By Jon Christian Ryter
August 15, 2004
Senator John "Flipper" Kerry aka JFK-II was rated the most leftwing member of the U.S. Senate by the politically neutral National Journal. Kerry was rated even more to the left than Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Frank Lautenherg, Patty Murray, Charles Schumer, or Hillary Clinton whose reputation as the meanest woman in Washington could be undermined by Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreria Heinz Kerry should her husband somehow become the 44th President of the United States. The National Journal rated Kerry with a score of 96.5 out of a possible 100 for his liberal voting record. Ted Kennedy scored 88.3. Kerry's top-of-the-list rating for far-left liberalism is confirmed by the socialist Americans for Democratic Action. Once again Kerry beat Kennedy. Kerry scored 92% on issues most important to America's subversives, edging out Kennedy who scored 90%. But while Kerry, who like Kennedy, votes with the extreme far left, Kerry has always pretended to be a moderate to the voters of Massachusetts, thus he is a walking contradiction of everything he says. Senator Flipper.
Kerry's life has been a constant reversal of his actions against his own words. His mirror image contradicts his words or deeds almost as soon as they are spoken or performed. From Kerry's "heroic" four month medal-grabbing tour of duty in harm's way in the Mekong Delta in 1969 to his fabricated anti-American testimony before the Democratically-controlled war-dove Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971 in which his testimony as an eyewitness to atrocities theoretically perpetuated by American soldiers was used, according to former Vietnam POW Sen. John McCain, by their North Vietnamese captors to taunt him and his fellow prisoners, and to break them psychologically.
Kerry testified, under oath, on April 23, 1971 that he had personally witnessed, or heard first hand reports from others who witnessed, criminal acts of brutality inflicted on innocent Vietnamese citizens and on enemy combatants. Kerry claimed that US soldiers regularly raped innocent women, beheaded people, cut of their limbs or their ears, blew up their bodies and randomly fired on civilians as a form of entertainment. He testified that it was common practice to raid and raze villages, shoot the villagers' cattle or other livestock as well as they household pets just for fun. In point of fact, the only atrocities Kerry experienced first hand were the two he performed himself—without orders from anyone. In one "engagement" (in which there was no enemy fire) Kerry's swift boat crew opened fire on a hut along the river where Kerry spotted a handful of Vietnamese farmers and what turned out to be South Vietnamese soldiers whom Kerry mistakenly believed were Viet Cong irregulars and North Vietnamese regular army. Kerry's crew opened fire with 50 caliber machine guns, killing an old man, a woman, a baby, a couple teenage boys and several South Vietnamese soldiers—in proper uniform with identifiable markings that should have told Kerry's crew they were allies. Kerry would later argue that his charts indicated no "friendlies" were in the area. In a second "engagement," Kerry chased down and murdered an unarmed, mortally wounded Viet Cong irregular who was begging for his life and trying to surrender. For the murder of this unarmed man, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Yes, Kerry could likely have testified to atrocities in Vietnam—but they would have been his own for which he should have been charged, convicted and sent to prison. But, when you're part of the silver spoon crowd, the military sweeps your sins under the carpet and give you medals instead of prison sentences.
With respect to his medals, as the head of Vietnam Veterans Against War, Kerry even flipflopped on retaining his "tokens of war" when his dissident comrades protested in front of the Capitol on April 23, 1971 by throwing their medals over the fence that surrounded the Capitol building at that time. Kerry only pretended to throw his own medals away. As Good Morning America's Charles Gibson's film crew shot the scene, Kerry pitched someone else's medals over the fence. In defense of Kerry, many of the "veterans" who threw their medals away that day were not veterans, had never served in Vietnam, and had never won a medal in combat. Most of the medals thrown away that day had been purchased in pawn shops from around the nation. Kerry, however, was not even true to his close friends in the antiwar movement.
Everything about Kerry stands as a contradiction of what the American people believe in. His testimony before the doves in F. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was a liberal strategy designed specifically to condemn President Richard M. Nixon's war policies in the court of public opinion and to force the White House to pull American troops from Southeast Asia. Ultimately, the antiwar crowd won, and America suffered its first defeat in the history of this nation. When America withdrew from Vietnam, it surrendered the strategically-important oil and rubber rich underbelly of Asia to the communist dictatorships in that region of the world. And, from that day forward, the price of oil has steadily risen until today, it stands at just a few cents shy of $50 barrel. It was $18 per barrel when Jimmy Carter began to deconstruct the American intelligence community.
Kerry's congressional history is one of voting against the interests of the United States as he used his ill-gained medals and the American flag as a patriotic soapbox to convince the voters that he was someone he was not. John Flipper Kerry has voted against every important weapons system that American used to win the Cold War—without which it is very likely that Russian would be a mandated primary language in the public schools of America. Kerry voted against the smart bomb technology that won the first Gulf War and has minimized civilian loses in the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry voted against the B-1 and B-2 bombers. Kerry voted against the Trident nuclear submarine. Kerry voted against the Peacekeeper Missile system. Kerry voted against the Stealth technology. Kerry voted against the production of the AH-64 Apache helicopter. Kerry voted against the F-14A, F-14D and F-15 jet fighters. Kerry voted against the Av-8B Harrier jump jets. Kerry voted against the Patriot missile. Kerry voted against the Trident missile. Kerry voted against the Aegis air-defense cruiser. Kerry voted against basing Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, and Kerry voted to cut back production on the M1 Abrams tank that crossed the Iraqi desert like a blitzkrieg. Kerry opposed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the F-16 fighter jet. (These were the weapons systems that defeated the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard in lightning speed.) What Kerry voted for was a lopsided nuclear freeze that would have halted America's nuclear weapons program as the Soviets continued upgrading their obsolete systems until the only obsolete nuclear defense system would have been ours. While Kerry initially voted to provide George W. Bush with the authority to go to war against Iraq, he was one of 12 liberal Senators who cast their vote to deny Bush the money needed to provide bullet proof vests for our troops and to reinforce the Bradley Fighting Vehicles to protect American troops from Iraqi missiles.
Had "war hero" and defense advocate Senator Flipper been in the White House when these systems were debated and voted on in Congress, they would not exist today. And the body count of Americans lost in In Iraq and Afghanistan if America would have even responded at all to the declaration of war against the United States by Muslim jihadists who are determined to do to America what they are currently doing to Israel—would have been much, much higher. However, it is very likely that, had Kerry been president in 2000, America would not have responded militarily to the loss of over 3,000 American citizens on American soil on September 11, 2001. If, in fact. If he responded at all, Kerry, like Bill Clinton before him would have fired a few Cruise missiles at some obscure empty warehouse somewhere in the third world and called it an appropriate response.
If you recall when President Ronald Reagan responded to Libya's terrorist bombing of a Berlin disco frequented by American military personnel in April, 1986, Senator John Flipper Kerry said that the airstrike that killed members of Mourmar Qadaffi's family and almost took out Qadaffi as well, was "not proportional." Kerry was quoted in the media as he waffled on his support of the Administration's action, believing Reagan had triggered a war with the Muslims at that time. "When I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President," Kerry said, "I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not US action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking Qadaffi to a terrorist act, and second, that our response should be proportional to the act. It is obvious our response was not proportional to the disco bombing..." Kerry concluded by saying "...We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation." Yet, immediately Qadaffi, who has no desire to become an Islamic martyr, discovered he was within reach of the American military and quickly curbed his terrorist activities. Qadaffi opened a covert line of communication with the CIA and began to cooperate with the United States in combating terrorism. Last year, Qadaffi renounced terrorism, abandoned his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and opened his country's weapons development program to international inspectors.
Had any of they been in the White House when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were struck by passenger-filled 757s, Gore, Clinton, or Kerry would have viewed the events of September 11 as criminal acts and not an acts of war, and rather than responding militarily against the Mideast governments that financed and protected al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, they would have had the bombings investigated by the FBI and referred for prosecution through the World Court at the Hague or they would have asked the UN to condemn terrorism in the strongest words possible.
In 1991 Kerry and 27 other liberal Senators voted to pull $3 billion dollars from the defense budget and transfer the money to support new welfare initiatives. The following year Kerry tried again. Only this time, he wanted to steal $6 billion from the defense budget for welfare initiatives—much of the money to be used to provide welfare benefits to illegal aliens. A year later, antiwar Senator Kerry—a man who claims he is strong on national defense tried to initiate legislation that would have reduced the size of the active Navy, eliminated Navy coastal patrols along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, reduced the number of active light infantry units down to one, and force the retirement of 60 thousand active military personnel. Again, this is the man who claims to be strong on defense and asks to be chosen as commander-in-chief of the United States military. This is the same man who has tried, several times, to effectively eliminate America's defense mechanisms and trust our lukewarm allies in Europe in to protect us.
In an interview with the Harvard Crimson in 1970, Congressional candidate John Flipper Kerry said that if he was elected to Congress he would work to completely eliminate the CIA. (Six years later the Democratically-controlled Congress came close to doing just that. And, America paid the price for that liberal shortsightedness on September 11, 2001 when they discovered that the Agency had only three operatives that spoke, read, or understood Farsi, and thousands of pages of seized documents that would have given the government an inkling of what was in store for America on September 11 were left largely untranslated until after the World Trade Center-Pentagon disaster.) But we can see from Kerry's vision of the future in 1970 what our world would be like by the end of this decade should America make the mistake of placing Kerry in any position of real power. In that interview, Kerry added that he was "...an internationalist [who] would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the direction of the United Nations." Yeah, Bill Clinton tried that one. Remember Mogadishu, Somalia? Remember PDD-25? Clinton's secret directive placing control of the US military in the hands of the United Nations? Expect more of that should Kerry get elected.
In 1994, a year after the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing, and before Rahman and his accomplices stood trial for the Jihadist's first blood on American soil, John Kerry proposed a bill to slash the budgets of our intelligence agencies by more than $1 billion and to freeze intelligence spending for counter-terrorism activity for several years. John Flipper Kerry, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, saw no need for counterterrorism expenditures since, he said, the Cold War was over. Senator Flipper now claims that his experience on that Committee makes him more qualified than President George W. Bush to manage the intelligence system of this country. And, of course, if Kerry is somehow elected, what will be left of our intelligence community could be managed by a Girl Scout troop leader.
The American intelligence system was badly crippled due to meddling by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the late 1970s. One of the terrorists responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing, an Iraqi named Abdul Rahman Yasin was nabbed by the FBI. Yasin was the roommate of another WTC bomber, Mohamed Salameh who was convicted. Salameh rented the truck that carried the explosives to the World Trade Center. It was not until after the FBI questioned and released Yasin that his close ties with the Blind Sheik were established. Yasin managed to flee the country and was not apprehended. The same was true of another bomber suspect, Ramzi Yousef. Had our intelligence agencies been allowed to do their job without the liberals in the Senate Intelligence Committee trying to hamstring their ability to ferret out traitors within our borders, Yasin and Salameh would very likely be in an American prison at this moment.
To date John Kerry has never provided an adequate explanation why it is that he worked so hard for the past 24 years to erode the ability of the intelligence community to ferret out those who would seek to destroy the government of the United States. What dark secret in his past is Kerry afraid the intelligence community will find out? Perhaps a tie to Ho Chi Minh that was even closer than most Americans realize?
it would seem that only those Congressmen and Senators who have accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities, or those who plotted with our enemies to undermine the government of the United States would want to see our intelligence community blindfolded. or would have any reason to fear an intelligence system that is allowed to follow all leads—regardless where they led. Last year before Kerry became a candidate for the White House—he missed 17 out of 23 critical votes on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Kerry sits on that committee because it allows him not only to impact funding decisions that affect the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the other intelligence gathering agencies, but because it also provides him with access to intelligence data that many times is not available to other members of Congress—or to the media..
In 1995, after losing his 1994 vote to reduce the operating budgets of the intelligence agencies by a 3 to 1 margin, Kerry proposed another piece of legislation to reduce the budgets of the intelligence agencies by $300 million per year in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Kerry's bill got no co-sponsors from his own party and never made it to Senate floor for a vote. Two years later, in 1997, Kerry tried again. His new bill would have cut the budget of the CIA through 2003. Today Kerry has placed the blame for the failure of the intelligence community to correctly guess what al Qadea was up to in this country at the doorstep of President George W. Bush instead of the meddlers in his own party who gutted the intelligence gathering capabilities of the Agency between 1976 and 1979.
In 1995, after Osama bin Laden openly declared a Jihad on the United States, Kerry proposed legislation to freeze all defense spending for a period of seven years—a measure that would have cut $35 billion dollars from defense. Kerry's 27 liberal cohorts joined him in that vote. The following year, Kerry introduced another piece of legislation to cut $6.5 billion from the defense department in order to fund welfare programs. This bill had no cosponsors and could not even get out of committee for a floor vote. This, again, from the man who claims he is "big" on defense. A few months later, Kerry tried again. He re-introduced a military freeze measure that would have transferred the entire defense department increase—$34.5 million to fund "job training" and welfare." The job training and welfare program Kerry tried to fund was to provide assistance for the 14,000 to 18,000 jobs per month that were going to Mexico as a result of NAFTA—Bill Clinton's jobs program for Mexico and Central America.. In other words, these are some of the jobs that Kerry is now blaming Bush for losing.
As he argues that his cloudy four-month war record proves that he is strong on defense, and thus is more capable of functioning as the commander-in-chief of the American military than George W. Bush, Kerry's actions boldly testify that Senator Flipper is not the heroic clone of PT109 skipper John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Tragically, Kerry is more a "chip off the anti-military voting bloc" of Chappaquiddick scuba diver Ted Kennedy. If Kerry ever became commander-in-chief, Mexico would probably be tempted to declare war on the United States and take back the American southwest since Mexican president Vicente Fox is smart enough to know all Kerry would do is protest to the United Nations.
On domestic issues, Kerry flip-flops back and forth as easily as he does on military and national security issues. One of the hot button issues this November will be gay marriage due largely to the rogue Massachusetts Supreme Court that ordered that State's legislature to write a law providing for gay marriage—or face the risk of having the high court do it for them. As Kerry speaks to traditional working class heterosexual groups, he insists that he opposes "gay marriages" but favors legalizing "civil unions" that will provide homosexual and lesbian partners with the same types of legal rights enjoyed by married couples. However Kerry was one of 14 liberal Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act because it denied federal recognition of same sex marriages and gave the States the right to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other States. And, although Kerry can argue to his constituents that he voted against it only because he was afraid it would also preclude civil unions from being recognized, he will be hard pressed to swallow the statement he made on November 18, 2003 when he said: "I believe today's decision [legalizing same sex marriages by the Massachusetts Supreme Court] calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. These protections are long overdue."
Kerry was also part of the liberal Democrat leadership that carried the banner for Bill Clinton's North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] through the Senate. Kerry voted "yes" to send American jobs to Mexico. Today, he blames George W. Bush for the loss of jobs he voted to send to Central America, Canada and communist China even though Bush inherited not only the Democrat-enacted NAFTA, but an economy on the downswing because of NAFTA. However, Bush has managed to restore economic growth by cutting taxes and increasing government spending. Had Bush not done that, the American economy and the economies of our European allies could very likely have found itself be in major recession going into the fall elections. Instead, the Democratic dire predictions of economic doom and gloom is just so much Cinderella rhetoric and wishful thinking on the part of Kerry and the DNC—both of whom are hoping the bottom falls out of the good luck bucket before November since if the American people take too close of a look at John Flipper Kerry's character a bad economy is going to be the only chance he will have to either win or steal the White House.
© 2004 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com