Author Archives: John

John Kerry on spying 1970 vs. 2013

In the early 1970’s the FBI monitored the anti-war activities of John Kerry, our current Sec. of State. In 2004, a John Kerry spokesman said “Reports that the FBI monitored John Kerry’s anti-war activities in the early 1970’s are both “a badge of honor” and a troubling example of government intrusion into peaceful and legitimate protest.”

Now let’s see what 2013 John Kerry says about Edward Snowden who revealed government spying on average everyday Americans – Snowden is “a traitor to his country”, Kerry continues “Evidently he places himself above the law, having betrayed his country with respect to the violation of his oath, and I think there are very serious implications in that,”.  Now the spying in the 1970’s that John Kerry thought was so “troubling” even though wrong had some rational. Remember Vietnam war protesters occasionally resorted to violence as did President Obama’s terrorist buddy, Bill Ayers. So if spying on a groups who occasionally resorted to violence is troubling why does informing average Americans that they are being spied on make you a traitor?

We hear a lot about this “oath” John Kerry mentions. The greatest oath an American can take to our country is to uphold and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Hero Edward Snowden upheld the highest oath to his country and the employees at the NSA who continue to violate their greatest oath to our Constitution should be made to answer for their crimes in a real court of law at some point in the future. They should be granted a legal due process, the same due process they have denied to Americans they continue to victimize. They will not be allowed to claim they were only doing what their superiors asked – each and every American is required to uphold the oath to the Constitution which includes the 4th amendment.

I suppose with John Kerry totalitarianism really isn’t the problem, just who is the totalitarian.


John Kerry used to think spying on allies was a bad thing

The USA is accused for spying on our allies by bugging up to 38 embassies. Sec. of State John Kerry has the job of interfacing with our understandably ticked off allies. In a weak attempt to mitigate stated earlier today:

‘I will say that every country in the world that is engaged in international affairs and national security undertakes lots of activities to protect its national security and all kinds of information contributes to that. All I know is that is not unusual for lots of nations.’

John Kerry intentionally misrepresents the point our allies are making. Yes, lot of nations spy on other nations – especially totalitarian enemies. Allies are not supposed to spy on allies and for good reason. The benefits of spying on allies is far outweighed by the danger to the relationship.  John Kerry knows this and somehow thinks paying stupid is going to wash – it isn’t.

Let’s look back at what John Kerry had to say about spying on allies –

Then Senator John Kerry signed a letter delivered to President Clinton urging the President to not free Jonathan Pollard. Back in the mid-1980’s Jonathan Pollard worked for US Naval Intelligence. He became alarmed that the US was withholding information from Israel that pertained to the security of Israel. Israel was entitled to the information due to prior agreements.  So Pollard began spying for Israel, our ally. He was caught and remains in prison today serving a life sentence. Here is what Sec. of State John Kerry had to say when the shoe was on the other foot. Entire Letter

Dear Mr. President:

… First, a commutation of Mr. Pollard’s life sentence would imply a condonation of spying against the United States by an ally. It would also give credence to the claim that espionage is somehow less serious when Americans spy on behalf of a friendly nation with which they sympathize. This would send the wrong signal to employees within the Intelligence Community. It is an inviolable principle that those entrusted with America’s secrets must protect them, without exception, irrespective of their own personal views or sympathies.

Second, it undermines our ability to act as an honest broker throughout the world. We maintain relationships with many nations that are not necessarily complementary to one another. Those relationships depend upon our assurances of confidentiality. If you release Mr. Pollard, it will convey a message to our partners that we view secrets kept from our friends as less sacrosanct. They are not, and we must assure our partners that they are not.


Signed by a number of top officials including Sen. John Kerry.





Gun Debate by an Anti-Gun poster

Regarding the American Engineer Article “British Gun Ban of 1997 led to Huge Spike in Violent Crime

Anti-Gun Dan writes:

You are extraordinarily prejudice in your view about gun prohibition.

In order to promote your prejudice you have attempted to make a case against prohibition of guns by comparing violent crime statistics in the UK after the 1997 handgun ban but not those involved in just firearms, most specifically handguns.

I refer you to detailed statistics with respect to firearm crimes throughout England and Wales at the following site: http://www.gun-control-network…

This relates solely to firearm crimes. You will clearly see that handgun crime has reduced from a peak in 2001/2 of 5874 crimes to just 2651 during 2011/2. You will see further reductions with regard to crimes committed involving shotguns and other weapons.

The effect of any restrictive change in the law will inevitably lag as illegal guns remain in existence.

However you will clearly see from the statistics that there is a clear and substantial reduction in firearm crime as a result of banning handguns. The plan in the US is to ban assault weapons, ones that will multiply injuries and deaths. Why would anyone need an assault weapon for domestic use?

It is said that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. That is a conservative absurdity because people with guns kill people.


American Engineer Response:

Banning guns on an island nation has reduced gun violence.  However, when criminals no longer worry that grandma, stay-at-home moms, and the disabled have no means to defend themselves crime rises. A gun is a great equalizer when confronting a powerful criminal. If overall violent crime rises even while gun crimes go down have you really accomplished anything but lost freedom?

Dan asked the question: Why would anyone need an assault weapon for domestic use?  Great question.  I’ve asked Dan three times why there is a 2nd Amendment in the first place and what sparked the American Revolution on April 19th 1775.

The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution affirms the rights of citizens to own guns for the purpose of opposing government tyranny. In other words, you could make the argument that citizens should be allowed to own whatever weapons were necessary to effectively oppose tyrannical government.  Note: it does not say the right to bear guns should not be infringed, it says “the right to bear arms”. Please note ALL of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights” are there for one purpose as stated when the Bill of Rights were adopted “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Federal Government’s] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”

To better understand why the Bill of Rights is necessary please read the Declaration of Independence.

Finally, “Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority.” – Where is that from?

All the best,