Your Lips Keep Moving but All I Hear Is “I Served in Vietnam.”

First, credit where credit is due. My 15 year old daughter came up with the slogan which I used for the title for this blog. I have heard slogans like “We need a tree, not a bush” and while these may be funny they are plays on words that really mean NOTHING to the issues.

However, this one struck at an issue, which I have been thinking about blogging on for some time.

Senator Kerry feels the need to mention his (4 month) Vietnam service at almost EVERY occasion. From saluting at his national convention, “reporting for duty” to the debates when he “casually” mentioned it when answering an question on faith, that his faith got him through a “war.” Did that have anything to do with the question? Or was that simply a way to interject his (4 month) military service into the debate? Of course the argument could be made that his faith was an integral part of his service. (One could read from the contemporary journal he kept to see how important his faith was to him back then.) And an argument could be made for each of the hundreds of times he mentions his service in a casual, seemingly unconnected to the subject way. But when you take the hundreds of times as a whole, it shows a pattern of inserting his service far more than is needed to make ANY point.

Is there any SLIGHTLY informed voter in America who does not know that John Kerry served in Vietnam? The last time he mentioned it, probably this morning, is there a single person who learned of this for the very first time? Ironically he only wants us to know about SOME of his service though. Senator Kerry will not sign form 180 releasing his military records. What could there be in his military records so damaging that he will not release them? President Bush released his own.

Senator Kerry believes that his 4 months in Vietnam, decades ago, qualifies him as Commander in Chief today, and since that is the only thing he can use as a qualification he uses it over and over and over. If he starts with just after his service (well actually still during his service) he can tell you how his own self admitted wartime atrocities qualify him as Commander in Chief. He can go into detail as to how his going behind the back of his own country (while still in the service) to aid the (enemy) North Vietnamese in Paris, France qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could tell you of how he opposed, at every turn, the WINNING strategy used by Ronald Reagan to WIN the cold war, and that this qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could tell you how he voted against the first gulf war because the French were not on board, (no wait, they were) and that this qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could talk of how he wanted to slash our intelligence budgets within months of the first World Trade Center terrorist attack, and how that qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could also tell you of all the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he missed the year after the first WTC attack, ALL of them! then tell you how that qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could tell you of all the weapons systems he voted against in the Senate and explain how that qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could tell you how he voted for the current gulf war because the French were on board (no wait, they were not) and this qualifies him as Commander in Chief. He could tell you how he voted FOR the $87 billion to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (no wait, in the only vote that counted, the last one, he voted against it) and explain how this qualifies him as Commander in Chief.

OK Senator Kerry, I see your point.

You served in Vietnam.


Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Is Kerry Too Smart to Be President?

I have heard it said that John Kerry is too smart. No, I am not joking. A theory has been put forth that he is too “nuanced” for the average American to understand.

I know that I am not too smart for you, and I am sure that most of you are familiar with the term nuance. However, I feel the need to give you a definition. Nuance [n] a subtle difference in opinion. To clarify, Senator Kerry lives in grey areas. While some will see a subject as black, and others see it white, he will see the subtleness in the middle…grey.

Another theory I have heard is that Senator Kerry is currently being coached on being more decisive, giving simpler answers with fewer nuances so as not to confuse those of us Americans not as smart as the senator. This could certainly be seen in some of his debate answers…some of them anyway.

Now why did I go through all of this? Well, I want to examine whether or not Senator Kerry is being decisive when needed and nuanced when that is called for. The answer to which may help us determine if he is nuanced because of his great intelligence or due to his inability to take a decisive position on issues.

In a recent interview President Bush was asked if America might again be hit by terrorism. He responded, "Yes, because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," and though we are safer, "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air."

Now that answer is nuanced. Considering the vastness of our nation, the freedoms we enjoy, the determination of the enemy to strike again, can we say that we will NEVER be hit again? Of course not! Only and idiot would say that he would guarantee we are NEVER hit again, right?

Senator Kerry’s DIRECT response to this was, "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror," … "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."

