Archive for the ‘Vietnam’ Category

Treason? Really?

July 11, 2017

Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary’s running mate in her losing campaign, actually said that Donald Trump Jr. may have committed treason by meeting with a Russian lawyer. Kaine is a windbag of foolish hyperbole and this is a perfect example of the ignorant rhetoric being spewed from the left.

First of all, Donald Trump Jr. was a private citizen at the time, not a government employee, who met with a “lawyer”, not a Russian “government official”, and all involved said nothing came from that meeting. There were no secrets or documents bandied about and there are no allegations of any type of agreements being made during that meeting.

Secondly, attempting to get dirt on Hillary is not a crime, a misdemeanor, or anything of the sort. It is just common campaign activity that Hillary and Bill (and Kaine) certainly know about. According to a Politico investigation, Ukrainian government officials were passing documents to Hillary’s campaign in an attempt to help undermine Trump’s campaign. Where is the outrage?

Thirdly, treason is a high crime and it is very rare for someone to be convicted of treason. The last person to be convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting American prisoners. Treason is much too serious of an offense to be thrown around indiscriminately for political purposes.

If Tim Kaine wants to accuse someone of treason, perhaps he should look to Jane Fonda. Her actions in Hanoi in 1972 during the Vietnam War fell within the parameters of being treasonous. Henry Mark Holzer’s book, “Aid and Comfort”, is a detailed study of Fonda’s actions and it clearly shows that a case for treason could be made against her.

Had Jane been a Republican or a conservative instead of a far-left liberal, it is easily conceivable that she would have been charged and convicted of treason, spending the rest of her life in prison instead of making millions and being treated as an American icon.

Tim Kaine should put at least one foot in reality. He can keep the other one is in his mouth.

David J. Hentosh

Lest We Forget

August 10, 2015

From the far-left we continually hear about the sins of this country, complete with so-called “intellectuals” labeling the US as the biggest terrorist country in the world. Lest we forget, the lowest point in this country’s history was reached through the actions of the far-left.

Though certainly a contender, slavery was not this country’s lowest point. That was a very dark era, but slavery was not invented here and it was not unique in the history of the world. It was a major factor for the Civil War, another dark era but, again, not unique in world history. What was unique, however, was the turning of citizens against other citizens serving the country in the armed forces.

The hatred and actions from the left towards Vietnam servicemen in the late 60’s and early 70’s was despicable. It is true that there were occurrences in history where citizens feared, despised, and turned against their military, but it was always due to the military’s viciousness under the direction of a repressive regime. It did not and it should not occur in a country based on democracy and freedom – but it did.

It is estimated that 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers and those who were drafted went because they felt it their duty to serve when called. They were not responsible for the decisions leading to the war or the planning of military operations. They were young men (the average age of an infantryman in Vietnam was 22) willing to put their lives on the line to serve their country. They earned and deserved respect, honor, and decency from their countrymen – not vilification.

One can understandably argue about the legitimacy of the war, the actions of our government, and the motivations of those making decisions. Increasing protests during that period did just that, but the far-left fomented hatred and created an opportunity to begin a “transformation” that continues to this day.

The hatred shown by the far-left towards Vietnam vets during that time was as real as it was despicable – and it was the lowest point in this country’s history. With the aid of useful idiots such as Jane Fonda, those intent on tearing down this country made that hate seem legitimate, allowing it to spread with the growing distaste for the war. Though now hidden, it still exists.

Those who served in Vietnam will never forget the depth of depravity the far-left is capable of. Everyone needs to be mindful of it during the presidential campaign when the bashing becomes loudest and the hatred is bared.

David J. Hentosh

Wrong Lessons From the Vietnam War

May 21, 2015

Our abandonment of Vietnam in 1975 was a national disgrace. Scenes of helicopters on rooftops desperately trying to evacuate people at the last minute continue to haunt responsible Americans, especially those who served in Vietnam. There are many lessons to be learned from the entire fiasco of that war, but it seems the only lessons learned have been the wrong ones.

One of those wrong lessons has been to simply declare a war over when it is no longer popular and pack up and leave. In Vietnam, a pretense of a peace agreement was used to rationalize our abandonment along with a promise of aid if North Vietnam broke that agreement. Our abandonment became official when Congress refused to finance the aid promised.

In Iraq, Obama took that lesson further by declaring beforehand when the war would be over and pulling all our troops out at that designated time. The pretense of a peace agreement was replaced by the pretense of an Iraqi army capable of defending the country but the abandonment remained the same.

