Kerry’s global test

Editorial by: Roger Wm. Hughes

We now know what a Kerry Presidency would be: un-American. America would have to meet the "Global Test" under a Kerry presidency.

The richest, most powerful person in a community has about half the people trying to suck-up to them and another half that hate them. So, it is with America in the global community today. Now, Kerry wants America to bend over and take it from those who hate us the most -- which is principally France, Germany and Russia.

Now, the hate these countries have for America is not the hate of an Osama bin Laden or the hate of a Saddam Hussein. No, the hate of these countries is the hate of envy.

To be powerful, is to be alone. There is the often-quoted biblical phrase, “To whom much is given, much is required.” The first and foremost aspect of this admonition is to nurture God’s graces and gifts. If America loses its precept of exceptionalism, then America will be no more. Kerry’s plan would have us disown our heritage. Kerry would have America be just one of many nations who fumbled and bumbled as "old" Europe and the U.N. are doing regarding the genocide in Sudan.

Why is it a bad thing for America to allow Sen. John Kerry to proceed in killing America’s exceptionalism, and what is America’s exceptionalism anyway?

America’s exceptionalism comes from the fact that America is not a geography, ethnicity or culture. America is an ideal. That ideal is that each individual – set free to pursue their own happiness – creates the greatest good.

Kerry seems to believe that the collective – not the individual – creates the greatest good. He especially believes that collectivism with countries that envy and hate us creates the greatest good. It is the old saw that if we compromise with our enemies and give them no reason to want what we have that they will not attack us.

The problem with giving away what they want is that we wind up with nothing.

President Ronald Reagan knew that strength was the key to security. Kerry and the appeasement crowd disagree.

Americans have a clear choice. If you believe that terrorism is isolated to Osama bin Laden, you need to vote for Kerry. If you believe that France, Germany and Russia really have America’s best interests at heart, you need to vote for Kerry.

If you believe that France, Germany and Russia were a part of the $10 billion kickback to Saddam Hussein in the U.N. Oil for Food Program (which has already been proven) that enabled Hussein to torture, rape and finance terrorism, you need to vote for Bush. If you believe that terrorism is not isolated to bin Laden, then you need to vote for Bush.

However, if you want the "Global Test" to be what guides America then go for Kerry.

Cheney’s debate slam dunk

The NY Post analysis [LINK] shows even the liberal press agrees Cheney handily put away challenger John Edwards in their one-time-only debate in Cleveland last night -- and effectively put away John Kerry as well:

Once again, Vice President Cheney showed his boss how to debate — same as 2000, when he helped turn around momentum in the campaign.

Cheney looked calm and almost grandfatherly as he used his debate with veep wannabe John Edwards to take aim at top-of-the-ticket John Kerry and paint him as a flip-flopper who lacks the credibility to lead and win in a time of terror.

"You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time," Cheney said.

"Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that's where you're at. But you've not been consistent and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror."

There in a nutshell is the Bush-Cheney case against Kerry — but it's a case that Bush barely made in last week's first presidential debate. In an era when safety is the first concern for many voters, that was a key point.

Cheney pulled no punches as he nailed Edwards for not showing up for Senate votes. Commenting on his ‘nearly every Tuesday’ appearance in the Senate, Cheney proclaimed that the debate was the first time he had ever met Edwards.

Perhaps the most stinging blow was Cheney’s charge levied against both Edwards and Kerry (individually) for caving into then rival Howard Dean’s anti-war position on Iraq during the Democrat battle for the nomination:

"So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al Qaeda?" Cheney said.

Another searing moment came when Cheney accused Edwards of demeaning the sacrifices made by Iraqis for their own country:

"For you to demean their sacrifice is beyond the pale," Cheney said to Edwards.

Clearly a win was scored overall by Cheney and perhaps a foot up was given to his boss for the upcoming Friday presidential debate in St. Louis.

Kerry’s true colors

by Roger Wm. Hughes

Sen. John Kerry’s long and sordid past of association with defaming American soldiers, voting against needed weapon systems, voting to cut funding to American intelligence agencies and negotiating with America’s enemies continues to be the past that Kerry would like the voters to forget.

For those ill informed about Kerry’s love of negotiating with America’s enemies, there is the time he met with the Communist North Vietnamese in Paris during the Peace Talks (while still officially enlisted in the Navy) and then again with the Communist leader Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua in 1981. These are just the times that Kerry bragged about.

However, Kerry’s goal of having it both ways - being a war hero and against the war - is a balancing act that no politician can perform this high up on the political high wire with everyone watching.

There are many who seek to continue to disclose Kerry’s anti-American record. This is just one reason that the airing of Stolen Honor on the Sinclair TV stations is so devastating to Kerry. The show will reveal Kerry’s anti-American past when he lied about war atrocities to the Senate -- testimony that shows the real harm that the liberal-leftist-anti-American-wing of the Democrat Party has done to this nation and to those who have defended its freedoms.

Still, Kerry would attempt a Houdini act on the high wire and have Americans believe that Iraq is the wrong war despite repeated connections at many different levels that Saddam Hussein and many different terrorist were working together.

Then there is the inability of Kerry to offer a clear and consistent position on the War in Iraq. All of these things add up the fact that Kerry is not only unfit to be Commander in Chief, but that he also has a perverse record of tearing down those who would defend our nation.

Kerry’s record of causing harm to this nation’s ability to defend itself is troubling, and causes one to wonder... why?