He did NOT say it's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America SAFER. He said SAFE. The implication being made, with little nuance, is that since President Bush only promises SAFER(nuanced), you should vote for Senator Kerry because HE promises SAFE(definitive, without nuance). As in a President Kerry would guarantee us SAFE from another terrorist attack, while a second term President Bush will only guarantee us SAFER from another attack.

Which candidate do you feel has the better grasp of the issue of terrorism? Is this one of those issues on which Senator Kerry’s handlers wanted him to drop the nuance and make ridiculous, unkeepable, promises?

Is SAFE or SAFER the more intelligent response? Which candidate seems more intelligent, at least on this issue?


Read more about it...


Yahoo! News - Kerry Ridicules Bush on Terrorism Remark

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

What Is Important This Election?

Let me ask a few questions…

On September 12, 2001 how many parents called their children’s schools to ask about the academic standards to which the school aspired?

On September 12, 2001 how many professional or amateur sports games were played?

On September 12, 2001 how many big screen TVs were sold?

On September 12, 2001 how many couples decided to start trying to get pregnant and have a family?

On September 12, 2001 how many families booked that big cruise vacation they had always wanted?

On September 12, 2001 how many companies placed ads in the paper to start hiring?

On September 12, 2001 how many people decided on a new health care plan?

On September 12, 2001 how much of “normal” life actually took place?

No matter what your plans were for September 12, 2001 is there anyone who’s plans were not altered or cancelled?

Healthcare is an important issue. But does healthcare matter to YOU if you are killed tomorrow in a terrorist attack?

Schools are VERY important. But does your child’s school’s academic standards matter to you if your child’s school is destroyed along with your child in a terror attack tomorrow?

Your job is important. But do you think that any of the 3,000 who died on September 11, 2001 cared on September 12, 2001 about job security?

There are a lot of very important issues in this election. And both candidates have ideas for how to deal with them. However, if there is a terrorist attack as a result of the man elected this November, who will care about all of these other issues on the day after that attack?

If you feel that John Kerry has the BEST plan and ability to deal with the terrorists and prevent another attack, even if you agree more with President Bush on most other issues, then you should vote for Senator Kerry. Conversely, if you feel that President Bush has the BEST plan and ability to deal with the terrorist and prevent another attack, even if you agree more with Senator Kerry on most other issues, then you should vote for President Bush.

If you are dead these other issues tend to pale in comparison.


Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

John Kerry’s Draft

In recent days Senator Kerry has made some REDICULOUS predictions as to what he thinks will happen if President Bush is reelected. One is so silly that I have a hard time believing that most in the news can repeat it without having to stifle a laugh.

The issue is the draft.

Senator Kerry and his supporters have been going around spreading a rumor that they KNOW TO BE FALSE! But they also know the emotional fallout from this political grenade, and cannot help themselves. They have to throw it.

They have been claiming a desire on the part of President Bush to instate a draft. To “prove” it they point to a bill pending in the House of Representatives. H.R. 163, introduced by Charles Rangel, a DEMOCRAT from New York, would have instated a draft had it been passed. Hey, wait a minute! A Democrat introduced the bill? Is it the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee being accused of wanting to institute a draft? How can a DEMOCRAT point his finger at a Republican for a bill introduced by a DEMOCRAT? How can a reporter talk about this without laughing?

It gets even FUNNIER! As we learned in school (those of us who paid attention) the purpose of introducing a bill in the House is to hopefully get a vote, and then hopefully get it passed into law, right? Well, Rep. Rangel was given a vote on HIS bill. HE voted AGAINST it! HE introduced a bill that HE DID NOT want to pass! Either that or he changed his mind from the time he introduced it until it came time for the vote. Then, he was mad that it came to the floor for a vote. He said, "It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft." Many is the legislator who is upset at his opponents for keeping his bill from being voted upon, but I cannot recall the last time one was upset that his bill got a vote. Can you think of a reason for this? Could it be that the bill was introduced for the sole purpose of scaring voters into thinking that a draft may be needed if President Bush is re-elected, and therefore convince some to vote for Senator Kerry instead? Senator Kerry is a Democrat, as is Rep. Rangel. (Just in case you didn’t get that.) The bill went down in OVERWHELMING DEFEAT! 402 votes AGAINST, two votes for. Considering that Rep. Rangel introduced a bill HE DID NOT WANT TO PASS, and FOR WHICH HE DID NOT VOTE, who would you consider, in Rep. Rangel’s terminology, to be the “prostitute” in this political sideshow?