The task of evacuating those who helped us during the war was also abandoned in Iraq. Our attempt to evacuate those who helped us in Vietnam was honorable but there was little preparation and little time to accomplish it properly. Our hasty retreat caused chaos and thousands of those we left behind were tortured and killed because of our inability to get them out.

The lesson learned from that was to avoid the entire mess by not even trying. In Iraq, no preparations or efforts were made for evacuation. Collaborators were knowingly left behind to fend for themselves when our troops left, therefore, thousands died when we abandoned our honor along with our commitment – just to fulfill a campaign promise.

Allowing a president and his civilian, political advisers to form and dictate military strategy failed in Vietnam where rules of engagement based on political fallout and civilian casualties put our troops in danger and forced a stalemate. Rules of engagement have become even more politically based since then and politicians continue to subvert military experts’ strategies for political purposes. When will we ever learn?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana

David J. Hentosh

Jane Fonda Again…and Again…and Again…

January 20, 2015

Scheduled to speak at the Weinberg Center for the Arts, Jane Fonda was met by former military members protesting her 1972 “alleged” aiding-and-abetting-the-enemy visit to Hanoi during the Vietnam War. She said she understands and it makes her sad, but if she really understood she would just stay away from public appearances.

She is lucky to have not been charged with treason back in ’72 and since there is no statute of limitations on treason, she remains lucky she is not being charged today – so far. Her appearances always bring protesters because Vietnam veterans cannot and will not forget her irresponsible actions they feel cost the lives of American soldiers and helped thwart peace negotiations.

Her actions have been rationally considered treasonous by many and the book “Aid and Comfort” by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer makes the case very well. She deliberately skirts the issue of any treasonous behavior while continuously offering weak apologies. At her latest appearance, she said: “It hurts me and it will to my grave that I made a huge, huge mistake that made a lot of people think I was against the soldiers.” People don’t just “think” she was against the soldiers; her words and actions, especially her radio broadcasts from Hanoi, put it on display. She also remained proud of her “mistake” for quite a while.

Instead of being charged with treason, Jane came home and was allowed to make millions with exercise videos and movies. Her attendance at a few Iraq war protests dredged up bad memories for many Vietnam vets and some of them now make sure her every appearance is protested so that people will not forget.

If Jane is tired of these protests that hurt her so much – that’s just too bad. She should stay home and be happy she’s not in jail. Every time she shows up in the press it dredges up hurtful memories for Vietnam vets. Sympathy should go to the vets, not “Hanoi” Jane.

David J. Hentosh

Just Go Away, Jane

June 3, 2014

The far left hates the military and this is especially true of the liberal academia controlling our education system. Their pretense of respect for servicemen has been an attempt to make amends for the disgraceful way they treated military personnel during the Vietnam War. UCLA inviting Jane Fonda as a graduation commencement speaker shatters that pretense.

Vietnam vets are, understandably, upset. They will never forget the 1972 treasonable actions of Jane in North Vietnam which are clearly defined in Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer’s factual book, Aid and Comfort. Fonda has offered a half-hearted apology for her actions but it is obvious that she, and the far left, continue to proudly view the incident as a high water mark of their protests.

Vietnam vets have been deeply insulted by Fonda’s escape from prosecution for treason. Her continued movie career and financial success from exercise videos poured salt in the wounds many vets suffered because of her actions. She was treated by the world press at the time as being representative of the view of all of America. Soldiers in the field as well as those at home could not help feeling hurt and abandoned because of her immature foolishness.

Liberal colleges across the nation continually bring in speakers who are an affront to the silent majority and American tradition. The more radical a speaker, the more welcome they are. Students brainwashed by liberal academia are encouraged to protest speakers not fitting the radical mold, so, the squeaky wheel often gets the grease with the cancelling of those speakers.

In this manner, former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, politely backed out of speaking at Rutgers due to loud protests from a minority of close-minded students unwilling to hear from someone outside their protected political bubble. Jane Fonda lacks the class to do the same and will most certainly speak at UCLA in a shameless attempt to bask in the limelight of her protesting glory days.

Vietnam vets, understanding that justice will never be served to Jane, would like her to just go away. Is that too much to ask? For UCLA, unfortunately, it is.

David J. Hentosh

Dangerous Democrats

March 6, 2014

Ann Coulter cuts through the smoke and mirrors and presents a stark summary that goes against much of the media’s “recollections” of the competence of Democrat president’s dealings with foreign affairs. It does not give one a warm, fuzzy feeling about current world events.

