War Hero or War Criminal? (August 9, 2004)
We all know that the Democrats have done everything they can to let the American people know that John Kerry served in Vietnam. The two Johns have been screaming it all over the place, "I served in Vietnam!", "He served in Vietnam!", "I'm running for president and by the way, I served in Vietnam!". But has Kerry's service really been told to the American public? According to a new book from the swift boat veterans that served with Kerry not at all.

According to them Kerry is more of a traitor then a hero and apparently it may be true due to the reaction from the Kerry camp. For the past week they have been screaming about the apparent "lies" that these war heroes have dug up. We know for a fact that the Kerry spokes person isn't the happiest man in the world, "They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!" is what he yelled at reporters. The book won't be released until later this month but it has already shot up to the number one spot on Amazon sales.

The book states that all three of Kerry's purple hearts were for minor injuries, some that were even self inflicted and that all three injuries could have been treated with band-aids. Not one of his injuries deserved a purple heart according to this book.

The authors also tell us how John Kerry carried a 8mm camera and a typewriter to video tape his actions in Vietnam and to record exaggerated storied of his "valor" in battle. The book also gives us several first hand accounts of eye witnesses that saw Kerry shoot a young Vietnamese teenager in the back and then burn a small village to the ground.

But the following claim in the book must be the harshest. They say that captured Americans were tortured for not admitting to the North Vietnamese that they committed the crimes John Kerry stated in his testimony before the Senate. We already do know that a former Vietnamese general has written that many of his soldiers morale came from reports from the U.S. of anti-war protests.

I am not saying these claims are true or not and neither should any other person unless they themselves were in Vietnam and spent those four months with Kerry. But what I do believe is that these heroes should be allowed to have their say. The Kerry campaign, who have been flaunting around and can't seem to say the word "Kerry" without mentioning Vietnam, have been doing all they can to stop these Vietnam vets from having their say. The Kerry puppets have sent letters to every major network demanding they do not air the ad that the swift boat vets have made. Why would they do this if it wasn't true? Why would they be so upset over pure lies?

"It's outrageous!" has been said by liberals at least two hundred times in the past week. But is it? Is it so outrages to let eyewitnesses of Kerry tell us what they saw? Is it any more outrages then Al Gore screaming that President Bush "betrayed his country" and "played on our fears"?

Susan Estrich in her ear wrenching voice pounded over and over again on "Hannity and Colmes" at one of the swift boat veterans about where some of the funding for their organization came from. A Republican in Texas was his answer. But so what? Who cares who funded it. George Soros who said the Bush administration was like the Nazis and the Gestapo funds most of the DNC's ads and the infamous MoveOn.org.

Of the twenty three officers who served with Kerry only ONE is supporting him. One out of twenty three! If that isn't a red flag I don't know what is. But what I find more outrageous than these claims are the things that Kerry did when he came back home. Kerry associated with the likes of Jane Fonda, testified before the Senate that American soldiers were "baby killers", "murderers", that they ravaged the country side, killed live stock for fun, burned villages, and opened fire on civilians. This outrages me. This is pure disgusting hatred for American troops and Kerry's actions put our soldiers in danger. Again, we know for a fact that soldiers were tortured by the North Vietnamese for not admitting to the claims in Kerry's testimony. We also know Kerry is honored in a Vietnamese museum.

I will let you decide if you will believe Kerry, or the over 40 swift boat veterans that served along side Kerry who have had enough.

Liar, Liar (July 26, 2004)
Ask yourself how many times you have heard these words in the last year, "Bush lied!". Ten times, twenty times, thirty times, maybe more then that? It has become a new liberal response to any theory about where Saddam's WMDs went. It has also been liberals response to the claim that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Niger. But it turns out that Bush didn't lie, it was in fact Joe Wilson who did lie.

Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times shortly after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address stating that the President had lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger or any other part of Africa. And the media, being who they are (partisan hacks), drank it all up. News reports flashed with Wilson, the unpaid intern who went to Africa and discovered that Saddam was a loveable little teddy bear who never wanted to harm a soul.

Unfortunately for Wilson, Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger. The President's claim was backed up by a Senate report, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, German intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, and a CIA report based on Wilson's initial briefing on the matter.

