Do you know the Communist Playbook?

May 4, 2020

I am self quarantined and can’t physically shake sense into the American people but I hope you will learn and share this information, pretty please.

Will you step back to 1963 with Gene McVay? That was the only year that I did not see United States soil while stationed on the northern tip of Japan at Wakkanai.
President John Kennedy was assassinated and my unit went to DEFCON 2 some 30 miles from Russia. I was Armed and sent outside the base to guard a transformer in four feet of snow.


AlcatrazI was closed.
The Beatles released “I Want to Hold Your Hand with “I Saw Her Standing There”
The Year End Close of the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 762.

Average Cost of a new house was $12,650.00.
Average Income per year was $5,807.00.
Gas cost 29 cents a gallon.
Average Cost of a new car was $3,233.00.

On Thursday, January 10, 1963 this happened in the United States House of Representatives:

Mr. HERLONG: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of Communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of Communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court

By the way, Syd Herlong was a Democrat Representative for 20 years, a WW II Veteran who also served in the National Guard as a Captain.

He was also a lawyer and was president of the Florida State Baseball League.

Over the years I shared what I know with you including Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

If every Freedom loving American knew the playbook of enemies of America, we would be better prepared to uphold and defend our Constitution and save our Country.

The sad truth is that we elect pretty faces with cute phrases who have no values and know nothing.

Stop it!

Yours truly,
Gene McVay

President Trump, You have a Big VA Problem

January 8, 2020

President Trump, you have a big problem. Several years ago the National Commander of the American Legion called for the resignation of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary resigned but the deep state VA bureaucracy still remains the greatest enemy United States Veterans have ever faced.

I don’t want get in front of anybody but my unresolved claim is about 15 years old! Others have waited much longer. What takes 15 years? The World Wars didn’t take that long!

Last March 2019, VA officials reported they may have a decision on adding four new diseases to the list of Agent Orange presumptive benefits eligibility by the summer of 2019. Here we are, five months later, and VA officials still haven’t moved ahead with adding the new disabilities to the Agent Orange presumptive list.

Researchers from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine announced they had compiled “sufficient evidence” linking hypertension, bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, and Parkinson’s-like symptoms with exposure to Agent Orange and other defoliants used in Vietnam and surrounding countries in the 1960s and 1970s. So far, VA officials remain perplexed about the validity of the data as it relates to exposure to Agent Orange.

The delay is the latest frustration for Vietnam veterans who are already unsettled by the VA’s decision earlier this summer to postpone disability compensation related to “Blue Water” Navy veterans’s cases until early January 2020.

According to VA officials, adding bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, and Parkinson’s-like symptoms to the Agent Orange presumptive list would potentially benefit thousands of aging veterans, and, at the same time, adding a significant amount to VA’s benefits expenses.

The VA is not concerned about merit pay increases for VA Doctors and bureaucrats strain on the budget.

While not a lock, adding high blood pressure to the Agent Orange presumptive list of disabilities could further delay a decision simply because the VA’s stance is high blood pressure is common in millions of older Americans, complicating whether it should be labeled a conclusive result of military service. Of course, Vietnam Veterans were not older Americans when they were struck with high blood pressure decades ago. We became older Americans watching the VA delay, deny and wait until we die.

January 8, 2020 Update: VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said in a letter last month he won’t make a decision about new compensation until late 2020 at the earliest.

I guess Secretary Wilkie already knows that the life excpectency for Vietnam Veterans is 66 while it is 78 for non Veterans. I’m sure Secretary Wilkie knows that about 400 Vietnam Veterans die every day. Wilkie can play the waiting game while he blows the VA budget on bureaucrats.

Again, the four diseases being considered for compensation are bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hypertension and Parkinson’s-like symptoms.

Congress is requiring VA to provide a detailed explanation for the years-long delay in making a decision on whether to cover those illnesses, along with a cost estimate and a specific date when VA expects the changes to go into effect.

So what can President Trump do? Fire the VA Secretary and all the bureaucrats like President Reagan fired Air Traffic Controllers. Contract VA Claims to India and allow qualified Veterans to receive healthcare at Mayo Clinic or any other facility of their choosing.

I used to tell my employees that there is a difference between almost doing something and actually doing something. Since General Omar Bradley left the VA, they have not even come close to almost doing something!

The DC Marble Retirement Center

December 19, 2019

Off and on for the last few days I have been watching the day to day activities at an old nursing home on First St SE in Washington, DC.

Construction started on this huge facility on September 18, 1793 and was completed during 1800.

Since money is no object for the elderly residents, I will not give the floor area of the five story structure in square feet but in acres.

The total floor area of the American Neoclassicisical old folks home is 16.5 acres.

The older residents have been doddering around the building for around 40 years and have grown tired of bingo, knitting, birdwatching, crochet, indoor gardening and yoga.

For the last three years the activities director has been focused on a new game she calls Impeaching the United States President.

Since the director, Nancy Pelosi, spends very little time working and much of the time enjoying her favorite hobby of luxury travel to exotic places with free flowing taxpayer provided high dollar liquor, Impeaching the United States President cannot be played in a few hours like bingo or checkers.

The object of the game is not to remove the President from office, though that is what the doddering fools fantasize about as they huddle in the basement.

The object is simply to torment the President and drag him through the mud to distract him and prevent him from making America prosperous, proud, safe and great again.


The marble swamp creatures can only exist in murky rat infested conditions where their activities are hidden from the public eye.

Oh look Adam, there’s a school bus from Grinder’s Switch! Let’s tell the school kids about Justice, Freedom, Democracy and the American Way!

Sleep tight America, your House of Representatives has your back.

A Deep Dive into Arkansas Justice

November 28, 2019

After the historic crimes in Mena involving international drug trafficking, money laundering, Iran-Contra and the internationally banned use of military grade anthrax, one might think the Arkansas Justice System might clean up its act?

