
> civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall
> effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
>
> I haven't done the digging to confirm it, but I suspect that this or
> something very similar would have been effect in 1972-1978.
>
> "Navy Chief" apparently did some of the background digging that may have
> gone into Mr. Lipscomb's story; there's a thread on this story on the
> SwiftVets' forum that's picking up lots of comment.
>
> Human Events has a reprint of Mr. Lipscomb's article if you have any
> trouble accessing it on the New York Sun's website.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 4:30pm): This update started out as a comment from
> me in response to other comments, but I've "promoted" it to text here.
>
> If, as initially issued, Sen. Kerry's discharge was a normal, fully
> honorable one after completion of his full active-duty and reserve
> obligations, then why would a board of officers — one convened and acting
> specifically under section 1163 — ever have been involved?
>
> As I understand it, Mr. Lipscomb's point is that section 1163 wouldn't
> have been cited in the Claytor letter, nor would that letter have referred
> to "a board of officers convened under authority of [that section]," if
> Sen. Kerry already had, or was entitled to get, an honorable discharge
> without such a board of officers' intervention. I'll try here to make
> what I understand his argument to be, with more specific reference to the
> specific language and subsections of section 1163.
>
> Only subsections (a) and (c) of section 1163 refer to such a board:
>
> Subsection (a) involves separations from the Reserves without the
> separating officer's consent, and says that can only be accomplished
> pursuant to either an approved board of officers' recommendation or a
> court martial sentence.
> Subsection (c) says if an officer is separated from the Reserves "for
> cause" — a key term which normally roughly equates to being fired for
> screwing up and/or breaking the rules — then he's nonetheless entitled to
> an honorable discharge except in two situations. The first situation, per
> subsection (c)(1), is if the discharge is under conditions other than
> honorable as per either a court martial sentence or the approved
> recommendations of a board of officers. The second situation is if the
> officer consents to the discharge being under conditions other than
> honorable, and waives the right he would otherwise have to accept such a
> lesser discharge only after a court martial or board finding.
> We don't have any reason to believe that only subsection 1163(a) was
> involved. That subsection would keep the DoD from booting somone who has
> more than three years' service and doesn't want to be discharged even with
> an honorable discharge (e.g., because he wants to stick around to qualify
> for greater benefits). [Update: But see my 5:25pm update below for a
> speculative, innocuous scenario possibly involving section 1163(a) —
> Beldar.]
>
> So it seems more likely that subsection 1163(c), or both it and subsection
> 1163(a), were involved. Again, note that subsection 1163(c) deals only
> with separations "for cause." In most legal contexts, "for cause" means
> being fired for breaking the rules — it's being shown the door, not just
> asking and having it opened for you voluntarily.
>
> Geek, Esq.'s suggestion in the comments below, working backwards from the
> Claytor letter's language, presumes that a board of officers must always
> be convened in order to determine whether someone should be retained on
> the rolls of the Reserves, and that this was the normal method of
> separation for everyone dropped from the rolls with an honorable discharge
> when they're no longer needed. But that's certainly not what the statute
> says; and if there's a different statute or regulation which says that, I
> haven't seen it yet.
>
> Rather, the board of officers referenced in section 1163(c) would only
> seem to come into operation if at least at some point the discharge
> involved was both less than honorable and without the officer's consent.
>
> The only discharge we've seen, from 1978, is indeed honorable. But
> there's nothing in section 1163 to suggest that a board would be involved
> in approving a top-quality, consented-to (and indeed welcomed) honorable
> discharge that was unmixed with any prior complications.
>
> By contrast, the reference in 1978 to a "board of officers" acting
> pursuant to section 1163 would be explained in either of two
> circumstances. First, Kerry could have consented to a less-than-honorable
> discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case no section 1163(c) board would
> have been involved then. Second, Kerry could have refused to have
> accepted a less-than-honorable discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case
> the Navy Department couldn't have imposed it on him without an approved
> finding pursuant to section 1163(c). But in either of those events, the
> statute could reasonably be read to require such a finding of an officers'
> board for an upgrade of a less-than-honorable discharge in 1978. And — to
> repeat — I don't see any other explanation for why an officers' board
> acting pursuant to any part of section 1163 would otherwise have been
> involved in 1978, or referenced in the Claytor letter.
