LIAR LIAR, part 2: The Meaning of Is: John Kerry and the 2004 DNC
by Kevin Lauer (07/30/04) (References updated)
Is John Kerry a liberal? If you ask the Democrats at
the DNC, they deny it; but his Senate voting record
says otherwise. John Kerry actually holds the most-
liberal voting record of the U.S. Senate, to the left of
even Sen. Ted Kennedy… and Vice-Presidential
candidate John Edwards isn’t too far behind, rated
the fourth most-liberal Senator.1
Gov. Mitt Romney (R, MA) defines Kerry as “the
ultimate finger-in-the-air politician, sifting the sense
of where the wind is coming from and then trying to
sound like he’s part of that direction.” But David
Corn, editor of The Nation, argues in Kerry’s
defense, that “At one point they say he’s a flip-
flopper, he changes his mind; but yet he has a 97%
consistent liberal consistent rating. This is a guy
who --on abortion rights, on environmentalism, on
the Bush tax cuts-- he’s been very consistent.”2
You know what? They’re both right. The problem is; Kerry is consistent with his actions. But then he denies them. Yes, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but, frankly, he doesn’t want the American voters to know that. He’d rather be viewed as a flip-flopper than a liberal because he knows that grassroots America does not share his extreme values. By straddling the fence, he is attempting to mask his true colors from independent and undecided voters.
Even the Democratic Party is not completely in-step with John Kerry’s values. A recent Zogby poll indicated that 43% of Democrats polled agree that “abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.”3 Unfortunately, many of them have said they plan to vote for Kerry, even though he’s been given a 100% approval rating for his voting record on abortion by the Pro-Choice organization NARAL.4,5
Illinois Senator and DNC keynote speaker Barack
Obama (D, IL) claimed Tuesday night (June 27)
that we need to set aside “a politics of cynicism
[for] a politics of hope” and to be united as one
group of Americans, insinuating that unity was
more important than the issues,6 but Kerry
admitted Thursday night (June 29) that “elections
are about choices. And choices are about values.
In the end, it's not just policies and programs that
matter; the president who sits at that desk must be
guided by principle.”7 The problem is that Kerry
doesn’t have any principles, and he doesn’t share
America’s values. “This is the most important
election of our lifetime,” Kerry said, “The stakes are
high.”7 They are indeed. And what is at stake are
“I say to them tonight,” Obama continued Tuesday night, “there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America...”6 Well, Obama gave a very sweet sentiment, but it's based entirely on deception and smoke-screen. There are two Americas right now, and they are divided, as much as it was during the Civil War. And as once was said, "It's the economy, stupid", this election has its own focus: "It's values, stupid."
America today is divided by two diametrically-diverse value systems. There are only two serious contenders in this race and you're either for killing babies, or against killing babies. You're either for Judeo-Christian values, or against them. You're either for keeping this Nation the Constitutional Republic it was founded to be, or you're for making it into a Democracy... the kind of government our founding fathers said could never exist without a firm foundation upon Jesus Christ.
Many people will deny that the issues are so black-and-white, that they are, rather, shades of gray. While it is true that much of life is measured in shades of gray, there certainly are issues that are cut-and-dried. And when it comes to life and liberty, it must be perfectly clear. The bottom line is this: it is about right and wrong, moral and immoral, terrorist and free, Conservative and Liberal, LIFE AND DEATH! Obama knows that grassroots America hates Liberalism and everything that the Kerry camp stands for; and that's the only reason he's pushing this "unity" card. But I, for one, intend to do my part to help my fellow Americans see through the smoke-screen.
If Liberal Democrats wanted unity, they would support our President’s efforts to preserve the safety of the American people in this post-9/11 environment. If they truly wanted unity, they would have united behind President Bush and our troops who were fighting to bring freedom to Iraq, and to preserve freedom in the United States of America. Instead, they chose to support our terrorist enemies to the point where the terrorists are actively campaigning for Kerry-Edwards. If the terrorists want Kerry for President, doesn’t that tell you that we should not?
Obama said, in his address, “It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work.”6 Obama was referring to welfare, but it’s that same fundamental belief that requires us to stand behind our Iraqi brothers and sisters and defend their right to be free. This is what President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the rest of the Coalition did by going after Saddam Hussein. No, war was not our first choice; but when Saddam Hussein remained in power after twelve years of defiance to a United Nations who only seemed to want to shake their finger saying, “no, no,” this brave and decisive Coalition rightly stepped in to give the spoiled child a severe spanking. Why doesn’t the Kerry’s camp see it this way? Because it’s partisan, and their values are way in left field. Oh, Osama... I mean Obama... was very eloquent with his words, but they masked the illicit agenda beneath.