The Senate committee discovered that Wilson himself had learned that in 1999, Iraqi officials had showed interest in acquiring uranium from Niger. Later in 2002, French officials told the State Department that Iraq had been shopping for uranium.

But wait, what intelligence did Mr. Bush claim he received this information from in his State of the Union speech? It was British intelligence. So did that mean to Wilson that Tony Blair was a liar? What about France that also backed the claim? No, it was President Bush who was the liar. And recently a high-level investigation by the Brits concluded that Saddam had been seeking uranium not just in Niger, but also other places throughout Africa.

I was amazed at how much truth was lacking in Joe Wilson's vain memoir "The Politics of Truth". By reading only two pages you come to a lie. Wilson states again that he had found "nothing to substantiate the rumors" of Iraqi officials seeking uranium in Niger.

Wilson's hatred for President Bush was so blinding that he lied and put you and me at risk. Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium to harm his neighbors and you. Lying has become a natural disorder for liberals. This isn't like Michael Moore or Tim Robbins or any of the other Hollywood idiots. This is a man who was given a duty to report to the CIA if Saddam had been seeking uranium. And ask yourself this, what if he had gotten uranium and Wilson had lied about that? What would the world be like today? This war could have turned out drastically different.

Wilson has always been apart of the Bush Bashing Brigade (as I call them) but this time liberals and Wilson have gone to far. This time they put our lives in danger.

Moore Lies? (July 12, 2004)
Michael Moore is at it again with his new Bush bashing, conspiracy theory, "documentary". I haven't seen Mr. Moore's film yet and I don't plan to until it comes out on DVD and I can rent it. What I can't stand about Moore is that he tries bringing this crap off as truth. It's not. It's a far cry from truth, Spielberg's "E.T." is closer to the truth then this piece of propaganda.

Liberals don't like to admit it but what Moore sells is propaganda. His lies and deceptions have been documented in what has become an internet industry of recording Moore's lies. What Moore does is extraordinary. He can deceive and twist the truth without uttering a single false word. He spins facts and keeps information from us in his films and books to push his far Left political agenda.

For example, in "Bowling for Columbine", Moore tells us the sad story of a six year old girl who is shot by a fellow student. The boy that shoots the girl is shown as a neglected child who spends no time with his mother because she was being worked non-stop due to the state's fare-to-work-laws. What Moore fails to mention is that the relative the boy's mother entrusted to watch over him was running the neighborhood's crack house, the gun had been stolen and left on the bed, the boy's father was in prison for theft and drug offensives, and that the boy's mother had admitted duct taping another son's hands, feet, and mouth and then sitting on the boy and beating him. Oh, and one more thing, a few weeks later the boy's aunt and grandmother were arrested for selling narcotics. Funny how Moore left that out.

Another deception in "Columbine" is the part where Moore is in a Canadian Wal-Mart and buys bullets without showing ID. Canada has pointed out that this would be illegal. Since a Canadian law passed in 1998, ammunition buyers must show ID. So either Moore staged the scene or is running from Canadian police.

Another lie in this "documentary" is Moore's little cartoon where he links the National Rifle Association (NRA) with the KKK. Moore lies to his audience once again. He never mentions that the NRA was formed by Union generals after the Civil War and that the first 10 presidents of the NRA were former Union generals. He also fails to mention that the KKK got most of its help from Democrats in Washington who wanted to foil the Republican reconstruction of the South.

But back to "Fahrenheit 9/11". In the movie Moore says that the Taliban visited Texas when Bush was governor to discuss a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. Bush and the Taliban in a money deal? Oh how the Liberals would love it, to bad it's not true. Moore does not mention however, that they never met with Bush or that the deal failed in 1998 or that it had been supported by the Clinton administration. Ah shucks! Another deception uncovered.

Moore also gets into the friend of George Bush, James Bath. Bath became the money manager of the Bin Laden family (who don't support Osama, especially since he has called them traitors and enemies of Islam). Moore says in the film, "James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." Moore is trying to make the implication that Bath invested the Bin Laden family's money in Bush's energy company, Arbusto. But Moore fails to state that Bath has said he had invested HIS money in Bush's company and not the Bin Ladens. Presto! Another lie uncovered!

