Hello Guest

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Flyin6

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
CIEMR / Kavanaugh comes clean, I'm shocked!
« on: October 14, 2018, 10:53:11 PM »
Kavanaugh comes clean about his high school and college years......

"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. I discovered that it didn't make any difference if you smoked reefer in the white class mates sparkling new van, or in the dorm room with some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl."

Just kidding....That's from Obama's book describing HIS high school and college days.
Double Standard Nowadays?

D.O.T. / "Honesty"
« on: October 09, 2018, 01:25:01 PM »
Not so much...

CIEMR / The true character of Donald Trump
« on: October 05, 2018, 10:58:39 AM »
 'Trump Does The Unthinkable' by Liz Conklin, entertainment journalist

 Read what Liz Conklin has observed.  I haven't read anything in the media about any of these, but felt everyone should know
Liz Conklin is an award-winning author, a seasoned journalist and an advocate for sex crime victims. Liz began her journey at the
University of Iowa where she received a bachelor's in journalism    and political science.

 'Trump Does The Unthinkable'

by Liz Conklin, entertainment journalist, I've had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him I've never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president. Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire could've potentially sold a lot of magazines and would've been a Huge feather in my cap.


Instead, I  found that he doesn't drink alcohol or do drugs, he's a

hardworking businessman.


On top of  that, he's one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.

Since the  media has failed so miserably at reporting the truth about Trump, I decided to put together some of the acts of kindness he's committed over three decades which has gone virtually unnoticed or fallen on deaf ears.

? In 1986, Trump prevented the foreclosure of Annabell Hill's family farm after her husband committed suicide. Trump personally phoned down to the auction to stop the sale of her home and offered the widow money. Trump decided to take action after he saw Hill's pleas for help in news reports.


? In 1988, a  commercial airline refused to fly Andrew Ten, a sick Orthodox Jewish child with a rare illness, across the country to get medical care because he had to travel with an elaborate life-support system.  His grief stricken parents contacted Trump for help and he didn't hesitate to send his own plane to take the child from Los Angeles to New York so he could get his treatment.


? In 1991,  200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.

? In 1995, a  motorist stopped to help Trump after the limo he was traveling in got a flat tire. Trump asked the Good Samaritan how he could repay him for his help. All the man asked for was a bouquet of flowers for his wife. A few weeks later Trump sent the flowers with a note that read: We've paid off your mortgage.


? In 1996,  Trump filed a lawsuit against the city of Palm Beach, Florida, accusing the town of discriminating against his Mar-a-Lago resort club because it allowed Jews and blacks. Abraham Foxman, who was the Anti-Defamation League Director at the time, said Trump put the light on Palm Beach not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. Foxman also noted that Trump's charge had a trickle-down effect because other clubs followed his lead and began admitting Jews and blacks.


? In 2000,  Maury Povich featured a little girl named Megan who struggled with Brittle Bone Disease on his show and Trump happened to be watching.  Trump said the little girl's story and positive attitude touched his heart. So he contacted Maury and gifted the little girl and her family with a very generous check.


? In 2008,  after Jennifer Hudson's family members were tragically murdered in Chicago, Trump put the Oscar-winning actress and her family up at his Windy City hotel for free. In addition to that, Trump's security took extra measures to ensure Hudson and her family members were safe during such a difficult time.


? In 2013,  New York bus driver Darnell Barton spotted a woman close to the edge of a bridge staring at traffic below as he drove by. He stopped the bus, got out and put his arm around the woman and saved her life by convincing her to not jump. When Trump heard about this story, he sent the hero bus driver a check simply because he believed his good deed deserved to be rewarded.


? In 2014, Trump gave $25,000 to Sgt. Andrew Tamoressi after he spent seven months in a Mexican jail for accidentally crossing the US-Mexico border. President Barack Obama couldn't even be bothered to make one phone call to assist with the United States Marine's release; however, Trump opened his pocketbook to help this serviceman get back on his feet.


? In 2016, Melissa Consin Young attended a Trump rally and tearfully thanked Trump for changing her life. She said she proudly stood on stage with Trump as Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005. However, years later she found herself struggling with an incurable illness and during her darkest days she explained that she received a handwritten letter from Trump telling her she's the bravest woman, I know. She said the opportunities that she got from Trump and his organizations ultimately provided her Mexican-American son with a full-ride to college.


? Lynne  Patton, a black female executive for the Trump Organization, released a statement in 2016 defending her boss against accusations that he's a racist and a bigot. She tearfully revealed how she's struggled with substance abuse and addiction for years. Instead of kicking her to the curb, she said the Trump Organization and his entire family loyally stood by her through immensely difficult times.


Donald  Trump's kindness knows no bounds and his generosity has and continues to touch the lives of people from every sex, race and

religion. When Trump sees someone in need, he wants to help. Two decades ago, Oprah asked Trump in a TV interview if he'd run for president. He said: ' If it got so bad, I would never want to rule

it out totally, because I really am tired of seeing what's happening

with this country.'


That day has  come.


Trump sees  that America is in need and he wants to help. How unthinkable!


On the other hand. have you ever heard of Hillary or Obama ever doing such things with their own resources?


Now that's really unthinkable! Might be worth passing on!!


Just shows we hired the right guy. If Hollywood and the media ever get off his ass, he'll do many good things for this country...

D.O.T. / Favorite Magazine??? Why?
« on: September 30, 2018, 02:32:50 PM »
Mine would have to be "Popular Mechanics"

Cool rag, hot rods to latest building techniques to rockets. The thing has it all. Best friend while waiting for a dental appointment!

D.O.T. / Declaration Thread
« on: September 29, 2018, 10:07:32 AM »
OK, in this mixed up world where we are in a perpetual opposite day

I like to be what I am, just a plain old man

(Unfortunately the old part is true)

I don't make apologies for who or what I am and I have a right to be what I am, and more importantly, just as Christians are to be a light unto a dark world, I will be a normal guy walkin' amongst a bunch of mixed up folks

So, for the record:

I am male, and I believe there are only two sexes

I believe a man should be attracted to a girl and a girl to a man

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

I believe in God. I believe Jesus is the son of God. I believe that the holy spirit guides me in my life

The bible is true

I may not understand how some of the bible is true, but the word of God is infalliable

I am white. I am proud of being white

I think being black or yellow or red is just as good (or bad)

Martin Luther had it right. The quality and character of a man is what is important

In a marriage the man is the head of the family

In that family, the woman represents the neck attached to that head

I love my country. I hate those who dishonor it

I would not control myself well in the face of people who chose to dishonor it

Pull over if you can and stand outside your vehicle when a funeral procession passes you by

I think the current younger generations are amongst the weakest and spineless I have ever seen

Illegal aliens should have no special rights while here

English is the primary language spoken in the United States

It should be a big bad thing to protest against America

I do believe some arguments can be solved by a hard punch to the nose

Guns are good, and shooting a bad guy is a good thing

Murderers ought to be put to death, Rapists too possibly.

Ladies are to be respected and treated gently, for they are the weaker sex
   But the definition of weaker is made to the biblical model

Fathers need to be present to their children.

Parents are not necessarily friends to their children. But after the child is 30 and he/she doesn't love the parent, then the parent has failed in his/her duties

Christianity is the only true religion that worships a real god

Abortion is wrong. It is murder. Those who believe in it are a party to that.

I try to forgive. I can't always forget, but I try to forgive because God tells me he will not forgive me if I don't first forgive.

I try to say the Lords prayer every day

I honestly love Jesus, God and the spirit

I love my wife. I think she is the prettiest girl I have ever seen.

I would lay down my life to defend my family, my country, or my friends.

Did I mention that guns are good?

You should carry a knife most of the time

There is nothing wrong with driving a pickup truck as your primary driver.

DBOW's (Death box on wheels) (some cars like the smart car) are stupid

Motorcycles have two wheels

I like tradition

I strive for honor

I try to live with integrity

I loved having served in combat, and I hold those who did as well in high regard

I do not think less of those who did not

I do however hate it when someone tells me "I wanted to serve, but..." That is just piss-ant weak!

I loved my parents

I salute the flag

Satanism is wrong, way wrong.

I am prejudice against some people, but I am working on that

I like Chevys more than BMW's or Toyotas

America should be first. We had the guts to lay down our lives in most places on earth to assert our beliefs and defend those who were weaker.

Stand up straight, look someone in the eye when addressing them, and shake with a firm grip

Admit when you are wrong, and confess your sins. Take the punishment for your shortcomings and put your left in front of your right.

Live your life well, but be prepared to die.

Make a difference in someone else's life

CIEMR / White Racist???
« on: September 29, 2018, 09:11:26 AM »

This is an interesting and different point of view from Britain. Food
for thought.

Does make you stop and think. When does political correctness go too far?"

Racist - me?

A thought provoking passage written by an ENGLISHMAN about the current
situation in HIS homeland - this is thought provoking and is equally
relevant in other countries.