>
> I'll also repeat this important point: I don't have the personal military
> experience to confidently argue that the fact that there was a board
> somehow involved necessarily means that there was a less-than-honorable
> discharge involved at some point along the line. But if there's another
> explanation for a "board of officers" acting pursuant to section 1163
> being involved, I haven't seen or heard it yet. [Update: But see my
> 5:25pm update below for a speculative, innocuous scenario possibly
> involving section 1163(a) — Beldar.] With due respect — and I have no idea
> if "Geek, Esq." is indeed even a lawyer, and by his own admission he
> jumped to a conclusion before he'd even read Lipscomb's article closely,
> and now continues to defend that conclusion without bringing any new
> source material to the table — I rather doubt that Geek has those
> qualifications either. Indeed, as stated in my introduction to this post,
> the reason I put this post up to begin with was to provide wider access to
> the relevant statutes (which are otherwise very hard to track down), and
> to solicit and encourage the exchange of further pertinent information.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 5:25pm): Okay, lots going on in the comments. I
> want to thank, and commend, everyone who's commented or emailed me,
> definitely including the skeptics.
>
> Since my previous update, one speculative but innocuous scenario has
> occurred to me that I ought to mention here, rather than just in comments.
> Perhaps in 1978, the DoD or the Navy Department was doing a mass review of
> its reserves rolls trying to winnow out those who'd been completely
> inactive for a long time. It is conceivable, I suppose, that they'd have
> convened a board of officers for the purpose of approving unconsented-to
> honorable discharges of officers with more than three years' service,
> which section 1163(a) would seem to require absent specific consent from
> the affected individuals. That's obviously speculation, but it might
> explain a reference in the Claytor letter to section 1163 that would not
> necessarily imply a previous involuntary discharge on a less-than-
> honorable basis.
>
> Again, however, it seems that the cleanest way for all this to be cleared
> up would be for Sen. Kerry to sign Standard Form 180.
>
> https://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10/was_kerrys_orig.html
Do svidaniya.
BMC Bush <bmc...@navy.mil> wrote:
>
> In a front-page article in today's New York Sun entitled "Mystery
> Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge," reporter Thomas Lipscomb asserts that
> in all probability, Sen. John F. Kerry originally received a less-than-
> honorable discharge from the United States Naval Reserve — a discharge
> that was only upgraded to honorable after President Carter's 1977
> executive order proclaiming a presidential amnesty for Vietnam War
> resisters.
>
> My purpose in this post is to provide links to and more extended quotes
> from the documents that Mr. Lipscomb's article references for those who
> are interested in assessing this assertion, and of course my own
> admittedly tentative take on these issues. [Update: Be sure to read
> through to my 5:25pm update below for a speculative, innocuous scenario
> possibly involving section 1163(a) — Beldar.]
> I. The Claytor document
> Mr. Lipscomb's assertion begins with this document from John Kerry's
> website, described there as Kerry's "Honorable Discharge From Reserve."
> Dated February 16, 1978, and issued in the name of Carter administration
> Secretary of the Navy W. Graham Claytor, it provides:
>
> Subj: Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve
> Ref: (a) Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1162
> (b) Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1163
> (c) BUPERSMAN 3830380
> Encl: (1) Honorable Discharge Certificate
> 1. By direction of the President, and pursuant to reference (a), you are
> hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve effective this
> date.
>
> 2. This action is taken in accordance with the approved recommendations
> of a board of officers convened under authority of reference (b) to
> examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve on inactive
> duty and determine whether they should be retained on the records of the
> Reserve Component or separated from the naval service pursuant to
> Secretarial Instructions promulgated in reference (c).
>
> 3. The Navy Department at this time expresses its appreciation of your
> past services and trusts that you will continue your interest in the naval
> service.
>
> There's another 1978 document on the Kerry website, labeled "Acceptance of
> Discharge Naval Reserve," that as best I can tell simply reflects Sen.
> Kerry's acceptance of the Claytor letter.