This next one really makes me wonder if Moore was thinking at all (but then again, he is a college dropout). In the film, Moore states the fact that the Bin Laden family was quickly sent back to Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 attacks. I found this very strange and just plain stupid. But according to an interview given to The Hill, it was Richard Clarke, yes Clarke, another member of the Bush Bashing Brigade, who authorized the Bin Ladens to fly back to Saudi Arabia. Of course Moore steers clear of mentioning this.

According to a recent column by Matt Labash in an issue of The Weekly Standard who has seen the film, Moore takes us back to Iraq on the eve of the war and shows us "placid scenes of an untroubled land on the brink of imperial annihilation. With all the leisurely strolling and kite-flying, it is unclear if Iraqis are living under a murderous dictatorship or in a Valtrex commercial. In Moore's telling of the invasion, the shock-and-awe is less high-value-target/smart-bombing, more Dresden/Hiroshima. According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit nothing but women and children. If Moore's documentarian gig were to fall through, he could easily seek employment as an Al Jazeera cameraman."

Moore is a liar. That's the only way to put it. Moore lies, he deceives, and he spits out garbage. His movie "connects dots that aren't there". Michael Moore hates America. You just have to look at the man and know that he really doesn't like America. Some of you might be saying, no he doesn't! But look at his films, look at the picture he paints of America. He makes us look like racist, gun crazy, murderers who are out there to rule the world.

After September 11th, only a few days after 3,000 Americans had lost there lives, Moore was saying that we deserved it! Yes, he said that America had it coming! He also wrote, "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted against Bush! Why kill them?". Can you get anymore ignorant and disgustingly rude Mr. Moore?

Another lie of Moore's is that he supports the troops. Well, Mr. Moore, if you support the troops then why does your film make the troops look like savages who are ravaging the Iraqi hillsides? If you support the troops Mr. Moore, then why in an interview to a London paper did you say, "after my movie the troops are really f***** now!"?

He claims in his films that Americans are too afraid of our neighbors. But what do Moore's films do? They makes us even more afraid of our neighbors! In "Bowling for Columbine" he makes us think that our neighbors will gun us down if we say they have a bad haircut, in "Fahrenheit 9/11" he makes us fear the government officials we have elected.

Michael Moore is a propagandist. He lies and Liberals take his lies for truth. Moore's film creates a real problem for Kerry though that could work in Bush's favor.

If Kerry doesn't distance himself from the Left wing extremists, Kerry will lose support from Americans who dismiss extremists for what they are, nut balls. So Mr. Moore, go ahead and keep making your films that Liberals are even saying are propaganda. They may just backfire on you.

Saddam and Jerry... (June 28, 2004)
When pictures came out of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison Liberals in this country went crazy. I was as outraged and embarrassed as every American citizen but over time I became "more outraged over the outrage". Yes, it was wrong but is it necessary to try and impeach Secretary Rumesfeld for something he didn't do?

The army was taking care of this problem way before CBS came out with pictures of it. Liberals have said that President Bush knew about this and the only reason he is sorry is because he got caught. This is so ridiculous it makes me wonder if these Libs actually think. If they would do there homework they would discover the real cause of this "Jerry Springer meets Saddam Hussein" ordeal. It is not President Bush or Secretary Rumesfeld, its a man named Charles Graner. This man caused this and you can see it by looking at his history. He was a ticking time bomb waiting to go off, and he did.

Sure, there was bad leadership and Abu Ghraib. These people didn't have discipline and its obvious they were mad about something. Graner's history is disturbing. He is seen in every picture of the abuse. He used to be a guard at Fayette Country Prison where he sprayed Mace in the coffee of a fellow guard. I really don't think President Bush ordered him to do that. He also put razor blades in a Fayette Country prisoners food. Did Rumesfeld have some secret conspiracy going on to trick us so he wouldn't be blamed for the abuse at Abu Ghraib? I don't think so. What about when Graner threatened to kill his wife and bang her head into the floor? Is this another part of the Pentagon conspiracy to trick the American people into thinking President Bush had nothing to do with the abuse? I'll let you decide.

The abuse was wrong at Abu Ghraib. It should of never happened and I believe the pictures should of never been run. I believe in freedom of the press but running those pictures over and over and over again endangered our troops.

Mr. Rather owes an apology to Nick Berg's family. Because of his poor judgment and journalism skills, Berg was beheaded. These pictures could have been described without being shown all across the world. Did they show Nick Berg's beheading? No. That would endanger the terrorists and who at CBS would want to do that?