I have been wondering about why whites are racists, and no other race is?

There are British Africans, British Chinese, British Asian, British
Turks, etc, etc, etc.

And then there are just British. You know what I mean, plain ole English
people that were born here. You can include the Welsh, the Scottish and
the people who live off our shores of Great Britain on tiny islands.
Yes, we are all true Brits.

The others that live here call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman' 'White trash' and that's OK...

But if I call you, Nigger, Spade, Towel head, Paki, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook or Chink, you call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you. So why are the
ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

You have Black History Month.

You have swimming pools for Asian women.

You have Islamic banks for Muslims only.

You have year of the dragon day for Chinese people.

If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd
be racists.

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black Britain or Miss Asia, but
any colour can be in the Miss UK.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you
know we'd be racists.

There are over 200 openly proclaimed Muslim only schools in England. Yet
if there were 'White schools only', that would be racist!

In the Bradford riots and Toxteth riots, you believed that you were
standing-up for your race and rights. If we stood-up for our race and
rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not
afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us

We fly our flag, we are racists. If we celebrate St George's day we are

You can fly your flag and it?s called diversity. You celebrate your
cultures and it?s called multiculturalism.

You rob us, carjack us, and rape our daughters. But, when a white police
officer arrests a black gang member or beats up an Asian drug dealer
running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud.... but you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let's see which of you are
proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we
have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for

BEING PROUD TO BE WHITE! It's not a crime, YET... but its getting very

CIEMR / ;-))
« on: September 23, 2018, 08:06:19 PM »
The only way it will happen!

CIEMR / Bottom Feeders!
« on: September 23, 2018, 11:44:13 AM »
What Democrats Have Become
Brett Kavanaugh is a casualty of an anything-goes political resistance.

Daniel Henninger

Sept. 19, 2018 6:59 p.m. ET


It is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17.

As of the most recent available moment in this episode, Ms. Ford?s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a ?full investigation by law-enforcement officials.? Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something.

Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford?s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. This is as obvious now as it must have been when Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats came into possession of this incident.

Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.

In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn?t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It?s a limitless standard.

The Democrats? broader strategy is: Delay the vote past the election; win the Senate by convincing suburban women that Republicans are implacably hostile to them; seize power; and?the point of it all?take down the Trump government.

This is the ?resistance.? This is what Democrats have become. Resistance is a word and strategy normally found in a revolutionary context, which is precisely the argument made by the left to justify its actions against this presidency since the evening of Nov. 8, 2016. Anything goes. Whatever it takes. Brett Kavanaugh is not much more than a casualty of war.

Rather than try to argue or win public issues on substance, the Democrats have become a party that seems to think it can win with muscle alone. Environmentalism emerged in the 1970s as a worthwhile idea that attracted the interest and support of both parties. From Al Gore onward, it became a bludgeon to beat up the other party. Now sexual abuse, an issue originating in utmost seriousness, has been quickly captured and fashioned into a political weapon by the Democratic left.

Politics as trench warfare has relieved the Democrats of the burden of thought. Extending the Pelosi Rule?we have to pass the bill to find out what?s in it?we now have the Gillibrand Standard.

Commenting this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, ?I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.? In other words, what she believes is based on next to nothing.

Put on defense by these accusations, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley unsurprisingly agreed to a hearing in which Ms. Ford would tell her story and Judge Kavanaugh would speak. Then the senators would vote.

Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh?s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Trial by ordeal was outlawed by the Lateran Council in 1215.

Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind.

Incidentally, the standard trope that Donald Trump has degraded our politics? We don?t need to hear that anymore. Or about the moral certitudes of the religious right.

Is there a sadder figure in the modern Democratic Party than Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Elected to the Senate in 1992, Mrs. Feinstein has produced a creditable career. Her above-it-all reputation was never quite deserved, but she has at least performed with dignity.

Now, seeking re-election at 85, she is getting heat from the progressive-dominated Democratic Party in California, the world capital of identity-only politics. By withholding from the committee the accusatory Ford letter that came into her possession nearly two months ago, Sen. Feinstein ensured the nomination?s descent into such a hapless, cynical moment. This will be the most remembered event in Sen. Feinstein?s career.

The Kavanaugh nomination, ?given what we know,? has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn?t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.

CIEMR / You better believe it!
« on: September 20, 2018, 07:39:05 AM »
Oh, they're coming for us all right!

But I know this for certain: Jesus wins in the end!!!!!!!

Our Heros, The "Hooah" or "Ooh-Rah" Place / S-97 Raider
« on: September 19, 2018, 03:37:27 PM »
So its flying now

I wonder what name the Army will adopt for it if it enters service???


D.O.T. / About sums it up
« on: September 19, 2018, 03:22:38 PM »
As the world sees things:

CIEMR / From a black woman (I like her!)
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:20:12 AM »
Enough with the Victimhood: Millionaire Athletes

and Their Lost Cause

by Sylvia Thompson


I must admit I have never in my life purchased a ticket to a sports event. I

am not a sports enthusiast. But I am an American black citizen, and I have

had it up to the gills with black people who embrace victimhood. I also

highly resent my being expected to do the same in order to affirm my



Black victims these days, for the most part, are the product of decades of

Black Americans being used primarily by white progressive leftists to

advance an anti-American agenda.


The current brouhaha surrounding the despicable behavior of NFL athletes

toward the National Anthem and the American flag is a prime example of what

the Left has done to my race.


One must assume these players and their guilt-conflicted white coaches and

owners (and victimhood-inflicted black coaches) are being manipulated by the

Left, because no intelligent, thinking people would deliberately cut

themselves off at the knees. Essentially, what these young misguided mostly

black men are doing is ensuring the demise of their lucrative paychecks.

Further, I would wager that if these teams consisted of all white athletes,

none of this idiocy would be allowed. We are witnessing this travesty

because the vast majority of players are black and can whine "oppression" if

appropriate action is taken against them for their unconscionable behavior.


The twisted reasoning that claims these protests are to highlight

"injustice" and "police brutality" is a laughable crock. What they do in

fact is dishonor valued symbols of this nation's heritage and cover over

truth about black crime.


Black males bear the brunt of police encounters because black males commit

disproportionately more crimes. Police encounters with black men are so

often confrontational because so many of these men, especially the young,

don't think "compliance" applies to them. They foolishly assume they are

above the law and disrespect for police officers is an act of honor.


These young blacks, sadly, took much of their direction from racists Obama

and Eric Holder during Obama's destructive, eight-year regime and Holder's

corruption of the Justice Department. These two men, abusing their federal

powers, gave young blacks the impression they need not heed the law, because

laws are somehow unjust when they are applied to black Americans. The NFL

lot, and any other athletes taking a similar stance, are also influenced by

Obama's and Holder's disdain for law and law enforcement.


I am not familiar with one case where a black suspect to a crime was not

proven legally to have caused the behavior against him, particularly in

cases where the police officer involved was exonerated by facts. Michael

Brown of "hands up, don't shoot" infamy is one good example. Blatant lies

were spread to cloud the truth about Brown's case.


Back in the day when I was growing up in the racially segregated South, the

opposite prevailed in many cases. There was much injustice particularly

toward black men, but not today. Today, too many blacks have been fed the

notion that it is now "pay-back" time, and they can flaunt their lawlessness

because some whites flaunted theirs during an earlier time in our nation's



Although Obama and Holder no longer wield power in this country, some of

their minions continue on the pernicious path of "paying back" American

whites for wrongs, real or imagined. But as the saying goes, there is a new

Sheriff in town and he is not guilt-conflicted. He expects fair play under

law and tolerating pay-back is not part of his agenda. Black Americans, when

they break the law, can no longer claim victim status simply because they

are black. Those days are over.


American laws and law enforcement personnel will be respected in America,

again; our traditions and values will not be impugned in America without

consequences, again. Anybody unsettled about this turn of events is welcome

to leave this country. I suggest all the black players try a country in

Africa, and see how successful they will be at making millions playing

games. They will all soon learn what oppression really means.


Some self-directed, independent-thinking blacks (and there are many of us)

have offered that if these millionaire protestors want to tackle some real

problems, they might consider the thousands of black children killed in

abortions annually (by the progressive Left), or perhaps the many, many

young blacks murdered routinely on inner-city streets by other young blacks

(in cities run by progressive, leftist Democrats), or the downright criminal

state of education of black inner-city children, orchestrated by the

progressive leftist National Education Association (NEA). The NEA's aim is

to produce unintelligent pawns to feed the cause of progressivism.


I am annoyed by the expressions of "sincerity" gracing the faces of the NFL

protestors-as if to convey the "hallowedness" of their cause. In actuality,

they provide a picture of grown men allowing themselves to be made fools of

by the progressive Left. I don't doubt, however, that some of these men have

been coerced into compliance with this lost cause, either through threats of

violence or shunning (from coaches and players). Alejandro Villanueva of the

Pittsburgh Steelers and former Army ranger is very likely a victim of such

threats. He was publicly castigated by his leftist coach for his patriotism.