>
> II. Former sections 1162 and 1163 of
> Title 10 of the United States Code
> As part of a reorganization of the relevant portions of Title 10, sections
> 1162 and 1163 were repealed effective December 1, 1994, and because their
> text no longer appears in the current United States Code, they're somewhat
> hard to locate. However, with some digging using Lexis/Nexis, one can
> determine that as in effect from 1956 through 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 1162 read:
>
> (a) Subject to the other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned
> officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other
> Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
> concerned.
>
> (b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a
> Reserve who becomes a regular or ordained minister of religion is entitled
> upon his request to a discharge from his reserve enlistment or
> appointment.
>
> Since Kerry was not a regular or ordained minister, section 1162(b) can't
> have applied. Rather, the first sentence of section 1162(a), pertaining
> to "reserve commissioned officers," was what the first numbered paragraph
> in the Claytor document must be referencing, and stands for nothing more
> than the unremarkable proposition that the President has authority to
> discharge reserve commissioned officers.
>
> Where things get interesting, however, is the second numbered paragraph of
> the Claytor document quoted above, and in particular its reference to the
> "approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under authority
> of [section 1163] to examine the official records of officers of the Naval
> Reserve on inactive duty and determine whether they should be retained on
> the records of the Reserve Component or separated from the naval service
> ...." As in effect from 1956 through 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 1163 read:
>
> (a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of
> service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component
> without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of
> officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned,
> or by the approved sentence of a court-martial. This subsection does not
> apply to a separation under subsection (b) of this section or under
> section 1003 of this title, to a dismissal under section 1161 (a) of this
> title, or to a transfer under section 3352 or 8352 of this title.
>
> (b) The President or the Secretary concerned may drop from the rolls of
> the armed force concerned any Reserve (1) who has been absent without
> authority for at least three months, or (2) who is sentenced to
> confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary or correctional institution
> after having been found guilty of
> an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other military court,
> and whose sentence has become final.
>
> (c) A member of a reserve component who is separated therefrom for cause,
> except under subsection (b), is entitled to a discharge under honorable
> conditions unless —
>
> (1) he is discharged under conditions other than honorable under an
> approved sentence of a court-martial or under the approved findings of a
> board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary
> concerned; or
>
> (2) he consents to a discharge under conditions other than honorable with
> a waiver of proceedings of a court-martial or a board.
>
> (d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, which
> shall be as uniform as practicable, a member of a reserve component who is
> on active duty (other than for training) and is within two years of
> becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military
> retirement
> system, may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he becomes
> eligible for that pay, unless his release is approved by the Secretary.
>
> Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate the text of the third reference
> from the Claytor document, "BUPERSMAN 3830380," which I presume to have
> been a Bureau of Personnel Manual regulation. [Update: see James
> Lederer's and Cecil Turner's helpful comments and links below, which I've
> edited this text to conform to — Beldar]
>
> III. Mr. Lipscomb's arguments from the Claytor
> document and sections 1162 and 1163
> Here's Mr. Lipscomb's analysis of how the Claytor document and the two
> relevant statutes lead to inferences about Sen. Kerry's original discharge
> and possible later upgrade:
>
> An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as
> Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well
> kept secret about his military service.
>
> The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter
> administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes
> Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of
> officers." This in itself is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary
> honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board
> of officers.
>
> According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of
> reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was
> "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163." This section refers to the
> grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being
> reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service.
> And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been
> no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
> Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
> honorable discharge.
>
> After noting that the Kerry campaign had not replied to his inquiry about
> "whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an
> honorable discharge," Mr. Lipscomb discusses how a less-than-honorable
> discharge — one that would need further processing in 1978 to be upgraded
> to honorable — might have come about in the first place:
>
> The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military
> commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on
> February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is
> highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam
> Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy
> accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor
> document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge
> that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
>
> The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end
> of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have
> come about?
>
> NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr.
> Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his
> executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special
> counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate
> testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete
> opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."
>
> Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he
> wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston
> Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another
> Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson
> was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on
> Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.
