The Unrelenting Effort to Silence The Last Firebase

The Unrelenting Effort to Silence The Last Firebase

By Donna Long
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
September/October 1994 issue

Some of the same Washington, D. C. elitist snobs who, in 1981, helped Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, stop the American flag from being permanently flown directly over the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial have now joined his new and unrelenting effort to evict POW/MIA activists from vigils near the memorial.

Scruggs, who does not believe Vietnam held live POWs back after 1973, has made no secret of his contempt for POW activists whom he has publicly categorized as "vendors exploiting the POW/MIA issue for personal gain."

In commenting about POW/MIA families, Scruggs told the Morning News Tribune of Seattle, WA, "I'm kind of sorry for them, that they don't have normal lives."

Since the dedication of the memorial in 1982, Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA family members have maintained POW/MIA vigils adjacent to sidewalks leading to the Wall "to remind politicians of the abandonment of American Vietnam War veterans who were left behind against their will in Southeast Asia."

The activities of the POW/MIA activists who operate the vigils, which are set-up on "demonstration sites" designated by the National Park Service, are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Under that free speech amendment, activists demonstrating on federal land can offer for sale to the public printed materials that display messages directly related to their cause and activity.

Last year, the Commission on Fine Arts, a presidentially appointed group of bureaucrats who have a say in what Washington, D.C.'s memorials should look like and represent, jumped in to help Scruggs' rid the area near the Wall of those "disgusting non-artistic" POW/MIA vigils they claim are cluttering up the sidewalks.

Members of that commission are lobbying Congress for new laws which they hope can be used against the POW vigils. The Commission on Fine Arts said publicly in 1982, while opposing the placement of the American flag over the Wall, that there was no need to "adorn the memorial with patriotic claptrap."

The primary target of Scruggs and his federal government bureaucrat friends is The Last Firebase Veteran's Archives Project which has maintained a 24-hour POW/MIA vigil near the Lincoln Memorial since 1986.

The Last Firebase is a non-profit veteran's organization whose leadership is made up of Vietnam veterans and POW/MIA family members. It has the full endorsement of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. Outside of the U.S. and Vietnamese governments, The Last Firebase holds the largest database of POW/MIA information in the world.

Activists who man The Last Firebase raise funds by selling printed materials, including POW/MIA related t-shirts, bracelets, and books, which are used to finance national and international campaigns designed to focus public attention on the POW/MIA issue.

Once Washington's elite have cleansed "their monument" of the "embarrassing" Last Firebase vigil, then the "long-haired, booney, hat-wearing, over-the-hill wannabes" won't have any place to "hang around," swapping stories about "a war they lost." Most importantly, they will not be there cluttering up Washington's most visited "tourist attraction" with their unsightly presence.

This type of in house contempt for Vietnam vets who don't wear a "three-piece" suit and eat sushi for lunch is typical among the Washington bureaucrats who view the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as nothing more than military art and a tourist attraction.

The following is a documented chronology of how upper-crust politically motivated "Beltway Insiders", a multi-million dollar corporation, and an equally greedy, pompous, self-serving former folk-hero Vietnam vet, have joined forces in an attempt to shut down The Last Firebase and rid themselves of "undesirables."

SCRUGGS SUED THE POW/MIA ACTIVISTS

November, 1991 - Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and Frederick Hart, a Vietnam War protestor and the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial "Three Servicemen Statue" in Washington, filed a copyright infringement suit against Homecoming II Project (former keeper of The Last Firebase), Red Hawk, Inc. (former publisher of U.S. Veteran News and Report), and Ted Sampley, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was chairman of Homecoming II and president of Red Hawk, Inc.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. sought to stop Homecoming II, the U.S. Veteran News and Report, and Ted Sampley from using the image of the "Three Servicemen Statue" on POW/MIA t-shirts and the payment of back royalties.

In the lawsuit, Scruggs and Hart, who paid their attorneys over $100,000 from money the public had donated to the memorial fund, alleged that their ownership of the copyright and charging royalties are important to provide a source of income needed to maintain the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and to protect the statue's artistic integrity.

Sampley's lawyer argued that under copyright law, a national symbol could not be copyrighted. He maintained the "Three Servicemen Statue" was a national symbol for all Vietnam veterans and their families.