The coach demanded unity behind an ignorant cause.


And finally, this issue has nothing to do with First Amendment rights.

President Trump's speaking out against the clownish behavior of the

athletes, on behalf of the majority of American citizens, does not mean he

can or would stop any of these misguided people from making fools of

themselves. To restrict them, as a government entity, would indeed be a

violation of the First Amendment..... But their employers, if they were to

develop even a modicum of testicular fortitude, could and should fire them

for doing major damage to the bottom line of the business. The rest of us

non-millionaire "Joes" would certainly be pink-slipped by an employer if we

dared to be so clueless about the necessity of profits and so disdainful of

the sensibilities of customers.


I will wait patiently for the true sports enthusiasts to vent their rage by

simply boycotting the games. It will be sweet revenge to witness the slain

goose cease producing its golden eggs.

CIEMR / Cavanaugh accuser: Another liberal liar!
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:04:28 AM »
This allegation coming in the 11th hour is just so believable (NOT!)

CIEMR / Inside our very own government!
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:02:43 AM »
Having had a long career in the military, and especially working as a contractor in the combat theaters for the likes of the State department, I have seen this internal sabotage time and time again. All of us military contractors pretty much hated the state department types who were sneaks, liars, and actually seemed anti-american sometimes. We just never got that, thinking we were all on team America.


Alternative Energy / Wood Fired Boiler Install
« on: September 17, 2018, 02:24:45 PM »
Well, folks, never to be stationary long enough to allow grass (Even Kentucky blue grass) to grow under my feet, I started a big home improvement project, installing a wood fired boiler to heat my large home.

I have been thinking about this for years. Last February, I received an electric bill for nearly $750 for one month! That tripped the "need to do something" switch and this is where I arrived. As many of you know I also own a farm with at least 60 acres of timber, and a saw mill which produces a lot of scrap.

My summer electric bill averages right at $200 a month which includes the AC, washer/Dryer, electric stove and hot water heater. I use a heat pump which is marginally effective at heating in zone 5. When it starts falling into the lower 30's there isn't much ambient to grab so the electric heaters fire up and drain my checking account.

With the wood fired boiler, I will now heat 100% with wood. The thing will also make all my hot water, so during the cold months I will only need sparks for washing dirty clothes, watching the TV, cookin' turkeys and keeping myself from stumblin' around in the dark. I should see an electric bill somewhere from $100-$130 ish I estimate.

I selected an EZ Boiler rated to heat a 7500 square foot house. I will use it to also heat both of my garages, something which I have never had in my life! I will only have to command pre-rangers to cut and stack wood to stay as cozy as a bug in a rug.

The project is coming in at around $7000 ish with me doing the installation myself. That makes for a nice opportunity to document the installation for you fence sitters out there thinking about doing the same thing

The company:

The unit:

Faith Discussion / The undoing of America
« on: September 12, 2018, 12:20:52 PM »
We are standing witness to the unwinding of our moral culture and in some ways to the undoing of civilization itself. Anyone question we are approaching end times???

More Yale freshmen identify as LGBTQ than conservative, survey finds
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:  The College Fix on Facebook The College Fix on Twitter The College Fix on Youtube Share on Email

Queer freshmen greatly outnumber conservatives at the university, according to a survey

A Yale Daily News survey of freshmen students at that university found that more students of the class of 2022 identify on the LGBTQ spectrum than as conservative, and that queer freshmen even outnumber other sizable demographics in the class, such as Protestants and Catholics.

The paper?s survey, the results of which are composed of 864 respondents, or just over one-half of the freshman class, found that only nine percent of respondents identified as ?somewhat conservative,? with one percent identifying as ?very conservative.? LGBTQ respondents, on the other hand, greatly outnumberd conservatives in total: According to the survey, ?nearly 5 percent [of respondents] identify as gay and just over 9 percent as bisexual or transsexual. Three percent opted not to answer, and the remaining 8 percent identified as asexual, ace spectrum or questioning their sexual orientation.?

This combined demographic outnumbers even Protestants and Catholics, whom the survey identified as 16 percent and 15 percent of the incoming class, respectively.

A 2018 Gallup poll estimated that 4.5 percent of all Americans identified as LGBTQ.

Liberal students in the class of 2022 also greatly outnumber conservatives on campus, according to The Daily News?s findings.

?Nearly three-fourths? of surveyed students identified as liberal, with thirty percent identifying as ?very liberal.? These disparities are mirrored in the faculty composition at Yale: A 2017 Daily News survey of Yale professors found that three-quarters identified as liberal while less than 10 percent identified as conservative. Over 90 percent of faculty members in the humanities identified as liberal while that number hovered in the mid-60s for STEM faculty.

Yale?s Dean of Student Affairs, Camille Lizarribar, did not respond to requests for comment on whether Yale was taking steps to increase ideological diversity on campus. Lizarribar was prominent last year in the debate over changing the term ?freshman? to the gender-neutral term ?first-year? in university communications.

Cameron Koffman, the president of the school?s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program, said that is it ?not surprising? that so many students on campus lean left and that it would be obvious ?if one were to spend a few days at Yale, sit in on classes, and talk to people.?

?The best thing the University can do is make sure that conservatives on campus feel comfortable voicing their opinions and ensuring that students understand that the administration firmly supports free speech and intellectual diversity,? Koffman said.

Jamie Kirchick, a Yale College alumnus who is running a petition to be a candidate for the Yale Board of Trustees, told The College Fix via email that ?Yale is increasingly out of touch with America, and America is increasingly out of touch with Yale.?

?Central to the American college experience must be not just exposure to people of different racial backgrounds but also different life experiences and viewpoints,? Kirchick said. One suggestion he had for a solution was ?a pre-read program, modeled on Princeton, where every incoming freshman reads two books that put forth different arguments about an important contemporary or historical debate.?

Yale?s issues with viewpoint diversity came under scrutiny in 2015 when Professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis were publicly targeted by students after Erika wrote an email that suggested students should not be so easily offended by things such as Halloween costumes. A swift backlash from students followed. At one point a mob of students surrounded Nicholas on campus, with one student turning hysterical and shrieking at him, ?Who the ____ hired you?? Nicholas eventually resigned his position at a residential college on campus, while Erika resigned her position teaching at the school.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Erika Christakis wrote: ?By affirming only the narrow right to air my views, rather than helping the community to grapple with its intense response, an unfortunate message was made plain: Certain ideas are too dangerous to be heard at Yale.?

In that same piece, she expressed concern that ?students will eventually give up trying to engage with each other, a development that will echo in our wider culture for decades.?

Shortly after Erika?s email, the William F. Buckley Jr. Program conference, which that was year focused on free speech, was besieged by protestors, one of whom spit on an attendee.

A 2016 Yale Daily News survey found that 95 percent of conservative students on campus thought that their conservative views were unwelcome. One respondent was quoted as saying ?I just get the general vibe that Republicans aren?t respected for their beliefs as much as maybe the liberal people are.? Overall, 75 percent of respondents said that Yale ?does not provide a welcoming environment for conservative students to share their opinions on political issues.?

CIEMR / Lying Democrats! You can't believe anything they do is for real!
« on: September 12, 2018, 09:36:31 AM »
At the Senate confirmation hearing, this woman screamed about stopping Kavanaugh from being approved

After she was removed from the hearing room, she approached the "paymaster"

Here, she collects her protest 'pay'.........

Who pays the paymaster?  Schumer?  Soros?  Obama ?  The Democrat suspect list is l-o-n-g.


Don't count on CNN or MSNBC to investigate this and other things like this.  Fox and One America News might

cover it, but that's about it. Everyone else will be kept in the dark like mushrooms planted in compost.

CIEMR / I find myself in agreement with this, the practical man's view
« on: September 12, 2018, 09:13:43 AM »
Recently I received a questionnaire and request for money From the Republican Party and strongly agree with every question, As I have since Obama was elected.

 Unfortunately the one question that was missing is:

What have the  Republicans done for the American people?

 We gave you a majority in the House and Senate, and you never  listened to us.

Now you want our money, my money, more money.

You should be more concerned

About our votes, not our money.

 You are the establishment which means all you want

Is to save your jobs and line your pockets.

 Well guess what? It's not going to happen.

 So far, TRUMP hasn't asked for a dime.

 You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self-destruct course,

But look beyond Washington and listen to the masses.

Nobody has achieved what he has, especially in the state of New York .

 Here's why I want Trump:

 Yes, he's a bit of an ass;

 Yes, he's an  egomaniac;

But I don't care.

 The country is a mess because politicians suck.

 The Republican Party is two-faced and gutless, and

Illegals are  everywhere.

 I want it all fixed!

I don't care that Trump is crude.

I don't care that he insults people.

I don't care that he has changed positions.

I don't care that he's been married 3 times.

