For a better picture, check out

http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/09/charlie-brown-caught-on-camera/

More details on the story too.

Charlie just has gotta hate those cell phone cameras right now, eh?

Last I checked, red T-shirts and jeans aren't part of the uniform. That is not a uniform. It's standard parade fare for veterans across the country for decades. Old cammie shirt and boonie hat. T-shirt and jeans.

Last I checked, this event occurred in early 2005. It's now late 2008. We know a lot more about the war today. We know that the strategy Bush was employing in 2004 and early 2005--at the time of this rally--wasn't working. Casualties continued to mount and the resistance grew stronger until--finally--the American people voted Republicans out of control of the House and Senate, forcing a change in "stratagery". Bush fired Rumsfeld the next day and the surge ultimately led us to today where we have less violence but no stability in Iraq. It certainly helped to reduce American casualties.

The protests of 2004-2006 that created a national dialogue and shifted opinions about the war that eventually triggered the political fall of the Republican Party saved the lives of thousands of American service people, including, quite possibly, Deborah Johns' son. Yeah, she's the Republican political activist who charged John Doolittle with a lack of concern about the families of troops who died overseas and is the voice behind the sleazy McClintock ads. It's very likely that the very protests she protested ultimately saved the life of her own son. Yet she stoops to this.

People who don't study history can be easily swayed by photos like this. People who allow themselves to be enthralled by gimmicks and empty gestures by politicians who were spending 2005 voting "NO" on veterans bills can be easily swayed by photos like this. But real Americans--those who won't let irrational people tell us how to think--understand how important it was back then to say something to move the dialogue forward.

Thank God for Charlie Brown and Americans who were willing to go to bat--no matter how embarassing or politically inconvenient--for our country and the troops who protect her. May the plague visit people like the poster of this blog and the McClintock Campaign, lowest of the low. It's people like them that voted the lousy leaders into place that started this useless war in the first place. We should listen to them now? I don't think so.

Bob: (aka: Miuwtant)

Its nice that you filibuster with apologies for Brown, but how do you account for the lies?

Oh wait..you answer this question with "--no matter how embarassing or politically inconvenient--"

So Brown lied because the truth was politically inconvenient. OK. Thanks.

Was Brown pushing for the Surge? Oh...no...he was pushing for surrender.

This makes me so mad! I am going to call the Jurnal and tell them to take this down. Charlie Brown was not wearing his uniform. He was only wearing the coat and hat, not his pants, boots or shirt. The lady is aliar. She says he was wearing a uniform but he is not. Charlie ias a conservetive democrat and while I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he is not a liberal. He was there to talk to the people and find out why they were hanging our troops in effigy. He was only an observer. You disgust me rat stinker. You guys assaulted us at the fair. I am going to call the police the next time a repuklican gets near me.

Where is the uniform and where is the soldier hanging in effigy? rat_stink is, as always a lying idiot...

1st, R.T., why when you post a blog are you always the 1st to leave a comment? I think you can say what you want in the blog. Next, I've copied the following from your link: " if you look close at the Jacket that Charlie Brown is wearing - you can make out insignia on it. This suggests that this jacket Brown is wearing could have actually been one of his military-issued BDU jackets. " I refer to the part that says, "this suggests" and "could." That also can be written as; "this suggest...could not have actually..." Personally, I don't care either way. It's just not very compelling nor do I see it as proof. I have similar apparel that I purchased from an army surplus store. I spent 10 years in the Navy and wasn't issued any camo, but I wanted some and found an easy means of getting it.

What I find most interesting in the comments are how black and white most people see the issues. Again...if not in support of the surge, then in support of surrender. Annihilation (victory) or withdrawal (surrender)...no middle ground. Every thing one candidate does is good, every thing the other candidate does is bad...NO! That is the reason there are undecided. It is not because we don't look at the issues. We are undecided because we are aware of ALL of the issues and are working on prioritizing the importance of them so that we can decide which outweigh which. 30 plus years as a Republican, I had to change to an Independent 3 years ago...long story, just suffice it to say...to much influence from the religious right.

It looks to me like a grainy picture of a vet watching people exercise their first amendment right. The vet has his hands in his pockets, is not carrying a sign, and looks pretty solemn about the whole affair. What is wrong with that?

RolandMc,

Your second paragraph nailed it. I am also tired of these dichotomous views.