This issue shouldn't even be in the news anymore. Many of the pictures that came out in the London papers turned out to be from a porn site! But they published them anyway and they went all over the world. Do you think the Arab news stations will ever say those pictures were fakes?

Ted Kennedy came out saying that the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein "opened under new management, U.S. management". Obviously Teddy had been sucking on that bottle a little to much lately. This was not torture. Putting womens underwear on peoples heads isn't torture. Its pretty childish and ridiculous but its a far cry from torture.

Of course if President Bush wins the election (which he will), Democrats will try to have him impeached with these pictures. This will just give more aid to the terrorists as they see our divide and our vulnerability while our president is defending himself over more lies from the loony Left.

I would favor impeachment if Charles Graner was President but he's not and he is the guilty one. Liberals never like the truth and this is just another example of there ignorance towards honesty.

How Low Can You Go? (June 14, 2004)
President Reagan was laid to rest on Friday after his death on June 5th. As the country and the world mourned his death and celebrated his extraordinary life the Left continued their despicable attacks on one of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen.

I have no problem with debate or disagreement with the policies on Ronald Reagan but I do have a problem with cruel, ugly attacks that have no substantiation. These idiots could not get any crueler. Here you have a man dead, a family in mourning and these fools have the nerve to say these horrible things.

Christopher Hitchens wrote on slate.com that "Mr. Reagan was dumb as a stump and a cruel and stupid lizard." Ronald Reagan wrote almost everyone of his speeches and in books that have recently been published we can see the beautiful penmanship of his letters. We also know that he was a very avid reader so calling him stupid just conveys how low this man's IQ is.

Greg Palast wrote on his website that Reagan "was a killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, goodbye and good riddance." Aww, isn't he nice? Ronald Reagan did so much for this country and saved the world from a nuclear war.

But one of the most ugly and disgusting things I have ever read was written by Liberal columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall. "I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right about now." wrote Rall. He is implying that Reagan is burning in hell but anyone who is not so blinded by the Left knows that Reagan did so much for this country and freed an enslaved people. Ronald Reagan ended the nuclear build up between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and on top of that ended the Soviet Union all together. By cutting taxes he revitalized the economy and brought down the unemployment rate which was at an incredible 12% after the Carter years.

And then there is the blame game. Liberals love to blame others instead of directing the blame towards themselves. For example they have said that President Bush is to blame for the 9/11 attacks but they have ignored the video and audio tape of Bill Clinton admitting he had been offered Bin laden by Sudan but refused.

Libs are back at the blame game once again and they are saying that Reagan is responsible 500,000 deaths in the U.S. from AIDS and a total of 10 million across the world. Ronald Reagan is as responsible for the AIDS outbreak as a bird is responsible for there being to many mosquitoes in my yard. If you look at the Reagan budget in his 8 years in office you will see that he spent an enormous amount of money on the AIDS outbreak. Robert Kurst has made that AIDS argument as well as saying that Ronald Reagan "will spend eternity in hell for his treachery."

Now not all Liberals are like this and I hope that the Liberals that I know would not endorse this hatred. Again, I don't mind someone disagreeing with President Reagan's policies when he was in office. BUT HE'S NOT IN OFFICE ANYMORE! HE'S BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR 16 YEARS! Have some respect for the family that is grieving. Have some respect for the man that is now "touching the face of God". I myself have respect for anyone who holds the office of the presidency. I don't care who they are or what they do. These Liberals don't seem to have that same type of respect. And I pray that these people are not as miserable as there writings are because anyone that could be this low and hateful should be dismissed as just a worthless speck in our lives.

We Say Goodbye (Special Edition)
"THE GIPPER IS GONE" is what I read as I visited the Drudge Report. As I sat here trying to grip what had happened a smile came across my face as I realized that the man that had freed the world of tyranny and had put an end to Communism will now be at peace.

His hard, decade old struggle with Alzheimer's disease would finally be over and he would make his journey to the golden city in the sky. Today is a sad day for America and our prayers are with the Reagan family. What was so extraordinary about President Reagan is that he meant what he said. He had a real vision for America and knew that it was right for America and the world. He inspired people, he made us laugh, he kept us strong, and to this day when you mention his name people smile. People smile because Reagan hit us on a personal level. He made us feel what he said in our hearts. Ronald Reagan was America, he stood for America and was loved across the country and across the world. Some on the left called him names and said he was a maniac and that he would start WWIII. He proved them wrong.