I don't care that he fights with Megan Kelly and Rosie O?Donnell.

I don't care that he doesn't know the name of some Muslim terrorist.

 Our country has become weak, and bankrupt.

Our enemies are making fun of us.

We are being invaded by illegals

 We are becoming a nation of victims where every

Tom, Ricardo and Hassid is a special group with special rights

To a point where we don't even recognize the country we were born and raised in,


 And Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what

We The People want and need.

 I'm sick of politicians,

Sick of the Democratic Party,

Sick of the Republican Party,

And sick of illegals.

I just want this thing fixed.

 Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn't have lobbyist money controlling him;

He doesn't have political correctness restraining him;

All you know is that he has been very successful;

A good negotiator;

He has built a lot of things; and,

he's also not a politician.

 He says he'll fix it.

I believe him because he is too much of an egotist

To be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.

 I don't care if the guy has bad hair.

 You are welcome to pass this on, or not.

 Thought for the Day:

"No country can sustain, in idleness,

More than a small percentage of its numbers.

The great majority must labor at something productive!"

 P.S.  No Borders, No Language, No Culture = No Country.


         I sure hopes this goes to everyone.

A guide to the best and worst veterans charities

Where is your veterans charity money going?

CharityWatch.org keeps an eye on the best and worst veterans charities you can donate to on behalf of the brave men and women who have worn our nation?s uniform.
The organization grades each charity on an A-F scale:
Top choices among veterans charities
Bob Woodruff Family Foundation (A)
Fisher House Foundation (A+)
Gary Sinise Foundation (A)
Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind (A)
Homes for Our Troops (A)
Hope For The Warriors (A-)
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (A)
National Military Family Association (A)
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (A)
Operation Homefront (A)
Semper Fi Fund (A+)
Team Rubicon (A-)
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (A)
Wounded Warriors Family Support (A)

Avoid these veterans charities

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is out with a new list of bogus charities.
In some cases, the FTC says the following charities pocketed 95% of donations intended for veterans:
American Disabled Veterans Foundation
Foundation for American Veterans, Inc.
Healing Heroes Network
Help the Vets, Inc.
Healing American Heroes, Inc.
Military Families of America
National Vietnam Veterans Foundation
Veterans Fighting Breast Cancer
VietNow National Headquarters, Inc.

Meanwhile, CharityWatch.org singled out four other veterans charities after they received failing marks in its charity rankings:
AMVETS National Service Foundation (F)
Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation (F)
Paralyzed Veterans of America (F)
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (F)

How to make your money count for any charitable donation

Before donating to any charity, you need to know the rules of the road and the precautions to take to ensure that the money will go where it?s needed.
Don?t give cash. Legitimate charities will take a check.
Don?t give credit card, bank account or personal information to telemarketers. In fact, you should be skeptical of telemarketers. If you want to give, you should be the one who initiates the call.
Don?t give to Internet appeals if the cause does not look legitimate and doesn?t check out. Traditional frauds have gone electronic in recent years, giving con artists easy access to thousands of potential victims.
Don?t give in to pressure. Anyone that can?t wait for a donation while you check out his or her organization is likely to be a crook.
Expect specific information. Ask what kind of relief this organization is going to provide. Don?t give to a vague appeal.
Check out the charity with national, state and local authorities. Established charities register with the Internal Revenue Service. You can search for specific non-profit organizations on the IRS website.
Beware of newly formed organizations. If the charity is new, you may have to rely on your relationship with the company or sponsor of the organization to determine whether you trust the group.
Report abuses to the nearest Better Business Bureau and the State Attorney General?s office. You can also report abuses to the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060 or at Fraud.org.

To find out more information about charities and how to investigate them on the web, go to either Give.org or CharityWatch.org

D.O.T. / Amazing! Check this out
« on: September 05, 2018, 09:02:03 PM »
This is one of the cleverest
E-mails I've received in a while.
Someone out there
Must be "deadly" at Scrabble.
Wait till you see the last one!

It's going to be hard to top because

It fits to a "T"

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:


When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:



When you rearrange the letters:



When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:

When you rearrange the letters:








When you rearrange the letters:

"An Arab Backed Imposter?

CIEMR / Makes Sense...
« on: September 05, 2018, 09:08:45 AM »
I can see it...

CIEMR / Good Question
« on: September 05, 2018, 08:37:34 AM »
I have been wondering the same thing myself

CIEMR / Nike picks Kapernick!
« on: September 04, 2018, 06:27:01 PM »
This swing toward socialism is sickening

Nike could have picked anyone, but they pick the controversial anti-American, American football player

Why? Cheap/free advertisement because of the controversial nature of this spoiled brat?

This nation is coming undone

CIEMR / Brain-Dead Democrats: Most recent evidience
« on: September 04, 2018, 11:59:30 AM »
Florida Democrats Nominate A Candidate Who Supports Bill To Abolish Seniors? Medicare
Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum supports Bernie Sanders? health plan. That bill would end Medicare for seniors, which will fly like an anvil in senior-dominated Florida.

Full disclosure: I have done paid consulting work for Florida?s current governor, Rick Scott, in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. And I have provided informal advice to Rep. Ron DeSantis, the Republican nominee for governor. However, neither the Scott nor DeSantis campaigns had any involvement with this article, and my views are?as always?my own.

On Tuesday, Democrats in Florida nominated an unusual candidate for governor, and it has nothing to do with his skin color or background. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who would serve as Florida?s first African-American governor if elected, says on his campaign?s website that the health plan U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has offered at the national level ?will help lower costs and expand coverage to more Floridians.?

Here?s how that plan, which Sanders turned into legislation (S. 1804), would ?expand coverage to more Floridians?:



(1) IN GENERAL.?Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)?

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)? [emphasis added].

In case you didn?t know, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act refers to Medicare. Section 901(a)(1)(A) of Sanders? bill, which he brands as ?Medicare-for-all,? would prohibit the Medicare program from paying out any benefits once the single-payer system takes effect. Section 701(d) of his bill would liquidate the Medicare trust funds, transferring ?any funds remaining in? them to the single-payer plan.

In other words, Democrats just nominated as a statewide candidate in Florida?a state with the highest population of seniors, and where seniors and near-seniors (i.e., all those over age 50) comprise nearly half of the voting electorate?someone who, notwithstanding Sanders? claims about his single-payer bill, supports legislation that would abolish Medicare for seniors entirely. Good luck with that.

That?s What ?Radical Experiment? Means, Folks
The recent hullabaloo over an estimated budget score of the Sanders plan, which would require tens of trillions?yes, I said trillions?of dollars in tax increases, highlighted only one element of its radical nature. However, as I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year, the Sanders experiment would go far beyond raising taxes, by abolishing traditional Medicare, along with just about every other form of insurance.

Under the Sanders bill?or ?Medicare-for-None,? to use its more accurate title?only about 11 million individuals would retain their current health care coverage. That number includes 2.2 million Native Americans receiving services from the Indian Health Service, and 9.3 million veterans enrolled in, and receiving care from, the Veterans Administration.

Everyone else, which is roughly 300 million people, would lose their current coverage. Traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children?s Health Insurance Program would all evaporate. Even the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program would disappear.

With those changes in coverage, people could well lose access to their current doctors. As a study earlier this summer noted, medical providers like doctors and hospitals would get paid at much lower reimbursement rates, of 40 percent lower than private insurance. (A liberal blogger claimed earlier this week that, because other payers reimburse at lower levels than private insurers, the average pay cut to a doctor or hospital may total ?only? 11-13 percent.)

Doctors and hospitals would also have to provide more health care services to more people, since ?free? health care without co-payments will induce more demand for care. If you think doctors will voluntarily work longer hours for even less pay, I?ve got some land I want to sell you.

In fall 2013, Barack Obama?s ?If you like your plan, you can keep it? promise turned into a firestorm, and PolitiFact?s ?Lie of the Year,? when ?only? a few million people received insurance cancellation notices. By abolishing private insurance entirely, the Sanders plan would represent a change multiple orders of magnitude greater than what cost Obama?and Obamacare?precious political capital five years ago.

D?j? vu All Over Again?
In 1983, the British Labour Party wrote an election manifesto that one of its own members of Parliament famously dubbed ?the longest suicide note in history.? That plan pledged unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher taxes on the rich, to abolish the House of Lords, and renationalization of multiple industries.

Although Sanders? bill weighs in at 96 pages in total, opponents of the legislation can sum up its contents much more quickly: ?It abolishes Medicare for seniors.? That epithet could prove quite a short suicide note for Gillum?and the Left?s socialist dreams around the country.

Our Heros, The "Hooah" or "Ooh-Rah" Place / McCain...POWs...Shameful...
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:37:39 AM »
Eighteen months ago, TAC publisher Ron Unz discovered an astonishing account of the role the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, had played in suppressing information about what happened to American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam. Below, we present in full Sydney Schanberg?s explosive story.