Just when you thought Arkansas justice could not get more bizarre, look who the Arkansas Supreme Court assigned to the Senator Linda Collins murder case this time! You can’t make this stuff up.

When John Fogleman was running for the Arkansas Supreme Court during 2010, Arkansas Times published ▪‘Not a soul in there’
Here are some excerpts about the 1994 convictions Fogleman wrangled:
John Fogleman asked juries to sentence three teens to death. Few, if any, candidates for the Arkansas Supreme Court have faced public opposition for their prosecution of accused killers….

But for those Arkansans who oppose him ? and I am one ? the ugliness of the trials that launched his judicial career cannot be forgotten. Now voters will judge his career.

In 1993, three West Memphis children ? Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch ? were murdered. The following year, three Crittenden County teen-agers ? Jessie Misskelley Jr., Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin ? were put on trial for the crime.

Fogleman and prosecuting attorney Brent Davis sought the death penalty for all three. Juries convicted the teen-agers, though only Echols was sentenced to death. Baldwin and Misskelley received terms of life plus 40 years in prison.

But since those trials, many Arkansans, including the parents of two of the victims, have come to believe that justice was not served ? not for the accused and not for the victims.

Fogleman prosecuted the teen-agers using circumstantial evidence that he knew, even then, was thin at best. In the years since those convictions, even the threads of evidence he was able to weave have frayed and fallen apart.

But Fogleman has no regrets. He recently told the Times, “I completely stand by every step I took in that case,”

Within weeks after winning it, the young deputy prosecutor announced his candidacy for judge in Arkansas’s Second Judicial District. He erected a billboard near where the bodies of the three 8-year-old children were found. It advertised that he could “make tough decisions in tough cases.”

Now, in his race for the state Supreme Court, Fogleman relies on a website. There he says that our justice system only functions “if the people have a measure of confidence that those of us involved in the system are fair and unbiased.”

I agree with that. And that is the very reason I don’t want Fogleman on our high court.

The tactics he used to win convictions of the men now known as the West Memphis Three have spawned widespread mistrust ? not just of Fogleman, but also of Judge David Burnett who allowed them, and of our state Supreme Court, which, so far, has supported everything that has transpired in this now infamous case.

That is a harsh judgment, and I don’t like making it. But history will probably judge this episode of our state’s legal history even more harshly than I. Eventually, I believe, Fogleman and Burnett will be blamed for having brought a great shame on Arkansas.

In a campaign speech last January in Trumann, Fogleman acknowledged that, “This was a difficult case.” He added: “But it was investigated thoroughly. Many people were looked at in this case. But I will say, every piece of evidence we had pointed to those three.”

To the contrary, the investigation was deeply flawed. There was significant evidence even at the time that pointed away from the three, and more has recently developed.


We now know that police did not even interview Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of victim Stevie Branch, after the murders. Questioning relatives is fundamental in any investigation of murdered children because, sadly, it is well known that most die at the hands of people close to them.

That hole in the investigation became more glaring last year, when new tests of evidence identified a hair in the bindings used on one of the victims ? a boy not his stepson ? as having come from Hobbs. Another hair was identified as having come from a friend of Hobbs,’ a man who was with him on the night of the murders.

Also in the past year, after Hobbs told a newspaper reporter that he had not seen any of the children on the night they disappeared, three of his former neighbors came forward to dispute that. They said they saw him with the boys early that evening, but that police had never questioned them.

Another gaping hole in Fogleman’s “thorough” investigation surrounds the muddy, bloody man who wandered into a fast-food restaurant on the night the boys disappeared. Workers at the restaurant, which was near where the bodies were found the next day, notified police, who took paper towels and scrapings of blood from the restroom where the man had tried to wash up, and a pair of sunglasses he’d left in the commode.

Later, at one of the trials, when a detective was asked about the crime lab’s report on that evidence, the officer replied that it had not been sent to the crime lab. When asked why not, he said the the evidence had been “lost.”

Some may say, “Well, Fogleman was the prosecutor. Trying to get convictions was his job.” That is a common but skewed view of the prosecutor’s role. In its Standards for Criminal Justice, the American Bar Association stresses that, “The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”

That leads one to wonder how much justice Fogleman and Davis were seeking when they decided to mount three capital murder cases on the botched and clumsy statement of 17-year-old Jessie Misskelley Jr.

Misskelley was a high-school dropout who’d been in special education classes for as long as he stayed in school when, a month after the murders, police brought him to the station for questioning. They grilled him for close to eight hours. He had no parent or lawyer with him.

Misskelley began by saying that he knew nothing about the murders. But at some point during the questioning, police used a tactic on him that even the state Supreme Court later said came “perilously close to psychological overbearing.”

After that, Misskelley started telling police he knew some things about the murders. In disjointed answers to their questions, he said he’d seen 18-year-old Damien Echols and 16-year-old Jason Baldwin, beat, sodomize and kill the children.

Misskelley also said that when one of the victims tried to escape, he himself had caught and held the child for Echols and Baldwin to finish off. Misskelley recanted those allegations the next day, but by then it was too late.

Police had recorded two short segments of Misskelley’s day-long questioning, and based on those, they arrested the three teen-agers. Each was charged with three counts of capital murder.

When I interviewed Fogleman a few years after the trials, he acknowledged that at the time of the arrests, “basically, the only thing we had was Jessie’s statement.” And it wasn’t much of a statement, at that. The state Supreme Court described it as “a confusing amalgam of times and events.”

Initially, for instance, Misskelley said that the attacks took place in the daytime, the victims having skipped school. But, as the police and Fogleman knew, the children were in school all day and were last seen alive at around dusk.

He said that the boys were tied with “brown rope,” when, in fact, they were not tied with rope at all, but with their own shoelaces–black and white.

He said they still had their clothes on when they were beaten and stabbed, but the children’s clothes were recovered and they were neither torn or bloodstained.

He said the children were sodomized, but the state pathologist reported finding no evidence of that.