“Strength is more than tough words,” Kerry said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on June 29.7 Oh, that’s so true! But words is all the U.N. seemed to want to use. By protesting the Coalition’s show of force after twelve years of continued defiance, Kerry proves that he doesn’t have the strength or the character to let his actions speak louder than his words.
Here’s more from Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on June 29:
“…[W]hat I learned [from living in Soviet Berlin] has stayed with me for a lifetime…. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever." I learned what it meant to be America at our best. I learned the pride of our freedom. And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America.”7
Oh yeah? If he values the freedom of people in other nations, why is it that he wants to deprive Iraq of its freedom? Why is it that he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and leave them defenseless against the terrorists who are fighting to regain a foothold in the nation that President George W. Bush and our Coalition allies liberated amidst his protests? The citizens of Iraq deserve to be free, just as much as the citizens of East Berlin and the citizens of Massachusetts. Why would Kerry prefer to leave them at the mercy of a ruthless dictator and then make this asinine claim to pride in liberty? Obviously they don’t believe that we should be our “brother’s keeper!”
“I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. How we wish it had stayed that way.”7
Oh, that’s rich! How quickly he forgets that it was his camp that became divisive, and betrayed our country by aiding and abetting the enemy. He wishes it had stayed that way? Perhaps it would have if he and his contemporaries had stood for liberty and justice in the face of Iraqi terrorism.
“[We need to] have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world. And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.”7
Get it straight, Senator Kerry.
We didn’t “go it alone”. If you’ll
recall there was a Coalition of
brave Nations that took the
incentive in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Frankly, I would
rather fight alongside faithful
friends and allies such as
these than the traitorous
France who was lining their
pockets with Saddam
Hussein’s bribe money. If we
rely on the cooperation of so-
called allies who are secretly
aiding the enemy, we’ll never
“get [them] before they get us.”
Kerry says he will never give
any nation or international
institution a veto over our national security, but that’s exactly what he’s criticizing President Bush for refusing to do.
Kerry says he wants a stronger America that relies on its own resources, and not on “the Saudi royal family;” yet it was John Kerry that voted against drilling for our own oil in Alaska.8 It’s his own superstitious allegiance to the Pagan Earth goddess that’s keeping us at the mercy of the Saudi oil-barons.
Kerry says he will build a stronger military, but his record shows that he has consistently voted against every single military advance that was brought before the Senate.5,9 He had the audacity to say, “You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service…” when he himself voted against body-armor for our soldiers!8 It wasn't President Bush, but rather John Kerry, that refused body-armor for our service-men and -women.
Kerry is just like France. He
says he wants to “get the
terrorists”, but his actions
indicate that he’s really on
their side. Just like when he
went to Vietnam to get his
video footage and medals,
then came back to the
United States to protest the
very thing he claimed he was
fighting for. John Kerry is a
liberal, anti-American traitor,
pure and simple. He
betrayed his country as a
lieutenant shortly after the
Vietnam War, he betrayed his
country as a Senator during
the Iraqi War, and he’ll surely
do it again as Commander-in-
Chief if he’s allowed to take the White House.
Does this sound extreme on my part? Well, don't take my word for it: ask the men who served with him in Vietnam. Despite Kerry’s rhetoric, only one out of the nineteen members of Kerry’s “swiftee” shipmates supports his campaign for office. The rest have collaborated on a book denouncing Kerry as a liar and a traitor, which is due to hit the shelves in September, called Unfit For Command.10 (Click on the link to pre-order it from Amazon.com and, in the meantime, check out the SwiftVets website at http://www.swiftvets.com/.)
In April of 1971, John Kerry publicly accused his fellow soldiers and commanders on National television of being war criminals who committed “atrocities”.11 In Senate hearings on April 22, 1971, Kerry testified of “not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…. [including incidents where] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle
and dogs for fun, poisoned
food stocks, and generally
ravaged the countryside of
These are atrocious claims
that Kerry later admitted
(after they suited his
political agenda), but the
damage had already been
done. According to one
Vietnam veteran, “As a
result of what Kerry said;
when I returned, got out of
the Navy and went to a
college campus, I was
called a baby killer, I was
called a murderer… I was in Vietnam for 13 months; three times longer than Kerry. I didn’t see atrocities. I never saw murders, rapes, and baby-killings.”11
But even worse, former Vietnam P.O.W.s are now telling their stories about how Kerry's public testimony against his fellow soldiers was used by the Viet Cong to taunt them. "[John Kerry] gave the enemy for free what many of us [American P.O.W.s] would not give under torture," said one former P.O.W., referring to Kerry's scathing indictment before the U.S. Senate. This not only served to demoralize the P.O.W.s, but gave their captors an excuse to kill them under the pretense that they were war criminals who had actually committed these atrocities. After all, what better witness could the prosecution have than American soldiers themselves, like Lt. J. G. John Kerry.
John Kerry now calls his testimony “honest” but perhaps a little bit “excessive”; but the truth is that his testimony was an outright lie, designed specifically to undermine the United States military at wartime…. exactly the same thing he’s doing now with our military action in Iraq. I don’t know about you, but this is not the kind of man I want as the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces.
Is it fair for me to attack Kerry's war record? Well, Kerry's the one who brought it up, running his campaign almost solely on his 4-month Vietnam service record. Personally, I'm more concerned about his subsequent 20-year record in the U.S. Senate; but these are questions that his campaign brought to the attention of the American public, and the inconsistencies and outright lies within them must be answered. I applaud and salute him for fighting for our freedom in the four months he was in Vietnam, but that does not excuse the treachery that followed. He may or may not have been a good soldier during those four months (that's highly questioned, by the way), but his public record afterward is horrifyingly perfidious.
In Kerry’s acceptance speech at the DNC on June 29, he attempted to use the religion card in his favor, but he ended up holding the Joker. He accused President Bush of wearing his faith on his sleeve, as if that was a bad thing. He even had the audacity to compare himself to Ronald Reagan as he said, “I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday.”7 What faith? What values? Where’s the fruit to evidence that he has any values whatsoever? (By the way, refer to my message, “Reagan’s Legacy for Life”14 for the scoop on the Stem-Cell debate. I just hope the RNC has the insight to get Ronald Reagan’s other son, Michael, as a keynote speaker. Then we can hear a little bit of truth about who Ronald Reagan really was, and what he stood for.)
But our Founding Fathers certainly wore their faith on their sleeves. Click here for just a few of the statements our Founding Fathers made about their faith. Besides, Jesus Christ Himself told us to let our light shine and not to hide it under a bushel (Matthew 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 11:33) and to shout our faith from the rooftops (Matthew 10:27, Luke 12:3). If your faith does not dictate your values and your life choices, then what good is it? If your faith doesn’t direct your decisions, both personal and political, then you don’t really have any faith at all. So should our leaders be truthful and straight-forward about their faith? Who are you going to believe: John Kerry or Jesus Christ?
Kerry then said, “I don’t want to claim that God is on our side, but as Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God’s side.”7 This sounds well and good, but if he’d simply open God’s Word, he’d be able to tell which side is “God’s side”. And as his documented positions on every single morality and values issue is blatantly against God’s Word, I submit that the answer is perfectly clear. I urge you, my fellow Americans, to study the facts. Set aside the propaganda and the smoke-and-mirrors, and judge this tree by its fruit. Determine, based on the facts, which candidate is truly following God’s Word, and vote accordingly in November.
Do you know what this whole diatribe means? When John Kerry said that he wasn’t going to wear his “faith on [his] sleeve”, he was announcing loud and clear that there would be no place in his Administration for Bible-believing Christians. Remember, he was one of the Senators that voted against cloture to vote for the appointment of judicial nominees, simply because they were Bible-believing Christians.15
Wake up, people. We're at war. John F. Kerry and his supporters have consistently aided and abetted our enemies! I firmly believe that those who would support Al Qaida or any of the other terrorists who are beheading innocent civilians are terrorists themselves. Of course America is divided! You either choose to fight for what's right, or you're fighting for what's wrong. Barack Obama and the rest of the Kerry camp simply don't believe there's a difference. And that is why Kerry is going to lose this election. They don't see a distinction between the terrorist who beheads innocent civilians, and the policeman who locks the criminal in prison. I see a clear difference, and I plan to vote accordingly.
“And tonight,” Kerry continues, “we have
an important message for those who
question the patriotism of Americans
who offer a better direction for our
country. Before wrapping themselves in
the flag and shutting their eyes and ears
to the truth, they should remember what
America is really all about. They should
remember the great idea of freedom for
which so many have given their lives. Our
purpose now is to reclaim Democracy
itself. We are here to affirm that when
Americans stand up and speak their
minds and say America can do better,
that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is
the heart and soul of patriotism.”7
Oh, the twisted ideology makes my
stomach turn! First of all, Kerry's
supporters are not offering "a better
direction" for America; they're offering a
bunch of propaganda, inconsistencies, and outright lies. John Kerry says he stands for one thing, then does, or votes for, the exact opposite. Those who buy into his b.s. are free to think whatever they want, but it's not patriotic to be stupid. If the American people will simply look at the facts, they'll see that Kerry is lying through his teeth.
Secondly, John Kerry doesn’t have a clue as to “what America is really all about.” The United States of America is not, never has been, and I pray never shall be, a Democracy. A Democracy, by definition, is a type of government where the majority rules and the minority is S.O.L. up-the-creek. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers established this great nation as a Constitutional Republic; a governmental system based upon a set of morals, values, and a code of laws. Don’t you recall our Pledge of Allegiance? “…And to the Republic for which it stands…” That’s why Liberal Democrats are waging such a war upon the Pledge; they don’t believe in the free Republic our great flag represents.
Why is this important? Because in a Democracy, 51 percent can decide to wipe out the dissenting 49 percent. In a Democracy, it’s always “majority rule”, and Nazi Germany proved to us that the majority is not always right. But in a Constitutional Republic, decisions are based on a moral code of laws; in our case, the Judeo-Christian values founded in the Ten Commandments and the Holy Bible. Our Founding Fathers knew this and consistently testified of the distinction.
Our electoral process is Democratic, but the moral and legal system is not. And even the Democratic aspects of our electoral process are governed within a Republican legal system. We desperately need to remember that if our Nation is to survive.
And this is one of the things that bothers me about the situation in Iraq: even President Bush says that he wants Iraq to be a “Democracy”. I don’t want to go into too much detail here about the difference between a Democracy and a Republic (I’ve already taken up more space than I’d expected), but you can refer to my message, “Church And State, part 3”16. Besides, the word "Democracy" is used interchangeably with "Freedom" so much today that people say "Democracy" when they really mean "Freedom" or "Liberty"... another example of miscommunication because of two different perceptions of the definition of a word.
Also, I didn’t mean to spend so much time talking about Iraq, but that seemed to be the focal point of Kerry’s speech the other night. But I wanted to make it perfectly clear that the Iraqi War isn’t the only point of contention where Kerry and Edwards are lying to mask their true agenda.
Now, those of you that know me well, or have read my political commentaries before, know that I’m not just another Bush “yes-man” who thinks that G. W. Bush is god and can do no wrong. There are plenty of times I’ve disagreed with President Bush over political issues, one of which I’ve already mentioned in this article. But I believe it’s perfectly clear that George W. Bush is a sincere, born-again Christian who wants to be faithful to his God and to faithfully preserve this great Nation. I honestly can’t say the same thing for John Kerry. Yes, Bush has his short-comings (don’t we all?), but Kerry is way off the scale. Every other word he says seems to be wrapped in smoke-screen, deception, or outright lies.
Yes, it’s virtually impossible for the average voter to discern the “true John Kerry” from his words, unless he or she has the time and patience to devote to a deeper analysis of the facts.
Case in point: Kerry said, “I support… civil unions… but I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” but then he voted against the Amendment to define marriage as exactly that. Is John Kerry a liberal, a liar, or both? You decide.
John Kerry claimed that he believes that life begins at conception, but John Kerry and John Edwards both voted in favor of S. AMDT.260 to S.3 (passed 03/12/03) which, by a two vote margin, (Kerry and Edwards’ two votes directly caused this amendment to pass) affirmed the Senate’s support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion.15 Is John Kerry a liberal, a liar, or both? You decide.
John Kerry abstained from voting on the other five family issues that were brought before the Senate in the first session of the 108th Congress, giving him a score of 0 out of a possible 7 on the Family Research Council’s Scorecard for casting ethical votes.15
John Edwards, Kerry’s running-mate, also voted…
1.in favor of S. AMDT.259 to S.3 (failed 03/12/03) which would have added a “health exception” clause to the partial-birth abortion ban. This would have rendered the ban ineffective because courts have interpreted “health exceptions” to include everything from acne to depression.
2.in favor of S. AMDT.682 to H.R. 1298 (failed 05/15/03) which would have stripped abstinence funding from the Global HIV/AIDS bill. This is despite the success of Uganda’s ABC program which promoted a prioritization of abstinence, being faithful in relationships, and condoms as the last alternative.