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn?t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain?s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain?s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn?t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington?and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that ?men were left behind.? This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number?the documents indicate probably hundreds?of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

Mass of Evidence

The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What?s more, the Pentagon?s POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of ?debunking? POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon?s performance was an insider, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon?s position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general?s briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war?s end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a Feb. 2, 1973 formal letter to Hanoi?s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in ?postwar reconstruction? aid ?without any political conditions.? But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party ?in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.? That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored?and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners?just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi?s desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men?those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture?were eventually executed.

My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few?if any?are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the Agency?s Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted ?off the record,? but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans? groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain?s role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

The Arizona senator, now the Republican candidate for president, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon?s, and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief, and national security adviser, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H.W. Bush?s Defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.

McCain?s Role

An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called ?the Truth Bill? and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: ?[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.?

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as ?the McCain Bill,? suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge?only records that revealed no POW secrets?it turned the Truth Bill on its head. The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios, and justifications for not releasing any information at all?even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying, ?Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.? A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said, ?This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington.? He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, ?would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks.?

McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That?s an odd argument to make. Were staffers only ?willing to work? if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence?documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs? sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned?has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the ?bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.? He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as ?hoaxers,? ?charlatans,? ?conspiracy theorists,? and ?dime-store Rambos.?

Some of McCain?s fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn?t share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter?a response to McCain?s stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote, ?John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ?last known alive?? Does this include some of your fellow POWs??

It?s not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his postwar behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo?to try to break down other prisoners?and was broadcast over Hanoi?s state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain.

All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the ?Crown Prince,? something McCain acknowledges in the book.

Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. ?I felt faithless and couldn?t control my despair,? he writes, revealing that he made two ?feeble? attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in ?dread? that his father would find out about the confession. ?I still wince,? he writes, ?when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.?

He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but ?never discussed it at length??and the admiral, who died in 1981, didn?t indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes, ?I only recently learned that the tape ? had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father.?

Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.

Many stories have been written about McCain?s explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loath to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: ?This is a man not at peace with himself.?

He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain?s mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: if American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that?s something the American public ought to know about.

10 Key Pieces of Evidence That Men Were Left Behind

1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on Jan. 27, 1973 without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, U.S. intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on Feb. 2, 1973 about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part, ?Laos POW List Shows 9 from U.S.?Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing.? And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials ?believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher.? The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting?nor did any other mainstream news organization.

2. Two Defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data?letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: ?I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion ? some were left behind.? This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: ?Tonight,? Nixon said, ?the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in 12 years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.? Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied, ?One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States ? was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters?? This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed ?credible? in the agents? reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they ?do not constitute evidence? that men were alive.

4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a ?third party??namely Thailand?they could not be regarded as authentic. That?s some Catch-22: the U.S. trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren?t valid.

Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On Dec. 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft ?at 1230 hours.? Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director?s office in Langley. It read, in part: ?The prisoners ? are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places ? POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving.? Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared ?invalid? by Washington because the information came from a ?third party? and thus could not be deemed credible.

5. A series of what appeared to be distress signals from Vietnam and Laos were captured by the government?s satellite system in the late 1980s and early ?90s. (Before that period, no search for such signals had been put in place.) Not a single one of these markings was ever deemed credible. To the layman?s eye, the satellite photos, some of which I?ve seen, show markings on the ground that are identical to the signals that American pilots had been specifically trained to use in their survival courses?such as certain letters, like X or K, drawn in a special way. Other markings were the secret four-digit authenticator numbers given to individual pilots. But time and again, the Pentagon, backed by the CIA, insisted that humans had not made these markings. What were they, then? ?Shadows and vegetation,? the government said, insisting that the markings were merely normal topographical contours like saw-grass or rice-paddy divider walls. It was the automatic response?shadows and vegetation. On one occasion, a Pentagon photo expert refused to go along. It was a missing man?s name gouged into a field, he said, not trampled grass or paddy berms. His bosses responded by bringing in an outside contractor who found instead, yes, shadows and vegetation. This refrain led Bob Taylor, a highly regarded investigator on the Senate committee staff who had examined the photographic evidence, to comment to me: ?If grass can spell out people?s names and secret digit codes, then I have a newfound respect for grass.?

6. On Nov. 11, 1992, Dolores Alfond, the sister of missing airman Capt. Victor Apodaca and chair of the National Alliance of Families, an organization of relatives of POW/MIAs, testified at one of the Senate committee?s public hearings. She asked for information about data the government had gathered from electronic devices used in a classified program known as PAVE SPIKE.

The devices were motion sensors, dropped by air, designed to pick up enemy troop movements. Shaped on one end like a spike with an electronic pod and antenna on top, they were designed to stick in the ground as they fell. Air Force planes would drop them along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other supply routes. The devices, though primarily sensors, also had rescue capabilities. Someone on the ground?a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor gang ?could manually enter data into the sensor. All data were regularly collected electronically by U.S. planes flying overhead. Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors?as U.S. pilots had been trained to do?no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 U.S. POWs who were lost in Laos. Alfond added, according to the transcript, ?This PAVE SPIKE intelligence is seamless, but the committee has not discussed it or released what it knows about PAVE SPIKE.?

McCain attended that committee hearing specifically to confront Alfond because of her criticism of the panel?s work. He bellowed and berated her for quite a while. His face turning anger-pink, he accused her of ?denigrating? his ?patriotism.? The bullying had its effect?she began to cry.

After a pause Alfond recovered and tried to respond to his scorching tirade, but McCain simply turned away and stormed out of the room. The PAVE SPIKE file has never been declassified. We still don?t know anything about those 20 POWs.

7. As previously mentioned, in April 1993 in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 U.S. prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang?s report added: ?This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number ? and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo?s instructions.? The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

The reaction to the document was immediate. After two decades of denying it had kept any prisoners, Hanoi responded to the revelation by calling the transcript a fabrication.

Similarly, Washington?which had over the same two decades refused to recant Nixon?s declaration that all the prisoners had been returned?also shifted into denial mode. The Pentagon issued a statement saying the document ?is replete with errors, omissions and propaganda that seriously damage its credibility,? and that the numbers were ?inconsistent with our own accounting.?

Neither American nor Vietnamese officials offered any rationale for who would plant a forged document in the Soviet archives and why they would do so. Certainly neither Washington nor Moscow?closely allied with Hanoi?would have any motive, since the contents were embarrassing to all parties, and since both the United States and Vietnam had consistently denied the existence of unreturned prisoners. The Russian archivists simply said the document was ?authentic.?

8. In his 2002 book, Inside Delta Force, retired Command Sgt. Maj. Eric Haney described how in 1981 his special forces unit, after rigorous training for a POW rescue mission, had the mission suddenly aborted, revived a year later, and again abruptly aborted. Haney writes that this abandonment of captured soldiers ate at him for years and left him disillusioned about his government?s vows to leave no men behind. ?Years later, I spoke at length with a former highly placed member of the North Vietnamese diplomatic corps, and this person asked me point-blank: ?Why did the Americans never attempt to recover their remaining POWs after the conclusion of the war??? Haney writes. He continued, saying that he came to believe senior government officials had called off those missions in 1981 and 1982. (His account is on pages 314 to 321 of my paperback copy of the book.)

9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan?s presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice President Bush, CIA director William Casey, and National Security Adviser Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.

Allen was allowed to testify behind closed doors and no information was released. But a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Robert Caldwell, obtained the portion relating to the ransom offer and reported on it. The ransom request was for $4 billion, Allen testified. He said he told Reagan that ?it would be worth the president?s going along and let?s have the negotiation.? When his testimony appeared in the Union-Tribune, Allen quickly wrote a letter to the panel, this time not under oath, recanting the ransom story and claiming his memory had played tricks on him. His new version was that some POW activists had asked him about such an offer in a meeting that took place in 1986, when he was no longer in government. ?It appears,? he said in the letter, ?that there never was a 1981 meeting about the return of POW/MIAs for $4 billion.?

But the episode didn?t end there. A Treasury agent on Secret Service duty in the White House, John Syphrit, came forward to say he had overheard part of the ransom conversation in the Roosevelt Room in 1981, when the offer was discussed by Reagan, Bush, Casey, Allen, and other cabinet officials.

Syphrit, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told the committee he was willing to testify, but they would have to subpoena him. Treasury opposed his appearance, arguing that voluntary testimony would violate the trust between the Secret Service and those it protects. It was clear that coming in on his own could cost Syphrit his career. The committee voted 7 to 4 not to subpoena him.

In the committee?s final report, dated Jan. 13, 1993 (on page 284), the panel not only chastised Syphrit for his failure to testify without a subpoena (?The committee regrets that the Secret Service agent was unwilling ??), but noted that since Allen had recanted his testimony about the Roosevelt Room briefing, Syphrit?s testimony would have been ?at best, uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness.? The committee omitted any mention that it had made a decision not to ask the other two surviving witnesses, Bush and Reagan, to give testimony under oath. (Casey had died.)