I will have to tell my relatives in the service that red shirts and blue jeans are now an official part of their uniform. I am sure they would be happy to hear that.

Ah yes campaign season where real issues no longer matter and voters are left with nothing but trash to sort through. I have always voted for McClintock for state wide offices but his campaign for Congress doesn't impress me much.

RT. America is in horrible shape. Let's agree that both sides of the aisle are to blame. That said. If you never posted again in the journal no one would miss you. I for one am sick to death of your shtick. Please go away. You really make me feel sick to my stomach.

He's not in uniform? Really? So all he had to do to get around calling it a uniform was to wear a red shirt underneath it? Then I guess if a soldier ties a burnt American flag around his waist during inspection, he can just say, "Oh no Sarge, you can't ding me for disgracing the uniform because I'm not in uniform, see, I have this burnt flag here." Ok, I see...

How about this: "No officer, I couldn't have been driving drunk because if I were really drunk you couldn't really call it 'driving' could you?"

Mr. Liar,

How did you do in your H.S. debate class? Pretty bad, huh? No, someone like you never took an extracurricular activity like debate. You were probably watching TV instead.

Military uniform regulations are cut and dried. Brown is not wearing a military uniform in the photo above. He may be wearing pieces of a working uniform (which is allowed); it's hard to tell. These could also be non-issue items he bought from U.S. Cavalry (look it up if you don't know what it is).

And tell me: How many Fourth of July parades have you been to or other civic events--including protests--where vets showed up in their camoflauge or olive drab shirts and a boonie hat of some kind? Never seen that before, huh? Don't get out too much, huh? Spend your day watching The Simpsons and Sean Hannity, maybe?

Brown has never, not once, denied that he was at that event. He has denied wearing a uniform because he wasn't wearing a uniform.

The real issue is this: Brown was interested enough in veterans and the War in Iraq to get involved. He has a son who has completed fourt ours in Iraq and who will be leaving soon (or already has) for his fifth. You can call him whatever you want but you can't call him a anti-vet or anti-military. Leave that distinction for his opponent, the slimy Tom McClintock. He was spending 2005 voting "NO" on veterans bills in the state legislature.

And for those of you who have seen my posts over the months I used to be "Bob" on this forum but the new AJ Online setup required a screen name longer than three letters. So I use Miuwtant instead. It has personal meaning for me. But yes, my real name is Bob and I have not tried to hide that. Unlike another poster here who's real name is Ken. But he prefers Doctor Ken, thank you very much.

Here was Pearcy's comment, repeated endlessly by the blogger who posted this POS:

"I also appreciated the fact that Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside..."

Full. Military. Uniform. Lie.

It's a lie. Brown was not in a full military uniform. He was not in a uniform at all. Even an anti-war lawyer would know the difference. Surely a veteran would know unless it suits them to ignore the facts....and lie, too.

All these months of posting about this. Now the truth is out there for everyone to see. The author of this blog owes an apology to everyone for falsely accusing a veteran and for repeatedly lying about this. He owes apologies for a great deal more than that but one for this would be a good start.

Wow, Miuwtant, you can spin anything.

Dr. Mendacious: Swell. Great. Now which one is Charlie? Not the short guy with glasses, because Charlie is tall. He doesn't wear glasses. So which one is him? The white sweatshirt with Hebrew lettering guy? That isn't a uniform I recognize.

And where's the burning effigy in military uniform? And where is the burning flag around his waist? I knew it -You LIED! But I hope Charlie was at an anti-war event. That takes courage and individuality, two characteristics entirely absent in our present lock-step leadership.

Miuwtant - thank you for setting this entire non-issue straight. Too often we get caught up in trivial discussions that amount to nothing more than picking fly sh!t out of pepper (as they say in the South) and we miss the bigger economic and social picture.

Issues! Let's talk about the issues. How can we afford even more tax cuts with our present budget impasse, Mr. McClintock?

There is nothing unpatriotic about protesting an illegal and immoral war. I am voting for Charlie Brown precisely because he is against the war in Iraq. I'm voting against McClintock because he is a carpet-bagging warmonger.

The great thing about blogs is that anyone can have one.

The bad things about blogs is that, well, anyone can have one.

"Take your choice." I have, and my choice is Charlie Brown.