From Ann Coulter

As long as a Democrat sits in the White House, America will be repeatedly humiliated, the world will become a much more dangerous place…John F. Kennedy was in the White House for less than three years and…Six months after becoming president, JFK had his calamitous meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna — a meeting The New York Times described as “one of the more self-destructive American actions of the Cold War, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age”…Khrushchev was delighted to discover that the U.S. president was so “weak”…Lyndon Johnson, famously escalated the war in Vietnam simply to prove that the Democrats could be trusted with national security…that war allowed liberals to spend the next half-century denouncing every use of American military force as “another Vietnam”…Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their “inordinate fear of communism”…His most inspired strategic move was to abandon the Shah of Iran, a loyal U.S. ally, which gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today…Before the end of the year, the Islamic lunatics had taken 52 Americans hostage in Tehran…Twice, when Clinton was president, Sudan had offered to turn over bin Laden to the U.S…According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA for many years, Clinton was given eight to 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden but refused to act…When Obama took office, al Qaida had been routed in Iraq…A few short years into Obama’s presidency — and al-Qaida is back! For purely political reasons, as soon as he became president, Obama removed every last troop from Iraq…So now, another Russian leader is playing cat-and-mouse with an American president — and guess who’s the mouse…

Read it and weep here: Crimea River

Obama’s Personal Military

November 2, 2013

The Obamacare failure is becoming obvious even to some hardcore, progressive liberals but it isn’t nearly as dangerous to the country as the purging of the military that Obama has been conducting. His “transforming” of the military to fit his personal vision is in full swing.

The far left has always despised the military but its despicable treatment of soldiers during the Vietnam era forced a pretense of respect. Liberal leaders with distaste for the military never hesitate to use military force when it suits their agenda, but the military’s very existence is always an embarrassment to them. President Obama is no exception, but his arrogance is exceptional and he is taking action.

There are reports that 197 military officers have been “purged”, in the past five years. Nine senior commanding generals have been purged this year, alone, by Obama, three being linked to the Benghazi fiasco. Two-star general Michael Carey who was overseeing the U.S. arsenal of intercontinental missiles is the latest one to be removed for “misbehavior” that has not been defined. Daring to disagree with Obama is the common link and anyone who takes exception to the “transformation” of the military that is taking place is a target.

This transformation has nothing to do with military readiness or capability. It is a forcing of Obama’s social agenda onto the military and an intentional weakening of the military in order to reduce this country’s standing as a superpower, just as his foreign policies have done. Gay issues, women issues, religious issues, and other social issues mirroring Obama’s personal agenda have become the focus of the military, and personnel all through the ranks are disillusioned and disgusted – and leaving.

Some believe Obama’s goal is to have a personal military doing his bidding against opposing citizens in this country, such as the Tea Party. It has even been rumored that “the Obama administration’s ‘litmus test’ for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens”. Speculation abounds but it is the outcome that matters and that is proving to be a demoralized, underfunded, ineffective military.

The failure of Obamacare pales in comparison to this. We need to stop the bleeding and the only way to do that is by voting.

David J. Hentosh

Kerry is Scary

September 4, 2013

We have witnessed chemical weapon use in Syria because Obama elicits little respect and no fear from the international community or, more poignantly, from depots and terrorists. It is hard to imagine a Reagan or Bush “red line” (a line which Obama is now claiming he didn’t set) being so blatantly ignored or challenged. Obama was poked and prodded right from the start of his administration and found to be weak. Syria’s chemical weapon use is a direct result.

Obama selected John Kerry to run the State Department. This is a man who, after serving in Vietnam, came home and joined the anti-war movement, making wild, blanket accusations against our military personnel, voted as Senator against the Iraq War, and voted to pull all our troops out of Afghanistan – In other words, a man with Obama values. This could only be more surreal if Jane Fonda was at his side, egging him on.

The left’s unconditional backing of Obama requires hypocrisy, back-pedaling, and rationalization to remain intact and John Kerry is up to the task. He is arguing that attacking Syria is not war “in the classic sense”, a rhetorical distinction allowing him to keep his anti-war and anti-military persona while advocating the very war-like bombing of Syria. Lesser men would have laughed while speaking such gibberish, but Kerry maintained his composure and his acquiescence to Obama’s wishes without so much as a titter.