10. In 1990, Col. Millard Peck, a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam then working at the DIA as chief of the Asia Division for Current Intelligence, asked for the job of chief of the DIA?s Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. His reason for seeking the transfer, which was not a promotion, was that he had heard from officials throughout the Pentagon that the POW/MIA office had been turned into a waste-disposal unit for getting rid of unwanted evidence about live prisoners?a ?black hole,? these officials called it.

Peck explained all this in his telling resignation letter of Feb. 12, 1991, eight months after he had taken the job. He said he viewed it as ?sort of a holy crusade? to restore the integrity of the office but was defeated by the Pentagon machine. The four-page, single-spaced letter was scathing, describing the putative search for missing men as ?a cover-up.?

Peck charged that, at its top echelons, the Pentagon had embraced a ?mind-set to debunk? all evidence of prisoners left behind. ?That national leaders continue to address the prisoner of war and missing in action issue as the ?highest national priority,? is a travesty,? he wrote. ?The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort, and may never have been. ? Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow through on any of the sightings, nor is there a responsive ?action arm? to routinely and aggressively pursue leads.?

?I became painfully aware,? his letter continued, ?that I was not really in charge of my own office, but was merely a figurehead or whipping boy for a larger and totally Machiavellian group of players outside of DIA ? I feel strongly that this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity.? He named no names but said these players are ?unscrupulous people in the Government or associated with the Government? who ?have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows, while using the [POW] Office as a ?toxic waste dump? to bury the whole ?mess? out of sight.? Peck added that ?military officers ? who in some manner have ?rocked the boat? [have] quickly come to grief.?

Peck concluded, ?From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with ?smoke and mirrors? to stall the issue until it dies a natural death.?

The disillusioned colonel not only resigned but asked to be retired immediately from active military service. The press never followed up.

My Pursuit of the Story

I covered the war in Cambodia and Vietnam, but came to the POW information only slowly afterward, when military officers I knew from that conflict began coming to me with maps and POW sightings and depositions by Vietnamese witnesses.

I was then city editor of the New York Times, no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later, in 1991, when I was an op-ed columnist at Newsday, the aforementioned special Senate committee was formed to probe the POW issue. I saw this as an opening and immersed myself in the reporting.

At Newsday, I wrote 36 columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain?s key role.

Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair, and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice, and APBnews.com. Mainstream publications just weren?t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.

Serving in the Army in Germany during the Cold War and witnessing combat firsthand as a reporter in India and Indochina led me to have great respect for those who fight for their country. To my mind, we dishonored U.S. troops when our government failed to bring them home from Vietnam after the 591 others were released?and then claimed they didn?t exist. And politicians dishonor themselves when they pay lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers only to leave untold numbers behind, rationalizing to themselves that it?s merely one of the unfortunate costs of war.

John McCain?now campaigning for the White House as a war hero, maverick, and straight shooter?owes the voters some explanations. The press were long ago wooed and won by McCain?s seeming openness, Lone Ranger pose, and self-deprecating humor, which may partly explain their ignoring his record on POWs. In the numerous, lengthy McCain profiles that have appeared of late in papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I may have missed a clause or a sentence along the way, but I have not found a single mention of his role in burying information about POWs. Television and radio news programs have been similarly silent.

Reporters simply never ask him about it. They didn?t when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2000. They haven?t now, despite the fact that we?re in the midst of another war?a war he supports and one that has echoes of Vietnam. The only explanation McCain has ever offered for his leadership on legislation that seals POW files is that he believes the release of such information would only stir up fresh grief for the families of those who were never accounted for in Vietnam. Of the scores of POW families I?ve met over the years, only a few have said they want the books closed without knowing what happened to their men. All the rest say that not knowing is exactly what grieves them.

Isn?t it possible that what really worries those intent on keeping the POW documents buried is the public disgust that the contents of those files would generate?

How the Senate Committee Perpetuated the Debunking

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn?t contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached. Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked ?credible? that covered POW sightings through 1989: ?There can be no doubt that POWs were alive ? as late as 1989.? That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

This internecine struggle continued right up to the committee?s last official act?the issuance of its final report. The Executive Summary, which comprised the first 43 pages, was essentially a whitewash, saying that only ?a small number? of POWs could have been left behind in 1973 and that there was little likelihood that any prisoners could still be alive. The Washington press corps, judging from its coverage, seems to have read only this air-brushed summary, which had been closely controlled.

But the rest of the 1,221-page Report on POW/MIAs was quite different. Sprinkled throughout are pieces of hard evidence that directly contradict the summary?s conclusions. This documentation established that a significant number of prisoners were left behind?and that top government officials knew this from the start. These candid findings were inserted by committee staffers who had unearthed the evidence and were determined not to allow the truth to be sugar-coated.

If the Washington press corps did actually read the body of the report and then failed to report its contents, that would be a scandal of its own. The press would then have knowingly ignored the steady stream of findings in the body of the report that refuted the summary and indicated that the number of abandoned men was not small but considerable. The report gave no figures but estimates from various branches of the intelligence community ranged up to 600. The lowest estimate was 150.

Highlights of the report that undermine the benign conclusions of the Executive Summary:

? Pages 207-209: These three pages contain revelations of what appear to be either massive intelligence failures or bad intentions?or both. The report says that until the committee brought up the subject in 1992, no branch of the intelligence community that dealt with analysis of satellite and lower-altitude photos had ever been informed of the specific distress signals U.S. personnel were trained to use in the Vietnam War, nor had they ever been tasked to look for any such signals at all from possible prisoners on the ground.

The committee decided, however, not to seek a review of old photography, saying it ?would cause the expenditure of large amounts of manpower and money with no expectation of success.? It might also have turned up lots of distress-signal numbers that nobody in the government was looking for from 1973 to 1991, when the committee opened shop. That would have made it impossible for the committee to write the Executive Summary it seemed determined to write.

The failure gets worse. The committee also discovered that the DIA, which kept the lists of authenticator numbers for pilots and other personnel, could not ?locate? the lists of these codes for Army, Navy, or Marine pilots. They had lost or destroyed the records. The Air Force list was the only one intact, as it had been preserved by a different intelligence branch.

The report concluded, ?In theory, therefore, if a POW still living in captivity [today], were to attempt to communicate by ground signal, smuggling out a note or by whatever means possible, and he used his personal authenticator number to confirm his identity, the U.S. government would be unable to provide such confirmation, if his number happened to be among those numbers DIA cannot locate.?

It?s worth remembering that throughout the period when this intelligence disaster occurred?from the moment the treaty was signed in 1973 until 1991?the White House told the public that it had given the search for POWs and POW information the ?highest national priority.?

? Page 13: Even in the Executive Summary, the report acknowledges the existence of clear intelligence, made known to government officials early on, that important numbers of captured U.S. POWs were not on Hanoi?s repatriation list. After Hanoi released its list (showing only ten names from Laos?nine military men and one civilian), President Nixon sent a message on Feb. 2, 1973 to Hanoi?s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong saying, ?U.S. records show there are 317 American military men unaccounted for in Laos and it is inconceivable that only ten of these men would be held prisoner in Laos.?

Nixon was right. It was inconceivable. Then why did the president, less than two months later, on March 29, 1973, announce on national television that ?all of our American POWs are on their way home??

On April 13, 1973, just after all 591 men on Hanoi?s official list had returned to American soil, the Pentagon got into step with the president and announced that there was no evidence of any further live prisoners in Indochina (this is on page 248).

? Page 91: A lengthy footnote provides more confirmation of the White House?s knowledge of abandoned POWs. The footnote reads, ?In a telephone conversation with Select Committee Vice-Chairman Bob Smith on December 29, 1992, Dr. Kissinger said that he had informed President Nixon during the 60-day period after the peace agreement was signed that U.S. intelligence officials believed that the list of prisoners captured in Laos was incomplete. According to Dr. Kissinger, the President responded by directing that the exchange of prisoners on the lists go forward, but added that a failure to account for the additional prisoners after Operation Homecoming would lead to a resumption of bombing. Dr. Kissinger said that the President was later unwilling to carry through on this threat.?

When Kissinger learned of the footnote while the final editing of the committee report was in progress,he and his lawyers lobbied fiercely through two Republican allies on the panel?one of them was John McCain?to get the footnote expunged. The effort failed. The footnote stayed intact.

? Pages 85-86: The committee report quotes Kissinger from his memoirs, writing solely in reference to prisoners in Laos: ?We knew of at least 80 instances in which an American serviceman had been captured alive and subsequently disappeared. The evidence consisted either of voice communications from the ground in advance of capture or photographs and names published by the Communists. Yet none of these men was on the list of POWs handed over after the Agreement.?

Then why did he swear under oath to the committee in 1992 that he never had any information that specific, named soldiers were captured alive and hadn?t been returned by Vietnam?