I was stunned and shocked when I read about "...Hanging of US Troops in Effigy." You see I was born and raised in Effigy, Iowa and would hate to think this was going on in my home town.

Its good to see that we have advanced the debate past the point where Charlie Brown denied being at Stephen Pearcy's rally where our troops were hung in effigy and are now quibbling over whether Pearcy was accurate in describing Brown's attire.

Since Brown denied being there, and has refused to discuss it recently, its a step forward.

We have now sorted things out to the point where those who would find themselves at a rally where our troops are hung in effigy, calling for our troops to be pulled from the battlefield in surrender are separated from those who think such a thing is un-patriotic and would never do it in their life.

I strongly recommend that those who supported surrender vote for Charlie.

And those who supported our troops and their mission can vote for Tom.

Hey is RT Ken. The Ken that had a tiny position in the Repug party. If that's the Ken I think it is he needs to get some SOME more than anyone in Placer County. He is one frustrated self important little trouser snake. If he is not my apologies to that Ken and keep up the good work protecting the world from hippies like me.

Oh...I forgot to apologize to all of the Charlie Brown supporters.

I want to publicly apologize to all of you for exposing Charlie's lie on these pages. I realize now that the Journal has a much higher hit rate, and thus more exposure of his lies.

I should have left the public thinking that I was a liar when I referred to Stephen Pearcy's blog post that Charlie had attended his rally. I should have allowed the public to accept Charlie's story that he was not there, ok, that he might have been there but he was talking to both sides, ok, that he was not in uniform but he might have been wearing his old BDUs, ok, I should have just left the public in the dark.

My bad.

I realize now that Stephen Pearcy was a liar because he did not know the difference between BDUs and a uniform.

I realize now that Debra Johns was a liar because she also said he was in uniform when he was just wearing his old BDUs.

I realize now that Charlie was not lying because he had a pair of jeans on and a red t-shirt and you would officially be defined as "out of uniform" if you showed up to an inspection like that.

I realize that while most people would not realize that Charlie was out of uniform when he stood at the rally with Code Pink and supported the hanging of our troops in effigy, Charlie understood that subtlety.

So Brown supporters want to quibble about whether Brown was there "in uniform" versus "in full uniform"? That's the best issue they have to focus on?

If Pearcy had said Brown was there "in uniform" instead of saying he was there "in full uniform," that would have made all the difference?

When Brown spoke on KFBK, he said, "I wasn't in uniform." Well I guess he lied since he didn't say, "I wasn't in full uniform." He said he wasn't in uniform, meaning not any kind of uniform at all. Are the twisted Brown supporters going to say that a uniform is either a full uniform or it's no uniform at all? Give me a break! Are we back to Clinton's ridiculous "it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is"? It sure sounds like it.

Brown was in uniform, and he said he wasn't in uniform. Therefore he's a liar. QED

R_T - I zoomed the picture as far as I could, I can't tell who that is. I can't tell where they are, I can't tell when it was. This is not proof, it does not fit the criteria.

That being said, in all honesty, I could care less. If he came out today and said he was there, I wouldn't care. He hasn't said he wasn't there, he has chosen to focus on ISSUES, remember those? I think you are treating Placer County voters like they must be idiots or something, to base their vote, with the myriad of issues that need to be discussed, on something that he may have gone to observe approaching four years ago. Not sponsored, not spoke at, and would have distanced himself from immediately after attending if we are to believe Pearcy's blog that he was there. Unlike McClintock who deliberately associated himself with a group of vigilantes. Just last week. The proof is on his website about concern for the troops www.charliebrownforcongress.org I keep checking, still nothing whatsoever at www.tommclintock.com there is both web pages, have a look under ISSUES, what should be the focus, not this.

Brown, a Roseville Democrat and former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, has pledged to donate 5 percent of all of his campaign contributions to nonprofit groups that assist veterans and their families, and called on McClintock to do the same.

A spokesman for McClintock's campaign said McClintock wouldn't be participating.

"He's done a lot for veterans over the years and not called a press conference to talk about it every time," said Bill George of McClintock's campaign. "It's not something he does for political purposes."

George added: "Obviously, they're interested in making us look bad politically. They're not really interested in helping out veterans."

McClintock needs nobody's help looking bad politically. He hasn't voted on a veteran's issue since 2006, and he never served in the military himself. Tom McClintock has now committed the ultimate act of cowardice in smearing a highly-decorated combat veteran.