Davis and Fogleman knew that Misskelley was wrong in these key details, but they did not question why. They did not, in the pursuit of justice, take Misskelley to the woods where the bodies were found and videotape him as they asked him to clarify his statement.

Perhaps that was too risky. Such a videotape would have had to be disclosed to the defense, and might have made even more apparent Misskelley’s ignorance of the crimes.

Instead, they chose to seek the death penalty for Misskelley based on what he’d said. At his trial, when the West Memphis police chief was asked why he thought Misskelley had gotten so many details wrong, the officer replied, “Jessie simply got confused.”

Years later, when I put that same question to Fogleman, he himself seemed confused: “I don’t know,” he said. “I don’t know. They were generally consistent, but specifically, they weren’t. I don’t know.”

The jury would not go that far. It found Misskelley guilty and sentenced him to life in prison.

When he appealed that conviction, the state Supreme Court noted that his recorded statement had been “virtually the only evidence” presented against him. And ruling that it would “defer to the jury’s determination” about Misskelley’s “numerous inconsistencies,” it affirmed his conviction.

In 2003, a forensic linguist published a detailed analysis of Misskelley’s confession in a British academic journal. Dr. Martin D. Hill concluded that, “None of the key, specific, verifiable details were provided by the confessor,” and that “the police were the source of nearly all of the substantive information regarding the crime.”

Misskelley was tried by himself because, however awkwardly, he had confessed to police. Echols and Baldwin never did. And that presented Prosecutor Fogleman with a dilemma. If Misskelley would not appear at their trial and repeat his allegation, they could not even play the tape-recording of his statement because to do so would deny the two defendants their constitutional right to face their accuser.

The prosecutors tried hard to get Misskelley, whose trial had just concluded, to appear at the second trial and say again that he’d seen Echols and Baldwin murder the children. They even offered to reduce his sentence from life to a term of years, making him eligible for parole, if he agreed.

The victims’ parents were not happy about the offer. Davis explained that, without Misskelley, they faced serious doubts about being able to convict the other two. “Unfortunately,” Davis said, “we need his testimony real bad.”

Fogleman, at the same meeting, put it this way: “All is not lost if he doesn’t testify. But the odds are reduced significantly. I mean, we’ve still got someevidence.”

Here’s what he told the parents they had:
• Three fibers that even Fogleman admitted could not be linked to the accused “to the exclusion of all others.”
• A woman’s claim that, on the night of the murders, she saw Echols walking near where the bodies were found; the problem with her was that she said Echols was with a girl, not Jason.
• The statements of two teen-age girls who said they’d overheard Echols at a softball field bragging about having committed the murders.
• The claim of a jailhouse snitch that Baldwin had told him he’d killed the boys ? but Fogleman warned the parents that the snitch “might not be believed.”

“Oh, yes,” Fogleman added. “And the knife in the lake.”

Six months after the arrests, knowing he was heading into trials with little evidence, Fogleman had an inspiration about where he might find the murder weapon. He contacted a diver for the Arkansas State Police and, according to the diver, told him what to look for and where to look in a lake behind the trailer where Jason Baldwin lived.

In short order, the diver emerged with a knife –the type of knife the state alleged was used on one of the children. Fogleman could establish no direct connection between Echols and Baldwin and the knife, nor between the knife and the murders. But he tried to make the most of it.

At the start of the trial of Echols and Baldwin, he told the jury, “I want to tell you in advance, there’s going to be some … I guess you call it ‘negative evidence.’ It doesn’t really show a connection to anybody. … And you may wonder why we’re putting on evidence of a negative, but we’ll explain that to you later.”

There was a lot of evidence presented that, like the knife, didn’t “show a connection to anybody.” But Fogleman never did explain it.

The biggest problem prosecutors faced in that second trial was the lack of an apparent motive. Without Misskelley, who had described the teens’ involvement in a “satanic cult” that met in the woods on Wednesdays and built fires of “paper and wood and stuff” and “someone brings a dog, and they usually kill the dog … and eat part of it…” ? without that, the prosecutors could point to no reason why Echols and Baldwin would have viciously killed three children they did not know.

The prosecutors were under no obligation to prove a motive, but they worried that jurors might reasonably doubt that Echols and Baldwin would have killed three children on a whim.

They made the decision to call Victoria Hutcheson to the stand. The young mother testified that Echols had driven her and Misskelley to an “esbat,” which she described as something like a witches’ orgy. She said she’d become frightened and asked to be taken home.

In 2004, Hutcheson told a reporter for this paper that “every word” of her testimony “was a lie.” At the time of the murders, she was being investigated for hot checks and credit card fraud. She said police threatened her with the loss of her son if she did not say what they wanted her to say.

Even at the trial, defense attorneys undercut Hutcheson’s story with testimony that Echols did not drive, had never driven, and had no driver’s license or access to a car. But with Hutcheson, Fogleman had set the stage to suggest a motive for the murders.

He began by reminding jurors of the date on which they occurred: May 5, 1993. He then asked Judge David Burnett to “consider taking judicial notice that there was a full moon on May fifth, according to an almanac.”

Here began the most infamous part of the trial ? the part in which Fogleman and Davis, with the complicity of Burnett, attempted to prove that Echols and Baldwin killed the children as part of an occult or satanic ritual. To do this, they brought in their big gun, Dr. Dale W. Griffis, a self-proclaimed “cult expert.”

Defense attorneys quickly established that the Ph.D. Griffis claimed he had was a fraud ? that he’d obtained it, without ever attending a class, from a mail-order diploma mill. They argued that Griffis was not qualified to testify as an expert.

But Burnett ruled that he would accept Griffis as an expert “based upon his knowledge, experience and training in the area of occultism or Satanism.” He allowed Griffis to testify about the aspects of the crime that he said bore “trappings of occultism.”

There were three victims, Griffis explained. There was blood and water involved. Echols wore mostly black. He and Baldwin liked heavy metal music. And, as Fogleman had established, the murders took place on the night of a full moon.

