Richard Blumenthal (running for U.S. Senator in Connecticut) is unqualified to be in the U.S. Senate (low as that bar has been set for Connecticut by Chris Dodd and for the Senate in general by people like Harry Reid). In fact, Blumental is barely qualified to be a human being.
Am I qualified to say this? Yes, indeed I am. I served in the United States Army from the summer of 1968 to January of 1971 (when I was honorably discharged as a Spec 4--first on the list to become an E-5 except that I chose discharge to enter the University of Texas School of Law). Thus, I was in the United States Army during the heart of the Vietnam War. Many soldiers I knew in basic training died in Vietnam, although my closest acquaintances/friends were connected with the Vulcan weapons system only briefly used in Vietnam (before I joined the army)--thus not generally in combat. I encountered many soldiers returning from, or who had served in, Vietnam. In contrast, Richard Blumenthal evidently served ins some kind of Reserve or National Guard unit--honorable service but hardly impressive. (The left once accused George W.Bush of EVADING service in Vietnam with a similar type of service.) In addition, I became fully familiar with the abuse of U.S. soldiers at places like The University of Teas at Austin, where I went to law school from 1571-1973.
I could not even imagine falsely representing that I served in Vietnam. I don't consider myself a noble person, but that kind of BETRAYAL of the men I encountered who actually had served in Vietnam, and of the men who died there, would simply never have occurred to me.
Yet, that is exactly what Richard Blumenthal did: He repeatedly, and falsely, claimed to have served in Vietnam over an extended period of time--to advance his political career and prestige. Nope. As long as Linda McMahon is not proven to be a serial killer or rapist of young boys or girls, you are casting an IMMORAL vote if you vote for Richard Blumentahl. Yes, I am directly saying that such a vote BETRAYS the memory of the 410,0000 men who died in Vietnam. Legally hiring an illegal housekeeper who forged here documents (Meg Whitman) is not in the same league. If you are willing to vote for Richard Blumenthal, I am ashamed of you.
I saw a Democratic "operative" try to "defend" Blumenthal. No, he admitted what Blumenthal did was bad, but he called Linda McMahon a "pornographer" (apparently for allegedly co-producing with her husband--I would guess mainly him, to the extent this is true--a "pornographic" video). Unlike leftists like Blumenthal, I don't believe--and I am right--that the Constitution was ever meant to "protect" pornography. Democratic Senator Jim Webb was, of course, accused of writing books with what some might regard as "pornographic" passages (admittedly not the same as a video showing sex acts, but it is all now LEGAL stuff because of leftists).
The point is that I see clearly, partly because of my own experiences. In the world of today, what is truly "pornographic" here--morally criminal--is the attempt by Blumenthal to claim service in Vietnam. As stated, that almost disqualifies him from being a human being--much less a United States Senator.
Yes, this whole "pornography" allegation (as to which I don't know the details and don't care--it being nothing but an irrelevant smear) is really designed to smear McMahon with Christians and women. Leftist Democrats are often in bed with pornographer Larry Flynt (perhaps the source--if past experience is any guide--of this "pornography" smear) attacking Republicans. Indeed, the mainstream media has often been in bed with Flynt, ignoring how sleazy he is (on a scale McMahon could not even dream of). Leftist Democrats don't care about pornography. But they do think both Christians (of the devout kind) and women are STUPID (with some justification as to women voters). Leftist Democrats cynically believe that Christians and women will consider "pornography" worse than betraying the men who died in Vietnam. I trust leftist Democrats are not right on this one. (Yes, I was there. I can tell you that the leftist Democrats, like John Kerry, are the very people who SPAT ON and trashed soldiers coming back from Vietnam, and who made service in Vietnam a thing to hide--until they later decided to assert such service as a big credit in their biographies, or lack of same as a discredit to Republicans.)
Richard Blumenthal is one of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers": people who misrepresent their military service. Outside of child molesters, serial killers, Islamic extremists and the like, there is no more despicable creature on Earth.
