Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE?

And I'm talking about a crime committed by John Kerry. A serious crime.

We haven't mentioned this before ... but there was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. Now ... let's emphasize this point. These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder .. they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. Well ... the idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected.

The reports of that Kansas City meeting are disturbing enough. It gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Things get even more interesting when you learn that Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. Yes ... John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of congress.

Now when these reports first came out the sKerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that sKerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Uh oh ... big oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, sKerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room ... he was there. Now it seems that the sKerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't.

Time to backtrack. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting, the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that sKerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."

"Historical footnote?" The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?"

We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned? Well big whoop! You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials ... and you merely resign? Hey! How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress? Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities?

I know ... we've been through this before ... but what if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? Come on. We all know what would be happening now. The Democrats and their loyal media myrmidons would be howling in outrage. There would be demands for investigations ... criminal investigations ... and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. Believe me, it would be a major story.

With Kerry and his anti-war pals ... no media outrage. No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report --- but that's pretty much it.

This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront. Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. If someone else pushes this story into the limelight, they'll groan a bit and give it a degree of due diligence. They're just as happy, though, to see it just go away.

So here's what you have to ask yourself. Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress ... and then did nothing about it?

Think about it. November is getting closer.

I guess I'll be blunt.
I think that any elected official who grossly abuses the power bestowed upon him / her, or helps enact unconstitutional legislation that serves this country no good purpose needs to be removed from office with due dilligence, or lacking that, executed.
It seems to me that with the passing of time, the elected officials are using their positions for self servitude.
Sure, they try to placate the masses by doing things seemingly for our collective benefit, but unless there is "something in it for them", very little gets accomplished.
That is not to say that there are not good politicians who truly have our best national interests at heart, it is just that they are far and few between.
Once they are held accountable for their misdeeds, I think they will start to remember that old phrase, something about by the people and for the people.
That a group of people got together to discuss executing politicians does not surprise me.
Ranger

Sounds like conspiracy to commit murder to me. Kind of a shame that there are others on this board that aren't bothered by that.

It is also troublesome that anyone would want such a man to be president of the United States. He should be investigated and if found to be a part of such a conspiracy, tried. miles

Yeh...when you come right down to it, isn't that what the Second Amendment is for?

I remember hearing that "B-1 Bob" Dornan from California got banned from the floor of the House once because he lost his temper in a Second Amendment discussion where somebody (Maxine Waters? Sheila Jackson Lee? Dianne Feinstein? Somebody like that--can't remember) was objecting because it allowed nasty, smelly hunters to take scary guns into the woods and shoot Bambi. Reportedly, he surged to his feet and yelled, "The Second Amendment isn't there so that people can go into the forest and shoot Bambi: it's there so that people can come to Washington and shoot politicians!" Or some such: I may have the quote slightly wrong.

Who's read Unintended Consequences by John Ross?

ME!

Maybe for keeping the government under control but not for assination of members of the government by any person that does not like their politics. miles

That is precisly what the Second Amendment is all about! Assassination is a CRIME.

The hope is that if members of the government know that just about anyone off the street has the power to assassinate them, if he should so choose, they'll take care to arrange their politics so that nobody dislikes it that much. That way, maybe nobody will have to be assassinated after all, sunshine and butterflies will be everywhere, and we'll all live in The Big Rock Candy Mountain.

As much as I like seeing Kerry discredited, his simply being present at that meeting doesn't mean squat. I went to a SDS forum when I was in college just to hear first-hand what those radicals had to say. There were Nam vets on the panel and in the audience. There were photos being taken of participants (I made sure to turn my head away). Being there didn't mean that I or any of the others was agreeing with them.

It seems as if MR. Kerry has trouble remembering that he was even there. He probably has trouble remembering what his position was. He is trying to cover up something. miles