When Fogleman asked Griffis about how he recognized “young people involved in the occult,” Griffis responded gravely: “I have personally observed people wearing black fingernails, having their hair painted black, wearing black T-shirts, black dungarees, that type of thing. Sometimes they will tattoo themselves.”

Defense lawyers got Griffis to concede that, in fact, police had found nothing at the scene related to the occult. They’d found no carved pentagrams, for example; nothing resembling an altar, no bits of candle wax, no knife or robes or anything else suggestive of a satanic ritual.

By the end of the trial, it was clear that Fogleman’s case against Echols and Baldwin consisted almost entirely of the elements he’d outlined for the victims’ parents, plus Griffis’ testimony about “occultism.”

In his closing remarks, Fogleman reminded the jury of what Griffis had said about “this satanic stuff.” Then he instructed the jurors to look at Echols. “You see inside that person,” he told, “and you look inside there, and there’s not a soul in there.”

Parts of the trial smacked of rhetoric from the Inquisition. Fogleman had presented little substantive evidence against Echols, and even less against Baldwin. Nevertheless, he urged the jurors to sentence both boys to death.

They complied in part, sentencing Echols, the group’s purported ringleader, to death and Baldwin to life in prison.
The case generated widespread controversy and was the subject of a number of documentaries that explored its elements. Celebrities and musicians have held fundraisers to support efforts to free the men, who they say are innocent of the charges.

In July 2007, new forensic evidence was presented in the case. A status report jointly issued by the state and the defense team stated: “Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants.” On October 29, 2007, the defense filed a Second Amended Writ of Habeas Corpus, outlining the new evidence.

Following a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding newly produced DNA evidence and potential juror misconduct, the West Memphis Three negotiated a plea bargain with prosecutors. On August 19, 2011, they entered Alford pleas, which allowed them to assert their innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict them. Judge David Laser accepted the pleas and sentenced the three to time served. They were released with 10-year suspended sentences, having served 18 years and 78 days in prison.

Do you trust Arkansas Judges and Arkansas prosecutors who just happen to know exactly where to find a knife in a lake?

Do you care?

‘Not a soul in there’

Colonel Gene McVay Blog About the Purple Heart

November 19, 2019

What do you Know about the Purple Heart Military Decoration?

Since we hear more and more about the Purple Heart, Colonel Gene McVay will educate you.

The Purple Heart is a United States military decoration awarded in the name of the President to those wounded or killed while serving in the U.S. military on or after April 5, 1917.

When I was flying combat missions in Vietnam, the Purple Heart was the lowest military decoration. The Good Conduct Medal is the highest non decoration award and the Purple Heart was just above the Good Conduct Medal.

Today there are about 15 decorations that fall behind the Purple Heart such as the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Achievement Medals. That puts the Purple Heart immediately above the Good Conduct Medal.

That upgrading of the Purple Heart occurred on June 13, 1985, when the Senate approved an amendment to the 1985 Defense Authorization Bill, which changed the precedence of the Purple Heart award, from immediately above the Good Conduct Medal to immediately above the Meritorious Service Medals. Public Law 99-145 authorized the award for wounds received as a result of friendly fire. Public Law 104-106 expanded the eligibility date, authorizing award of the Purple Heart to a former prisoner of war who was wounded after April 25, 1962. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) changed the criteria to delete authorization for award of the Purple Heart to any non-military U.S. national serving under competent authority in any capacity with the Armed Forces. This change was effective May 18, 1998.

After the award was re-authorized in 1932 some U.S. Army wounded from conflicts prior to the first World War applied for, and were awarded, the Purple Heart: “…veterans of the Civil War and Indian Wars, as well as the Spanish–American War, China Relief Expedition (Boxer Rebellion), and Philippine Insurrection also were awarded the Purple Heart. This is because the original regulations governing the award of the Purple Heart, published by the Army in 1932, provided that any soldier who had been wounded in any conflict involving U.S. Army personnel might apply for the new medal. There were but two requirements: the applicant had to be alive at the time of application (no posthumous awards were permitted) and had to prove that he had received a wound that necessitated treatment by a medical officer.”

Here are estimates of Purple Heart Decorations awarded:

World War I: 320,518
World War II: 1,076,245
Korean War: 118,650
Vietnam War: 351,794
Persian Gulf War: 607
Afghanistan War: 7,027
Iraq War: 35,321

August 7 of every year is recognized as “National Purple Heart Day.”

From 1942 to 1997, non-military personnel serving or closely affiliated with the armed forces—as government employees, Red Cross workers, war correspondents, and the like—were eligible to receive the Purple Heart whether in peacetime or armed conflicts. Among the earliest to receive the award were nine Honolulu Fire Department (HFD) firefighters killed or wounded in peacetime while fighting fires at Hickam Field during the attack on Pearl Harbor. About 100 men and women received the award, the most famous being newspaperman Ernie Pyle who was awarded a Purple Heart posthumously by the Army after being killed by Japanese machine gun fire in the Pacific Theater, near the end of World War II. Before his death, Pyle had seen and experienced combat in the European Theater, while accompanying and writing about infantrymen for the folks back home. Those serving in the Merchant Marine are not eligible for the award. During World War II, members of this service who met the Purple Heart criteria received a Merchant Marine Mariner’s Medal instead.

The most recent Purple Hearts presented to non-military personnel occurred after the terrorist attacks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996—for their injuries, about 40 U.S. civil service employees received the award.

However, in 1997, at the urging of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Congress passed legislation prohibiting future awards of the Purple Heart to non-military personnel. Civilian employees of the U.S. Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile action may receive the new Defense of Freedom Medal. This award was created shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

During the Vietnam War, Korean War, and World War II, the Purple Heart was often awarded on the spot, with occasional entries made into service records. In addition, during mass demobilizations following each of America’s major wars of the 20th century, it was common occurrence to omit mention from service records of a Purple Heart award. This occurred due to clerical errors, and became problematic once a service record was closed upon discharge. In terms of keeping accurate records, it was commonplace for some field commanders to engage in bedside presentations of the Purple Heart. This typically entailed a General or Colonel entering a hospital with a box of Purple Hearts, pinning them on the pillows of wounded service members, then departing with no official records kept of the visit, or the award of the Purple Heart. Service members, themselves, complicated matters by unofficially leaving hospitals, hastily returning to their units to rejoin battle so as to not appear a malingerer. In such cases, even if a service member had received actual wounds in combat, both the award of the Purple Heart, as well as the entire visit to the hospital, was unrecorded in official records.