? Page 89: In the middle of the prisoner repatriation and U.S. troop-withdrawal process agreed to in the treaty, when it became clear that Hanoi was not releasing everyone it held, a furious chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Thomas Moorer, issued an order halting the troop withdrawal until Hanoi complied with the agreement. He cited in particular the known prisoners in Laos. The order was retracted by President Nixon the next day. In 1992, Moorer, by then retired, testified under oath to the committee that his order had received the approval of the president, the national security adviser, and the secretary of Defense. Nixon, however, in a letter to the committee, wrote, ?I do not recall directing Admiral Moorer to send this cable.?


The report did not include the following information: behind closed doors, a senior intelligence officer had testified to the POW committee that when Moorer?s order was rescinded, the angry admiral sent a ?back-channel? message to other key military commanders telling them that Washington was abandoning known live prisoners. ?Nixon and Kissinger are at it again,? he wrote. ?SecDef and SecState have been cut out of the loop.? In 1973, the witness was working in the office that processed this message. His name and his testimony are still classified. A source present for the testimony provided me with this information and also reported that in that same time period, Moorer had stormed into Defense Secretary Schlesinger?s office and, pounding on his desk, yelled: ?The bastards have still got our men.? Schlesinger, in his own testimony to the committee a few months later, was asked about?and corroborated?this account.

? Pages 95-96: In early April 1973, Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements ?summoned? Dr. Roger Shields, then head of the Pentagon?s POW/MIA Task Force, to his office to work out ?a new public formulation? of the POW issue; now that the White House had declared all prisoners to have been returned, a new spin was needed. Shields, under oath, described the meeting to the committee. He said Clements told him, ?All the American POWs are dead.? Shields said he replied: ?You can?t say that.? Clements shot back: ?You didn?t hear me. They are all dead.? Shields testified that at that moment he thought he was going to be fired, but he escaped from his boss?s office still holding his job.

? Pages 97-98: A couple of days later, on April 11, 1973, a day before Shields was to hold a Pentagon press conference on POWs, he and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, then the deputy national security adviser, went to the Oval Office to discuss the ?new public formulation? and its presentation with President Nixon.

The next day, reporters right off asked Shields about missing POWs. Shields fudged his answers. He said, ?We have no indications at this time that there are any Americans alive in Indochina.? But he went on to say that there had not been ?a complete accounting? of those lost in Laos and that the Pentagon would press on to account for the missing?a seeming acknowledgement that some Americans were still alive and unaccounted for.

The press, however, seized on Shields?s denials. One headline read, ?POW Unit Boss: No Living GIs Left in Indochina.?

? Page 97: The POW committee, knowing that Nixon taped all his meetings in the Oval Office, sought the tape of that April 11, 1973 Nixon-Shields-Scowcroft meeting to find out what Nixon had been told and what he had said about the evidence of POWs still in Indochina. The committee also knew there had been other White House meetings that centered on intelligence about live POWs. A footnote on page 97 states that Nixon?s lawyers said they would provide access to the April 11 tape ?only if the Committee agreed not to seek any other White House recordings from this time period.? The footnote says that the committee rejected these terms and got nothing. The committee never made public this request for Nixon tapes until the brief footnote in its 1993 report.

McCain?s Catch-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee?s full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a ?conspiracy theory.? But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security adviser, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington?s terms. That president seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi?s hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for president is the contemporary politician most responsible for keeping the truth about this matter hidden. Yet he says he?s the right man to be the commander in chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly, ?We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence?though no proof?to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America?s military involvement in Vietnam.?

?Evidence though no proof.? Clearly, no one could meet McCain?s standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

To this reporter, this sounds like a significant story and a long overdue opportunity for the press to finally dig into the archives to set the historical record straight?and even pose some direct questions to the candidate.

CIEMR / Think November isn't important?
« on: September 03, 2018, 06:54:10 PM »
It all hangs in the balance...

CIEMR / Send an email to the President??
« on: September 01, 2018, 10:45:54 AM »
I send words of encouragement and support on what is becoming a periodic basis, it seems. Should you be similarly motivated, here is the address:


Faith Discussion / In a Storm?
« on: August 26, 2018, 12:08:38 PM »
Psalm 107

1 Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
    his love endures forever.

2 Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story?
    those he redeemed from the hand of the foe,
3 those he gathered from the lands,
    from east and west, from north and south.[a]

4 Some wandered in desert wastelands,
    finding no way to a city where they could settle.
5 They were hungry and thirsty,
    and their lives ebbed away.
6 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble,
    and he delivered them from their distress.
7 He led them by a straight way
    to a city where they could settle.
8 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
    and his wonderful deeds for mankind,
9 for he satisfies the thirsty
    and fills the hungry with good things.

10 Some sat in darkness, in utter darkness,
    prisoners suffering in iron chains,
11 because they rebelled against God?s commands
    and despised the plans of the Most High.
12 So he subjected them to bitter labor;
    they stumbled, and there was no one to help.
13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
    and he saved them from their distress.
14 He brought them out of darkness, the utter darkness,
    and broke away their chains.
15 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
    and his wonderful deeds for mankind,
16 for he breaks down gates of bronze
    and cuts through bars of iron.

17 Some became fools through their rebellious ways
    and suffered affliction because of their iniquities.
18 They loathed all food
    and drew near the gates of death.
19 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble,
    and he saved them from their distress.
20 He sent out his word and healed them;
    he rescued them from the grave.
21 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
    and his wonderful deeds for mankind.
22 Let them sacrifice thank offerings
    and tell of his works with songs of joy.

23 Some went out on the sea in ships;
    they were merchants on the mighty waters.
24 They saw the works of the Lord,
    his wonderful deeds in the deep.
25 For he spoke and stirred up a tempest
    that lifted high the waves.
26 They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths;
    in their peril their courage melted away.
27 They reeled and staggered like drunkards;
    they were at their wits? end.
28 Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble,
    and he brought them out of their distress.
29 He stilled the storm to a whisper;
    the waves of the sea were hushed.
30 They were glad when it grew calm,
    and he guided them to their desired haven.
31 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love
    and his wonderful deeds for mankind.
32 Let them exalt him in the assembly of the people
    and praise him in the council of the elders.

33 He turned rivers into a desert,
    flowing springs into thirsty ground,
34 and fruitful land into a salt waste,
    because of the wickedness of those who lived there.
35 He turned the desert into pools of water
    and the parched ground into flowing springs;
36 there he brought the hungry to live,
    and they founded a city where they could settle.
37 They sowed fields and planted vineyards
    that yielded a fruitful harvest;
38 he blessed them, and their numbers greatly increased,
    and he did not let their herds diminish.

39 Then their numbers decreased, and they were humbled
    by oppression, calamity and sorrow;
40 he who pours contempt on nobles
    made them wander in a trackless waste.
41 But he lifted the needy out of their affliction
    and increased their families like flocks.
42 The upright see and rejoice,
    but all the wicked shut their mouths.

43 Let the one who is wise heed these things
    and ponder the loving deeds of the Lord

Faith Discussion / Any Connection?????
« on: August 26, 2018, 11:11:08 AM »
The failure of the Republican Party to defund planned parenthood is a monumental failure in my view. These so called conservatives failed to follow the teachings of Christ and abandoned hundreds of thousands of unborn, defenseless, children. Although I am independent, owning to no party, I am growing fiercely against this fake party. In my view the only choice we have is the most evil or the next most evil, with communists (Socialists) and some hippies hovering at the flanks.

What a failure!

And shortly afterward, John McCain, posterboy for the RINO traitors, dies...Hmmm, the timing of it makes one wonder. God cannot be pleased by this senseless destruction of his unborn creations!

I stand against this and with my Lord.

Senator Rand Paul rightly blasted the leadership of his own party this week when they blocked an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. The government will continue handing hundreds of millions of dollars to a company that executes over 300 thousand human children every year. As the Republicans are in charge of the government, and have taken active measures to prevent the severing of the abortion industry's tax payer pipeline, it must be said that the Republican Party is funding Planned Parenthood. The Republican Party is taking money out of our pockets and giving it to the blood-soaked hands of baby killers. This is no longer just a Democrat initiative.

The Republicans are idiots as well as cowards, so they are also funding the Democrat Party while they fund abortions. Planned Parenthood, despite being a publicly subsidized organization, is somehow allowed to funnel millions back into the coffers of Democrat campaigns. This alone is enough reason to defund them. Though the millions of dead babies should be an even more pressing concern.

It's true that Trump partially defunded the organization a few months ago. By changing certain Health and Human Services rules, Planned Parenthood will be deprived of 50 million tax dollars every year. That's fine, but it's not even a drop in the bucket. It still leaves about half a billion dollars on the table. Trump did about as much as he could on his own. Congress needs to act on the rest, and it has not. We gave Republicans total control of the government and they have not even managed to stop the insanely unethical practice of funding abortion conglomerates.