Scruggs and Hart's lawyers told the judge that the copyright was valid because the statue was nothing more than "a piece of art with no function or symbolic meaning.

SAMPLEY ARRESTED--THE LAST FIREBASE IMPOUNDED

February 1, 1992 - Several trucks carrying an estimated dozen United Stated Park Police made a morning raid on The Last Firebase demanding that Sampley order The Last Firebase dismantled and removed from federal land.

Sampley refused and was arrested. The police then dismantled and impounded The Last Fire Base charging Sampley with demonstrating without a permit.

Charges against Sampley were later thrown out of court and The Last Firebase property was returned to the activists and their permit to demonstrate reissued.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERED ACTIVISTS TO STOP USING IMAGES OF STATUE

February 4, 1992 - Rejecting Sampley's argument that the "Three Servicemen Statue" could not be copyrighted because it belongs to the people, Judge John Garrett Penn ruled that the Scruggs/Hart copyright was valid. He ordered the POW/MIA activists to stop making and selling "unauthorized images" of the statue and that all items the activists possessed containing the image be impounded.

In his ruling, Judge Penn said the activists had attempted to justify their unauthorized use of the images by "wrapping themselves in the flag of patriotism." He said the public is served by the enforcement of the copyright.

SCRUGGS WON AN UNPRECEDENTED JUDGEMENT AGAINST ACTIVIST

December 10, 1992 - Federal Judge Charles R. Richey rejected Sampley's documented argument that activists at The Last Firebase had grossed, in a 3 year period, less than $72,000 in sales of printed material featuring the "Three Servicemen Statue." Judge Richey awarded Scruggs' memorial fund and Hart $300,000 in damages and $59,000 in attorney fees saying he had based the $300,000 damages, in part, on an affidavit from Walt Sides, president of Warriors Inc. In the affidavit, Sides, who operates a booth adjacent to The Last Firebase, said that he pays Scruggs' memorial fund 10 percent of his booth's gross sales of t-shirts with the copyrighted image of the statue, which tabulates to approximately $10,000 per year.

SEVERELY WOUNDED, HOMECOMING II PROJECT AND THE U.S. VETERAN NEWS ARE DISSOLVED

March 1993 - As a result of the judgement and with their finances depleted, Homecoming II and the U.S. Veteran News and Report, which had occupied The Last Firebase since the mid-80s, were forced to dissolve. During its tenure of The Last Firebase, Homecoming II had diligently distributed millions of pieces of literature explaining the plight of American POWs and MIAs and had given away nearly 700,000 issues of the U.S. Veteran.

The activists quickly reorganized and The Last Firebase Veterans Archives Project and the U.S. Veteran Dispatch became the new occupants of The Last Firebase.

SCRUGGS TRIED TO DEFEND JUDGEMENT AGAINST ACTIVISTS

March 1993 - Scruggs, responding to thousands of faxes, calls and letters demanding an explanation as to why Scruggs' organization holds a copyright on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which is supposed to be a public monument, began a counterattack.

He wrote to one activist, "The courts have spoken on the issue [copyright] for several hundred years. Patents protect inventors from those who steal their ideas and line their own pockets. Copyrights do the same for authors and artists."

To another he wrote, "We initiated this lawsuit only after being forced to do so. Now that we have won we will take measures to get the money which could have been used to help the Memorial rather than go to a for profit enterprise such as REDHAWK [U.S. VETERAN NEWS AND REPORT]. The money is available. Sales are brisk at the Memorial. Thousands of dollars in cold hard cash from tourists is changing hands every day."

Scruggs wrote, "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is not involved with Agent Orange, POWs, or other veterans issues. We are involved in protecting the memorial from those who misuse it and we are cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in protecting the memorial from those who threaten to use explosives to destroy it."

April 4, 1993 - Scruggs answered the complaint of the brother of a man who is still missing in action as a result of the Vietnam War, "Personally I would like to settle this entire affair and become friends. Each time we try we have been rebuffed. Believe me, we will continue aggressive tactics to get the money owed to us from those who can clearly afford it. After all our legal fees are being paid by Homecoming II. And I have no sympathy for t-shirt vendors."