Instead he brought an end to communism across the world and confronted the evil Soviet empire. He won the Cold War started decades before by the Kennedy Administration. He limited the size of federal government to let us live our lives freely and cut taxes so we could have our hard earned money. He revitalized the economy after the devastating years of the Carter Administration. But above all he gave our country and the world hope. He gave us hope that we can defeat evil in the world and that no one will stop America from guaranteeing peace to the world.

His funeral will be held within the next few days. He will be flown to Washington D.C. to sit in the Capitol and will then be flown back to the Reagan Library in California. He will be buried at his library at sunset so he will look across the land he loves for the rest of time.
He has said that he loved to be above others on hill tops and mountains so he could look down on everyone. His burial place is appropriate as he looks down on California and the Pacific from his beautiful library.

When Ronald Reagan announced that he had Alzheimer's he wrote:

"When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."

There is a bright dawn ahead as we mourn the lose of a great American. He has left foot prints in our hearts and we will never forget him. We will miss you Mr. President.

A Solution to the Gas Problem (June 1, 2004)
As many of you drivers out there have noticed gas prices are becoming outrageous. Its a serious issue and the liberals are eating it up and trying to blame it all on the Bush administration. Many of them are still trying to push the ridiculous theory that Bob Woodward tried to push saying the Bush administration was going to let gas prices sky rocket and then have the Saudis lower the prices around election day. The gas prices are a serious problem that Republicans and the president should be focusing on because it could cost them the election. As absurd as that sounds (especially since Kerry wouldn't be able to do anything to get the prices down) Americans always decide with there wallets before anything else.

"Bush cant do anything about it and neither can Kerry." is what I heard one political annalist say. But this is wrong. There is something we can do and that is ANWR. If we begin drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we will cut off our dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Now I'm not saying we completely stop buying oil from the Middle East but what I am saying is we have a back up supply. We get the drills in the ground so we can be ready. This proposal came before the Clinton administration and they turned it down, as a result people are paying $4.00 a gallon in California.

But the liberals and environmentalist extremists wont let us. Why? They are concerned with the survival of the caribou. Now that might sound reasonable but at the moment there are so many caribou in Alaska they have to have caribou killings! Liberals want us to pay more, its either that or they have an IQ lower then one of these cicadas flying around outside my window as I write this. And we also know that the caribou can survive development as they have for over 40 years on the North Slope. If we do start drilling only less than one half of one percent, 2,000 to 5,000 acres would actually be developed. Drilling would be wonderful for our economy as well with an estimated 250,000 to 750,000 jobs created.

"According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made." says ANWR's official website.

That's enough oil to last the United States 40 years. This would be huge for America and our independence on our own oil. And if we stopped buying oil from the Saudis they would be forced to lower their prices. The oil in ANWR, right here in the good old U.S. of A. would not have to make us pay ridiculous prices or to bow before the Saudis. Why should we be so worried about the caribou which have to be killed is masses every year? The liberals other argument is that they are worried about the human population. But the problem is no one lives in ANWR! And 75% of Alaskans favor drilling. So you have to ask yourself this simple question: Do you want to pay ridiculously high prices for gas or do you want to open up less than one half of a percent of ANWR to start drilling? The liberals and Democrats don't want to drill not because they are concerned about the caribou but because what's bad for America and what's bad for the president is good for them. If it gets them higher in the polls and closer to the White House steps, then they will do it whether it hurts average Americans like you and me or not.

The Dangerous Past of John Kerry (May 17, 2004)
John Kerry's Vietnam record is admirable but his record back in the homeland is far from it. Thinking about Kerry actually winning the election in November scares me to death. Anyone who looks over his record can see he flips and flops like a fish out of water. We all know these Dems will support anyone who can beat Bush. Even if Tim Robbins was running on the Democratic ticket and could beat Bush they would vote for him (if that happened I think I would move to Canada until we got the White House back). But Kerry is dangerous when it comes to defense. We all know the biggest issue facing our county and the world today is the War on Terror. Kerry is not the right man for the job at this time. He wants to go back to the Clinton way (and we all know what happened because of that strategy!) by not seeking the terrorists out with an iron fist but by waiting for them to attack us. That doesn't work. Here is a little overview of Kerry's record. In 1990 Kerry led the proposed amendment to cut ballistic missile defense research and development by $400 MILLION. Then the man voted against 20 major weapon defense systems and voted to cut 18 defense systems budgets. John Kerry has voted against body armor for troops in combat and health care benefits for active duty Reservists and their families. Additionally, he has a long history of voting against pay increases.