What about the CORRUPT Associated Press, and the equally CORRUPT Yahoo (BOYCOTT YAHOO). Well, the corrupt Yahoo "News" had a featured Associated Press picture story this morning referring to the Connecticut "dirt". But what did the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name) regard as the LEAD "scandal"--apparently worse (from the point of view of Yahoo and the AP) than lying about service in Vietnam? ? This terrible scandal (lol) was a "leaked" video showing Sharon Angle (running against Harry Reid in Nevada) complaining about the treatment she is receiving from establishment Republicans ("rashing' the Republican Party, in the language of the CORRUPT Associated Press and Yahoo).
Nope. Sorry AP and Yahoo. You people are CORRUPT, and your story BETRAYS the memory of those 50,0000 men who died in Vietnam, just as Richard Blumentahl has done. It is not a "scandal" at all that Sharon Angle knows she is fighting the Republican establishment, as well as the media establishment and leftist Democrats. By elevating this "story" to the equivalent of lying about service in Vietnam, the CORRUPT AP and Yahoo have again shown themselves to be part of the Harry Reid campaign. All Reid and his operatives have to do is put something out on Angle, and it gets immediate attention from the mainstream media. Talk abut ""pornographers"!!!!! The AP, and Yahoo "News", are at least as bad as Larry Flynt, in their own special, corrupt way.
This is the very best reason there is to vote for Sharon Angle: the establishments of both parties AND the mainstream media are trying to destroy one woman (well, more than one, but Sharon Angle is getting the brunt of it, if you realize that the attacks on Christine O'Donnell are merely part of the campaign to destroy Sharon Angle and the whole Tea Party movement). If the people of Nevada allow the establishments--including the corrupt media--to use this propaganda to tell them how to vote, then they (the people of Nevada) deserve what they will get (and already have--including the 14% unemployment while Harry Reid panders to illegal immigrants for the cynical purpose of getting Hispanic votes). No, I would not go so far as to say it is immoral to vote for Harry Reid, as it is immoral to vote for Richard Blumenthal. But it is surely stupid. Even if you don't agree with everything Sharon Angle says, she could never be as bad as Harry Reid has PROVEN himself to be (including corrupt, with back room deal after back room deal
P.S. Yes, I know. I heard the audio Did the CORRUPT AP really say that Sharon Angle was trashing the Republican Party, or is that reference to a fringe third party candidate (even for the same office?) who is trashing the Republican Party? In other words, is the Republican establishment even involved in this? Doesn't matter. What the CORRUPT AP is trying to do is carry water for Harry Reid by mingling the totally tame Sharon Angle story with two other "scandals": the Blumenthal betrayal of Vietnam combat veterans and the Meg Whitman illegal alien smear. The idea is to VAGUELY suggst Angle was "caught" in something, while at the same time stirring up trouble between and among potential Angle voters in Nevada. All Angle did--as I said, I heard the audio--was tell the third party candidate that such candidate had no chance of winning, and was only helping Harry Reid to no purpose--suggesting that the candidate withdraw. What is wrong with that? It is possilb e that it will anger supporters of the fringe candidate, but it is hardly "dirt" It is NOTHING. You will remember that the mainstream media pretty much tried to bury more substantial attempts by the Obama Administration to discourage Democratic primary challengers in Colorado and Pennsylvania (potentially violating the law in Pennsylvania). It is absurd and CORRUPT for the AP, and equally corrupt Yahoo, to try to associate this non-story with a real scandal (Blumenthal) and more substantial smear (Whitman). The AP has no interest in competent "journalism" explaining what is really going on in Nevada (which is why I left the last paragraphs of this article "as is", even though I think I did not really "get" what the incompetent AP was saying, although I fully understood their intention). What the AP is interested in is helping Harry Reid, and hurting Sharon Angle. Am I "hurting" Sharon Angle by "trashing" the Republican establishment, when maybe--for once--they are not really involved (then again, maybe they are )? I don't think so, because it remains true that Sharon Angle continues to be opposed by many in the Republican establishment, and that remains a good reason to vote for her. If the people of Nevada correctly understand that the mainstream media, including the corrupt AP, are out to "get" Sharon Angle, at any cost, then all of these smear stories involving non-scandals will rightly have no effect.