Do you think that Senator Kerry is correct in making these allegations? Should he have to back his allegations with more than a bill introduced by one of his Democratic buddies?

How many hours were wasted in the House of Representatives, how many dollars were wasted just so Rep. Rangel could perform his “prostitution of the legislative process”? Is that the kind of leadership for which the people of New York elected Rep. Rangel?


Read more about it and…

WOAI: SAN ANTONIO//NEWS

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Discrimination Against Homosexuals by John Kerry?

In the final presidential debate when the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice Senator Kerry used a debate tactic in an attempt to throw his opponent off balance. He mentioned the sex life of his opponent’s running mate’s daughter, hoping that an emotional answer by President Bush may cause him to be flustered. In a debate when you can bring up issues, which are personal to you opponent, you can frequently take that opponent off of his or her “game”. It is a common tactic used by virtually all trained debaters. If you can get your opponent’s emotions high this leads to adrenaline, which can REALLY effect even the most experienced debater.

But let us look at the DISCRIMINATION BY SENATOR KERRY!

If the President had mentioned that an adult child of Senator Edwards was sexually active last week outside of wedlock, because Senator Kerry is opposed to this (not to say that he is…just hypothetically speaking) the (justified) outrage from the Kerry’s and the Edwards’ would have been expressed, and repeated every five minutes in almost all media outlets. The reason for this is that the sex lives of candidate’s CHILDREN are OFF LIMITS!

However, BOTH Senator Kerry AND the media seem to be discriminating against the Vice President’s daughter because of her homosexuality!

Mrs. Cheney expressed her disgust at her DAUGHTER’S sex life being used by Senator Kerry in a LOW political blow. The first I heard about it on the radio was just AFTER I heard a quote from Mrs. Edwards claiming that Mrs. Cheney’s desire to keep he DAUGHTER’S sex life OUT of the political race meant that Mrs. Cheney was ashamed of her daughter.

How DARE Mrs. Edwards!

A question to Mrs. Edwards, and Senator Kerry…

If someone started talking about one of your children’s sex life in order to make a political point against you, would it show your embarrassment to tell that opponent to LEAVE MY KID OUT OF THIS!

However, the ONLY reason that Senator Kerry, Mrs. Edwards and the press feel it ok to use the sex life of someone’s DAUGHTER as a tool for political gain is because it is HOMOSEXUAL! If some detail of the Vice President’s daughter’s sex life pertaining to heterosexuality had been used in a similar fashion Bob Schieffer would have probably commented on the spot as to the obvious foul.

Senator Kerry AND Mrs. Edwards owe the Cheney’s apologies! In addition they need to take a good hard look at their discrimination against homosexuals.

The fact that someone is homosexual DOES NOT mean that they give up all rights to not having their sex lives flaunted on national TV.

Senator Kerry, STOP BEING DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS! Simply treat the sex lives of homosexuals the SAME way you treat the sex lives of heterosexuals.

Read more about it at…

Yahoo! News - `Lesbian' remark ignites spat

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Article of Faith?

In final presidential debate Senator Kerry was asked…

“The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research. What is your reaction to that?”

Senator Kerry responded, “I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.

“I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

“I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.

“Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.
“The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to.

“I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.

“Now, with respect to religion, you know, as I said, I grew up a Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me.

“And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic.

“My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.

“And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

“That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

“That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

“But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service."

Let us NOT discuss the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. Let’s examine two things: the logic in this “Ivy League” debate answer, and the convictions and lack of convictions in Senator Kerry’s actions.

First off Senator Kerry disagrees with the views of the archbishops. As a Catholic he sees no problem with that. However, he appears to consider it sacrilege for someone to disagree with Roe v. Wade. Does this sound like the view of a devout Catholic? Is the Catholic Church his religion or is government? Does Senator Kerry trust the archbishops in his own church more or less than a group of lawyers in the Supreme Court?

Second, he says that he “…can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith.” The article of faith to which he is referring is HIS belief that human life begins at conception. Assuming that Senator Kerry REALLY believes this, then ANY logical thinking person would conclude that abortion IS MURDER in Senator Kerry’s eyes. However, he can’t legislate against MURDER because it is his article of faith? Does this sound logical? REALLY? I know he wants to allow abortion. He NEEDS to be pro abortion, both to be the Democratic nominee, and to expect his base to vote for him. But REALLY, can he believe that life begins at conception AND believe that abortion is ok, and be SANE?

Then, seconds later in the SAME answer he states: “And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

“That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

“That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.”

Since his “fight” against poverty is guided by his “faith” does that mean that he “…can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen…” his “article of faith” regarding fighting poverty? He “…can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen…” his “article of faith” regarding cleaning up the environment? He “…can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen…” his “article of faith” regarding equality and justice?

Fighting poverty, fighting to clean up the environment, fighting for equality and justice, are all FANTASTIC! It is wonderful that Senator Kerry believes so deeply in his faith that he legislates and transfers those values on other American citizens. He is to be praised for doing so.

However, if he REALLY believes that life begins at conception, the only logical conclusion is that abortion is MURDER, and if Senator Kerry’s “faith” is not strong enough to get him to act to stop MURDER then his "faith" is probably NOT something he should be going around bragging about. As Senator Kerry quoted from the Bible “Faith without works is DEAD.” So if he cannot act, his “article of faith” is DEAD. He should be ashamed, not proud of his weak article of faith.

I wonder why Senator Kerry is against prostitution. Could it be that his “article of faith” considers it immoral? How is it SO easy for him to legislate that article of faith on the rest of America?

Even if you do not believe that human life begins at conception, can you respect someone who does, and then fights for someone else’s right to KILL that human life?
All I ask is that Senator Kerry be consistent. If Senator Kerry’s faith can cause him to pass legislation requiring others to keep the environment clean, then he shouldn't be a hypocrite and refuse to legislate to stop what Senator Kerry believes to be MURDER!

Read the transcript..

Bush-Kerry debate transcript No. 3

Then...

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Kerry… MOST Liberal?

The assertion has been made that John Kerry is “the most liberal senator” in the senate today. Is this label fair? Let’s look at some facts and discus it.

The Editor of National Journal, the publication which rated senators on their voting records, Charles Green says that the characterization could be “misleading -- or just plain wrong."

He explains: "As with other lawmakers who were running for president, Kerry missed a lot of votes in 2003 -- 37 of the 62 that were being used in the vote ratings. He didn't vote often enough to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. (Under our system, a member has to participate in at least half the votes in a category to receive a score in that category.) He did cast enough votes (19 of 32) in the economic category to get a rating. On those votes, Kerry took the "liberal" position every time. That was the basis for Kerry's receiving a composite liberal score for 2003 that was higher than any other senator's score."
In order to show a more balanced read, they listed all current 48 Democratic senators’ lifetime “liberal” rating.

First let’s look at the numbers. John Kerry is number 11 for his 20 years in the Senate. 11 of 48 doesn’t sound so bad, that’s only 77% (well maybe it is so bad) “most” liberal. However, they leave out a VERY IMPORTANT number. They only compare him to Democrats. These are traditionally the most liberal group in the Senate. What about the Republican and independent senators? Is he still number 11 in the whole Senate? That would make him 11 out of 100. That is only the 89% “most” liberal sitting senator. Even taking into consideration his 20 years in the Senate he is more liberal than the whole career votes of Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Tom Daschle, Joseph Biden, and Dianne Feinstein.