>
> The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September
> 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable
> discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
> given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy,
> was easier than finding "dirt."
>
> For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the
> North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May
> 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to
> get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a
> single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential
> candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with
> Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had
> to receive a pardon from President Harding.
>
> Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding
> Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the
> Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of
> the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the
> senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would
> either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received
> a less than honorable discharge."
>
> Mr. Lipscomb next explains how the amnesty issued by President Carter may
> have facilitated an upgrade in 1978 if indeed Sen. Kerry's original
> discharge was less than honorable:
>
> The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even
> more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President."
> No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The
> president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the
> story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.
>
> Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft
> dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration
> on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter
> signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a
> directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded
> to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct,
> dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative
> effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a
> procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A
> satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or
> an honorable discharge....
>
> There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There
> are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as
> well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd
> coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was
> dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal
> certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a
> dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and
> all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry
> joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr.
> Kerry's medals were reissued.
>
> Mr. Lipscomb also notes that to confirm or refute his chain of inferences,
> one would need Sen. Kerry's 1972-era records that could be expected to
> give details on whatever it was that the 1978 board proceedings were
> reviewing:
>
> Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would
> allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various
> spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web
> site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel
> Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.
>
> Mr. Lipscomb's reference here is most likely to Michael Dobb's August 22nd
> WaPo article, which reported:
>
> Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's
> full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical
> records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not
> permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of
> Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages
> of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike
> McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which
> consists of at least a hundred pages.
>
> The Navy Department also confirmed that it has unreleased records that
> aren't on the Kerry website in response to the Judicial Watch complaint.
>
> IV. Beldar's take on Mr. Lipscomb's article
> Rumors, supposition, and yes, inuendo about whether Sen. Kerry may have
> received a less-than-honorable discharge have swirled through the
> blogosphere at least since August, when the SwiftVets' ad campaign kicked
> off. However, in previous articles published by the New York Sun and the
> Chicago Sun Times, Mr. Lipscomb has previously provided serious original
> investigative reporting on, for example, Sen. Kerry's documented
> attendance at VVAW meetings where assassinations of American political
> figures were seriously discussed, Sen. Kerry's re-issued Silver Star
> citation, the Navy Department's consideration of the Judicial Watch
> complaint, and the likely authorship of the 13Mar39 after-action report
> that likely was the basis for Kerry's Bronze Star and third Purple Heart.
> His latest effort is another serious attempt to probe the mysteries of
> Kerry's military record that most reporters, and certainly that Kerry-
> friend biographers like Doug Brinkley, have persistently ignored.
>
> Are the inferences Mr. Lipscomb makes in this latest article justified?
> Quite frankly, I lack the personal military background, and the
> familiarity with either the normal or unusual workings of military
> separation proceedings, to draw a confident conclusion or argue it here.
>
> But I'm certainly intrigued — indeed, that's too mild a word — by Mr.
> Lipscomb's reporting. And there's no doubt that the Kerry campaign and
> Sen. Kerry himself are stonewalling. If there is a contrary explanation
> for the odd timing of Sen. Kerry's honorable discharge, and documents to
> support that explanation, Sen. Kerry should come forward with them. As
> Mr. Lipscomb's article points out, if indeed Sen. Kerry received a less-
> than-honorable discharge as the result of his antiwar activities while
> still a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, "one might have
> expected him to wear it like a badge of honor" — although that spin would
> certainly be questioned by others who remain unpersuaded by the rationales
> that prompted President Carter's blanket amnesty in 1977 and, possibly,
> the upgrading of Sen. Kerry's discharge to honorable status in 1978 if in
> fact that's what happened. And others who agreed with President Carter's
> actions may still, in weighing Sen. Kerry's overall military record, find
> it significant if in fact Sen. Kerry's original discharge needed
> upgrading; the fact that one's since been forgiven by an act of
> presidential grace doesn't necessarily block the original transgression
> and punishment from consideration for purposes of determining fitness now
> to be the nation's commander in chief.