McClintock's voting record :

THE ONLY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO VOTE AGAINST legislation asking Congress to

minimize the economic impact of military base closures in California. AJR

29, 7/3/97

THE ONLY LEGISLATOR TO OPPOSE "Freedom Pay" for state employees called to

active military service during the 1997 crisis in Kosovo, which protected

them from salary loss. AB 1606, 9/10/97

OPPOSED the Veterans' Home Bond Act that provided funding to construct and

renovate veterans' homes. Voters approved the measure by a wide margin.

Proposition 16, 2000; SB 630, 9/10/99

FAILED TO SUPPORT bond funding needed by the Cal-Vet program to give home

loans to at least 2,500 California veterans. Voters approved the measure by

a wide margin. Proposition 32, 2000; AB 2305, 6/29/00

JUST MONTHS AFTER 9/11, was one of only two State Senators who failed to

support "Freedom Pay" for state employees called to active duty to fight the

war on terrorism. SB 711, 1/30/02

ONE OF ONLY TWO SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST legislation that protects the

families of California soldiers serving in Iraq from financial hardship. AB

1666, 9/7/05; AB 306, 9/6/05; AB 276, 9/6/05

ONE OF ONLY TWO SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST legislation that protects the

widows of California soldiers killed in action in Iraq from financial

hardship. SB 513, 8/29/05

ONE OF ONLY TWO SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST a measure that helps expedite

school transfers for the children of active-duty California soldiers. AB

208, 8/18/05

ONE OF ONLY TWO SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST the "Veterans Quality of Life Fund"

which lets taxpayers make voluntary contributions to veterans' homes. AB

357, 8/18/05

ONE OF ONLY TWO SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST a measure that ensures adequate

staffing of the California National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction and

Civil Support Teams. AB 690, 8/23/05

____

Talk is cheap. And Tom McClintock has always been cheap when it comes to veterans.

THAT anti war, pro war counter "RALLY" on the other side was organized by a Republican funded Public Relations firm that is run by one of Doolittle's ex staffers who is now in legal trouble and won't even admit he used to work for Doolittle ! And another ex Doolittle staffer, Kevin Ring, was just arrested in Sept, is about to turn on him, to save his own hide, and the government is about to release thousands of pages of documents for the trial !

Doolittle then used it on his campaign website in 2006.

re the television story this ran on, channel 10 (ABC )

Channel 10 news, which ran the story about the release of the advertisement, did NOT identify who the people were in that video during what was supposed to be a "press conference" but instead the McClintock people called security to have people who just wanted to observe thrown out of the room. McClintock also was supposed to be there to talk about the budget, but was not. He was also supposed to be in Lincoln that morning at a Chamber of Commerce meeting but was not. He is a coward. His staff also LIED about his whereabouts that day. His attorney and finance director can be seen smirking in that video right after Ruiz lets go of the person he grabbed and threatened, if you know who the people in the vidoe are. This is why they didn't show the full thing.

The dark haired man in the suit facing the camera is John Ruiz, a "campaign consultant" or "advisor" for the McClintock campaign who also is financially involved with Southern California Casinos being financed by the Malik family of Detroit. This Malik family has given thousands of dollars to Tom McClintock. He (Ruiz) had just previously committed what is known legally as "assault" upon another person in the photo, which has been edited out of the News 10 video, by grabbing the person's arm and threatening them under his breath. He then made another comment out loud trying to provoke a fight. Only the person's reaction, saying "do not touch me again," is shown in the video.

The person in the print shirt with his back to the camera is a real veteran and did not assault anybody. The person standing behind Ruiz is a real veteran and did not assault anybody.

The woman acting indignant in the McClintock swiftboat ad, Debra or Deborah Johns, uses "marine mother" as her online persona but she is a professional spokesperson/actress for Move America Forward in their ads. MAF, as it is also known, is an arm of the Public Relations Firm of Russo, Marsh, and Rogers.

Move America Forward routinely creates online fund raising websites by "military mothers" to gather funds to "support the troops" to run hit piece ads on Democratic candidates. After the funds are collected, the sites dissapear but the ads can still be seen on YouTube.

Russo Marsh, and Rogers is a Republican PR firm. MAF claims to be a "non profit" division of them because of its issues advocacy, but as far as my opinion goes, they are a scam organization.

The "Rogers" in the RMR firm is Ron Rogers. Ron Rogers used to be John Doolittle's Chief of Staff from 2007 to 2008. Ron Rogers was subpoenaed regarding the Doolittle corruption investigation. Ron Rogers very much wants to not be known for this. Let it be known.

News 10 is an ABC affiliate who is also owned by Disney, and who also previously employed up until this spring the "chairman" of Move America Forward, as a right wing radio talk show host in San Francisco notorious for threatening people. I have spoken at length with one of this person's previous targets. They provoke incidents and then attempt to sue for damages. This is their standard modus operendi.

This month, Kevin Ring, the ex legislative aide to John Doolittle, and the lobbyist who was working with convicted Jack Abramoff, was arrested and charged with bribery, corruption, etc, a few days after Abramoff's conviction. In the indictment, there are MANY references to another Congressperson # 5 whom Ring was lobbying heavily and giving many favors to. That Congressperson is well known from the descriptions of the activities to be Doolittle. Kevin Ring is fighting these charges by pleading innocent. This week, it was announced that thousands of pages of government documents will be released as sought by Ring's defense attorney.

This entire swiftboating incident was designed to be a diversion of discussion away from the fact that a certain Republican Congressperson will be publicaly implicated by Kevin Ring when the contents of those documents are used to defend him.

I'm pleased to see you brought this up. I'm almost pleased to see that crappy ad on McClintock's site. Now the relationship between McClintock and John Doolittle and Doolittle's ex chief of staff Rogers is crystal clear, along with the fact that Casino money will be used to try to get Doolittle off the hook.

People are sick of being demagogued by the ultra right wing in this country, and veterans and families are sick of people like McClintock smearing them to make cheap political gain and then voting against their interests.

canyon rat ____ Thanks for all the great info. Why is Tom McClintock's campaign manager involved with Indian casinos?

McClintock's campaign manager, John Feliz, was involved in talks to have Detroit casino syndicators Marian Ilitch and Michael Malik relocate an Indian casino for the Big Lagoon Rancheria in Humboldt County to Barstow. Feliz, attorneys at Patton Boggs and Akin Gump (including former Interior Department official Michale Rossetti) and others who promoted the scheme were recorded at a secret meeting.

At the time, Feliz was involved in raising money for then-Rep. Richard Pombo, former chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Feliz is a longtime pal and political operative for John Doolittle and Richard Pombo. Feliz's son, Daniel Feliz (Potomac Partners DC) is now a Capitol Hill lobbyist for the Detroit casino syndicators MJM Enterprises and Blue Water Resorts.

A strange web of relationships, indeed.

Charlie may have been there, but this photo is not him.

The young man in the photo wears glasses. Charlie does not. Charlie is taller and huskier. The young man in photo seems to be in his twenties. Charlie is 59 years old.

Sorry Loser, you got caught lying again.

Why are Tom McClintock's people involved with Indian Casinos? Because McClintock took $3 MILLION dollars of donations from Indian Casino interests in the 2003 governor's recall race.

According to Open Secrets, McClintock has already collect $97,000 from Casino and Gambling interests just for this 2008 campaign, with 7 weeks to go. This money is from Southern California Indian Tribes that want to be sure to keep McClintock thinking of them when he's thinking about new legislation.

Even after he lost the 2003 election, SoCal Indian Casinos continued to give McClintock thousands of dollars of repayment money in 2004 via his State Account called "McClintock's Committee to Stop the Car tax, Tom", records of which can be found on the CA secretary of state's cal access site.

$10,000

$15,000

$2,000

Since John Doolittle was a "well established Republican" who was very involved with certain lobbyists (like associates of Jack Abramoff ) going around to certain Indian tribes and suggesting certain things happen in return for certain types of legislation, maybe the poster of this article would want to re think calling McClintock a "well established Republican."

CanyonRat - considering McClintock's recent plea to the State Water Resources Control Board to not let the Auburn Dam permits expire, coupled with his plan to build a much larger Auburn Dam, I'd say he's interested in controlling where our water goes. He has always represented water-hungry L.A. With Doolittle gone, McClintock wants to represent District 04, the water source.

Money from Southern California casino tribes, you say? I wonder what they have been promised for that money.