"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
The Case Against John Kerry
By John Hawkins (09/20/04)
If you're talking about John Kerry's record, then regrettably, you must begin by discussing his time spent in Vietnam since he obsessively brags about it at every opportunity. While John Kerry certainly deserves credit for going to Vietnam and getting shot at after his deferment was turned down, he has also been caught in a number of rather significant lies about his service.
For example, although John Kerry has told numerous stories about his "Christmas in Cambodia" over the years and said the memory was "seared in me", his own campaign now admits that wasn't the truth. Furthermore, another frequently told story, about how John Kerry's boat turned into an ambush to save a man in the water while all the other "swift boats (were) evacuating from the area" has been revealed to be untrue as well. In fact, as the Kerry campaign now admits, all the other boats stayed while John Kerry's boat temporarily left the area.
It also appears to be almost a certainty that John Kerry fraudulently obtained his first and third Purple Hearts which allowed him to leave Vietnam almost a full year early. Not only are there eyewitnesses from the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who say that's the case, John Kerry's own biography disaffirms Kerry's explanations of how he earned those two Purple Hearts. Of course, the Kerry camp denies those allegations, but John Kerry has chosen not to explain the huge discrepancies in his story or to release his military records. Rather than address this issue head on, the Kerry campaign has simply chalked it up to partisan politics and has declared the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group which brought these allegations to light, to be liars.
However, that group is composed of more than 250 Vietnam Vets including John Kerry's entire chain of command up to an admiral who has passed away, 17 of the 23 officers who served with Kerry, and 60 out of 100 men who served in the field with Kerry in Vietnam. That begs an obvious question: Why should anyone vote for a candidate who is declaring himself to be qualified for the presidency based in large part on his Vietnam experience when the man who served on his boat for the longest period of time (Steve Gardner), the majority of men who fought beside him in combat, and his own chain of command all say he's a liar and "unfit for command"?
After Kerry left Vietnam and he came home, he joined and later led an anti-war group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". This group was so radical that they actually considered assassinating pro-war US officials. While Kerry opposed that seditious plan, he did meet with the North Vietnamese in 1971, even as our troops were fighting and dying in the field, and endorsed their "peace plan".
That was not the last time John Kerry was to be of use to our enemies either. During John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, he recounted stories from the "The Winter Soldier Investigation". That event was organized, in part, by Vietnam Veterans against the War, and it featured large amounts of fraudulent testimony from "fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam Veterans". Kerry repeated their lies in front of the world and accused our troops of torture, rape, and acting like the hordes of Genghis Kahn among other things. Kerry's speech caught the ear of the Vietcong, who actually played his testimony to our soldiers in POW camps in an effort to break their will. Then there was the time Kerry joined traitorous anti-war protestor Jane Fonda in the back of a pick-up truck in order to speak out against the war, Kerry's medals, which he pretended to throw away, and the atrocities that Kerry admitted he committed in Vietnam (which makes you wonder if Lyndie England could run for President in 30 years). Understandably, John Kerry doesn't spend a lot of time talking about this period of his life on the campaign trail, but he should be deeply ashamed of his actions.
Later in life, John Kerry became a big man in Massachusetts politics. After a short stint as ultra-liberal Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry went on to a largely uneventful 20 year run as Ted Kennedy's sidekick in the Senate. Kerry's time in the Senate, which was so unremarkable that he barely even mentioned it during his 55 minute acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, was mostly notable for his timid record on national security issues & his liberal voting record -- when he bothered to even show up at all that is. In 2003, John Kerry missed 64% of all votes and so far this year, Kerry has missed a whopping 90% of all votes cast. But, given the paucity of accomplishments John Kerry has in the Senate, perhaps the people of Massachusetts didn't even notice the difference.
But I suppose Massachusetts' loss is the military's gain. Despite the fact that John Kerry has portrayed himself as a hawk to the American people during this campaign, his record is quite dovish and he has been a persistent foe of the military during his time in the Senate. Just take a look at this excerpt of a speech from John Kerry's fellow Democratic Senator Zell Miller, who was so concerned by the prospect of John Kerry becoming President during a time of war that he actually agreed to speak at the Republican Convention...
"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"
Kerry also opposed the invasion of Grenada, Desert Storm, has called National Missile Defense a "fantasy", & after voting for the war in Iraq, he then voted against funding the troops and the rebuilding effort. The whole image of John Kerry as a gung-ho hawk who's going to go after the terrorists directly contradicts 30 years of history, from the time that John Kerry was an anti-war activist through the present day. It's nothing but an election year fiction designed to fool voters who are serious about the war on terrorism into trusting John Kerry with the job of commander-and-chief.
Speaking of "election year fiction," the same could be said of the claim that John Kerry is a "moderate". Come on folks, he's a Senator from Massachusetts, he was Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, and he referred to Ted Kennedy as his "mentor" earlier this year. Given that, is anyone really going to argue that John Kerry isn't a liberal?
If so, they're going to have a hard time making their case given his Senate record. A Washington nonpartisan policy magazine, National Journal, said John Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the Senate for 2003 (Incidentally, his running mate John Edwards had the 4th most liberal record). Furthermore, Kerry's lifetime rating from the Liberal Americans For Democratic Action is 92% out of a hundred. Even two politicians long considered to be ultra-liberals, Walter Mondale and Ted Kennedy, scored only 90%!
Kerry's liberal record is actually what has caused him to acquire his well deserved reputation as a flip-flopper. It's not that John Kerry can't make up his mind; it's that he would rather try to trick voters into supporting him by telling what they want to hear rather than tell the truth about his liberal record.
That's why John Kerry, a man who "perennially receives a 100-percent rating from (anti-abortion groups like) NARAL and Planned Parenthood," has affirmed that he believes "life does begin at conception," which is the central tenet of the pro-life movement. It also explains why Kerry, an anti-gun advocate, recently waved around a shotgun given to him by supporters at a West Virginia campaign stop and called it a "beautiful piece" even though he supports legislation that would ban people from hunting with that very same weapon.
Then there's John Kerry's indecipherable position on the Iraqi war which seems to change almost depending on who he's talking to. One month he calls it "critical to the outcome of the war on terror," the next month he responds in the affirmative when Chris Matthews asks him if he's an "anti-war candidate". In February of 2003, Kerry was saying, "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me", but earlier this month Kerry said the war in Iraq was, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".
Of course, that statement really doesn't make any sense given that Kerry said just last month that he still would have given the President the authority to go to war even "knowing what I know today". On the other hand, that also contradicts what Kerry said this month, that the "only legitimate reason was the weapons of mass destruction question". You can go on and on like this, trying to make sense of Kerry's constantly shifting positions on the war, but there is no logical consistency to Kerry's position. It's just like when John Kerry said of his vote to fund our troops in Iraq, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Kerry wants as many people as possible, pro and anti-war, to believe that he's "on their side" and he's willing to pretend to take both sides of the issue simultaneously if necessary. Quite frankly, that sort of duplicitousness isn't a very attractive trait for a man who wants to be the next leader of the free world.
Summing this up, if you want a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal who lied about his war record and made a name for himself by smearing our troops to become President despite the fact that there is sparse evidence to go on in his Senate career that shows he is up for the job or capable of effectively waging the war on terror, then John Kerry is your man.
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Hawkins
John created Right Wing News in August of 2001 after getting really angry during the 2000 election at the horrible, biased job the media did in covering the election. The breaking point for him was when he was watching a show on CNN and an emailed comment from a listener came in suggesting that "Bush should concede." This is despite the fact that Bush had been ahead the entire time.
Send Feedback To John Hawkins
Site: http://www.rightwingnews.com
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