Kerry Voted Against FY 1991 Defense Authorization, Which Included 4.1R0pay raise. (H. R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; "Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request, " CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687)
Kerry Voted Against Allowing Defense Pay Increases If President Clintons Federal Pay Freeze Proposal Was Not Enacted. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93)
In 1993, Kerry Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)
Kerry Voted Against Allowing Military Employees To Receive Cost-Of-Living Adjustment In FY 1993. (H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93) Kerry Voted To Freeze Military Pay Freeze In FY 1994. (S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93)
Kerry Twice Voted Against FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill, Which Provided Increase Of At Least 2.4R0In Military Pay. (S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections, CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25)
Kerry Voted Three Times Against FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill. The pay increase of at least 2.4R0was also included in this measure. (H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96; Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers, CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12)
Kerry Voted Twice Against FY 1997 Defense Authorization Bill, Which Provided 3R0Military Pay Increase. (S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96; Clinton Signs GOPs Fortified Bill, CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)

Senator Kerry's proposals and votes as a Senator should be known to the voters as they evaluate the candidates, including: his proposal to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001 (S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95), his 1996 proposal to cut defense spending by $6.5 billion (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96), and his support for canceling or cutting funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the B-1B, the F-15, the F-16, the M1 Abrams, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Wow, talk about an impressive record. But that's not all. Its time to go back to the Reagan years. When Ronald Reagan was confronting the brutal Soviet Union do you know what are liberal friend John Kerry was doing? He was proposing a nuclear freeze! When the Soviets had nuclear capabilities and were threatening us he was proposing a nuclear freeze. Am I the only one who finds this a bit scary? He also associated with the likes of Jane Fonda during the war protests which we now know caused the Vietnamese to resist even more. But the worst of all of these is he was at a meeting with these anti-war protesters that discussed plans to ASSASSINATE political figures who supported the war. Is that scaring you as much as it is me? Now I do think Kerry served well in Vietnam (unlike Clinton the coward who dodged the draft). But everyone needs to admit he took the easy way out. He accepted all three of his Purple Hearts which is an automatic ticket home. Then he came home and called US soldiers baby killers, war criminals, said they used live stock for target practice, poisoned civilian food supplies, and ravaged the country. He called his country men war criminals and traitors. He then lied about throwing his medals on to the White House lawn and associated with the likes of Fonda the traitor. Not only that but he also was the head of an investigation to see if we had left soldiers behind when we pulled out. Kerry had the investigation terminated and the records destroyed. Ill let you decided on your own about that one. Now Kerry says there are Benedict Arnold corporations. If you do your research you would see his wife's Heinz is one of them. It supplies jobs to countries all over the world! In October 1998, Kerry made his views clear on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

"Over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise," stated Kerry.

"Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons. I would point out also that there are experts on Iraq, those in the inspections team, those at the U.N. and elsewhere in our international community, who are very clear that Saddam Hussein's first objective is not to lift the sanctions. His first objective is to keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program-that will come ahead of all else," said Kerry.

"It is not simply about eliminating Saddam Hussein's capacity to threaten his neighbors. It is about eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological, and nuclear. Failure to achieve this goal will have a profound impact," stated Kerry.

"In recent conversations that I had with Chairman Butler, he confirmed that Saddam Hussein has only this one goal-keeping his weapons of mass destruction capability-and he further stated with clarity that Iraq is well out of compliance with U.N. resolutions requiring it to eliminate those weapons and submit to inspections and out of compliance with the agreement that he signed up to in February with Kofi Annan."

Now he is against the U.S.'s war in Iraq and thinks we should not of removed Saddam. If Senator Kerry had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and in control of Kuwait. (Kerry opposed the first Gulf War). Anyone can see Kerry is not cut out to defend this country. His record is scary, he is weak, and the future lays in the hands of you the voter to decide if you will save your country or let it be eaten by the blood thirsty terrorists.