>
> PoliPundit (hat-tip InstaPundit) has printed an email from a reader with
> some military and legal credentials who suggests that if Sen. Kerry's
> discharge was for "other than honorable" conditions, "bad conduct," or
> "dishonorable," that might have interfered with his admission to the
> Massachusetts bar in 1976. With due respect, however, I'm entirely
> unpersuaded by that particular suggestion. There were zillions of lawyers
> admitted to practice in the mid- and late-1970s despite convictions for
> protesting and minor drug offenses. Expungements of convictions under the
> Federal Youth Corrections Act, for example, wiped clean the records of
> even felony convictions, clearing the way for a great many folks to become
> lawyers who'd otherwise have been disqualified, and I'm quite confident
> that most states' bars include members with worse records than what's
> being hypothesized here for Kerry. If Kerry's original discharge was
> "general-honorable conditions," for example — the next rung down from an
> unqualified honorable discharge — I doubt that the Board of Bar Examiners
> would have blinked an eye, much less done any serious investigation or
> raised any serious reservations. And even a lower-level discharge might
> very well have been forgiven for someone with Kerry's connections,
> background, and other military credentials.
>
> In any event, Sen. Kerry needs to end the stonewall, before the election.
> If — as seems entirely possible, and now perhaps even probable — there are
> still-hidden facts about his separation from the Naval Reserve, then those
> facts should be revealed, and voters should be entitled to make their own
> value judgments about those facts. Sen. Kerry's refusal to address these
> issues squarely is in itself a strong basis for drawing inferences that
> reflect poorly on him.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 11:00am): Power Line's post promises an update with
> comments from the SwiftVets. Democracy Project has a post up, as do
> VodkaPundit, Milblog, Just One Minute, Little Green Footballs (also here,
> thanks for the link, Charles!), Wizbang!, PajamaPundits, Cranial Cavity,
> Posse Incitatas, Jawa Report, Dr. Zhibloggo, Michelle Malkin, Chasing the
> Wind, Travelling Shoes, Secure Liberty, INDC Journal, Ace of Spades, Media
> Lies, California Yankee, Pink Flamingo, Commonwealth Conservative,
> Political Junkie, QandO, and Captain's Quarters. [Continuing to update
> this list as I find new posts; see also the trackbacks below — Beldar]
>
> Commenter Roland at CQ provides an interesting link to a current
> regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(b)(4)(ii), which provides that
>
> A General Discharge for an inactive reservist can only be based upon
> civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the overall
> effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency.
>
> I haven't done the digging to confirm it, but I suspect that this or
> something very similar would have been effect in 1972-1978.
>
> "Navy Chief" apparently did some of the background digging that may have
> gone into Mr. Lipscomb's story; there's a thread on this story on the
> SwiftVets' forum that's picking up lots of comment.
>
> Human Events has a reprint of Mr. Lipscomb's article if you have any
> trouble accessing it on the New York Sun's website.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 4:30pm): This update started out as a comment from
> me in response to other comments, but I've "promoted" it to text here.
>
> If, as initially issued, Sen. Kerry's discharge was a normal, fully
> honorable one after completion of his full active-duty and reserve
> obligations, then why would a board of officers — one convened and acting
> specifically under section 1163 — ever have been involved?
>
> As I understand it, Mr. Lipscomb's point is that section 1163 wouldn't
> have been cited in the Claytor letter, nor would that letter have referred
> to "a board of officers convened under authority of [that section]," if
> Sen. Kerry already had, or was entitled to get, an honorable discharge
> without such a board of officers' intervention. I'll try here to make
> what I understand his argument to be, with more specific reference to the
> specific language and subsections of section 1163.
>
> Only subsections (a) and (c) of section 1163 refer to such a board:
>
> Subsection (a) involves separations from the Reserves without the
> separating officer's consent, and says that can only be accomplished
> pursuant to either an approved board of officers' recommendation or a
> court martial sentence.
> Subsection (c) says if an officer is separated from the Reserves "for
> cause" — a key term which normally roughly equates to being fired for
> screwing up and/or breaking the rules — then he's nonetheless entitled to
> an honorable discharge except in two situations. The first situation, per
> subsection (c)(1), is if the discharge is under conditions other than
> honorable as per either a court martial sentence or the approved
> recommendations of a board of officers. The second situation is if the
> officer consents to the discharge being under conditions other than
> honorable, and waives the right he would otherwise have to accept such a
> lesser discharge only after a court martial or board finding.