During John Kerry’s candidacy in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, a political issue that gained widespread public attention was Kerry’s Vietnam War record. In television advertisements and a book called Unfit for Command, co-authored by John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a 527 group later known as the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, questioned details of his military service record and circumstances relating to the award of his combat medals. Their campaign against Kerry’s presidential bid received widespread publicity.

The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart can also be awarded for “friendly fire” wounds in the “heat of battle,” so long as the fire is targeted “under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.”

An article in The Boston Globe described the circumstances in which Purple Hearts were given to wounded Swift Boat personnel in Vietnam:

“There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts—from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades,” said George Elliott, Kerry’s commanding officer. “The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception.”

In Douglas Brinkley’s book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, Brinkley notes that Purple Hearts were given out frequently:

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors—no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin—were starting to bleed, a lot.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound’s severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered “in action against an enemy”.

A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry’s Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel received Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin.

Some SBVT members have questioned the propriety of Kerry’s first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2, 1968. Kerry remained on duty after being wounded, and sought treatment at the following day’s sick call. They assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation because the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and he returned to service immediately. SBVT also claims that the wound was not from enemy fire but was from shrapnel of a grenade he fired himself, “Self-inflicted wounds were awarded if incurred ‘in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.’ Kerry’s critics insist his wound would not have qualified,”

On the night in question, Kerry was not on a Swift Boat, but on a 15-foot skimmer. Kerry opened fire on suspected guerrillas on the shore. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Accounts differ over the crew aboard the skimmer, the source of Kerry’s injury—Kerry has stated that he does not know where the shrapnel came from—and several other major details.

SBVT’s claims about the incident are primarily based on an account by retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a lieutenant. Schachte has stated that he regularly led training missions for recently arrived officers such as Kerry. One tactic described by Schachte was for a Swift Boat to tow the skimmer to the target area and wait nearby. The skimmer, manned by three people, “would go in, draw fire and get out immediately.” The waiting Swift Boats or air support would attack the enemies thus detected. Schachte stated that he had participated in all previous skimmer missions up to and including the night Kerry was injured, although the latter claim could not be substantiated.

In an interview in 2003, Schachte made no mention of being on the skimmer with Kerry that night; in addition, he described the action as a “firefight” and said of Kerry, “He got hit.” In August 2004, however, Schachte stated that he was the senior officer on Kerry’s skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board, that he popped a flare after detecting movement, and opened fire. He stated that there was no return fire, and that Kerry was “nicked” by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. Moreover, while Schachte has described Kerry as, at the time, a “rookie [who] would never be put in command” of a skimmer mission, Kerry was actually given command of a Swift Boat and crew just three days after the skimmer mission and sent into a combat area.

In an SBVT television ad, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted, “I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury,”

SBVT member Grant Hibbard, who was Kerry’s commander at the time, has claimed that Kerry came to him the morning after the incident, after he had been to sick bay, stating that he was eligible for a Purple Heart. Hibbard has also claimed that he denied Kerry’s request and does not know how the award eventually came to be granted.

I know that I have thrown a lot of stuff at you but I have often declared that very few veterans ever get the medals and recognition they deserve. At the same time, I have no doubt that some medals are undeserved.

Who will be the next John Kerry War Hero?

Now, throw your darts at me for quoting the glorious mainstream media.

Yours truly,
Gene McVay

The Graphic Chinese Communist Bloody Human Organ Industry

October 1, 2019

The Chinese Communist Flag flying in the Arkansas Governor’s Conference Room as Governor Asa Hutchinson shakes hands with Yafu Qiu, chairman of Shandong Ruyi Technology Group

If you need a new heart, kidney or eyeball, no problem. The Chinese Communists might harvest human organs from a Chinese Christian or other dissident at your convenience.

I’m not sure exactly how arrangements are made but Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and his inner circle are very tight with Chinese Communists and are working on bringing their companies to Arkansas.

According to a former hospital intern, China is rounding up dissidents and barbarically harvesting their organs, while profiting greatly in the process.

The People’s Liberation Army Hospital is just one of several transplant centers.  It is an important health and wellness base for the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and provides treatment for the Central Military Committee, People’s Liberation Army General Staff Department, and various regional military commands and military personnel…”

The intern still has nightmares. He was interning at China’s Shenyang Army General Hospital when he was drafted to be part of an organ-harvesting team.

The prisoner was brought in, tied hand and foot, but very much alive. The army doctor in charge sliced him open from chest to belly button and exposed his two kidneys. “Cut the veins and arteries,” he told his shocked intern who did as he was told. Blood spurted everywhere.

The kidneys were placed in an organ-transplant container.

Then the doctor ordered the intern to remove the man’s eyeballs. Hearing that, the dying prisoner gave him a look of sheer terror, and the intern froze. “I can’t do it,” he told the doctor, who then quickly scooped out the man’s eyeballs himself.

The intern was so unnerved by what he had seen that he soon quit his job at the hospital and returned home. Later, afraid that he might be the next victim of China’s forced organ-transplant business, he fled to Canada and assumed a new identity.

First-person accounts like this are understandably rare. The “transplant tourists” who come to China are naturally told nothing about the “donors” of their new heart, liver or kidney. And those who are executed for their organs tell no tales.

Experts estimate that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted annually in China. Multiply that number times the cost of a liver transplant ($170,000) or a kidney transplant ($130,000), and the result is an eye-popping $10 billion to 20 billion.

And where do these hundreds of thousands of organs come from? The intern was told nothing about the background of the young man whose kidneys he fatally removed except that he was “under 18 and in good health.”

‘The world is beginning to wake up to the fact that virtually every organ transplant in China costs the life of an innocent human being’

But experts like Ethan Gutmann, author of several books on the subject, believe that the vast majority are obtained by executing prisoners of conscience.

One particularly rich source of fresh organs for China’s transplant industry in recent years has been the Falun Gong, which was declared a heretical Buddhist sect in 1999 by then-Party Secretary Jiang Zemin.

Hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of the group’s followers have been arrested and disappeared into a vast network of secret prisons, many never to reemerge — at least in one piece.

The Muslim minorities of China’s far west are apparently next in line. Over the past couple of years, between one to three million Uighur and Kazakh men have been arrested and sent to concentration camps — Beijing calls them “vocational training centers” — in the region.

Tellingly, all these prisoners of conscience not only had their blood drawn upon entry but also had their organs examined, presumably so they could be more quickly matched with those willing to pay for them. Even more ominously, dedicated organ-transplant lanes have been opened at airports in the region, while crematoria are being built nearby.

All this suggests that assembly-line harvesting of Uighur, Kazakh and Tibetan organs is already getting underway. China is not just ridding itself of troublesome minorities, it is profiting mightily in the process.

Despite China’s claims to the contrary, its transplant business is booming. And, thanks to a Western technology called ECMO — extracorporeal membrane oxygenation — it has become much, much more lucrative.

Miniaturised ECMO device (PLS-Set, MAQUET Cardiopulmonary AG, Hechingen, Germany). (1) Quadrox PLS membraneoxygenator; (2) centrifugal pump; (3) rotaflow control and steering unit; (4) multifunctional holder; (5) heat exchange unit.

Twenty years ago, it was only possible to successfully harvest an organ or two — two kidneys, say, or a heart — from a transplant victim. The other organs, such as the lungs and liver, had to be discarded because they had been deprived of oxygen too long to be usable.

Now, the victims are put on an ECMO machine, which serves as an artificial heart and lung and keeps every last organ fresh enough to be harvested. Before ECMO, a victim’s few salvageable organs were worth maybe $250,000. Now, with ECMO, every organ can be harvested — even the skin — and the victim is easily worth two or three times as much. ECMO, which has saved countless lives in the West, has had the opposite effect in China: It has accelerated the killing of innocent people.

In recent years, China has gone to ever greater lengths to cover up these crimes from international scrutiny. In January 2015, the government announced that it would only use organs from voluntary civilian organ donors and that the use of organs from executed prisoners would be banned.

As proof, they even published statistics. These showed a straight-line increase in “voluntary” organ donations so picture-perfect it could only be fabricated. And China’s “official” number of voluntary donors had only risen to 6,000 by 2018, a number far too small to supply the many tens of thousands of organs actually transplanted that year.

Proof that the slaughter of “donors” continues is revealed by the country’s amazingly short wait times for organs. In normal countries, sick people can wait for many months or years for an organ to become available. The wait time in the UK is three years. The wait time in Canada is double that. Only in China do organ tourists receive a kidney, heart or liver transplant within days or weeks of arriving. In fact, in some cases patients have reported that their transplant surgeries were scheduled before they even arrived in China — something that could only happen as a result of forced organ harvesting.

The world is beginning to wake up to the fact that virtually every organ transplant in China costs the life of an innocent human being. That’s why countries like Israel, Spain, Italy and Taiwan have already banned transplant tourism.

In the past, primitive peoples often practiced human sacrifice in order to propitiate the gods.

But China’s officially atheistic Communist Party could not care less about pleasing or displeasing a higher being. It has resurrected the practice of human sacrifice for two very practical reasons: to rid itself of troublesome minorities and to turn a huge profit.

China’s organ-transplant assembly line is not only murder for hire but may turn out to be a kind of genocide as well.

Imagine if an American could simply travel to Arkansas for a Chinese Communist organ transplant. Once a Christian Church is burned in the Shandong Province, the Pastor and congregation could be sent to an Arkansas Chinese Communist factory to work until their organs were needed.

When Governor Asa Hutchinson was US Attorney and Bill Clinton was Governor, Mena, Arkansas was the cocaine distribution and money laundering capital of America.

Will Arkansas move from last in GDP growth to first with the help of the Chinese Communists?

President Donald Trump called on American businesses to withdraw operations from China in August. Governor Asa Hutchinson, who has helped negotiate six Chinese companies to locate in Arkansas, said that disengaging from the Chinese economy “cannot be done without devastating impact.”

It looks like Arkansas politicians have hitched their wagons to the Commies.

Who will you align with, Republican leaders like Governor Asa Hutchinson and his nephews and inner circle or with President Donald Trump and his supporters?

Yours truly,
Gene McVay

Are you Following the Lives of the Rich and Famous Politicians?

September 24, 2019

Hunter Biden went through a nasty divorce in 2017 with his wife, was discharged from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine, and had an affair with his late brother Beau’s widow.In May 2013,

Biden was selected as a direct commission officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, a program that allows civilians with no prior service to receive a restricted line officer’s commission after attending a two-week class covering topics such as military history, etiquette, and drill and ceremony, in lieu of boot camp. Because Biden was past the cut-off age for the program, he needed a waiver. Biden received a second waiver because of past drug use and drug-related arrests. One month after commissioning, Biden tested positive for cocaine use and was discharged from the Navy reserve in February 2014.

How stupid am I? I attended boot camp in 1961 and 1962 at Lackland Air Force Base. Who knew people could bypass all that nasty hard work?

Of course, my dad was a mechanic and not Vice President of the United States. My dad never offered to buy my way into Harvard or Yale.

Talk about luck, Hunter Biden’s Firm Scored a $1.5 Billion Deal with the Bank of China 10 Days After Joe Biden and His Son Flew to China Aboard Air Force Two.

