I don’t know if there is anyone I loathe more than I loathe John Kerry. Now, this arrogant, smug, elite, married-for-money parasite is insisting that his “botched joke” about President Bush’s Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.
“Not in the least,” Kerry, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. “The parlor game of who’s up, who’s down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination.”
I wish Kerry would not have listened when he was taught to not drink bleach from underneath his mother’s kitchen cabinet, or to not stick his finger into an electrical outlet, or to not look both ways when crossing the street, or to not run with scissors. It is too bad for the rest of us that his parents never practiced birth control. That is how much I despise John Kerry. Why?
The Jewish Press Editorial Board expressed it best, in October, 2004:
Here we have in John Kerry a candidate for president who, upon returning from Vietnam, joined with virulently anti-war elements bent on forcing the U.S. out of Vietnam — Jane Fonda was perhaps the most prominent — and testified before Congress as their point man that American forces systematically committed horrible war crimes as a matter of official U.S. policy.
In fact, the efforts of Kerry and his colleagues resulted in the broad deligitimization of the war effort and led to a Congressional cut-off of funds and the collapse of our military position in Vietnam — all this while our troops and diplomatic personnel were in harm`s way.
If momentary lapses were once viewed — probably with good reason — as windows on the character and capacity of candidates, how then should one take the enormous perfidy of Mr. Kerry? Indeed, Mr. Kerry remains as perfidious today as he was thirty years ago. How else to explain his labeling of Operation Iraqi Freedom “the wrong war at the wrong time” based on the alleged lack of sufficient evidence against Saddam Hussein and the failure of President Bush to fashion an ample coalition in prosecuting the war — when, in 1991, Mr. Kerry voted against the use of military force after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the first President Bush had almost the entire world as allies in Operation Desert Storm?
Yet, as has been widely reported, Mr. Kerry has notoriously “flip-flopped” on several major issues during this campaign. In recent weeks Mr. Kerry has also shamlessly exploited the stem cell research, social security and flu shot issues by palpable distortion and has created an impending draft issue out of whole cloth.
(It is truly incredible to behold Mr. Kerry as he attempts to raise fears that a Bush victory would result in a renewal of the military draft when a Republican-led Congress just voted down the only current draft bill — one that was introduced by a Democratic congressman.)
Can anyone recall a previous presidential campaign even remotely resembling Mr. Kerry’s, with its constantly shifting policy terrain and painfully transparent pandering? Perhaps the most striking example of Mr. Kerry`s transparency was the recent photo-op that had him dressed in fatigues and toting a rifle, with accompanying aides carrying four geese supposedly shot by the Massachusetts senator.
And then there are the vacuous summary declarations of the sort favored by Mr. Kerry: “Help is on the way,” “I have a plan,” “we will do a better job,” “I will be able to persuade world leaders,” etc.
Yes, one is tempted to shout in frustration, but what, at long last, is it that you specifically have in mind, sir?
Mr. Kerry began his campaign by touting his Vietnam War experience, and he typically began his speeches with a salute and the words “reporting for duty.” Putting aside the questions that have been raised about his war record — and bear in mind that he has yet to release his complete military file — does anyone really think that success at making split-second unilateral decisions commends one for a job requiring complex decision making based upon arduous consultation and policy choices drawn from often conflicting expert advice?
Surely it is not happenstance that Mr. Kerry runs on empty proclamations and rarely invokes his twenty-year Congressional record — a record that led the non-partisan National Journal to label him the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
When it comes to Israel, Mr. Kerry`s negatives are of even greater concern. As we have noted in past edtorials, he has spoken of wanting to be an “honest broker” in the Middle East — as if President Bush`s insistence on an end to terror and Israel`s right to defend itself is somehow too one-sided. Mr. Kerry’s incredible comment that he would appoint Jimmy Carter and James Baker as his representatives in the Middle East still rankles. Indeed, Mr. Kerry`s principal advisers on the Middle East are senior Clinton administration retreads of the “moral equivalency,” “cycle of violence” variety.