> We don't have any reason to believe that only subsection 1163(a) was
> involved. That subsection would keep the DoD from booting somone who has
> more than three years' service and doesn't want to be discharged even with
> an honorable discharge (e.g., because he wants to stick around to qualify
> for greater benefits). [Update: But see my 5:25pm update below for a
> speculative, innocuous scenario possibly involving section 1163(a) —
> Beldar.]
>
> So it seems more likely that subsection 1163(c), or both it and subsection
> 1163(a), were involved. Again, note that subsection 1163(c) deals only
> with separations "for cause." In most legal contexts, "for cause" means
> being fired for breaking the rules — it's being shown the door, not just
> asking and having it opened for you voluntarily.
>
> Geek, Esq.'s suggestion in the comments below, working backwards from the
> Claytor letter's language, presumes that a board of officers must always
> be convened in order to determine whether someone should be retained on
> the rolls of the Reserves, and that this was the normal method of
> separation for everyone dropped from the rolls with an honorable discharge
> when they're no longer needed. But that's certainly not what the statute
> says; and if there's a different statute or regulation which says that, I
> haven't seen it yet.
>
> Rather, the board of officers referenced in section 1163(c) would only
> seem to come into operation if at least at some point the discharge
> involved was both less than honorable and without the officer's consent.
>
> The only discharge we've seen, from 1978, is indeed honorable. But
> there's nothing in section 1163 to suggest that a board would be involved
> in approving a top-quality, consented-to (and indeed welcomed) honorable
> discharge that was unmixed with any prior complications.
>
> By contrast, the reference in 1978 to a "board of officers" acting
> pursuant to section 1163 would be explained in either of two
> circumstances. First, Kerry could have consented to a less-than-honorable
> discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case no section 1163(c) board would
> have been involved then. Second, Kerry could have refused to have
> accepted a less-than-honorable discharge back in, say, 1972, in which case
> the Navy Department couldn't have imposed it on him without an approved
> finding pursuant to section 1163(c). But in either of those events, the
> statute could reasonably be read to require such a finding of an officers'
> board for an upgrade of a less-than-honorable discharge in 1978. And — to
> repeat — I don't see any other explanation for why an officers' board
> acting pursuant to any part of section 1163 would otherwise have been
> involved in 1978, or referenced in the Claytor letter.
>
> I'll also repeat this important point: I don't have the personal military
> experience to confidently argue that the fact that there was a board
> somehow involved necessarily means that there was a less-than-honorable
> discharge involved at some point along the line. But if there's another
> explanation for a "board of officers" acting pursuant to section 1163
> being involved, I haven't seen or heard it yet. [Update: But see my
> 5:25pm update below for a speculative, innocuous scenario possibly
> involving section 1163(a) — Beldar.] With due respect — and I have no idea
> if "Geek, Esq." is indeed even a lawyer, and by his own admission he
> jumped to a conclusion before he'd even read Lipscomb's article closely,
> and now continues to defend that conclusion without bringing any new
> source material to the table — I rather doubt that Geek has those
> qualifications either. Indeed, as stated in my introduction to this post,
> the reason I put this post up to begin with was to provide wider access to
> the relevant statutes (which are otherwise very hard to track down), and
> to solicit and encourage the exchange of further pertinent information.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Update (Wed Oct 13 @ 5:25pm): Okay, lots going on in the comments. I
> want to thank, and commend, everyone who's commented or emailed me,
> definitely including the skeptics.
>
> Since my previous update, one speculative but innocuous scenario has
> occurred to me that I ought to mention here, rather than just in comments.
> Perhaps in 1978, the DoD or the Navy Department was doing a mass review of
> its reserves rolls trying to winnow out those who'd been completely
> inactive for a long time. It is conceivable, I suppose, that they'd have
> convened a board of officers for the purpose of approving unconsented-to
> honorable discharges of officers with more than three years' service,
> which section 1163(a) would seem to require absent specific consent from
> the affected individuals. That's obviously speculation, but it might
> explain a reference in the Claytor letter to section 1163 that would not
> necessarily imply a previous involuntary discharge on a less-than-
> honorable basis.