SCRUGGS - THE CATALYST IN A NEW ATTACK

April 14, 1993 - Scruggs wrote a letter to J. Carter Brown, chairman of the Commission on Fine Arts. In the letter, Scruggs told Brown that "groups claiming to help American POWs" and "others who claim to be helping the Vietnam Veterans Memorial" are "retail operations making a small fortune." He suggested that because "structures" being used on some First Amendment demonstration sites have been there for a long period of time, they have achieved "a degree of permanency as to merit design approval" by the arts commission.

APRIL 15, 1993 - Brown answered Scruggs with a three paragraph letter thanking him for his continuing concern for the memorial and telling Scruggs that he had passed his letter on to the National Park Service.

APRIL 26, 1993 - Scruggs, an attorney, wrote Brown back, informing him that the National Park Service is "powerless to take corrective action" against the POW/MIA activists, "because of the First Amendment there is a right to demonstrate" and "a part of one's demonstration can consist of selling items with one's First Amendment message emblazoned upon merchandise." Scruggs added, "allowable merchandise includes tourist souvenirs such as t-shirts, buttons and other items."

Scruggs wrote, because the demonstrations "are perfectly legal," the National Park Service "has no authority to deny anyone a permit to demonstrate and sell merchandise as part of their demonstration." He added, "I have researched the law in great detail, believe me" and ended his letter by calling upon Brown to "exercise your authority under the law to halt all sales activities at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial until such time as the demonstrator's structures have met the high architectural standards for which our city is famous."

MAY 27, 1993 - Brown wrote to Robert G. Stanton, Regional Director of the National Park Service. Brown called the area between the Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials a "mess" and lamented over why "one or two" groups should be allowed to spoil the beauty of "one of our great monuments" (obviously referring to the Lincoln Memorial, since he suggested that the groups be moved out of the main visual axis connecting the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument and the Capitol).

SCRUGGS BEGAN MEDIA PRESSURE

JUNE 20, 1993 - WASHINGTON POST - Scruggs, described as the Vietnam veteran who "conceived" the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, attacked POW/MIA activists on First Amendment demonstration sites near the Wall, saying they had created a "K-Mart on the Mall". Scruggs said the activists should only be allowed to pass out brochures and "things like that." The Post quoted National Parks Service spokesman Sandra Alley as saying the Park Service is "concerned about the carnival atmosphere" and is studying regulations to "better control" the area.

NOW THAT I'VE GOT YOUR ATTENTION

JUNE 21, 1993 - Scruggs wrote Sandra Alley telling her that demonstrators near the Wall are selling pins, sweatshirts, videos, patches and other items in violation of their permits. In addition, Scruggs said that he learned from an (unnamed) appointee of President Clinton that one of the demonstrators had set a gas can next to a generator. Scruggs called the latter alleged incident "a clear and present danger" to the public and reminded Ms. Alley that the Park Service had the right to immediately revoke permits for both alleged violations.

ENTER SEN. KERRY---THE PRO-HANOI POLITICIAN

JUNE 30, 1993 - A call was logged in at the Park Ranger Kiosk, located at the entrance to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, from the office of Senator John Kerry (D-MA). According to the log book, Kerry's office asked about the "vendors" near the Wall and was told to contact the Park Service Public Affairs office.

Kerry, who was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a member of the committee, led the fight on the U.S. Senate floor to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam.

(POW/MIA activists at The Last Firebase have publicly accused both senators of suppressing evidence during the committee's investigation that American POWs were held years after the end of the Vietnam War).

THE SECOND COMING

JULY 13, 1993 - An article written by Scruggs, headlined "Seedy side of the memorial," is published in USA TODAY. In that article, Scruggs compared his crusade against POW activists who demonstrate near the Wall to Jesus chasing the "money-changers" out of the temple. He ended his sanctimonious posturing by declaring that "real" demonstrators should "only be allowed to give away pamphlets and brochures."

(What Scruggs failed to include in his "holier than thou" tirade against "making money at a sacred place" was that his memorial fund has received thousands of dollars in royalties from the sale of t-shirts and other items that bear the image of the copyrighted "Three Servicemen Statue" generated at First Amendment demonstration sites near The Wall).

SORRY I DIDN'T ANSWER SOONER

JULY 16, 1993 - Sandra Alley answered Scruggs' June 21 letter. Ms. Alley told Scruggs the Park Service is doing its best to enforce permit regulations and is considering changing the regulations.

WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

DECEMBER 17, 1993 - Scruggs sent a memorandum to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.

"For quite a while I have been unsuccessful in persuading your agency that the vendors at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are simply that ....they are not demonstrators ...they are vendors selling souvenirs to tourists," Scruggs wrote. Scruggs told Babbitt that the Park Service plans to "eventually somehow get around to issuing regulations" to get rid of the demonstrators and expressed his "utter amazement" at the Park Service's "inability to accomplish this small task." Scruggs ended his letter by offering to give Babbitt's department a tour of the memorial.

OH, MY GOD - EVEN THE WORST WINTER OF THE CENTURY CAN'T SHUT THEM DOWN!

JANUARY 31, 1994 - Brown wrote to National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy telling the director that he had driven by the Lincoln Memorial during the snow, which had shut down the U.S. government, and regretted to report that despite the "severity of the weather," the "vendors" in front of the Lincoln Memorial were still there.

(The Last Firebase, which is located across from the Lincoln Memorial, near the Reflecting Pool, maintained its 24-hour vigil for POW/MIAs that day, as it has every day, 365 days a year, regardless of the weather).

Saying that the commission's lawyers were "very nervous" about taking any steps that might be "construed as an abridgment" of the demonstrator's rights, Brown suggested relocating the demonstration sites to a "less conspicuous spot" as an alternative.

I'LL GET RID OF THEM!

FEBRUARY 27, 1994 - Senator Kerry visited the Park Ranger Kiosk at the Wall and wanted to know what was being done about the POW/MIA demonstration sites. According to the daily log book, after Park Ranger Oates explained the permit process to Kerry, the senator asked, "Aren't the memorial people doing anything about it?" Oates told Kerry that there is a controversy about the POW/MIA vigils. To this Kerry replied, "They are disgusting. We'll do something about it tomorrow."

PITTING "BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER"

MARCH 1994 - BRAVO VETERANS OUTLOOK published a vicious attack by Scruggs on fellow Vietnam veterans who man POW/MIA vigils near the Wall. In that article, Scruggs called upon Vietnam veterans to protect their "sacred" Wall from the greedy "money-changers" by writing a letter to Stanton asking him to change sales regulations on First Amendment demonstration sites.

(Again Scruggs failed to mention the thousands of dollars his organization had received and the money it continues to receive to this date from some of the demonstration sites he so vehemently attacks. The Last Firebase, which refuses to recognize the copyright on the "Three Servicemen Statue," is not among the groups that pays copyright royalties to Scruggs' organization).

"BELTWAY MEDIA" SILENT ON MAIL FRAUD INVESTIGATION OF SCRUGGS's FUND RAISING

APRIL 20, 1994 - CBS THIS MORNING reported that Pennsylvania Attorney General Ernie Preate was investigating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund's direct mail fund-raising activities.

"This organization raised over $4.6 million over the last three years on claims that it is going to use that money to maintain the Wall. In fact, under our conservative estimates, we can say that only about $230,000, or only 5 percent, has actually gone into events and maintenance of the wall area," Preate said. Calling Scruggs' direct-mail letters "misleading and fraudulent," Preate added that according to VVMF's tax returns, Scruggs' organization raised over $2 million in 1992.

"Only $180,000 was spent on taking care of the Wall, while $630,000 was spent on fund-raising. The remaining money went to public education and ceremonies to commemorate the Wall," Preate said.

"The National Park Service and the American taxpayers are already spending more than $750,000 a year to take care of the Wall, it's a sum the Park Service says adequately covers the needs of the monument," said CBS THIS MORNING reporter Hattie Kauffman.

(There's something perversely evil about someone who calls upon Vietnam veterans to "protect their sacred Wall" from POW/MIA activists who fund their cause by offering tangible items to the public, while raising millions of dollars in donations under the fraudulent pretext of maintaining the Wall).

SCRUGGS' MEMORIAL FUND TRIED TO COLLECT JUDGEMENT BY ATTEMPTING TO SEIZE SAMPLEY'S PROPERTY

April 27, 1994 - The Kinston Daily Free Press reported that a sheriff's deputy had called Sampley to inform him that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund was ordering his property seized as partial payment of the $359,000 judgment. The date of June 3 was set for the public auctioning of Sampley's property.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS COSTING US MONEY

MAY 4, 1994 - S.J. DiMeglio, president and CEO of Guest Services, a multi-million dollar corporation that operates the Park Service marinas, kiosks and vending operations on the Mall, met with Stanton and complained about his company losing money to First Amendment demonstration sites.

TO PROTECT THE PARK VISITOR

MAY 18, 1994 - The Park Service published a proposed regulation change in the Federal Register that would limit sales on First Amendment demonstration sites to books, newspapers and traditional printed material, such as pamphlets and leaflets. Stanton claimed the demonstration sites near the Vietnam Memorial, which are the only ones attacked in the proposed regulation change, "have severely disrupted the quality of the park visitor experience." The public was given a 60-day period to comment on the proposed regulation change.

ACTIVISTS FORCE SCRUGGS TO CANCEL AUCTION

June 3, 1994 - The Kinston Free Press reported that Scruggs had backed down from auctioning Sampley's property.

"The whole idea behind the memorial was to help heal the wounds of the whole Vietnam War and to help the vets recover," Scruggs told The Free Press. Scruggs said that the memorial fund had been told that "The only thing Sampley really wants is for us to foreclose on his property in order to become what he considers a martyr. But, we're not going to make him a martyr. That's not really what we're about anyway."

Although the auction was canceled, the memorial fund can still foreclose on Sampley anytime within the next 10 years.

GEE, THANK YOU FOR ASKING ME TO COMMENT ON YOUR PROPOSED CHANGES

JUNE 9, 1994 - Scruggs wrote a letter to Stanton saying he is "pleased to respond" to Stanton's request for public comments on the proposed regulation change concerning "vendors at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial."

(Scruggs' invitation to comment on a regulation change that he worked over a year to put into motion is so incestuous that it warrants no comment).

JUNE 16, 1994 - Brown wrote Stanton praising him for his "courageous leadership" in taking action against the "vendors."

TO HELL WITH FREE SPEECH - WE'RE LOSING MONEY

JUNE 30, 1994 - DiMeglio wrote Stanton about the increased number of First Amendment "vendors" on the Mall since their May 4th meeting. Saying Guest Services had lost over $300,000 in sales in June alone and expected to lose about $750,000 in July, he told Stanton that the Park Service must either tighten policy regarding First Amendment demonstrators or grant Guest Services relief by a reduction in its franchise fee.

(The dramatic increase in the number of groups getting permits for First Amendment Demonstration sites on the Mall in June was deliberately created by the Park Service. On Memorial Day weekend, a Park Service employee, sympathetic to the POW/MIA cause, told The Last Firebase that he had overheard his superiors talking about how they were going to "flood the Mall with so many t-shirt vendors that Congress would become involved because that's all they would see when they drove by the Mall."

The employee said his superiors "joked" about how they were going to issue permits to "everyone and everyone's brother." The Park Service "created a forest in order to cut down a tree," by telling people in a June Washington Post article how easy it was to get a "free speech" permit. By September 1, the Park Service had succeeded in "flooding the Mall" with 200 t-shirt vendors.

GET RID OF THEM OR ELSE

JULY 11, 1994 - DiMeglio wrote Stanton and threatened to "indefinitely postpone" scheduled construction on the Mall of four new kiosks by Guest Services unless the Park Service enacted a "speedy adoption" of regulation changes to limit "competing free speech" vendors.

JULY 18, 1994 - The 60-day public comment ended. The Park Service said the response from the public was "about even" in its comments "for and against" the proposed regulation change.

FRAUDULENT LETTERS EXPOSED IN PUBLIC COMMENT

SEPTEMBER 4, 1994 - THE STARS AND STRIPES veteran's newspaper reported that hundreds of form letters supporting the Park Service's proposed regulation change were fakes, raising the "specter of mail fraud." Someone it seemed, signed the computer generated letters with the names and addresses of people without their permission. Most of the names affixed to the approximately 1,300 letters were either those of slip holders at Park Service-owned marinas (operated by Guest Services) or temporary or past employees of Guest Services.

Guest Services at first told STARS AND STRIPES that they had nothing to do with any of the fraudulent letters, but later admitted that their company had printed a form letter with the names of employees of Ameritemps, a company that supplied Guest Services with temporary workers. The company said it contacted "95 percent of the employees" to let them know their names had been used. Guest Services, however, denied that it sent in letters with the names and addresses of people who were slip holders at the Park Service owned marinas that are administrated by their company.

"I believe that we probably did the text (of the fraudulently signed form letter)," Andrew Normandeau, secretary of Guest Services told STARS AND STRIPES in a follow up article, adding that he was going to write a letter to the Park Service with the "findings" of an initial, internal investigation.

The Park Service, which also denied any connection to the fraudulent letters, said the 1,300 form letters would not be considered in their assessment of the public comment.

HO, HUM, YAWNS--THE POSTAL SERVICE

SEPTEMBER 11, 1994 - STARS AND STRIPES. An Inspector General's official told the veterans newspaper, "We're checking it out," but added that the case (of the fraudulent letters) was probably more within the jurisdiction of the Post Office.

"It's not clear that the mail fraud statute has been violated here, but we will look into it," said John Brugger, a Post Office spokesman. A long-time postal inspector, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the STARS AND STRIPES that he doubted mail fraud had been committed because "no money or property was involved."

(EXCUSE ME! Money isn't involved? What about the one million dollars Guest Services complained to the Park Service about losing because of "unconscionable proliferation of these First Amendment vendors." What about Guest Services' threat to delay construction on the Mall unless new regulations are enacted to get rid of the "free speech" vendors? And just what is involved when someone signs the name of someone else to a letter without their permission and mails that letter to a government agency supporting a regulation that would deny POW/MIA activists the right to raise money for their cause?)

PUBLIC COMMENT 4-1 AGAINST REGULATION CHANGE

After removing the 1,300 fraudulent letters from consideration, the "almost even" count of people for and against the proposed new sales regulations on First Amendment demonstration sites dramatically changed to approximately 3,035 against the regulation change and 774 in favor. Of the 774 in favor, 241 were form letters and petitions signed by Guest Services employees. Some 2,500 park visitors to the Wall - the very people the Park Service claimed were having the "quality" of their park visit experience "severely disrupted" by First Amendment demonstrators - signed cards during their visit to the Wall against the regulation change.

In addition, a private poll of visitors at the Wall by Jacobs, Jenner and Kenton, revealed that 55 percent of those polled felt the First Amendment activists had "little or no effect" on their experience, while 24 percent found them to have a "positive effect."

It should also be noted that about 160 million people (20 million a year) have visited the Wall since The Last Firebase began its POW/MIA vigil in 1986. Prior to the May 18, 1994 60-day public comment period, the Park Service had received less than 50 complaints about activists on First Amendment demonstration sites.

(That should be the end of the story, right? Wrong. It appears that the Park Service doesn't give a damn about how the public really feels. The call for public comment was nothing more than a technicality required by law, the results of which Park Service officials said they were not obligated to act upon. The Park Service is going to get rid of the POW/MIA activists, by hook or crook, and the only question left now is when and how).

BELTWAY MEDIA IGNORED FRAUD
Not one news organization, with the exception of the STARS AND STRIPES (which put the story out on the wire service), reported the mail fraud scandal. Instead, the Washington Post and CNN produced one-sided reports on the terrible "T-shirt Pollution" on the Mall, never bothering to look below the surface for the real story of the who, what, when and how behind the regulation change and damage such a change will do to the right of free speech.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Money, politics and greed - that same unholy alliance which caused the abandonment of Vietnam veterans during and after the war in Southeast Asia, is the motivation behind the effort to evict The Last Firebase. If that alliance succeeds, Scruggs will be praised by the pro-Hanoi Kerry crowd for silencing the voice of the POW/MIAs, lauded by the uppity arts commission and the Park Service for making the memorial a "pretty tourist attraction." He will no doubt be thanked by Guest Services (perhaps with a "donation" for his "maintenance" of The Wall charity?) for getting rid of "competing free-speech" demonstrators.

Then, unless he's in jail for fraudulent fund raising, Scruggs will continue to smile all the way to the bank and a Guest Services employee with a foreign accent will be selling Scruggs' copyrighted "Three Servicemen Statue" t-shirts, coffee mugs, statues, pins, patches and other Vietnam "military art" items out of a brand new kiosk located - you guessed it - on The Last Firebase's First Amendment demonstration site.

Editor's Note Also see Jan Scruggs is attacking his fellow Veterans Again

LinkExchange Member