Back in 2006, Hunter Biden was nominated by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak. He was confirmed on July 26, 2006, by the U.S. Senate for a term of five years, and was the vice-chair of the board until January 29, 2009.

A four-time New York Times bestselling investigative journalist, Peter Schweizer has garnered a reputation for unearthing never-before-revealed facts about how political elites enrich themselves. His last book, Clinton Cash, sparked an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Now, in Secret Empires, he exposes how top Republicans and Democrats have engineered what he calls “the new corruption”—a system Washington elites use to grease highly lucrative deals by routing them through their children and family members. Imagine that!

Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer debuted at #3 on the Amazon bestseller list.

As Schweizer explains: “So Hunter Biden’s firm get this $1.5 billion to invest, and what they are supposed to do is basically invest in companies that benefit the Chinese government… So just think about this for a second. This is the vice president of the United States whose father is supposed to be commanding American presence and power in the Pacific to deal with the rising challenge from China, and his son is investing $1.5 billion of Chinese government money. So what do they do? They invest in an American high-precision tools company called Henniges, which used to be owned by Rocket Company, but they produce anti-vibration technologies which have a dual-use application, so this transaction actually requires the approval of the federal government, as it has national security implications. So again, the vice president’s son is helping the Chinese government take over a dual-use military technology-related company called Henniges.”

Hunter Biden was appointed by Bill Clinton to serve in the United States Department of Commerce under Secretaries Norman Mineta and William M. Daley. He was director of E-commerce policy issues in the Department of Commerce, a position he held from 1998 to 2001.

From 2001 to 2008, Biden was a founding partner of Oldaker, Biden, and Belair, LLP, a Washington DC-based lobbyist firm and law firm.

During this period, He also served as a partner and board member of the mergers and acquisitions firm Eudora Global. Biden was chief executive officer, and later chairman, of the hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors, founded in 1991 by Dr. James Park. At MBNA, a major US bank, Biden was employed as a senior vice president. Biden served as honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden inaugural committee and is a former board member of the CSIS Executive Council on Development and the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.

Biden was Chairman of the Board of the World Food Program USA. In addition to holding a directorship on the Board of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, he sits on the Chairman’s Advisory Council for the National Democratic Institute (NDI). NDI is a project of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Biden is a member of the President’s Advisory board of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington; and a member of the board of the Israel Idonije Foundation.

I wonder how high Gene McVay could climb if only I had been busted for snorting cocaine and kicked out of the Navy?

Donald Trump may be the only President in modern history who is not addicted to illegal drugs?

Maybe the reason the news media ignores all of the deep state corruption is because reporters and other journalists are also on drugs?

Maybe one big happy family that snorts together, sticks together?

Who do you want answering the White House phone at 3 am?

Will we EVER know exactly how deep and slimy our city, county, state and federal government operations actually are?

Think about it.

Are You Too Old To Become Successful?

September 15, 2019

How old is too old to do something new? If you want to launch a business, become a great leader, change careers, or just do something different with your life, at what point is it just too late to be successful? Short answer: never.

Grandma Moses was 78 when she began her career as a folk artist.

Harland Sanders was “a failure who got fired from a dozen jobs before starting his restaurant, and then failed at that when he went out of business and found himself broke at the age of 65,” according to one account. But then things worked out when he sold the first Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in 1952.

Martha Stewart had worked on Wall Street and owned a Connecticut catering firm, but her real success came after age 41 with the publication of her first book, Entertaining, and the launch of Martha Stewart Living seven years later. She weathered some pitfalls later, before rebounding once more.

The late, great comedic actor Rodney Dangerfield was best known for his roles in 1980s movies like Caddyshack and Back to School, but he was 46 before he got his first big break–on the Ed Sullivan Show.

Samuel Jackson was 46 years old and in recovery from addiction to cocaine and heroin before he starred alongside John Travolta in Pulp Fiction.

Donald Fisher was 41 when he and his wife Doris Fisher founded The Gap. It’s now a $16 billion a year company with more than 3,200 locations worldwide.

Ray Kroc had passed his 50th birthday before he bought the first McDonald’s in 1961, which he ultimately expanded into a worldwide conglomerate.

Julia Child’s first cookbook was published when she was 39; she made her television debut in The French Chef at age 51.

Duncan Hines wrote his first food and hotel guides at age 55. At age 73, he licensed the right to use his name to the company that developed Duncan Hines cake mixes.

Sam Walton owned a small chain of discount stores, but he opened the first true Walmart in 1962, when he was 44.  Although Sam Walton became the richest man in the world, he drove around in an old beat up Ford pickup.

I remember, several years ago, I was asked to become a member of the board of directors of the Arkansas Air Museum in Fayetteville. The Director told me the museum obtained Sam Walton’s first airplane, an old two seat Ercoupe.

I owned five airplanes in my life and none were as cheap and humble as that Ercoupe Sam Walton owned. The Walmart Chief Pilot learned that the museum had the airplane and asked if she could see it.

When the young lady arrived, the Director asked if she would like to sit in the tiny airplane. She was very happy for the privilege and a tear ran down her cheek.

The Chief Pilot said that Walmart now had the largest executive jet fleet in the world and she personally flew nonstop from north Arkansas to Beijing China twice a week. Just to think that the Walmart fleet began with that tiny airplane was overwhelming.

I have been told that Sam Walton would fly low over Walmart stores in that little Ercoupe and count the cars in the parking lots.

You may not be successful.   I was retired from the federal government and the Air Force when I ran for Governor of Arkansas in 1998. I lost the race but I met thousands of great people and had experiences I will cherish for the rest of my life.

I used to tell my friend, who was Mayor of Fort Smith, that there us a difference between almost doing something and actually doing something.

What will you almost do today or do you feel like actually doing something?  Good luck and my very best to you.

A Vietnamese Immigrant named Quang Nguyen

August 8, 2019

Do you understand the difference between Legal and Illegal?