Right or wrong about attacking Syria, and there certainly is much controversy, Kerry is a poor choice for making the case. His distaste for the military was proudly displayed years ago and it is frightening to find him advocating an action with possible serious consequences; one that doesn’t jive with his personal beliefs. How can there be any credibility in what he says? There is none.

Kerry is scary, and this entire debacle is more frightening because of his involvement. He is as mis-cast in this role as John Cusack is in “The Butler” playing President Nixon (talk about a surreal experience). Then, again, Obama as Commander-in-Chief doesn’t bring a warm and fuzzy feeling, either.

This does not bode well for our nation.

David J. Hentosh

Liberal Wars

April 18, 2012

During the Vietnam War era, liberals were aggressively vocal about their distaste for the military and made it very clear they were against almost all wars, regardless of cause. “Make love, not war” was the inane, bumper-sticker philosophy of the anti-war movement, its sheer simplicity indicative of the shallow understanding of many protesters.

Having a propensity for exaggeration, liberals took idealism and frustration to the disgusting level of blaming our troops and began denigrating them as scapegoats. This was not acceptable to the vast majority and the liberal cause lost much respect and suffered badly as a result, particularly at the voting booth.

The lesson learned showed up during John Kerry’s campaign for president in 2004 when his status as a Vietnam War vet was proudly touted by liberals as a major qualification for the presidency. It was a strange liberal turnaround – and it was a sham. It was a blatant and transparent political attempt by liberals to ingratiate themselves with the majority. It ended up backfiring on Kerry.

Flash forward to today and we find the turnaround complete with liberals fully embracing the idea of “war” as a political tool and tactic. Protests that started against “Bush’s War” in Iraq quickly turned into enthusiastic support for “Obama’s War” in Afghanistan. Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, hated by liberals and predicted to fail, became Obama’s surge when it succeeded and was held up as an example of Obama’s superior competency in warfare.

In this turnaround, liberals have embraced exaggeration again, labeling controversial political issues as a “war” in the hope of gaining sympathy from the majority. Thus we find the so-called “war against women”, the “war against choice”, the “war against the poor”, the “race war”, the “culture war”, and the “war against minorities”. All have become accepted, standard talking points in the liberal media. (Yes, conservatives are also guilty with the “war against Christians”, the “war against the unborn”, etc, – but conservatives never embraced hatred towards the military or considered all wars to be evil, therefore, the lack of irony or hypocrisy is an exemption here.)

Rather than calm things down, Obama has fueled this war effort with aggressive rhetoric that pits the middle class and the poor against the rich. He has sparked a real “class warfare” that could have dire consequences. It is deliberate, it is political, it is manipulative, it is deceitful, it is fracturing, and it is disgraceful.

David J. Hentosh

Jane Fonda: Radio Expert

March 11, 2012

Jane Fonda joined with Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem in calling for Rush Limbaugh to be pulled off the air for his remarks about a Georgetown law student. Jane has a lot of experience with offensive remarks over the radio, so perhaps her credentials should be remembered as she speaks out about Rush.

During the Vietnam War in 1970, Jane Fonda visited Hanoi, comforting our enemy and protesting US actions in Vietnam. While being treated as a hero by the North Vietnamese, she made approximately ten radio broadcasts denouncing American military and political leaders as war criminals. She also called for our soldiers in Vietnam to lay down their weapons and refuse military orders.

Jane followed her treasonous radio broadcasts with denials of torture being carried out on our prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. She naively accepted the propaganda fed to her by the North Vietnamese and called returning POWs testifying about torture “hypocrites and liars”. Her behavior went far beyond mere protesting and a very credible case  has been made for her to be brought up on charges of treason.

Unfortunately, treason charges were never brought against Jane for fear of causing more upheaval in the country during those turbulent times. Jane escaped prosecution and, instead, the country that she found so wrong rewarded her with millions of dollars from sales of exercise tapes. The infamous photos of Jane smiling and sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun (used to shoot down US planes) remain as a testament to her actions.

Those photos should resurface again as a reminder of Jane Fonda’s political acumen. Perhaps one of her radio broadcasts should be played alongside Rush’s to see which one is more offensive. Jane’s excuses and lame attempt at an apology fell very short of being anything more than an attempt to put her traitorous actions behind her. If she wants to now speak out against Rush’s radio show, she should be held accountable for her own radio show broadcasts from North Vietnam in 1970.

Beware Jane; there is no statute of limitations for the charge of treason.

David J. Hentosh