To be sure, Mr. Kerry now seems to parrot the Bush approach to the Middle East. But there is strong reason to believe that this is merely expedient — and temporary — political catch-up. Washington Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer is far from alone in fearing that Kerry will, in fact, reverse the Bush Middle East policy.
In sum, there is a strong case to be made for coming out to vote as a show of appreciation to George W. Bush. But there is also much on the record to convince us of the importance of voting strictly to ensure that John Kerry does not become our next president.
Folks, Kerry used his comrades, his leaders, and the wrong war in his 2004 campaign rhetoric. Kerry used his Purple Hearts to proclaim himself a war hero in a wrong war in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry used Christopher Reeve’s death in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry used Michael J. Fox in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry’s using the deaths of American soldiers in a wrong war in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry used the VP’s gay daughter in his campaign rhetoric.
Kerry’s been using people all during his campaign and throughout his life. Who did he marry? Teresa Heinz, the heiress of the Heinz foods company and a left-wing loud-mouthed contributor to communist and Muslim causes. A critical fact for American voters to know about Teresa Heinz Kerry, considering that she could be First Lady, is the fact that she has been pouring millions into the Tides Foundation, which supports causes that are the darlings of the far Left, including CAIR (which has connections to Hamas, and whose members include proven terrorists). Go to this link to Capital Research, which researches where the Tides Foundation grant money goes. Then do a Google search on “Tides Foundation”, to see for yourselves.
Kerry’s wife also funded the anarchists who planned to disrupt the Republican National Convention in 2004. Even she didn’t think her own husband, John Kerry, is qualified to be president. That’s what she told Reader’s Digest during an interview. There you have it, folks, straight out of the horse’s mouth.
I also want to point out that Teresa Heinz Kerry’s nonprofit Tides Center contributed $5,000, from its 9-11 Fund, to the Washington, D.C. branch of the Independent Media Center, according to the Tides Center’s 2001 annual report [pdf], which is now a non-working link. It used to be located here.
The Tides Center, a spinoff of the Tides Foundation, also funds an ostensibly independent group of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, “Peaceful Tomorrows,” which recently expressed outrage over campaign ads by President Bush. The group also has given grants totaling $489,000 to the Iraq Peace Fund, which used the money to fund anti-war marches and groups such as MoveOn.org, which aimed to defeat Bush in 2004. The center reportedly gave $200,000 to The Ruckus Society, which trains anti-globalist activists and was responsible for destroying property in the World Trade Organization riots in Seattle in 1999.
Just knowing some of these facts about John Kerry’s wife will do wonders for the Republican nomination.
Our nation should not forget that it is Kerry’s portrait that adorns the wall of the communist “War Crimes” museum in Saigon.
It doesn’t take much for dumb left-wing Americans to believe Kerry is the man for president, while ignoring his horrible Senate record for the past 19 years, while ignoring how he single-handedly turned America against returning Vietnam Vets who were scorned and disrespected by their own countrymen for the first in the history of the United States, and while ignoring his arrogant and wretched disrespect for our servicemen currently in Iraq, then America is going to get the president they deserve. Heaven knows, the rest of us will suffer for it. And Israel will, too.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Kerry is an elitist, effete snob; he behaves as if he’s entitled; he’s probably pissed off that he even has to run for president. And his wife? What a class act. Not.
It comes down to character, folks. Character, integrity, and honesty. The week of the 2004 debate, my president was shaking hands and comforting those who lost everything during the hurricanes in Florida; Kerry was windsurfing and getting a manicure.
Kerry could write a 77 page manual of debate rules, but he still can’t come up with a plan to keep our nation secure.
In a nutshell, Kerry is the repulsive puppet of the Democratic party, the same party that is scaring retirees about Social Security, scaring mothers about the draft, scaring people about guns and SUVs. The Democrats know that many people are illiterate, so they’re going to count on Kerry to tell the masses anything, and rely on fear to get people to surrender their money, their property and their freedom, and ultimately, a great war-time president.
You want a president-in-training during wartime? Then vote for Kerry. You want to see an intact Manhattan skyline? Then vote Republican. Period.