On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 the town of Prescott Valley, AZ, hosted a Freedom Rally. Quang Nguyen was asked to speak on his experience of coming to America and what it means. He spoke the following in dedication to all Vietnam Veterans. Thought you might enjoy hearing what he had to say:

“35 years ago, if you were to tell me that I am going to stand up here speaking to a couple thousand patriots, in English, I’d laugh at you. Man, every morning I wake up thanking God for putting me and my family in the greatest country on earth. I just want you all to know that the American dream does exist and I am living the American dream. I was asked to speak to you about my experience as a first generation Vietnamese-American, but I’d rather speak to you as an American.

If you hadn’t noticed, I am not white and I feel pretty comfortable with my people. I am a proud US citizen and here is my proof. It took me 8 years to get it, waiting in endless lines, but I got it, and I am very proud of it.

I still remember the images of the Tet offensive in 1968, I was six years old. Now you might want to question how a 6-year-old boy could remember anything. Trust me, those images can never be erased. I can’t even imagine what it was like for young American soldiers, 10,000 miles away from home, fighting on my behalf.

35 years ago, I left South Vietnam for political asylum. The war had ended At the age of 13, I left with the understanding that I may or may not ever get to see my siblings or parents again. I was one of the first lucky 100,000 Vietnamese allowed to come to the US. Somehow, my family and I were reunited 5 months later, amazingly, in California. It was a miracle from God.

If you haven’t heard lately that this is the greatest country on earth, I am telling you that right now. It was the freedom and the opportunities presented to me that put me here with all of you tonight. I also remember the barriers that I had to overcome every step of the way. My high school counselor told me that I cannot make it to college due to my poor communication skills. I proved him wrong. I finished college. You see, all you have to do is to give this little boy an opportunity and encourage him to take and run with it. Well, I took the opportunity and here I am.

This person standing tonight in front of you could not exist under a socialist/communist environment. By the way, if you think socialism is the way to go, I am sure many people here will chip in to get you a one-way ticket out of here. And if you didn’t know, the only difference between socialism and communism is an AK-47 aimed at your head. That was my experience.

In 1982, I stood with a thousand new immigrants, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and listening to the National Anthem for the first time as an American. To this day, I can’t remember anything sweeter and more patriotic than that moment in my life.

Fast forwarding, somehow I finished high school, finished college, and like any other goofball 21 year old kid, I was having a great time with my life I had a nice job and a nice apartment in Southern California. In some way and somehow, I had forgotten how I got here and why I was here.

One day I was at a gas station, I saw a veteran pumping gas on the other side of the island. I don’t know what made me do it, but I walked over and asked if he had served in Vietnam. He smiled and said yes. I shook and held his hand. This grown man’s eyes began to well up. I walked away as fast as I could and at that very moment, I was emotionally rocked. This was a profound moment in my life. I knew something had to change in my life. It was time for me to learn how to be a good citizen. It was time for me to give back.

You see, America is not just a place on the map, it isn’t just a physical location. It is an ideal, a concept. And if you are an American, you must understand the concept, you must accept this concept, and most importantly, you have to fight and defend this concept. This is about Freedom and not free stuff. And that is why I am standing up here

Brothers and sisters, to be a real American, the very least you must do is to learn English and understand it well. In my humble opinion, you cannot be a faithful patriotic citizen if you can’t speak the language of the country you live in. Take this document of 46 pages – last I looked on the Internet, there wasn’t a Vietnamese translation of the U.S. Constitution. It took me a long time to get to the point of being able to converse and until this day, I still struggle to come up with the right words. It’s not easy, but if it’s too easy, it’s not worth doing

Before I knew this 46-page document, I learned of the 500,000 Americans who fought for this little boy. I learned of the 58,000 names inscribed on the black wall at the Vietnam Memorial. You are my heroes. You are my founders.

At this time, I would like to ask all the Vietnam veterans to please stand. I thank you for my life. I thank you for your sacrifices, and I thank you for giving me the freedom and liberty I have today. I now ask all veterans, firefighters, and police officers, to please stand On behalf of all first generation immigrants, I thank you for your services and may God bless you all.”

I might add, I know a little bit about Vietnam and the Vietnamese People. I flew 50 combat missions in Vietnam and live in Fort Smith where the Vietnamese Refugees were housed at Fort Chaffee.

I knew a Vietnamese Fighter Pilot who got a job with a large brokerage firm in Fort Smith and was promoted to an important job in New York.

As the State Commander of the largest veteran’s organization, I was invited to watch the high school shooting team practice at Northside High School. I noticed that one tiny Vietnamese girl was shooting the $600 competition air rifle and was having some difficulty handling the heavy rifle. She was under five feet tall and weighed much less than 100 pounds. Another Junior ROTC Cadet told me that she was the Commander of the Junior ROTC unit and state junior shooting champion. She also had a grade point average of 4.5.

The Vietnamese, like many other Asians, are willing to work and take advantage of opportunities. I’m old enough to remember when it was like that for young Americans. I remember when we played outside before video games and spent hours in the Library, not because we had to but because we wanted to. I remember when we were allowed to pray in school and we did meet at the flag pole and pray before class. I remember when we had no idea if our teachers were Democrats or Republicans. I remember but my memory is fading.

Quang Nguyen is the Creative Director/Founder and Senior Partner of Caddis Advertising, LLC
“God Bless America”
“One Flag, One Language, One Nation Under God”

I Would be Happy with Mexico’s Immigration Laws

August 8, 2019

Mexico’s Immigration Laws Are Much Stricter than the United States of America.

• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
– Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”
(Article 32)
– Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they
have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
– Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national
demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do
not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are
not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
– The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to
be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
– Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to
assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

– A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
– A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
– Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
– Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
– Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
– Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
– Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico – such as working with out a permit – can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
– “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
– Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned.
(Article 125)
– Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
– Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.

Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector.
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.”
(Article 32)
• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican
merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”


Can you see that the United States of America might not be as bad as the Fake News Media and Democrats would have you believe?