Defunding Planned Parenthood should have been square one. A truly "pro-life" party would have gotten that done within the first week that it had the power to do so. But the Republican Party is not pro-life. Neither is it pro-small government or pro-financial responsibility. It would only need to fall into one of those categories to defund Planned Parenthood. It claims to fall into all three, despite rarely providing evidence on any count.

The Republican Party's subsidizing of the abortion industry is the greatest act of political cowardice and betrayal I have seen in my lifetime. What makes it worse is that I am not at all surprised. I expect nothing less from such a collection of empty suits, liars, and pushovers.

CIEMR / We really need to pay attention to this
« on: August 25, 2018, 10:41:16 AM »
Ya know, either this gets resolved by the rule of law or we will have to fight to restore our nation at some future point. The enem is all around us and firmly entrenched All those who have prepped to get away from population centers is wise indeed. I just can't see this ending any other way than is some sort of civil war. Well, that is if the bulk of America finds the spine it lost a couple decades ago...!

There is an interesting piece running around the internet that someone has put together. Other than Lisa H. Barsoomian, the connections are true. Indeed, the characters in the play are all incredibly connected and it certainly appears that there is a deep and dark conspiracy against Trump. But this is not against Trump simply because they do not like him personally. This is about removing an outsider from Washington. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

The New Yorker has revealed part of the conspiracy has been highlighted by a memo which has surfaced from an Obama aid who set up a war room to undermine Trump and his foreign policy. They are managing much of the media. A new report from The New Yorker reveals some details of a ?conspiracy memo? that has been circulating behind the curtain for the past year. What seems to be operating is a massive campaign to actually disrupt the Trump Administration and prevent it from actually managing anything. This is far worse than pretend Russian hacking. This is a real covert ops to prevent the opposition from doing anything and this undermines the government ? not just Trump. This is very strange and may be one reason in the years ahead we face a civil war.

Indeed, there is a lot more going on behind the curtain than people realize. Don?t forget, it was Lois Lerner who abused the IRS to target conservative groups who wanted to drain the swamp before Trump. Lerner argued that her testimony should be sealed and that she feared for her life if everyone she targeted using the IRS found out. She was given full paid leave from the IRS on May 23, 2013. In May 2014, Lerner was declared in contempt of Congress in connection with the invocation of her Fifth Amendment not to testify on the matter before a congressional committee. So she took the 5th claiming it might criminally expose here, and then Comey declares she committed no crime and would not prosecute her.

You have to understand that refusing to reform is why John Boehner was forced out of the Republicans. There was an internal revolution when the Tea Party was elected and this is who was targeted by Lerner. The revolution against Boehner took place because he tried to keep the status quo. Lerner used the IRS to go after the Tea Party and many believe that Boehner was behind that as well. He did remove every Congressman from any financial committee if they supported the Tea Party or Ron Paul. I know some of the people he retaliated against. When the Tea Party people arrived in Washington, Boehner told them they would vote how he directed. They said no way. They were elected for real reform. This is why Trump is where he is. This draining the swamp began before him. Boehner was retaliating against the same people Lerner targeted. Coincidence?


Connecting some dots

Here?s what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together. It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it?s very important??

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A Grand Jury had been impaneled.  Governments from around the world had donated to the ?Charity?. Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those ?Donations? to the Clinton Foundation were declared. Now you would think that an honest investigator would be able to figure this out.

Look who took over this investigation in 2005: None other than James Comey; Coincidence? Guess who was transferred into the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? None other than, Lois ?Be on The Look Out? (BOLO) Lerner. Isn?t that interesting? But this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?

No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame?

Another coincidence (just an anomaly in statistics and chances), but it was Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common?  They all were briefed and/or were front-line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation. Another coincidence, right?

Fast forward to 2009?.

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, official government business, on her own personal email server. The Uranium One ?issue? comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, supposedly looking out for America?s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn?t, America got absolutely nothing out of it. However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech; then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

Who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney?s Office in Maryland? None other than, Rod Rosenstein. And what happened to the informant?

The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise? Very soon after; the sale was approved $145 million dollars in ?donations? made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division? None other than, ? Lois Lerner. Ok, that?s all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right?

Let?s fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 ?investigations? the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server. He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her ?Public Service? as Secretary of State which was required by law. He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover-up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this?? they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Now, this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013? None other than James Comey; who secured 17 no-bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer? Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the ?Clinton Email Investigation? after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner ?Matter? at the Internal Revenue Service and he exonerates her. Nope?. couldn?t find any crimes there.

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy. They didn?t even convene a Grand Jury!

Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true ?Gangsta? Comey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. Do you see the pattern?

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.

FISA Abuse, political espionage?.. pick a crime, any crime, chances are?? this group and a few others did it:

All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted.
All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves
All connected in one way or another to the Clinton?s.
They are like battery acid; they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have these two destroyed?

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.  Let us not forget that Comey?s brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation?s taxes.

The person that is the common denominator to all the crimes above and still doing her evil escape legal maneuvers at the top of the 3 Letter USA Agencies? Yep, that would be Hillary R. Clinton.

Now, who is LISA BARSOOMIAN? Let?s learn a little about Mrs. Lisa H. Barsoomian?s background.

Lisa H. Barsoomian, an Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law, is a prot?g? of James Comey and Robert Mueller. Barsoomian, with her boss R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998. She was a former assistant U.S. attorney and represented various people in government only from that position.


? Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing the Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. Although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office of the US Attorney ?

It?s a cover, no big deal right? What does one more attorney with ties to the US intelligence community really matter?  It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix ?. and last but not least Mueller?s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians. Clapper and Comey admitted that they were even spying on Trump during the election.

Why does Barsoomian ?  merit any mention?


She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?s WIFE!
Categories: Corruption

CIEMR / Open Letter to Brennen
« on: August 25, 2018, 09:21:13 AM »
By Charles Faddis
Mr. Faddis? letter was first published in andmagazine.com.
Charles Faddis is a retired CIA operations and case officer, and the author of ?Beyond Repair: The Decline And Fall Of The CIA?

Dear Mr. Brennan,
I understand that you are a political opponent of the current President of the United States. I understand that you are an American citizen, and you have the right to freedom of speech. I encourage you to utilize that right. I encourage you to speak your mind. I encourage you, as I do all Americans, to be heard.
I implore you, however to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever. None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm?s way. You have never heard a shot fired in anger. You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade either.

In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period. While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story. Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.

All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda. There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself. It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.

As CIA Director for Barack Obama you:
-Presided over the Iran nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to escape from decades of containment and set the Middle East on fire.
-Watched while Russia annexed Crimea and then reestablished itself as a hostile force in the Middle East.
-Dithered and tinkered with organizational wiring diagrams at Headquarters while China annexed and fortified the entire South China Sea.

The extent to which you are tied directly to the Clintons, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party is clearly evident in the emotional nature of your recent commentary.

Ever since this president was elected there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him. This has been an unprecedented attempt to undermine the stability of the republic in order to achieve partisan political advantage. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.

Now as the Mueller investigation collapses of its own weight and the extent of this conspiracy is beginning to become clear you are in evident panic. You should be.

You are free to do as you wish politically. Stop representing to the American people that there is anything else at play. You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.

Meanwhile, KY. Senator Rand Paul?s assessment of you stands:
?John Brennan started out his adulthood by voting for the Communist Party presidential candidate. He?s now ending his career by showing himself to be the most biased, bigoted, over-the-top, hyperbolic sort of unhinged director of the CIA we?ve ever had.?

CIEMR / Love this guy!
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:54:51 PM »
What a leader

What a change!

Our Heros, The "Hooah" or "Ooh-Rah" Place / Good ones!
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:53:21 PM »

Our Heros, The "Hooah" or "Ooh-Rah" Place / No NFL for me
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:52:01 PM »
Overpaid brats

CIEMR / small lesson
« on: August 24, 2018, 02:53:25 PM »

In today?s world with President Trump getting hit daily I decided a little Bible Lesson might be appropriate.


Remember what Jesus said: 'Goats on the left, sheep on the right' (Matthew 25:33).


Jesus also told Peter that if he wanted to catch fish do it from the right side of the boat He did and filled the boat with fish.


John 21:6 (NIV) ... He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish."


Origin of Left & Right.. I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left".


By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV) - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."


Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen


It surely can't get any simpler than that.




Spelling Lesson: The last four letters in American......... I Can


                              The last four letters in Republican........ I Can


                              The last four letters in Democrats........ Rats


End of lesson! ...Test to follow on November 6, 2018.


Remember, November 2018 is to be set aside as rodent removal month.


Please share this Bible Lesson with all your friends and email buddies to help achieve that goal.


Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be

Our Heros, The "Hooah" or "Ooh-Rah" Place / Stars
« on: August 19, 2018, 08:41:12 PM »
Seen a few of those stars myself!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23