>
> Again, however, it seems that the cleanest way for all this to be cleared
> up would be for Sen. Kerry to sign Standard Form 180.
>
> https://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10/was_kerrys_orig.html
Do svidaniya.
Phil Yagoda
Mar 28, 2022, 7:51:42 AM3/28/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 28, 2022, 7:53:11 AM3/28/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 28, 2022, 7:54:51 AM3/28/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 28, 2022, 7:38:30 PM3/28/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 28, 2022, 7:38:45 PM3/28/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 28, 2022, 7:40:38 PM3/28/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 28, 2022, 8:26:03 PM3/28/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 28, 2022, 8:28:14 PM3/28/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 28, 2022, 8:29:32 PM3/28/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 29, 2022, 8:27:48 AM3/29/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 29, 2022, 9:41:05 AM3/29/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 29, 2022, 9:42:45 AM3/29/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 29, 2022, 12:59:54 PM3/29/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 29, 2022, 1:00:31 PM3/29/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 29, 2022, 1:00:40 PM3/29/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 30, 2022, 10:40:18 AM3/30/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 30, 2022, 10:41:07 AM3/30/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 30, 2022, 10:43:41 AM3/30/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 30, 2022, 7:54:06 PM3/30/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 30, 2022, 7:54:29 PM3/30/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Mar 30, 2022, 7:54:47 PM3/30/22
to
Never send blacks..
Mar 30, 2022, 9:35:03 PM3/30/22
to
Biden sent negress Kamala Harris to "make" peace with two countries
who despise blacks.
Great job Democrats.
Great job of fomentation.
who despise blacks.
Great job Democrats.
Great job of fomentation.
Gateway Pundit
Mar 31, 2022, 8:43:09 AM3/31/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Mar 31, 2022, 9:17:19 AM3/31/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Mar 31, 2022, 9:21:30 AM3/31/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Apr 1, 2022, 8:28:21 AM4/1/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Apr 1, 2022, 8:28:40 AM4/1/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Apr 1, 2022, 8:29:17 AM4/1/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Apr 3, 2022, 8:42:36 AM4/3/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Apr 3, 2022, 8:42:56 AM4/3/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Apr 3, 2022, 8:43:16 AM4/3/22
to
'Katanji' Is that a 'rat'?
Apr 3, 2022, 4:50:03 PM4/3/22
to
In article <t2c4nr$3h4tm$2...@news.freedyn.de>
Phil Yagoda <gayrig...@yahoomail.com> wrote:
>
> >‘Cynical, craven’
Phil Yagoda <gayrig...@yahoomail.com> wrote:
>
> >‘Cynical, craven’
>
> Bbbbuuutttt Gateway Pundit says Biden
is an idiot.
> Bbbbuuutttt Gateway Pundit says Biden
J.J. McCullough
Apr 3, 2022, 8:18:34 PM4/3/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Apr 3, 2022, 9:58:40 PM4/3/22
to
Red State Life
Apr 4, 2022, 2:20:03 AM4/4/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Apr 4, 2022, 8:49:30 AM4/4/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Apr 4, 2022, 9:18:52 AM4/4/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Apr 4, 2022, 11:20:17 AM4/4/22
to
Gateway Pundit
Apr 4, 2022, 11:27:44 AM4/4/22
to
Jesus Guns Babies
Apr 4, 2022, 11:28:26 AM4/4/22
to
J.J. McCullough
Apr 4, 2022, 2:08:57 PM4/4/22
to
Phil Yagoda
Apr 4, 2022, 2:10:30 PM4/4/22
to
Leftists Are In Love With Trump
Apr 4, 2022, 5:05:03 PM4/4/22
to
Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP
trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump
TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump
Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP
trump
trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump
TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump
Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP trump Trump TRUMP
trump
Phil Yagoda
Apr 4, 2022, 6:46:51 PM4/4/22
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages