Bizarre Candidacy

Remember when former Senator Bob Kerrey said that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar -- unusually good"? Well, surely by now Democrats realize that John Kerry is an unusually bad candidate -- unusually bad. Just consider:

Kerry's never said why he should be president, other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when experience tells us that authentic heroes rarely brag about their heroism.

The Swift Boat Veterans have deeply discredited numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Kerry hasn't even attempted a factual rebuttal to any of the charges. He has been forced to admit -- despite testifying the memory was "seared, seared in me" -- he wasn't in Cambodia, Christmas 1968, at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn't yet president.

He's had to virtually admit that no hostile fire accompanied his first Purple Heart incident, meaning he didn't deserve that award.

He has personally attacked President Bush's National Guard Service and V.P. Cheney's "five deferments" and contrasted it with his volunteering for two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he hasn't answered John O'Neill's charge that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore of Vietnam and he didn't volunteer for service until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who in their right mind would believe that Kerry would volunteer to risk his life in a war he adamantly opposed?

He either perjured himself in his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in admitting to committing atrocities or he actually committed those atrocities, which is worse. POWs have said their Communist captors used his slander of our troops against them.

He was present at a meeting of the VVAW where assassinations of public officials were discussed. Whether or not he voted against them or left the meeting, he has never explained why he associated with such a group of sadistic thugs.

He admitted to being in Paris and having "talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government …" Under whose authority? For what possibly legitimate purpose?

He castigates President Bush -- preposterously -- for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq. But he's never explained how he would be qualified to plan for any peace, given his disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or refugee problem upon U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.

He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by the nonpartisan National Journal. And that doesn't even begin to tell the story of his egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence record for his entire 20 years in the Senate.

He has failed to denounce Michael Moore's deceits, but demands that President Bush denounce the Swiftees' truths.

He insists Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror yet claims that we've lost 1,000 people in the War on Terror.

He hasn't explained how his Silver Star citation was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years after the fact when Lehman denies signing it. He also hasn't explained how a "combat V" was affixed to the citation when such designations never accompany a Silver Star. Where's Dan Rather?

He refuses to release all his military and medical records and hides behind his biographer Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry alone possesses authority over his records. He condemned Vice President Cheney for saying America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in the next breath, said he would make America safer.

He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution because President Bush promised he'd attack only as a last resort. Since there were no such conditions in the resolution and no one else corroborates his claim, are we to assume Bush gave Kerry these assurances confidentially based on their close friendship?

He says he won't delegate our national security to other nations, but never stops complaining, essentially, about Pres. Bush's failure to delegate our national security to other nations.

He claimed that foreign leaders prefer him for president. What was he doing talking to them, under whose authority and about what?

He has been ducking the press for over a month after excoriating President Bush for hiding from the press. He won't answer "hypotheticals" about what he'd do on fundamental issues as president.

He says he has a plan to withdraw troops, but when pressed, admits he won't know enough about the conditions on the ground until he's president.

He admitted that life begins at conception, but is pro-abortion anyway.

He has made incredibly destructive and bogus claims about GOP plans to disenfranchise a million black voters.

He has said President Bush isn't being tough on North Korea, when before, Democrats were mortified at his "reckless" saber rattling against that nation.

Are you dizzy yet?

Kerry's Desperation

By Tom Barrett

You can almost smell John Kerry’s fear. For a while he had almost convinced himself he could win this election. Now as his numbers drop, he is watching states that were once considered “Kerry” states becoming “contested” states. And he is becoming more and more desperate. His recent actions prove the adage that desperate people do stupid things. We’ll look at three of them.
Kerry has made many mistakes in this campaign. One of his biggest was the so-called “rally” at which he spoke just one hour after President Bush’s speech at the Republican Convention. There is an unspoken rule that presidential candidates do not campaign during each other’s conventions. To do so would make the candidate look – well, desperate. Bush honored this rule. Kerry embarrassed himself by breaking it.
Fearful because the Republican Convention was going so well following the many and embarrassing mistakes at the Democrat Convention, Kerry decided at the last minute that he would deliver a “response” to Bush’s speech. To my knowledge this has never been done by any candidate. To compound his error, Kerry delivered his response at midnight.
Of course, he had to have an audience. He couldn’t very well hold a press conference because few media would have covered it at midnight. So he faked up a “rally” of die-hard liberal supporters to listen to his “response.” It was a very small crowd, but since Kerry is the media’s candidate they were kind with their camera angles and made it appear as if a larger crowd had showed up to listen to Kerry embarrass himself – at midnight!
Another huge mistake he has made is that he continues to ignore the advice of leaders in his own party by continuing to make this election about events surrounding Viet Nam. My regular readers know that I do not hold Slick Willie Clinton in high regard. But even I will give him his due by recognizing that he possesses finely-honed political instincts. Clinton told Kerry to bring his campaign into this century. But Kerry has ignored him and other top liberals, and has made a fool of himself.
His latest attempt to campaign on the past is the “Memogate” fiasco involving fake documents publicized by Dan Rather and CBS. The documents purport to show that one of Bush’s commanders in the Texas Air National Guard didn’t like him, and that he failed to report for a physical. Supposedly written by Colonel Bill Campenni (now conveniently deceased), the documents have now been shown to have been produced by a desktop computer using Microsoft Word. Of course, Microsoft and desktop computers didn’t even exist when these documents were supposedly written.
Dan Rather, in his zeal to smear the President, failed to do what any junior journalist would have done – check his sources to avoid embarrassing himself. The other networks did his job for him, much to his chagrin. At first Rather and CBS stonewalled the questioners. Then, after they realized that they had made a huge mistake, they compounded their problem by defending the indefensible.
Rather and CBS dredged up “experts” to validate the documents, all of whom turned out to be less than credible. They included a document “expert” who turned out to have no formal training and no credentials. His one claim to fame is that he claims to be able to determine the “spirituality” of individuals by examining their handwriting.
Another “expert” turned out to be a retired typewriter repairman. He stated that there were typewriters available three decades ago that could have produced some of the sophisticated superscripts that were found in one of the documents. He neglected to mention that they would have cost $20,000 and certainly would not have been available to someone as low on the totem pole as a National Guard commander who did not even type.
Their main document validator never even saw the documents. A retired general who was senior to the colonel whose name was used in the fake documents at first said that they sounded like something the colonel might have said. The only problem was that the material was read to him over the telephone. He assumed they had been handwritten, which was the colonel’s custom. As soon as he found out they were typed, CBS lost his testimony because he stated that the colonel hated typewriters and never used them.
Fox News typed the exact wording of the document in a Times New Roman font (not used on typewriters of that period) and overlaid it on a copy of the faked documents. They were an exact match. Other holes in the CBS documents include the fact that the colonel’s son has stated that he would never have written in such a negative manner about then Lieutenant Bush. He said that his father liked Bush and often spoke favorably about him.
Also, colonels did not send letters demanding that officers take a physical, then or now. According to officers who served with Bush, physicals had to be completed by the last day of the officer’s birth month. Bush had over three months from the time of the faked memo to complete his physical. The memo required Bush to report for a physical by May 14th, two weeks from the date of the memo. On that account alone, the memo must be classified as a forgery.
Why have I referred to this whole sordid affair as Kerry’s mistake? There is no absolute proof linking Kerry to this felony (yes, forgery of government documents is a felony). But the circumstantial evidence continues to mount. And many people have been convicted of more serious crimes, including murder, based on circumstantial evidence alone.
First, police detectives always look at motive when trying to determine who is guilty of a crime. Who benefited from this attempt to smear the President? Obviously John Kerry. He is the only one who seems to believe that the key to this election will be the moldy service records of George Bush and himself. Then there is the fact that the individuals suspected of forging the documents are Texas Democrats closely tied to Kerry and his campaign. And of course there is the fact that immediately after the release of the documents, Kerry staffers admitted they had copies when no one else had them. Kerry really had to be desperate to pull this one.
Kerry’s third big mistake involves the UN. Remember when Kerry claimed that he had received calls from world leaders who wanted him to president rather than Bush? Do you remember how he fumbled and fumed when he refused to name those leaders? Well, we have discovered that there is at least one.
Just days before President Bush was due to give his annual speech to the UN, General Secretary Kofi Anan has announced that in his opinion the war in Iraq is illegal. There can only be one reason why he would attempt to embarrass President Bush in this way: John Kerry is Anan’s candidate.
Kerry is so desperate that he has called in a favor from fellow Socialist Kofi Anan. Again, no one can prove what goes on behind closed doors, but what other motivation would Anan have to make such a ridiculous statement at one of the most critical junctures of the presidential campaign? He could have expressed his opinion any time since we entered Iraq, but he chose the time when it would do Kerry the most good. Kerry has been down in the polls since the Republican Convention. He desperately needs something, anything, to give him a boost. I am convinced that he turned to Anan for help.
Why, other than their remarkably similar world views, would Anan do Kerry such a favor? Kerry has expressed repeatedly his view that the United States is subordinate to the UN in all things, including our defense. In his book he makes it clear that America should never commit troops to any action, including self-defense, without a permission slip from the UN.
Bush, on the other hand, believes strongly in our national sovereignty. He made it clear before we attacked Iraq that our national defense would NEVER depend upon the many countries in the UN who envy and hate us. If you were a corrupt official who had made it to the top of the UN (Anan reportedly made millions in Oil for Food rip-off), who would you support to be President of the United States? Kerry, who wants the US to be just one state in a world government controlled by a small elite, or Bush, who believes the UN should be a forum with no authority to govern or tax? (Yes, Anan is behind the scheme to tax all income in the world through the UN.)
Fortunately for America and for the international war on terror, Bush will be reelected in November. No matter how desperate Kerry becomes, whatever desperate schemes he comes up with, Bush will prevail. This will happen because the majority of American voters, whether liberal or conservative, know that Kerry doesn’t have what it takes to lead this nation. Bush has proven that he does.
---------------------
Tom Barrett has been an ordained minister for 30 years. He has written for local and national publications for most of his life, and has authored several non-fiction books. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs, and speaks at seminars nationwide. Tom is the editor and publisher of Conservative Truth, an email newsletter read by over fifty thousand weekly which focuses on moral and political issues from a Biblical viewpoint.

Police Officers Endorse Bush; News Media Remain Silent

The nation's largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, announced in September that they enthusiastically endorse President George W. Bush for reelection. More than 300,000 police officers are members of the FOP. Yet, the news media intentionally ignored this important endorsement by our nation's law enforcement community, which shows the trust American cops have in Bush's ability to wage a war on terrorism and his resolve to protect the homeland.

When the international firefighters union endorsed John Kerry (largely because he believes buying more fire engines will protect us from terrorists), the news media could hardly hold back their excitement when making the announcement of that endorsement to the American people. Of course, they never mentioned that the New York City firefighters endorsed Bush -- and let's be honest, they are the guys who charged into the burning twin towers on September 11, 2001. Many of them laid down their lives -- along with NYPD and Port Authority cops -- to save the victims of the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history.

In addition, other police unions including New York City police organizations endorse President Bush. Most recently, the NYPD's Sergeants Benevolent Association added their wholehearted endorsement of our Commander-in-Chief. Yet the media's silence over these important endorsements is deafening.

But why are the mainstream media ignoring these announcements by our nation's cops? There are several reasons: They only wish to run news stories that question Bush's leadership or paint him as a draft-dodger, such as the recent 60 Minutes hatchet-job regarding the President's National Guard service; they are only interested in covering news of various union endorsements of Senator John Kerry; and the story isn't sexy enough for the mere 30 seconds or so it would take to inform the American people that their protectors support their President. The news media have very little use for cops to begin with, except when they serve as anonymous sources or help them in their coverage of an important story. Usually, the coverage of police by the mainstream media involves allegations of police brutality, their alleged use of excessive deadly force or stories of police corruption. And of course there's the old Liberal standby: police racism or racially-motivated police abuse.

On the same day that the Fraternal Order of Police made their decision to support President Bush for reelection, Senator Tom Harkin, a fierce Kerry supporter, was all over the news shows and cable news networks calling Bush a liar about his military service. His allegations rang hollow and displayed on his part hypocrisy which knows no bounds. For it is indeed Senator Harkin who lied about his military record. In 1992, during his own presidential bid, Harkin advanced the myth that he flew fighter missions over Vietnam. It turned out that he never saw action in Vietnam. He was never a Vietnam veteran. Yet here is a liar calling the Commander-in-Chief a liar. Only in politics. So the news media, who are -- or should be -- aware of Harkin's fabrications, lavish extraordinary airtime on him, while ignoring honest cops supporting someone they believe is an honest leader.

Is there any wonder that in a recent poll taken by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police, 92 percent of the police commanders and sheriffs responding said they believe the media (print and broadcast) were not fair and impartial in their coverage. Ninety-two percent! And the arrogant minions of our nation's newsrooms even ignored that poll. It's not surprising!