3.in favor of S. AMDT.691 to S.1050 (failed 05/22/03), which would have repealed existing law prohibiting U.S. military hospitals and medical clinics from performing privately-funded abortions for U.S. service members and their families.
John Edwards abstained from voting on the other two family issues that were brought before the Senate in the first session of the 108th Congress, giving him a score of 0 out of a possible 7 on the Family Research Council’s Scorecard for casting ethical votes.15
John Edwards and John Kerry: are they liberals, liars, or both? This November, you get to decide.
“I ask you to judge me by my record,” Kerry said in his DNC acceptance speech. Okay, that’s exactly what I’ve done. I’ve presented his record here for your consideration. Take a good, long look at his record and see him for the liberal, lying politician that the evidence suggests he is.
“As a young prosecutor,” he continues, “I fought for victim's rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority.”7
Ha! As you can see from his record, John Kerry did not fight for victim’s rights, but rather fought to steal victim’s rights. In the aforementioned record of the 108th Congress,15 Kerry and Edwards both voted consistently in favor of the legalization of murdering innocent children.
Kerry wrapped up his speech by saying, “Tonight, we're setting out again. And together, we're going to write the next great chapter of America's story. We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals – and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.”7
Oh, that’s such a joke! George W. Bush is the one who restored trust and credibility to the White House after the laughable Clinton administration. If John Kerry wants to tell the truth to the American people, why doesn’t he start right now? Why doesn’t he and his cronies stop making up all their lies about the Bush administration and admit to their own deceptiveness? If he wants to be true to his ideals, why is he so afraid to admit to the American people what those ideals even are? The answer is simple: he can’t admit to his true ideals until he’s already won the election.
I share the sentiments of political analyst and radio-talk-show hostess Janet Parshall, who said, “I desperately don’t want to go through four more years of trying to figure out what the meaning of ‘is’ is, and talking about private vs. public character, and a little stretching of the truth here and a little stretching of the truth there…”17 Translation: if you judge a man’s character by his public and private morality, John Kerry is another Bill Clinton.
There is so much more that I could go into detail to expose the lies and deceit from the Kerry camp. There is a lot more ammunition against Kerry in his own speech, but I’ve taken up too much of your time already. Be sure to go back and read my commentary, “Liar, Liar, part 1”, which deals with the 9/11 Commission Findings, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and some of the other lying voices that are permeating the political airwaves. And check back to this website for follow-ups as the Presidential race continues.
Bottom line: John F. Kerry is a bold-faced liar who tries to hide his true agenda from the voting public, but is in reality the most liberal Senator in Congress. He has voted consistently against life, against freedom, and against the Constitution of the United States of America. If Kerry has his way, we’ll be one Nation under the Goddess (Satan in disguise) and life and liberty will be just the memory of a long-lost freedom-loving Republic. But I have faith in God, in our country, and in the ability of the American people to see through the lies and cast their vote for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Dear friends, don’t take my word for any of this, but look it up for yourselves. Discover the truth and, in November, help us Flush the Johns.
Update: Saturday August 21, 2004:
John Kerry is now objecting to the television ads from the Swift Vets For Truth, challenging his much-touted war record. Although these ads are funded by a private organization with no connection to the Bush Campaign, The Kerry Campaign is complaining that President Bush needs to denounce and compel the removal of these Swift Votes ads. Kerry's running mate, John Edwards said, "What we want to hear from this President is a very simple thing: 'Take down these ads'. Don't fall for this misdirection, friends.
First of all; if they were against the principle of using these kinds of privately-funded ads, why didn't they tell George Soros of "MoveOn.org" to take down the ads comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler? Why? Because they only object when it's not in their favor.
Second; if the ads were not true, why is Kerry not answering the charges against him? If I was accused of something that is not true, I would answer the challenges point-by-point, proving the accusations false. But since Kerry cannot defend himself, he demands that his accusers' voices be silenced.
And finally, Kerry's new ads smearing the Swift Vets ads accuse them of evading the issues. Actually, it was Kerry who focused the Democratic National Convention on his war record, avoiding the political issues. The DNC set the pace by trying to mis-direct the voters' attention to what they thought was a benign issue that was in reality based on lies. Now that the lies have been exposed, they blame President Bush for their exposure. (And whatever happened to the First Amendment Right to Free Speech?)
This is just another in a long line of Kerry cover-ups. Don't fall for it. Vote Bush/Cheney in 2004.