Senator Kerry only cast 25 votes out of 62 used to calculate the “rating.” Does this make you feel BETTER about him? These were apparently votes which National Journal felt were of importance. I cannot vouch for their ability to pick “important” votes. But let’s assume that they have some ability.

Since Senator Kerry voted 19 times in the economic category this means that he only voted six times in the 30 votes pertaining to social-policy and foreign-affairs. That is ONLY 20% of the time! Assuming that National Journal has SOME ability to pick important votes on which to rate senators, what does this tell us about the importance Senator Kerry places on social-policy and foreign-affairs? Are they important enough for Senator Kerry to take time from his busy schedule running for a job he does not yet have to go to Washington to fulfill an obligation to a job he already has? Are there some issues on which Senator Kerry does not want to have a recent voting record? Is he afraid that his stance may differ from the majority of Americans?

As for the ONE category in which he did place enough votes to be rated, he voted in the “liberal” position 100% of the time. So, what does this tell us about how important his liberal votes are to him? Senator Kerry only found time to go to Washington to vote on issues where his position was “liberal”. Of the 13 other votes in the economic category, had he voted, his vote might have been “conservative.” We really do not know. The only thing that we do know is that they were not important enough to him to fulfill the obligation of his current job and cast his vote.

So, with the information that National Journal provided to us…

Can we state that John Kerry is the most liberal senator?

Is that the question to ask?

Can we state that he is one of the most absent senators? (Remember in the 90’s when Senator Dole was running for president he gave up his seat in the Senate because he felt he was not there enough to do the job?)

Can we state that liberal issues are of more importance to John Kerry than conservative issues?

Can we deduce that he will perform his duties as president with the same dedication he shows for his current position in the senate?

Did Charles Green make Kerry look better or worse by trying to defend him?

Do you think that Senator Kerry was intentionally absent for some votes when he thought that his vote might hurt his chances of election as president?


Go to National Journal’s web site...


Convention Daily: When A Rating Becomes A Talking Point (08/30/2004)


Read more about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

The Global Test

This was originally posted with no explanation as to its origin. There have been some who questioned the authenticity of this document. In order to eliminate all questions regarding this document I submit the following: John F. Kerry wrote this document as evidenced by the signature “John F---ing Kerry” at the bottom of the original. The source for this document is UNIMPEACHABLE. A woman calling herself Mrs. Gomez called me one night claiming she had this document written by John Kerry. We arranged for her to leave the original at a predetermined location where I then recovered the document. I immediately photocopied the document and burned the original so as to protect Mrs. Gomez’s identity. I then faxed these photocopies to myself. Then I hired the BEST document experts that CBS could recommend to authenticate the faxes. They stated that they are authentic. I also have testimony from John Kerry’s secretary that while she definitely did not type this for him it IS in keeping with his attitude and sounds like something that he may have had her type at some other time.

Now that I have proven without a doubt that John Kerry wrote this, John Kerry needs to answer for the following Global Test:

1) (1pt) Does the U. S. President believe this use of force in the best interest of the United States?

2) (1pt) Does the U. S. Senate believe this use of force in the best interest of the United States?

3) (1pt) Does the U. S. House of Representatives believe this use of force in the best interest of the United States?

4) (1pt) Does the U. S. public believe this use of force in the best interest of the United States?

5) (1pt) Do ALL of the legitimate intelligence agencies in the world agree with the facts used to convince the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the need to use force?

6) (1pt) Have we spent an excess of ten years trying to get the U.N. to act on this threat?

7) (1pt) Do we have a coalition of thirty plus countries assisting us?

8) (1pt) Are we assured by out military of a swift, low casualty war?

9) (1pt) Does our military assure us that this will not detract from other military actions around the globe?

10) (1pt) Does our Central Intelligence Agency assure us that it is a “slam dunk”?

11) (30pts) Do the French agree with this use of force?

12) (30pts) Do the Germans agree with this use of force?

13) (30pts) Do the Russians agree with this use of force?

To pass this test one needs ONLY 75 pts or more worth of “yes” answers.

Read more about it and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!